Provisioning Early American Towns. The Chesapeake: A Multidisciplinary Case StudyFinal Performance Report

Lorena S. Walsh
Ann Smart Martin Joanne Bowen
30 September 1997

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report Series - 0404
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library

Williamsburg, Virginia

1990

PROVISIONING EARLY AMERICAN TOWNS. THE CHESAPEAKE: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY CASE STUDY
FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
GRANT RO-22643-93
THE COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG FOUNDATION
LORENA S. WALSH, PROJECT DIRECTOR

Authors:
Lorena S. Walsh
Ann Smart Martin
Joanne Bowen with contributions by:
Jennifer A. Jones
Gregory J. Brown

Graphics by:
Heather Harvey

30 September 1997

Image of a Cow

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
I. INTRODUCTION
A. ISSUES AND PROBLEMS2
B. SOURCES AND EVIDENCE7
II. PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD IN A PLANTATION ECONOMY
A. GENERAL PATTERNS FOR RURAL HOUSEHOLDS11
B. RURAL SUPPLIERS OF TOWNS13
C. LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY24
D. IMPACT OF TOWNS ON RURAL MARKET ORIENTATION AND SPECIALIZATION60
III. PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD IN TOWNS
A. OVERVIEW OF SOURCES OF SUPPLY, CONSUMER STRATEGIES, AND MARKET ORIENTATION67
B. MARKETS IN THE CHESAPEAKE83
C. MILLS100
D. STORES101
E. TAVERNS112
F. MISCELLANEOUS ENTREPRENEURS114
G. CONCLUSION117
IV. FOOD AND FUEL CONSUMPTION PATTERNS IN TOWNS
A. OVERVIEW OF DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS119
B. CUSTOMERS OF LARGE PLANTERS AND COMPOSITION OF THEIR PURCHASES121
C. CUSTOMERS OF STORES AND COMPOSITION OF THEIR PURCHASES124
D. PROVISIONING FUEL AND FODDER134
E. ECONOMICS OF ACQUISITION137
V. CONSUMPTION PATTERNS IN INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDS
A. HOUSEHOLD DIET THROUGH HOUSEHOLD ACCOUNTS139
B. HOUSEHOLD DIET THROUGH ZOOARCHAEOLOGY158
ii
VI. URBAN CONSUMPTION, CULTURE, AND WELFARE
A. THE CULTURE OF FOOD PREPARATION AND CONSUMPTION175
B. SEASONALITY OF CONSUMPTION178
C. MAJOR TRENDS IN FOOD PRICES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR WELFARE180
D. CONCLUSION188
BIBLIOGRAPHY191
APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS
1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES ANALYZED221
2. ACCOUNT BOOKS ANALYZED279
3. DESCRIPTION OF ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES AND COMPLETE DATA SETS303
4. DOCUMENTARY TECHNICAL OVERVIEW359
5. ANNUAL COMMODITY PRICE SERIES365
6. THE LAND TRACT PROJECT391
iii
Page
1.1.Study Area4
2.1.Carter's Grove and Vicinity c. 175015
2.2. Location of Archaeological Sites Analyzed for the Project26
2.3. Relative Dietary Importance in the Chesapeake 1620-170028
2.4. Relative Dietary Importance, Rural Chesapeake 1620-166029
2.5. Domestic Cattle Kill-Off Pattern Based on Long Bone Fusion36
2.6. Domestic Cattle Kill-Off Pattern Based on Tooth Wear36
2.7. Domestic Swine Kill-Off Pattern Based on Long Bone Fusion38
2.8. Domestic Swine Kill-Off Pattern Based on Tooth Wear38
2.9. Domestic Caprine Kill-Off Pattern Based on Long Bone Fusion38
2.10. Chart Showing Relationship Between Foraging and Numbers of Livestock40
2.11. Domestic Swine Kill-Off patterns Based on Long Bone Fusion46
2.12. Domestic Swine Kill-Off Patterns Based on Tooth Wear46
2.13. Domestic Cattle Kill-Off Patterns Based on Long Bone Fusion53
2.14. Domestic Cattle Kill-Off Patterns Based on Tooth Wear53
2.15. Domestic Caprine Kill-Off Patterns Based on Long Bone Fusion58
2.16. Domestic Caprine Kill-Off Patterns Based on Tooth Wear58
3.1.Relative Dietary Importance in Rural Chesapeake, 1620-Early 19th Century71
3.2.Relative Dietary Importance in Urban Chesapeake Areas, 1700-Early 19th Century71
3.3.Mills, 1700-1719102
3.4.Mills, 1720-1739102
3.5.Mills, 1740-1769103
3.6.Mills, 1770-1784103
6.1.Seasonality of Meat Sales 180
6.2.Chesapeake Beef, Pork, and Mutton Prices184
6.3.Index of Urban Meat and Grain Prices185
iv
Page
2.1.Output Per Laborer and Gross Revenues From Field Crops in £ Sterling Constant Value, Carter's Grove, 176321
2.2.York County Probate Inventory Records, Percentage of Cattle in Specific Age Groups37
2.3.York County Probate Inventory Records, Percentage of Cattle in Various Age Groups54
2.4.Anne Arundel Country Probate Inventory Records, Percentage of Cattle in Various Age Groups55
2.5.Anne Arundel Country Probate Inventories, Sheep Herd Age Structure59
2.6.Population of Selected Chesapeake Towns, 1704-179062
2.7.Williamsburg's Population and Estimated Food Requirements in 177563
2.8.Quantities of Selected Foods Produced on the Burwell and Bray Plantations, 1736-178963
3.1.York County and Anne Arundel County Probate Inventories, Livestock, 1620-180072
3.2.Element Distribution Firehouse Site (Benjamin Hanson, Butcher)74
3.3.Kill-Off Patterns Firehouse Site (Benjamin Hanson, Butcher)74
3.4.Relative Proportions of Caprine Body Parts, Rural-Urban Comparison75
3.5.Relative Proportions of Swine Body Parts, Rural-Urban Comparison77
3.6.Relative Proportions of Cattle Body Parts, Rural-Urban Comparison78
3.7.Relative Proportions of Calf Body Parts, Rural-Urban Comparison80
3.8.Documented Number of Mills: 1700-1784 Williamsburg, York County, and James City County101
3.9.All Stores, Purchases Only108
3.10.All Stores, Credits Only109
3.11.Major Suppliers of Beef to William Lightfoot's Store 1752-1761111
3.12.Debtor Transactions, Humphrey Harwood Account Book115
3.13.Creditor Transactions, Humphrey Harwood Account Book116
4.1.Distribution of Occupational Groups and Their Property, Williamsburg and Annapolis, 1782 and 1783120
4.2.Household Size by Occupational Group, Williamsburg and Annapolis121
4.3.Buyers of Meat from Williamsburg Area Plantations, 1736-1807123
4.4.Sales at the Anderson and Low Store, Williamsburg, 1784-1785127
4.5.Sales at the William Lightfoot Store, Yorktown, 1747-1764128
4.6.Sales at the Francis Jerdone Store, Yorktown, 1751-1753130
4.7.Sales at the William Coffing Store, Annapolis, 1770-1771131
4.8.Sales at the John Davidson Store, Annapolis, 1780-1787132
4.9.Sales at the James Brice Store, Annapolis, 1767-1800133
4.10.Sales at the William Farris Store, Annapolis, 1795-1800134
4.11.Fuel Customers in Williamsburg, 1740-1807137
v
5.1.Food and Drink Expenses for all Households141
5.2.Local Foodstuff Purchases for all Households141
5.3.Pounds of Useable Meat Purchased142
5.4.Local Foodstuff Purchases at the Virginia Governor's Palace144
5.5.Overall Household Expenses of a Williamsburg Craftsman: Robert Lyon, 1749148
5.6.Food and Drink Expenses: Robert Lyon, Williamsburg, 1749149
5.7.Dinners for Orphan Girls in Boston 1803: Stretching Meat in the Diet152
5.8."An Estimate of the Annual Expenses of a Family in Annapolis"153
5.9.All Food and Drink Expenses: John Davidson, Annapolis, 1785155
5.10.Food and Drink Expenses: John Davidson, Annapolis, 1783-87156
5.11.Food Purchases in Post-Revolutionary Annapolis, Money Spent157
5.12.Kill-Off Patterns Based on Long Bone Fusion, Cattle, Wealthy/Elite Households160
5.13.Kill-Off Patterns Based on Long Bone Fusion, Cattle, Craftsmen160
5.14.Kill-Off Patterns Based on Long Bone Fusion, Swine, Wealthy/Elite Households161
5.15.Kill-Off Patterns Based on Long Bone Fusion, Swine, Craftsmen161
5.16.Kill-Off Patterns Based on Long Bone Fusion, Sheep, Wealthy/Elite Households161
5.17.Kill-Off Patterns Based on Long Bone Fusion, Sheep, Craftsmen162
5.18.Element Distributions, Cattle and Calf, Craftsmen165
5.19.Element Distributions, Swine and Sheep, Craftsmen165
5.20.Element Distributions, Cattle and Calf, Wealthy Households168
5.21.Element Distributions, Swine and Sheep, Wealthy Households168
5.22.Element Distributions, Cattle and Calf, Professional Households171
5.23.Element Distributions, Swine and Sheep, Professional Households171
5.24.Element Distributions, Cattle and Calf, Taverns172
5.25.Element Distributions, Swine and Sheep, Taverns172
6.1.Relative Dietary Importance, Percent Total Biomass176
6.2.Food Price Indices for Chesapeake Towns and Philadelphia, 1733-1807186
vi
vii

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

Among the major goals of our Provisioning Early American Towns project was the systematic exploration and analysis of multiple sources of information on the production, distribution, and consumption of food and fuel in urban settings during the early years of the Industrial Revolution. Part of our work plan called for new research, including, on the archaeological side, the cataloging, processing, identification, and analysis of previously unprocessed faunal remains from a number of promising sites throughout the region. On the documentary side, projected new work involved the creation of data bases on buyers and sellers of food and of their purchases from selected plantation, store, and household account books for Williamsburg and Annapolis, as well as research in historical sources on livestock husbandry practices, public markets, and commercial food processors. Finally, we needed to do biographical research on the occupants of many of the archaeological sites and on the individuals named in the account books. Here we completed all the objectives outlined in the grant proposal. The new sites and sources we analyzed are listed in the appendices to our Final Report.

The second major goal was to connect the new materials to a variety of already compiled data bases, both artifactual and documentary, assembled over the past twenty years by a number of historical museums, preservation agencies, and independent scholars. These included faunal collections, a digitized cadastral tract map of the area surrounding Williamsburg, and computerized biographical and probate inventory data bases. The archaeologists newly encoded and entered raw data (which had not been computerized) from previously analyzed faunal collections into a standardized format. Altogether information on faunal remains in one form or another was collected for nearly fifty sites.

Gregory Brown and Jennifer Jones, who jointly handled data management and programming, encountered numerous hurdles in converting and linking disparate data bases in a variety of outmoded digitized formats. This involved conversion of data bases, variously compiled in older and harder to use data management programs, primarily dBase and SPSS, into FoxPro, the software system chosen for this project. Most of these files had been converted for use on personal computers some years before, but a few, we discovered, were still perilously stored only on university mainframe computers. Non-numeric information stored in numeric codes, essential in order to save computer space at the time these files were created, were converted into words. Data sets that were broken apart into cumbersome multiple separate files (the biographical data base alone had nearly sixty), another necessity given the limited capacities of early personal computers, needed to be radically condensed.

The newly designed computerized data bases were prepared as outlined in the grant application and as described in the technical appendices to this final report. After moving into the new Bruton Heights School Education Center at Colonial Williamsburg, we had the further advantage of using networked computers for performing much of the analytical work.

Because it took longer than anticipated to finish converting and linking the various historical data bases, at this point our analysis of some results that depended on linking information on customers and purchases to biographical and probate files is not as far advanced as we would wish. However we now have written all the necessary programs and have produced viii the output needed for further analysis. And we did accomplish what we set out to do in updating the format of extremely valuable computerized data bases that were in danger of becoming unusable due to technical obsolescence, and in devising a method for successfully linking them. These materials have broad applications beyond our particular project, and Colonial Williamsburg is now committed to making them available to the general public and is developing a strategy for maintaining them in a usable and user friendly state as technology advances. (See below.)

We made few changes in planned project activities, none of them major. The zooarchaeologist decided, after preliminary work with live herd simulation programs, not to pursue them at this time. The simple models currently used by some zooarchaeologists proved too simplistic to provide answers to our questions, while others required detailed information on animal feeding and reproductive behavior that are not available for historical periods. Instead we chose to put more time into research on period documentary materials and primary texts on livestock husbandry. Additional activities we undertook in the course of the project that were not anticipated in the grant proposal include 1) the creation of new digitized cadastral tract maps for the area surrounding Williamsburg for the later eighteenth century, 2) an analysis of newly discovered early manuscript cookbooks from Virginia, and 3) creation of a data base on food preparation and storage equipment for households at differing levels of wealth from probate inventories and store accounts. We did find it necessary to apply for an extension of the grant period, as we could not have finished the projected plan of work according to the original schedule. We started substantive documentary work later than anticipated since we had to wait for some project team members to become available, and it took an additional year to raise matching monies to fund one of the archaeological positions. Finally, both of the research offices involved had to move to new locations in 1996.

In quantitative terms, then, we fulfilled the research objectives proposed in our application. We trust that our final report reflects qualitative accomplishments as well. We believe we have made substantial progress in delineating and explaining urban food provisioning systems during the transition from a rural to an industrialized economy and society. Individual pieces of the project constitute sound contributions to the fields of historical archaeology, and social, economic, and cultural history. What distinguishes our project from similar studies in these fields is its multidisciplinary character. The project team approached artifacts and documents as independent sources of evidence that had first to be dealt with according to the standards of our respective disciplines. But we began with the understanding that none of us would confine her or his efforts exclusively to the sources and issues peculiar to our individual disciplines. We intended this investigation to be much more than a historical and an archaeological report bound together between two covers. The content of our final report we believe represents a more complete synthesis of different kinds of evidence focused on a common set of issues and problems. As a consequence, we believe our results are more firmly grounded and our explanations more persuasive than those any of us could have reached working individually in isolation. We are particularly grateful to the Endowment for providing the funding without which this collaborative effort would have been impossible.

Major staff changes were all positive. Ann Martin joined the team as the project's historical research fellow, rather than just as a consultant, contributing her already well developed expertise in the areas of material culture and retail stores. Jennifer Jones assumed ix major responsibilities, unanticipated when we initially hired her as a data entry clerk, for the development of computerized data bases. Finally we were exceptionally fortunate in attracting several student interns from a number of colleges who helped with various segments of the original research while earning college credit for the reports they prepared. In addition, an unanticipated number of volunteers from the Williamsburg community helped with processing and measuring faunal remains, documentary and bibliographic research, and the preparation of graphs and charts. Their assistance was essential for completing our ambitious research plan, as well as enabling us to pursue additional areas of investigation.

We were eventually successful in raising matching funds from outside sources. The effort, however, even with the assistance of the staff of the Foundation Development Office, took up a great deal of time and energy during the first year of the grant that we would have preferred to have spent researching documentary materials and drafting text rather than researching potential donors and writing scores of letters of application and nearly a dozen additional grant proposals. Since we were unable to begin the faunal analysis on schedule, the zooarchaeologist was hard-pressed to get the work completed on time.

The products anticipated from this project are multiple.

Museum Applications

The results of this project will be used in a number of ongoing museum programs at Colonial Williamsburg including foodways, livestock, gardens, rural trades, operating and exhibition taverns and stores, Carter's Grove plantation, and special programs and tours dealing with the themes of work, family life, slavery, material culture and standards of living. They will also contribute to the planning and interpretation of two new exhibit complexes, the reconstructed outbuildings at the Peyton Randolph House and a projected reconstructed public market house. We will deposit copies of our final report in the Foundation Library, and we plan to schedule a series of public presentations on project results for museum staff, museum visitors, and interested members of the local community.

Other museums and cultural agencies who generously lent faunal collections for analysis or shared original site data will of course receive reports on the work we performed. Copies of our final report will be deposited in the Maryland State Archives and with Historic Annapolis, Inc. Some members of the project team will meet with staff members from Historic Annapolis, Londontown, and Historic St. Mary's City to discuss results and possible public program applications there. We will also share our findings with related research projects with which we have been exchanging ideas and methods: Warren Hofstra and Robert Mitchell's ongoing study of urbanization in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (also supported in part by NEH), the foodways program at Monticello with whom we shared a project intern, and "Feeding the City," a collaborative study of provisioning in London conducted by the Centre for Metropolitan History, University of London, and the Department of Social and Economic History, Queen's University, Belfast.

Computerized Data Bases

Building upon the expertise they gained over the course of this project in linking data bases, Jones and Brown are now working on a project at Colonial Williamsburg to link x additional disparate data sources such as catalogues of archaeological collections and architectural surveys with existing and future biographical and probate inventory files, as well as to maps of the town and countryside. It is planned that this master file will be made available for use by the public in the Foundation Library in an easy to use format. This further initiative offers some assurance that the effort expended in this project in creating new data bases and in updating digitized dinosaurs will not in turn be lost, through lack of use or of updating, in the next round of technological advances.

Presentations to Academic Audiences

Over the next several years members of the project team will be giving papers based on project findings at annual meetings of historical, economic, and archaeological associations, at academic seminars and workshops, and at special conferences devoted to particular themes. We then plan to submit articles on some of the more technical aspects of our project to academic journals. We have also been approached by the editors of the planned new addition of Historical Statistics about the possible inclusion of some of the project data in this widely used reference work.

Publications

Ann Martin has already made considerable progress in drafting a manuscript on town provisioning systems based on the results of this project for which she will be the principal author. She is now seeking outside support to underwrite its completion next year. Joanne Bowen plans to write an extensive monograph on Chesapeake husbandry systems in the near future once additional documentary and archaeological research has been completed. This includes further work on issues of livestock management and reproduction that we have found to be critical as a result of the work we completed in the course of this project, and a study of phytoliths (plant remains left on the teeth of domestic animals) in the faunal assemblages in order to identify changes in livestock feeding practices that cannot be obtained from documentary records.

Lorena S. Walsh, Project Director

xi

Acknowledgments

The principal authors of the narrative sections of this Final Performance Report are Project Director Lorena S. Walsh, Zooarchaeologist Joanne Bowen, and Historian Ann Smart Martin, assisted by team members Gregory Brown and Jennifer Jones. The technical appendices are primarily the work of Brown and Jones. We wish to acknowledge our deep appreciation to the many others who provided invaluable help over the course of the project.

Zooarchaeological Research-Joanne Bowen, Directing Zooarchaeologist

The zooarchaeology team has worked long and hard to make this project a success. Analysts Stephen C. Atkins, Jeremiah Dandoy, and Gwenyth Duncan each worked long hours to identify in a very short period of time seemingly endless numbers of bones. Steve plowed through old archaeological records to identify assemblages from sometimes poorly analyzed materials. Susan Arter, Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institution, complete the tooth wear analyses of numerous assemblages. Ethel Wu, who came to us through the New Horizons School for gifted science students, initially learned to analyze tooth wear, then continued to develop a system refining Grant's method of tooth wear analysis. She also helped complete the graphics needed to present the faunal data. Susan Trevarthen Andrews skillfully transcribed faunal data from written cards and data sheets provided by Henry Miller and Elizabeth Reitz.

To define narrow time periods in various assemblages Fraser Neiman helped develop statistical methods to quickly analyze artifact assemblages. Numerous Colonial Williamsburg employees on temporary duty and volunteers helped to number the piles of bones, and enter data into the computer. Our thanks to them all.

An integral and extremely important part of the team were several volunteers, including Dr. Frank Carpenter, who used his considerable research abilities to single-handedly read and transcribe thousands of records containing information on animal husbandry. His contribution to this project will become the foundation from which further work in the Rare Breeds program at Colonial Williamsburg will be based. Joseph Doyle contributed with his incredible support, transcribing tax records, researching family histories for different sites, and measuring bones. Lewis Madson helped to rough sort bones and to develop a computerized numbering system capable of numbering 400-600 bones a day. Lyell Smollen took my class in Zooarchaeology, then armed with analytical skills began to transcribe old data cards, conduct documentary research, measure bones, and assist in printing out thousands of animal husbandry records. Tom Pratt helped develop graphics. Each made their own important and unique contribution.

Students played an important role in completing this project. Rebecca Ferrell completed her senior research project at the College of William and Mary on the Kingsmill Slave Quarter. We have her to thank for ferreting out useful information on the multiple components of this site. My class completed the analysis of the Ferry Farm assemblage-my thanks to each who analyzed what seemed to them an ungodly number of bones. We all had a good time!

An additional thanks goes to Greg Brown, Susan Trevarthen Andrews, and Stephen Atkins, who completed the analysis of additional assemblages that provided greater depth and breadth to the data base. Those who contracted with us to complete additional work include the xii Mount Vernon Ladies Association, William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Dennis Pogue, Esther White, David Hazzard, Dennis Blanton, and Donald Linebaugh each worked closely with us to incorporate our research goals into analyses performed for their projects. We are very grateful, and the results of this work illustrates the best collaborative spirit of contract-related research.

We thank all the archaeologists and organizations who so kindly allowed us to analyze faunal materials they had excavated years before. In particular, Beth Acuff and Keith Egloff of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources worked patiently with us to pull out appropriate assemblages and related documentation, then help get the assemblages physically to Williamsburg where the analysis was completed. Archaeologists who had excavated the assemblages on occasion kindly helped us to interpret maps and records. A special thanks to David Hazzard, Daniel Mouer, Robert Hunter, Jr. for their advice, support, and knowledge of the sites they had excavated.

We were delighted with the collegial spirit offered by Mark Leone and Laura Galke of Historic Annapolis, by Henry Miller of the St. Mary's City Commission, and by Elizabeth Reitz and Justin Lev-Tov. Historic Annapolis kindly gave us permission to transcribe all raw faunal data into our computer system. Elizabeth Reitz provided the data for the Calvert House and Reynolds Tavern and Justin Lev-Tov kindly provided the raw data for the Jonas Green site.

Lastly, we want to thank our zooarchaeology colleagues who have encouraged this work over the year. Pam Crabtree always lent a critical ear and gave helpful suggestions; Melinda Zeder and Elizabeth Reitz both gave encouragement, support, and advice whenever I asked; and Richard Meadows helped with advice on ageing techniques. The results speak for themselves.

Historical Research-Ann Smart Martin, Directing Historian

The historical team has benefited from the help and ideas of many. Ann Smart Martin and Jennifer Jones were on the ground in Williamsburg. Larry Peskin worked with Maryland materials in Annapolis. Lorena Walsh moved regularly between both worlds.

It is a joy to work with the knowledgeable and generous people who make up the Research Division at Colonial Williamsburg. Our colleagues in the Department of Historical Research unstintingly answered our many questions and graciously opened their impressive file cabinets to us. Pat Gibbs, our departmental specialist on foodways, shared her vast library, files, and ongoing research so that we began the project running. Julie Richter's command of the York County Project prevented many missteps in linking our data to older files. Kevin Kelly's extensive knowledge of Chesapeake history provided us with an instant resource, and he invariably passed on his own research and reference files relating to our work. Lou Powers, Linda Rowe, and Cathy Hellier provided us not only with a congenial working environment, but also shared information.

The staff of the historic food programs also met with us in the earliest stages of this project. Wendy Howell, Dennis Cotner, and Frank Clark all gave us good insights and we look forward to further such collaboration.

Historic St. Mary's City kindly provided original worksheets for York County inventories that speeded our work on these materials as well as computer data files for York and xiii Anne Arundel County probate inventories. Staff at Historic Annapolis, Inc. helped us identify appropriate account books for analysis and speeded research in Annapolis by allowing us to use biographical materials and other unpublished reports.

One pleasant outcome of this grant was a new collaborative effort between the Department of Research at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (Monticello) and Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. With the help of Anne Lucas, the two departments jointly sponsored an intern, Amy Rider, in a project that will benefit both institutions.

Other colleagues have helped in inestimable ways by providing information. Thanks are due to Jim Whittenburg, Harold Gill, Warren Hofstra, Robert Mitchell, Ellen Donald, Mary Ferrari, Joseph Mosier, Bernie Herman, and, most especially, Mick Nichols.

We have had a vast array of interns, students, and volunteers, without whom this task could never have been completed. Nancy Hess has had the longest connection with us and we look forward to continuing work with her. We have relied on Nancy to do immense biographical research and entry and she cheerfully picked up every task assigned. Matt Churchill quickly mastered data base management skills to coordinate the entry of hundreds of biographical entries. Michele Jarrett acquired intimate knowledge of the eighteenth-century neighborhood around Williamsburg, creating the original maps that are so impressive in Appendix 6. Amy Rider not only entered several thousand records relating to Jefferson's Washington, D.C. kitchens, she also accomplished the formidable task of translating them from French. Nicholas Kimpan's culinary and historical skills were combined in the transcription and study of Virginia manuscript cookbooks. Jill Bender spent many quiet Friday afternoons in the Department of Historical Research reading eighteenth-century newspapers. Meg Schwartz stole time from her internship with another staff member to help us with biographical research. David Rinker applied his interest in brewing to several months of research on the process of making beer and bread in the eighteenth century. Mike Ward continued the research of Michele Jarrett in expanding our study of eighteenth-century land changes in York County. Heather Wainwright spent several years in the department of Historical Research becoming an expert on eighteenth-century tavern keeping. Her forthcoming master's thesis is based on the work she did for us in the coding and biographical research for the Anne Pattison account book. We look forward to seeing her completed work.

Finally, we would like to express our thanks to Heather Harvey and Tami Carsillo, who along with Nancy Hess provided invaluable last-minute production help.

xiv
1

I. INTRODUCTION

This report surveys the preliminary results of an extended interdisciplinary study of urban provisioning systems in the Chesapeake region in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In providing some answers to the question, how did townspeople in Virginia and Maryland supply themselves with food and fuel, it addresses a little-studied topic of great importance to every urban place, regardless of its size or primary economic or governmental functions. Wherever, in the eighteenth century, there were significant concentrations of people who did not make their living from farming, their provisioning requirements had a pronounced impact on the surrounding countryside. This study demonstrates that as few as a hundred such households was sufficient, in the mid-eighteenth century, to have a noticeable effect on the productive strategies of farmers in nearby rural areas. When, by the early nineteenth century, those numbers swelled into the thousands, the effects of urban markets expanded, sometimes restructuring the productive strategies of farmers in far distant hinterlands.

At the same time, town-dwelling families who were largely dependent on food they did not provide for themselves faced problems of procurement that hardly ever troubled rural folk. Specialized urban occupations afforded some townspeople opportunities for advancing individual and family fortunes in ways seldom available in rural areas. For more marginal sorts, including widows, single women and free blacks, who lacked either special skills or the resources and connections that were increasingly necessary to obtain use rights to, not to say outright ownership of land, the business of supplying services to more affluent townspeople afforded a much better chance for possible advancement, or at least more certain survival, than did agricultural labor or tenant farming. In a stable or expanding economy, town dwellers could purchase basic food and fuel with combined family earnings. In bad times, dependence on others for the necessities of life put all but elite town-dwellers at a decided disadvantage. Then, obtaining some form of credit was essential to avoiding a reduction in the quantity and quality of their diets, a requirement that not all could meet. The only alternative was poor relief which was usually restricted to the chronically sick, disabled, and elderly.

These tensions between rural self-sufficiency and urban dependence had for hundreds of years played a prominent role in the places from which most Chesapeake colonists originated. In most of northern Europe, towns and cities were from the early middle ages a prominent feature of local societies. Relatively sophisticated urban provisioning systems were already in evidence by the 1300s, and the rulers of emerging European states devoted considerable attention to the problems of ensuring an adequate urban food supply, if for no other reason than to contain town unrest should shortages arise.1 Differential meat and grain provisioning systems likely developed at about this time in Europe. Grain and meat were often supplied by different sets of producers and distributed through separate marketing networks. Moreover the meats that various economic and social groups consumed often came from different sorts of suppliers and distributors. Affluent 2 town dwellers doubtless always found ways to ensure adequate supplies of fresh meats, but the poorer sorts had to depend on local butchers who presumably sold small amounts only for ready cash, or else they had to obtain whatever protein they consumed primarily from alternative sources to fresh meats such as milk, cheese, preserved meat, and shellfish. Distinct meat and grain distribution networks were common in eighteenth-century Europe, but, until this study, with the exception of Bowen's findings for eighteenth-century Connecticut, differential food distribution networks have not been identified as a common pattern in the American colonies.2

Moreover, in England, an in other parts of northern Europe, urban populations increased dramatically in the 1500s and 1600s, and farmers living within the reach of these expanding markets had begun to restructure their activities accordingly. Many forced African immigrants, in contrast, came from overwhelmingly rural economies, but even in such regions, frequent local and regional provision markets were a regular feature of rural life. Moreover, some had been transported from areas where sizeable towns and cities posed similar problems and opportunities.

Once they arrived in the Chesapeake, many white colonists revised their expectations. An abundance of apparently unclaimed land promoted a desire among most to become independent landowners. Local topography and natural resources encouraged diffuse rather than concentrated settlement. The initial absence of towns and of significant numbers of people earning their living by anything other than agriculture discouraged any reliance on producing foods or other products for local domestic markets. Finally the unparalleled opportunities that emerged for getting ahead by concentrating on the production of tobacco for European markets soon locked almost everyone into an export centered staple economy. Enslaved Africans were soon denied any chance for eventual freedom, as well as ownership of substantial property such as livestock or guns. However slaves residing within traveling distance of town markets made the most of opportunities to better their lives by producing or gathering petty perishable produce, a traffic widely tolerated in practice, if not always entirely sanctioned by law.

A. ISSUES AND PROBLEMS

After a century of European settlement, some few permanent towns did finally take root in the Chesapeake region. The most substantial began as centers of government, while lesser concentrations of population grew around tidewater shipping centers and fall line transshipment points. Until the 1790s all remained at best small market towns by comparison to such metropolises as Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and larger English cities. Still these urban places were similar to country towns throughout the colonies and in provincial England that had 3 comparable or only slightly larger populations. Our study area is shown in Figure 1.1. These lesser urban places commanded sufficiently large populations that could either strain available local rural food resources, or more likely, encourage some area farmers and their enslaved workers to restructure their productive strategies in order to accommodate and take advantage of emerging urban needs. Understanding how the residents of towns like Williamsburg and Annapolis fed and warmed themselves supplies insight into the developing provisioning systems that supplied other colonial towns, less thoroughly investigated, in the Chesapeake and elsewhere. And, our results as well as other comparative studies suggest, even in such small urban places, by the early nineteenth century, the methods of production and distribution of foods and fuel was becoming recognizably modern. As all but the most isolated of rural areas were increasingly drawn into more integrated international marketing networks, the residents of modest market and administrative centers, no less than inhabitants of leading metropolises, had no option but to accommodate themselves and their families to at least some of the operating modes and relations of international capitalism.3

While humankind does not live by bread alone, until the industrial revolution was well advanced, most ordinary families in Europe or in North America spent between half and two-thirds of their incomes on food and another six to nine percent for fuel. The expenses of transportation, processing, and distribution of these essentials made living in towns more costly than maintaining comparable standards in the countryside. The increased costs weighed especially heavily on the urban poor.4 Among the costs of town living, current research suggests, was a worse diet for many urban residents than that available to even the most humble of rural folk, this despite the fact that most urban workers earned higher real wages than rural laborers. Higher costs explain only part of the discrepancy, leaving open the possibility that town dwellers instead used their earnings to buy other, more prestigious kinds of goods.5 Alternatively, poor people may 4 RR040401 Figure 1.1. Study Area sometimes have found bread, tea, sugar, alcohol, and prepared foods more readily available, sometimes perhaps to be purchased on credit, than meat, milk, or good quality fresh vegetables. Doubtless some marginal residents of these Chesapeake towns suffered, as did poor town dwellers in larger urban places, during economic downturns, political crises, and individual misfortunes such as prolonged illness, but here their numbers were too few either to exert much political pressure on local officials or to elicit sustained demands for public or private relief.

We do know that the evolving local provisioning system did not completely satisfy all town dwellers. Immigrant Europeans, who in the eighteenth century made up a disproportionate percentage of Chesapeake town populations, voiced dissatisfaction with the lack of variety and 5 especially the exorbitant prices, compared to Europe, of the foods available in town markets. Wealthier native-born townsfolk sometimes voiced similar complaints, but remedied the deficiency by having everything from fattened cattle to nuts, fruits, and firewood transported to town from both nearby plantations and holdings up to two hundred miles away. The towns' poor left no written accounts of their hardships or of their coping strategies. However studies of the poor in other towns demonstrate that low and irregular wages, shortages of fuel, and inadequate cooking facilities could often lead to diets decidedly lacking in variety, adequate nutrients, and sometimes adequate calories.

Our research design has placed special emphasis on the economic relationships of early Chesapeake towns with their hinterlands, the social connections between town residents and farmers in the countryside who produced food for them, the networks created and used by different social and economic groups engaged in provisioning towns like Williamsburg, Yorktown, and Annapolis, and differences in urban and rural diets that resulted from townspeople's dependence on others for most of their food. For convenience we use the term "provisioning system" to include local production of food and fuel, importation of foods and fuels from other regions, transportation of these goods to market, food processing by intermediaries, distribution of these essential to consumers, and the social connections that facilitated economic exchanges.6

For townspeople, the process of feeding and warming themselves involved more than simple economic transactions. They, also of necessity, often became enmeshed in special social relationships with those who produced, distributed, and processed their food. Town residents and their neighbors in the adjacent countryside participated in two very different marketing systems. First, there was the international mercantile sector through which cash crops were exported, goods from outside the region imported and retailed in country as well as town stores, and credit extended to planters by British firms. The international trading system moved large volumes of goods, and many middlemen intervened in the multitude of transactions that separated planters from the final consumers of their crops in Europe and the West Indies.7

Second, there was the local trade sector. It differed from the first both in scale and character. Most local transactions involved the exchange of smaller quantities of goods, and most exchanges were made face to face between persons who knew each other, sometimes intimately. The organization of this second sector centered around economic relationships in which the social content was often a fundamental determinant. The social relations that underlay local provisioning systems are not clearly described in the documentary sources and so have remained elusive to economic historians. This failure has been reinforced by the habit of thinking first and foremost of the tight-knit networks of kin, friends, and neighbors that James Henretta, Robert Gross, and 6 other historians have described as commonplace in small rural communities.8 However social relations in market systems, economic anthropologists have shown, usually extend beyond these primary relations to include acquaintances and strangers with whom mutually beneficial personal relationships may eventually develop.9

In the two Chesapeake capitals, with their mix of native-born inhabitants with long and deep roots in the surrounding countryside, and of recent immigrants from distant places who had few local connections and fewer of long standing, the marketing system was decidedly more complex than those of surrounding rural areas which experienced little immigration in the last three quarters of the eighteenth century.10 Most large Chesapeake planters, for example, traded with their rural neighbors and with more distant kin primarily by means of book credit. Individual accounts often ran on for years, with balances calculated infrequently and irregularly, and creditor planters often loathe to aggressively pressure heavily indebted neighbors. Similarly, country storekeepers found they could not long survive without extending credit freely and sometimes imprudently to their rural customers.

Large area planters producing for urban markets also traded with some regular town customers on book credit, especially for substantial amounts of meat or grains, but were more likely to balance such accounts more frequently, and to seek payment of outstanding balances more rigorously, and indeed often to receive such payment somewhat more promptly. While they on occasion also sold foodstuffs in small quantities to poorer and less well-established townsfolk, large planters were usually willing to sell in these circumstances only for ready cash. Town merchants extended long-term credit for foodstuffs purchased, but also ran long list of cash sales. Town provisioning systems thus involved a combination of the more familiar and often personalized credit arrangements that characterized economic transactions in the countryside, but also involved a greater percentage of more impersonal cash transactions. Indeed, since the big area planters continued to make a greater proportion of their incomes from the production of tobacco and grain for export markets than from the sale of food in town, they largely confined their local provisioning trade to more affluent and regular customers. Their slave workers could be much more profitably employed in the fields than in huckstering small quantities of foodstuffs 7 in town. The trade in meat by the pound or in grain by the bushel was thus left largely to a layer of lesser middlemen and mixed entrepreneurs whose role in the provisioning system is discussed in later sections of this report.

B. SOURCES AND EVIDENCE

We chose to concentrate our efforts on Williamsburg and Annapolis because the necessary background research on the local economy and the social and occupational structure were already available. This prior work identified relevant documentary sources, supplied already assembled biographical materials and computerized data bases of tax lists and probate inventories, and also well-documented archaeological assemblages required for this project. Our current results are built on earlier work by several research organizations in the region, supported in part by the National Endowment, including studies of population growth in Williamsburg and Annapolis, their occupational structure, distribution of real and personal wealth, and urban/rural contrasts in living standards.

In order to understand how local planters responded to growing urban markets, we analyzed closely the surviving accounts of three large area planters who progressively altered their productive strategies to make the most of local urban markets. The role of international marketing systems was investigated through analysis of town merchants' accounts. These also turned out to reveal the concurrent role of town storekeepers as intermediate retailers for smaller quantities of locally produced grains, meats, and butter. Some merchants vended as well small amounts of market provisions like poultry and vegetables. Next, we analyzed accounts of private town households and institutional buyers in order to better understand what sorts of foods urban families purchased and from whom. In addition to providing detailed evidence about the food consumption patterns of a few relatively well-documented families at differing economic levels, the household accounts also provide otherwise absent evidence on the significant role of slaves, free blacks, and poor whites in supplying town dwellers with much-desired, highly perishable produce. Analysis of the contents of urban probate inventories revealed the abilities or inabilities of town dwellers at differing levels of wealth to preserve, process, and consume differing kinds and amounts of foods. And study of livestock holdings among all inventoried decedents in the countryside around Williamsburg and Annapolis added to our understanding of changing urban-influenced animal husbandry practices.

We also investigated town market regulations, miscellaneous documentary evidence on intermediate processors such as millers, bakers, and butchers, period manuscript cookbooks, and tax lists (unfortunately available only for the 1780s) for evidence of self-sufficiency or its absence. Compilation of price series for all items of produce for which we could obtain unit prices allowed us to explore major trends in absolute and relative food costs. Finally, collection and careful cross-indexing of a wide variety of documentary sources concerning livestock husbandry practices complements the archaeological findings and constitutes a valuable reference source for future investigations.

Reconstruction of the Chesapeake provisioning system has drawn upon multiple sources, each of which contributes independent pieces of information that are different views on the same topic. Each has its own biases and strengths, but the different sources can inform each other, and 8 together provide a more complete picture of the past. Initially we treated the historical and archaeological data as independent resources, each providing different types of information and bringing different perspectives to bear on questions about the rural production of animals, regional market systems, and the provisioning of urban residents. Given the interdisciplinary character of our research design, however, the principal investigators, from the outset, collaborated closely and continued to relate ongoing work to the central issues. An exciting result has been a greater level of synthesis across sources and disciplines than is commonly found in collaborative urban studies projects.

Bones found in archaeological sites, known as faunal remains to archaeologists, contain important information on a range of food-related topics, including animal husbandry, marketing and distribution of animals and animal products, butchery, food preparation, and diet, or the actual consumption of different meats.

Many historic sources contain information on food and food-related topics, but of all sources available to scholars of Chesapeake history, bones are possibly the best surviving record of past meals. From them it is possible to obtain an overview of the diets of all segments of colonial Chesapeake society since everyone, including the literate and the illiterate, and the wealthy, the poor, and the enslaved threw away bones into trash piles, wells, and abandoned cellars. But like any resource, these bones have biases that must be carefully considered and their evidence weighed. In selecting bone assemblages for study, zooarchaeologists carefully evaluate potential biases, considering field techniques that were used to recover the bones, soil chemistry, exposure to dogs, human feet, and the extended exposure to sun and the elements. By analyzing only those bones that have survived in excellent condition, thus assuring a relatively complete representation of the meat diet, Colonial Williamsburg and other zooarchaeologists working in the Chesapeake have over a period of two decades built up an impressive data base on dietary patterns, animal husbandry, and marketing practices, one that rivals data bases from any region in the country, and possibly the world. For the study of the colonial Chesapeake diet, it has no parallel.

While these faunal remains have provided a broad-based picture of animal husbandry, urban provisioning, and what meats were consumed, patterns revealed in the archaeological record can be interpreted in different ways. Bones, for example, show the proportion of different meats consumed, but identifying how households drew upon differing economic resources and social connections, whether they butchered their own animals, purchased entire carcasses, or purchased special meat cuts, has come from historical sources.

The various historical records have each provided a particular view of how urban households provisioned themselves. Plantation accounts have provided essential information on how livestock were raised and what types of meat were brought into town to be sold in complete carcasses. Household accounts have provided specific information on which meats were purchased in cuts and how beef, veal, and fowl were processed. Probate inventories and tax lists have documented what animals were kept by urban households. Store accounts revealed the foods available for sale by retailers. Manuscript receipt books have provided specific information on special cuts of meat. And municipal records outline market laws and procedures.

9

Similarly, while the faunal remains have provided an anchor for understanding what different households actually consumed, historical records have provided the economic and social context of consumption. The historical records identified the components of the provisioning system and how they operated in the region. But through analysis of the age of slaughter and different cuts of meat found in faunal assemblages associated with different households in town, faunal remains have provided a more concrete measure of the development of the market and of the degree of household dependency on market resources. Each source has provided its own specific, and sometimes limited, view of provisioning, but together the multiple sources have helped to spell out the different paths individuals took to obtain their food.

10
11

II. PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD IN A PLANTATION ECONOMY

A. GENERAL PATTERNS FOR RURAL HOUSEHOLDS

Once the economic and social dislocations accompanying the years of initial European settlement were overcome, in the seventeenth century Chesapeake planters , great, middling, and small, established a system of extensive husbandry centered around the maximum production of tobacco for the European market. Although until well into the eighteenth century most relied almost entirely on Europe for manufactured goods, farming households did achieve a self-sufficiency in basic foods that was probably more complete than that achieved by most farmers in New England, long supposed the quintessential example of household self reliance. New World maize, a crop especially suited to frontier farming, quickly became the predominant starch. Except on newly-established farms, a planter and his wife, along with any bound laborers present in the household could easily raise enough corn to meet the household's food needs without taking away time from the critical tobacco crop. For protein, planters relied primarily on cattle and hogs which multiplied readily in the Chesapeake environment and which could survive, with little care or supplemental feed, on the forage available in woods and old fields. Hogs were briefly fattened with corn in the fall, all but a small breeding stock slaughtered, and the meat salted down to provide a regular supply of protein across much of the year. Cattle were slaughtered from late fall to early winter when range-fed animals still retained annual maximum weight and the meat would keep longest. Generally farmers consumed only older cattle, some of whom had outlived their alternative uses as breeding stock, milk producers, and draft animals. Younger surplus cattle were more often marketed at various times across the year to buyers interested primarily in these alternative uses. Even so, the meat diet of ordinary whites was abundant by European standards.1

To these basics of bread and meat planters added vegetable gardens for seasonal produce and orchards for fruit and cider. Once their farms were established, rural households at all levels of wealth had little need to purchase foods from others. And given that all but new households were basically self sufficient, planters who had labor enough to raise surplus food had little incentive to do so. Even so there were indeed often surpluses. Planters adopted a strategy of planting sufficient corn to provision their families and dependent laborers in all but the most adverse of growing seasons. So in good years, they often harvested more corn than was needed 12 for bread. And, since they could not allow their herds to grow too large for the available forage, sometimes their increase was more than the household needed for meat. These extra provisions could be sold to new households, to established planters who had added additional new indentured servants or slaves to their work forces, to provision visiting ships, and occasionally exported to the West Indies. By the 1660s and 70s such largely unplanned surpluses had become an important supplementary source of income for established planters, accounting for at least 20% of farm income.2

Towards the end of the seventeenth century large planters throughout the tidewater and many residents in areas marginal for tobacco had begun to pursue a more diversified agriculture. Downturns in the tobacco market and a rising proportion of women and children in the overall population encouraged import replacement and other strategies of diversification. Some small grains were raised which added variety to the diet, cider and brandy production rose, more households began making butter, and large planters integrated sheep into their livestock herds. Thus the components of a customary urban diet had become available at the time viable towns became established.3

We must emphasize that many current economic theories that relate the phenomenon of urban growth to changes in the hinterlands are not applicable to the Chesapeake. In order for a town to grow, either in Europe or in British America, a dependable supply of food had to be routinely available. European economic historians have posited that, once towns were established urban growth then increased the scale of agricultural surpluses by offering the rural sector a range of consumer goods and services that induced farmers to further increase their output in order to satisfy their own ambitions for the citified goods they were offered in payment. Commercialization of agriculture might also lead to increased specialization of function among farmers, with rural producers concentrating on those crops and livestock to which their farms were best suited, and country folk might begin substituting city-manufactured goods for home-produced items.4 In the Chesapeake, farmers were already participating in an international economy in which they exchanged cash crops-primarily tobacco, corn, and wheat-for European manufactures and West Indian sugar and rum. These were acquired either from ship captains, country store-keepers, or, in the case of the more affluent, directly from England. Both rural home manufacturing and town industries were limited. Thus local rural/urban exchanges of manufactured goods were of much less importance in the Chesapeake than they were in Europe.

In the mid eighteenth century grains became an increasingly important source of income for large planters. (Small planters often lacked both sufficient land and labor to do anything but continue in the older, tobacco-centered ways.) Rising international grain prices, occasioned by shortages of wheat in Europe and growing slave populations in the West Indies much too numerous to be provisioned with island resources made raising wheat and corn for export an increasingly attractive supplement to tobacco revenues. Substantial corn surpluses (and its by-product, corn fodder) could also be used for fattening livestock either for local sale or for export. 13 Large planters learned that by making more use of plows for preparing ground for and weeding corn they could produce substantial surpluses without cutting back on their tobacco crops. Many middling planters began raising surplus corn as well. Commercial crops of wheat could be produced by the existing plantation work forces if the ground was prepared in the fall, just before and after the tobacco harvest. Extra labor was required only to assist during the brief mid-summer wheat harvest. Then the grain could be threshed during otherwise slack times during the winter.5

Other evidence of local economic development could be found along many tidewater streams where large planters were constructing grist mills that served their own plantations and those of smaller neighbors. As the grain trade boomed, some few constructed larger, merchant mills that processed flour and bread for export, as well as grinding grain for local consumption.

Although the mix of crops and production strategies on large plantations were similar throughout the region, big planters living near towns could choose between selling grain in inter-colonial and inter-national markets and selling it locally. With grain prices set, in the case of maize by larger regional markets, and in the case of wheat, by international ones, local sales may not have offered a particular advantage. On the other hand, nearby town populations afforded unusual opportunities to profit handsomely from the sale of grain by-products-fodder and straw-as well as from perishables such as butter. Supplying town dwellers with fuel also presented planters in the immediate area of town another unique opportunity. High overland transport costs made the firewood supply business highly localized. Favorably situated planters, however, stood to make considerable profits, since demand peaked in winter months when their slave workers, carts, and draft animals might otherwise be not fully utilized.

B. RURAL SUPPLIERS OF TOWNS

Chesapeake town residents obtained the bulk of the foods they did not produce themselves from the adjacent countryside. By the late 1730s, when surviving plantation accounts begin, large area slave owners living within one to two hours' travel time from Virginia's capital had emerged as the primary suppliers of the grains, meat, beverages, fodder, and fuel that Williamsburg's inhabitants required. At this time the town was composed of between 50 and 75 households, with permanent town residents numbering less than 500. By 1747/48 the number of households had increased to nearly 100, with the total population estimated to be 885. Even these small numbers were enough to prompt significant restructuring of crop mix and livestock husbandry among those local planters who were abundantly supplied with land and labor. By 1775, when Williamsburg's resident population reached 1,400 living in just under 200 households, production for town markets figured prominently in such planters' management strategies.

The first plantation ledger we analyzed is that James Bray III (by 1715-1744) who owned Littletown, a 1,280 acre plantation on the James/York peninsula about five miles southeast of Williamsburg. See Figure 2.1 for the location. Bray, a third generation Virginia native and a member of a prominent gentry family, owned about 80 slaves at his death.6 Like other large 14 tidewater Virginia planters, Bray derived the majority of his income from high quality tobacco produced for the English market. However by the late 1730s he was also supplying Williamsburg residents with substantial amounts of meat, including stall fed beef and mutton, and some grains, cider, and firewood. In the early 1740s he both increased corn production and made a major commitment to wheat. Already Bray was finding it worthwhile to redirect labor time into diversified production for local markets.

A nearly continuous run of accounts, some quite full, and some less complete, document plantation production for the Williamsburg market on adjacent Carter's Grove plantation from 1738 through 1807. Members of the Burwell family farmed the 1,400 acre plantation located about ten miles outside Williamsburg as well as five additional outlying quarters situated nearer the town. Carter's Grove had been purchased by Robert "King" Carter sometime before 1720 as a gift to his daughter Elizabeth, who had married gentry planter Nathaniel Burwell of Gloucester County in 1709. She was to have the income of the plantation, and of the slaves and livestock that her father also provided, for her life and after she died, all was to go to their second son Carter Burwell. Nathaniel Burwell managed the plantation during his lifetime from his Gloucester County estate just across the York River, marketing "fine Stemd Tobo" that had a high reputation among London merchants. After Nathaniel died in 1721, Robert Carter, as acting executor and guardian of the Burwell estate, resumed management of the plantation through an estate agent for the benefit of his daughter and her children. After "King" Carter's death in 1732, a Burwell uncle managed the estate until the heir came of age. During this time Burwell and Carter concentrated almost exclusively on raising tobacco for export, along with enough corn and livestock to feed the resident slaves.7

Carter Burwell turned twenty one in the fall of 1737 and married two months later, immediately setting up housekeeping at Carter's Grove. He had a more than favorable start in his career as a planter. The estate was unencumbered, for his mother had died four years before. Besides the land with its complement of livestock and about 25 slaves that his grandfather Carter had supplied, Burwell would add to his labor force other slaves willed to him by his father. Apparently Burwell inherited all the workers he required. His accounts mention some 82 adult slaves between 1740 and 1745, but only two are identified as "new" negroes; presumably he had little need to purchase additional hands. By 1755 his workforce was approaching 150 slaves, about half of whom would have been adult laborers. His wife Lucy's dowry of £250 sterling supplied further capital. With these assets Burwell would acquire another plantation in James City County and three undeveloped tracts further west in Frederick and Prince William Counties. Political office too followed from rank and wealth. Burwell shortly became a justice and a burgess and aspired to, though failed to get, a seat on the Virginia Council.

Carter Burwell began an account book in 1738 when he settled at Carter's Grove which he kept until his death in 1756. Although it is not possible to reconstruct a full accounting of plantation revenues and expenditures from his records, they still tell us a great deal about how he changed the operation of his farms to take advantage of the growing town market. Like many other planters, he failed to record the sales of his tobacco crops, and only occasionally noted sales 15 RR040402 Figure 2.1. Carter's Grove and Vicinity, c. 1750. of all his surplus corn, wheat, and livestock. Income from cider, wool, and fodder are not mentioned, but there is reason to believe that, as at adjoining Littletown, some must have been marketed. Similarly, major outlays including taxes, clothing for the slaves, and tools are either incompletely recorded or impossible to disentangle from unrelated family expenses.

Like most other large slave owners, Burwell divided his hands into small work groups. There were field laborers quartered at the home house, and additional work units located on two outlying farms and on the newly purchased plantation in James City County. There were also two smaller quarters near Carter's Grove, one managed by a slave and one at the site of a plantation mill, and a group of about five male carpenters seem to have lived and worked separately from the other slaves. Three and sometimes four overseers supervised the larger quarters for shares of the crops produced. A general manager, who worked for an annual salary, directed the overseers, managed the home farm, and often looked after the mill as well. Some of the lesser overseers lasted only a year or so, but several of them and the manager too had longer tenures of five to nine years each. Thus there was unusual continuity in the operation.

16

Whatever opportunities urban markets presented, the international tobacco market continued to take top priority in the Burwell family's management strategies. Carter Burwell's slaves produced on average between 725 and 965 pounds of tobacco per hand per year, an output comparable to that raised on plantations with no connections to towns. In bad seasons the output might drop to about 550 pounds, while in favorable years the workers sometimes raised over 1300 pounds each. In addition, like many other large tidewater planters, by the late 1730s Burwell began to take advantage of expanding local and international markets for grains. In the 1740s tobacco probably accounted for between two thirds and three quarters of Burwell's revenues from field crops. By the mid 1750s, grains were bringing in more, and tobacco's share may have dropped to about half of gross revenues.

The increases in farm productivity were achieved by making greater use of plows for ground preparation and cultivation and by more fully exploiting the slaves' labor in off seasons. Between 1738 and 1755, on the home farm and adjacent quarters, about 800 barrels of corn were grown annually. Yields per laborer ranged from a low of 5 barrels to a high of 22 barrels; the average crop was 9 to 12 barrels per hand. Although there were many slaves to be fed, and additional corn needed to fatten livestock, between a quarter and a half of the crop was marketable surplus. By the late 1740s Burwell was also growing 500 to 800 bushels of wheat a year, almost all of which was sold. Either Burwell had exceptionally good land or he was using better cultivation techniques than most. In 1755 he was getting 36.6 bushels of wheat to the acre off old tobacco fields, as much as six times the usual yield for the region.

In the 1730s, 40s, and 50s, the Burwell plantation was unusual in its access to a nearby urban market, a situation of which few other tidewater planters could take advantage. Still the crop mix remained typical of most of the large tidewater plantations. However, unlike some other planters of the period who commanded similar amounts of land and labor, Carter Burwell did not invest any of his capital into mines, ships, merchandise, or rental properties-forms of investment that appealed to some of his enterprising rural contemporaries. Given his unusual location, the Williamsburg market apparently offered more certain opportunities.

Livestock too became an increasingly important part of Burwell's operation. Each quarter has its complement of hogs, cattle, and horses, and by 1753 Burwell had at least 250 sheep on two of the farms. Many more animals were raised than were needed for plantation consumption. Each year excess cattle were sold or older animals slaughtered for butcher's meat. Burwell also marketed as much as 10,000 pounds of pork a year. At an average weight of 100 pounds per animal, this represents as many as 100 surplus hogs a year. In the later 1740s and early 1750s when the accounts are fullest, sales of livestock and meat brought in between £50 and £100 sterling constant value annually. Some of the meat may have been destined for the West Indies or sold as ship provision. The bulk, however, went to residents of Williamsburg.

Burwell was producing for several markets, a strategy that spread risk and minimized the impact of price declines for any one of his three staple crops. Almost invariably he consigned his high quality tobacco to London factors in return for English goods; in only one year did he choose to sell tobacco in the country. For corn and wheat there were several outlets. At least once Burwell sold most of his surplus to a ship captain, presumably bound for the West Indies. In years for which the accounts record few grain sales it is likely that Burwell was selling most of his grains in the form of meal and flour processed at his plantation mill. In other years he turned to nearby Williamsburg. The College of William and Mary was his single best customer, sometimes 17 buying over 500 bushels of wheat annually, and paying promptly in cash. Tavern keepers, the royal governor, and assorted town tradespeople and professionals bought up the rest. Doubtless Burwell, himself a graduate of William and Mary, traded on local connections established in school days.

The eldest Burwell son, Nathaniel (1750 1814), was not quite six at his father's death in 1756. Nathaniel's guardian and uncle by virtue of marriage, merchant William Nelson of Yorktown, managed the estate until the boy came of age in 1771. Although Carter's wife Lucy survived him, she took no active role in managing the farms and had moved out of the home house by 1771. Nelson retained Carter Burwell's mix of crops, but began putting more emphasis on products for the local urban market. This strategy satisfied the needs both of a growing resident town population and of increasing numbers of transients who spent more time in the colony's capital as the political crisis worsened.

From 1764, when Nelson's surviving accounts for the estate begin, he was allocating somewhat less labor to raising tobacco than had Carter Burwell, and was putting more into corn, wheat, cider, livestock, butter, and firewood. Nelson probably continued tobacco culture only on the best lands where he could still make quality leaf for the English home market. Between 1763 and 1771 tobacco production per hand in York and James City Counties dropped, while that of other products increased. This was almost certainly a result of conscious policy (except in 1766 and 67 when bad weather shortened crops), rather than of deteriorating soil. The lowland estate tobaccos-all of which were sent to the London firms of Athawes or Cary-continued to fetch top prices, equal to or better than those Nelson received for his own crops grown on fresher lands in Hanover County. The sales, he wrote, ranged from "good" to "extremely pleasing" to "admirable." Since the best soils had now been in periodic cultivation for as much as half a century, the use of some animal manures was probably essential for making good tobacco. The number of cattle and sheep the farms could support would have set an upper bound to the number of acres that could be put in tobacco. Nelson clearly understood the balance; in 1770 he wrote Samuel Athawes: "You make me smile when you talk of the Lands being too much worn & impoverish'd to bring good Tobo-when you know We make more & I trust as good Tobo as We formerly did and I know that a skillful Planter can make it fine from any Land, it being his Part & Interest to improve any that he finds worn or wearing out." Indeed the total volume of estate tobacco rose during Nelson's administration, reaching 95 hogsheads in 1770. But all the increase came from new quarters in Frederick County where transplanted Burwell slaves were making big crops.

Nelson behaved as a typically conservative executor in that he invested little in building repair; made no new investments except for a few head of livestock, primarily horses; and maximized immediate revenues for the support of the Burwell children by hiring out some of the slaves. On the other hand, he must have looked after the farms more closely than the average executor, for under his guardianship levels of salable surpluses rose. Doubtless this was possible in part because Nelson continued to employ several of Carter Burwell's already experienced overseers. Certainly the Burwell slaves worked hard and well. Gross revenues per hand in sterling constant value from field crops alone (incomplete since wheat is missing before 1773 and tobacco in 1774) rose from about £12 in the early 1760s to over £18 between 1769 and 1771. These were higher returns than most large planters had achieved in the 1750s (indeed Carter Burwell 18 had averaged only £10 ½ a hand between 1740 and 1755), and equal to or better than those most resident owners managed in the late 1760s and early 1770s.

Nelson also paid careful attention to exploiting fully the labor of all the slaves year round. Some activities geared especially to the town market-like cutting firewood-could be done by slave men in the winter. Others, like butter making, drew more women into market production. Here Nelson recruited overseer's wives to supervise dairying and paid the couples a share of the butter the wife and the slave women she directed made. By the mid 1760s the estate was producing butter on a level equivalent to a middling size Pennsylvania dairy of the mid nineteenth century. Some of the slave women acquired new domestic skills usually reserved for whites, while overseer's wives gained an opportunity to supplement family income.

Nelson's records of the operations of the Burwell estate are more complete than those of either the father or the son, for in his case there were legal obligations for full accounting. Indeed, Nelson carefully recorded local sales and expenditures, but like most other contemporary planters, failed to account for the tobacco crop or for the goods imported with the proceeds. These transactions were preserved in the form of loose accounts received from English correspondents which have not survived. Since accounts with overseers for their shares of the tobacco and corn crops, an alternative source of information on production, are also incomplete, total plantation revenues and expenditures cannot be calculated. From the information available, it appears that in the 1760s tobacco continued to account for about half of gross plantation revenues, and sales of surplus corn another third. Lesser sources of income came from wheat, livestock, butter, cider, fodder, wood, and rents.

With his inheritance of Carter's Grove and associated quarters in York and James City Counties (altogether 4,588 acres), over 6,000 acres with two quarters in Frederick County, and between 150 and 200 slaves, Nathaniel Burwell ranked as one of the major planters of the lower York. He entered grammar school at William and Mary in 1759 at age nine and remained there until he secured a college degree. Nathaniel began active management of the estate in 1771, and was completely on his own after William Nelson's death in November 1772. In the same month Nathaniel married Susannah Grymes, daughter of a Middlesex County planter. Because there was some ambiguity in his father's will about how the profits of the estate were to be divided, Nathaniel decided to remain in college through the fall of 1772. As Nelson explained, "Nat doth not chuse to marry & go to House keeping till he is sure of something before hand; which I look upon, among others, as an Instance of his Prudence & Good Sence." The "something before hand" Nathaniel sought presumably included not only a two thirds share of estate balances in the hands of London factors but also Susannah's marriage portion of £800. Unfortunately father Grymes paid nothing but £40 interest a year until 1785, and still in 1787, after Grymes' death, part of Susannah's dowry remained uncollected. Nelson, in contrast, had accumulated sufficient reserves with London factors to pay the Carter girls' dowries as they married, and Nathaniel paid his remaining sister's marriage portion as well as all the women's shares of their brother Carter's estate promptly.

Indeed, family concerns may always have counted most with Nathaniel. While accepting the public duties expected of a man of his rank (he became a justice of the peace and a vestryman in 1772), and subsequently supporting the American cause as a member of the James City County committee of safety in 1775, as county lieutenant during and after the war, and as a delegate to the state Constitutional ratifying convention in 1788, Nathaniel did not assume a prominent public 19 role at any time in his career. Perhaps managing his estate and raising the eight children (two of whom died in infancy) that Susannah bore was enough.

Nathaniel increasingly turned his home farm into a specialized unit geared to the comfortable living of its owner. By 1774 he had ceased to cultivate tobacco at Carter's Grove, and raised only enough corn for plantation use. Instead he grew more wheat and large quantities of oats to feed his horses, along with small patches of peas and barley. Quite possibly he had made improved meadows. The Nelsons grew both clover and timothy, and as early as 1769 William had had sufficient experience with clover to report "it makes fine Pasturage & helps to recover Land by feeding it." Nathaniel likely followed Nelson's example. There was also more domestic production on the adjacent quarters. At Foaces and New Quarter Nathaniel continued to grow tobacco, though in decreasing quantities, and large crops of corn and wheat. Each quarter also made surplus pork, beef, wool, cider, and butter. Hogs and beeves were fattened at the quarters, not exclusively at the home farm, and the overseers had some responsibility for marketing meat, cider, and butter in town. In 1772 Nathaniel built a new plantation mill and by 1775-76 was selling wheat, flour, and corn meal to neighbors and to townsfolk in Williamsburg and Yorktown. The grain came mostly from his own farms or was purchased from a few local planters; his was not a large scale merchant mill geared to the export trade.

In addition to his interests in the tidewater, Nathaniel also set about developing his quarters in Frederick County. In 1771 he settled additional slaves in the west. There, where soils were fresh, Nathaniel's slaves could make bigger tobacco crops than in the tidewater. Indeed, if the farms were to be profitable they had to, for the price of upland tobacco was often lower than that of York County leaf, and the expense of wagoning to the nearest warehouse high. The quarters also produced considerable quantities of corn, though most was required for plantation consumption. On the other hand, sales of wheat, rye, oats, and livestock supplemented tobacco revenues. During the war Nathaniel also made crops of flax and hemp. Because the Frederick plantations were so far away, Burwell had to find good managers and to allow them considerable latitude in marketing crops. The overseers handled sales of everything but tobacco and periodically sent Burwell the proceeds.

Unfortunately Nathaniel's accounting procedures were rather haphazard. Many entries in plantation daybooks and ledgers record only receipts or disbursements of cash for unspecified purposes, while other transactions (with overseers for example), indicate only the balance remaining after periodic settlements and reveal nothing of the flow of transactions. In 1774 and 1775 Nathaniel attempted to measure the net profits of the various quarters, but his calculations omitted nearly as much as they included. He counted the total corn crops as revenue and then subtracted what was consumed by humans and animals as expenses, for example, but recorded only marketed surpluses of livestock, cider, and butter as revenue, while ignoring other produce such as firewood completely. He included as costs the overseers' shares and allowances of corn and meat as well as seed requirements, but did not consider expenditures for clothing, tools, taxes, and salaried workers. Burwell did not repeat this attempt, and indeed his struggles to calculate annual profit or loss for his much less complicated milling operation shows that complex accounting was not his strong point.

Over time, Nathaniel seems to have left more of the day to day accounting to his steward and to the various overseers once he had gotten an idea of how things were going. In 1776 for example, he carefully recorded sales of large amounts of milk to Williamsburg residents; no sales 20 are recorded for later years though it seems unlikely that none was sold. He also began to leave the details of the firewood business to overseers and wagoners. Nathaniel kept sufficient records so that he could keep track of what was going on, but had no interest in recording more detail than was necessary for his own understanding. The materials on which he based his cryptic ledger entries were preserved either in the form of loose papers or in steward's daybooks which have not survived. Such plantation revenues as Nathaniel recorded are shown in Table 2.1.

How did Nathaniel and his family cope with the Revolution? The only evidence of intense patriotic commitment was a contribution of 50 bushels of wheat sent for the relief of Boston in 1774. Thereafter he did the best he could in uncertain circumstances, and in fact did very well indeed-Nathaniel seems always to have had a sharp eye for new opportunities. He curtailed his tobacco crops, which he could no longer be sure of selling, beginning in 1776. Later crop allocations are uncertain, for Nathaniel stopped paying his overseers in shares between 1778 and 1781, but it is likely he planted little tobacco, concentrating instead on surer things.

While imported goods were scarce and expensive, Nathaniel's location guaranteed him first chance at whatever came in. This allowed him to keep his slaves working at things that would turn a profit, not just provide subsistence. Getting enough salt, for example, was surely a problem, but buy it he did through 1777. By the end of the year he commenced limited salt production, but only enough for plantation use. Somehow he managed to lay hands on enough ready made cloth to clothe the slaves. Before the war few local whites were spinning and weaving for wages-in 1771 and 72 Nathaniel hauled surplus wool from the peninsula farms west to Frederick County in order to sell it. In 1775 he tried growing some cotton and probably assigned some old slave women and younger girls to spinning that and the plantation's wool. However, his accounts show no sign of the all out effort, so evident on plantations further up the bay, to make most or all essential coarse cloth. And, although he paid an outrageous price for it, the white family continued the luxury of drinking tea throughout the war.

So long as Williamsburg remained the state's capital, the town market was the first recourse. Nathaniel sold large amounts of meat, fodder, meal, flour, cider, butter, and milk to urban tavern keepers and professionals. In 1776 and 77 he sold most of the flour his mill ground to two commercial bakers. He began using bran, a byproduct of milling, to fatten extra hogs. Responding to an increased demand for firewood, Nathaniel cut down so much timber one suspects his farms may have been seriously depleted of cover by the end of the war. In 1776 alone his slaves carried over 2,000 cartloads of firewood, worth over £475 sterling constant value, into town, most of it sold to the state government. Nathaniel next traded in whisky, suddenly in great demand as supplies of West Indian rum dried up. In 1776 he had a distillery built in Frederick County and by the next year was receiving regular shipments back east. This he retailed, along with locally made cider, in town and at his mill. In 1776 his gross revenues from the tidewater farms exceeded £1000 sterling constant value, exclusive of the value of foodstuffs consumed on the home farm and quarters. A third enterprise was transportation. Beginning in 1779 he employed a wagoner to haul goods for himself and for hire both around the neighborhood and back and forth from Frederick County.

21
Table 2.1.
OUTPUT PER LABORER AND GROSS REVENUES FROM FIELD CROPS
IN £ STERLING CONSTANT VALUE, CARTER'S GROVE, 1763-1789
TobaccoCornWheat
Lbs.£Bbls.£Bus.£
YearOutputRevenueOutputRevenueOutputRevenueTotal Revenue
176310626.17n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.[6.17]
176413507.7921.46.18na.a.n.a.[13.97]
17657614.2517.85.59n.a.n.a.[9.84]
17667505.2317.77.72n.a.n.a.[12.95]
17676946.1926.310.56n.a.n.a.[16.75]
17686926.0226.89.22n.a.n.a.[15.24]
17698687.4315.55.53n.a.n.a.[12.96]
17708706.4115.05.11n.a.n.a.[11.52]
177110286.9821.79.21n.a.n.a.[16.19]
17735722.789.02.917.710.016.70
1774n.a.n.a.25.48.1813.42.16[10.34]
17757124.8118.96.3813.42.0413.23
17765586.0420.06.66n.a.n.a.[12.70]
17776977.5819.66.53n.a.n.a.[14.11]
17811761.52n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.[1.53]
17822412.10n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.[2.10]
17833332.90n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.[2.90]
17844944.96n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.[4.96]
17854894.36n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.[4.36]
17864723.9216.09.5n.a.n.a.[13.42]
17877536.43n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.[6.43]
17884713.23n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.[3.23]
17997565.53n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.[5.53]

The removal of the capital to Richmond must have been a blow, and indeed, Nathaniel's accounts suggest that sales of butter, wood, and fodder declined considerably in 1780 and 1781. (Records are incomplete for 1778 and 79.) On the other hand, in 1779 he was able to sell a backlog of accumulated tobacco. Nathaniel promptly deposited much of the questionable paper money he received in the state treasury, and soon used the rest to pay off debts or to speculate in produce. In 1781 the French army arrived to assist in Cornwallis's defeat at Yorktown, and Nathaniel was able to sell food and whisky to officers and commissary agents for welcome French gold. By 1782 (if not before) he had reestablished ties with remaining Williamsburg residents. Frequent sales of flour, whisky, meat, and wood to townspeople resumed, while Williamsburg's mental hospital (Nathaniel served on its board of governors) provided an additional customer. From firewood alone Nathaniel grossed between £130 and £150 sterling constant value annually between 1782 and 1784 . His daybook suggests that 1782 was an exceptionally good year, although one cannot be sure that this reflects anything more than a spate of unusually diligent record keeping. Another cache of tobacco yielded a return of over £300 sterling constant value, while the whisky business contributed a similar amount. Nathaniel also purchased a share in a ship (possibly a privateer) in 1780, and in an unidentified "factory" sponsored by the Nelson family in 1783. His profits from these ventures, if any, cannot be traced.

22

Overall, the Burwells appear to have suffered remarkably little from the war. Their favorable location near the mouth of the bay enabled them to keep on buying imported cloth and for a time, salt, despite acute shortages elsewhere. And while they could not count on making much from tobacco, they could rely on continued sales of grain, firewood, livestock products, and liquor to Williamsburg and Yorktown residents, markets more augmented than curtailed by the war. Finally, they were lucky. While many area planters suffered heavy losses to the British in 1781, there is no evidence of enemy depredations at Carter's Grove. Legend has it that Tarleton occupied the farm that spring, and indeed recent archaeological excavations uncovered a brass insignia with his family crest in the vegetable garden. But if the enemy did raid the farm, Burwell apparently had ample warning. His accounts suggest no significant damage, much less the loss of any slaves. All in all the family benefited much more than it lost from its location.

With the return of peace, there were new commercial opportunities, and these inevitably included tobacco. By 1784 Nathaniel could import over £500 sterling worth of English manufacturers from long time family factor Samuel Athawes, with all but a fraction of the cost balanced by a favorable pre war credit. In 1785 he repaired his mill. And between 1787 and 1789 Nathaniel for the first time in his career plunged directly into commerce, acting as a tobacco agent for the London firm of Rowles, Grymes, and Company.

Burwell also began increasing tobacco production on his own farms in the early 1780s, and by 1789 was making crops per hand similar to those pitched before the war. While his lands had been cultivated for over half a century, he still had some extremely productive patches. York River tobacco prices dropped in 1789, and Nathaniel ceased buying tobacco from others, but he continued to grow full crops on his own farms into the early 1790s. Because post war accounts do not record the size of grain crops, we cannot compare gross revenues per hand with pre war receipts. By 1787 revenues per hand from tobacco, sterling constant value, again equaled those of the 1760s. If Burwell was also able to match pre war levels of grain production-and continued to produce butter, wood, cider and meat for town markets-he probably did nearly as well after the war as before.

After the Revolution, Burwell spent more and more time and invested ever more capital in his Frederick County holdings, including several merchant mills and a distillery. After his first wife's death in 1788 Nathaniel quickly remarried, and thereafter the white family spent most of each year at the main Frederick County farm. Burwell appreciated the greater opportunities for estate building that the west offered, and surely his need to augment his fortune increased along with his family. In addition to six children surviving from his first marriage, Nathaniel and his second wife had another eight offspring between 1789 and 1805. Burwell removed most of the agricultural laborers from Carter's Grove in late 1796 or early 1797. Thereafter only enough adult workers remained at the Grove to keep the great house running, care for the livestock, maintain the garden and orchards, and perhaps to raise some small grains. Nathaniel turned over the old home plantation to his oldest son, Carter III (1773-1819), in 1804. Unlike his father, who had begun running his estate at majority, Carter Burwell III had to wait until he was thirty-one before obtaining title to his inheritance. This included twelve adult slaves and perhaps as many children. The Burwell family had long relied on income from the adjacent quarters to maintain a high standard of living at the Grove, and with these eventually parceled out among other family members, the 1,135 acres and twelve taxable slaves attached to the home farm could not produce returns sufficient to maintain later heirs in the style of the father and grandfather. In addition, 23 Nathaniel may have demanded, as he did of at least one other of his sons, that Carter pay him part of the value of the lands he inherited. If so, the tidewater estate would have been further encumbered with debt. At any rate Carter III barely outlived his father, leaving as his only heir a minor son, "unhealthy and much spoiled." Carter's widow, her second husband, and a series of administrators ran through most of the estate's assets. They hired out and probably eventually sold off the remaining the bonds people.

Nathaniel Burwell intended the York County quarters to descend eventually to other of his heirs, but the estate was not fully settled until after his widow's death in 1843. An estate manager, increasingly in charge during Burwell's frequent absences, directed the eastern division, with overseers supervising work at Foaces and New Quarters, and a miller running a grist mill and eventually a distillery at Mill Quarter. Between 1801 and 1805 a younger son, another Nathaniel who would soon inherit farms in Frederick County, took over direction of these quarters as part of his training as a plantation manager. By and large the son deferred to the direction of his father and to that of the general manager.

Unlike most other York peninsula planters who dropped tobacco in the 1790s, the elder Nathaniel Burwell continued to grow the weed on the best quarter lands into the 1800s. At Foaces and New Quarter the field hands could still raise high quality crops that continued to fetch top prices on the London market. The quarter soils were good enough to permit relatively high annual yields (for the area) of about 675 pounds per laborer. Wheat and corn remained the other major cash crops, with oats, barley, and clover hay cultivated mainly for plantation use. Williamsburg continued to offer an outlet for wood, beef, and pork; however, in contrast to the 1770s and 1780s, such sales seem not to have amounted to much. Instead, the Burwells marketed most of their surplus grain through Norfolk and Baltimore. Perhaps marketing opportunities contracted once Williamsburg was no longer the state capital and its population stagnated. But the Burwells or their agents may have found it easier to sell most surplus crops to two or three wholesale merchants, who by the turn of the century usually paid in cash in timely installments, rather than making deliveries to dozens of townspeople who were accustomed to paying off their debts more slowly and irregularly.

Guardian accounts for estates of five middling York County planters administered between 1735 and 1764 allow us to compare the operation of smaller farms on the York River peninsula with that of Littletown and Carter's Grove. All of the decedents were landholders who owned about 300 acres each, who had between four and eight adult slave field hands, and who left personal estates of between £100 and £400 sterling constant value. These accounts reflect the most conservative management practices of the period, for guardians were required only to maintain the value of the estate, to produce enough income to maintain the orphans, and to avoid any risks that might jeopardize the orphans' future inheritance. So it is not surprising to find that almost nothing was put into new buildings or livestock and that none of the guardians invested in additional slaves. Still, these accounts reveal that by the 1730s, even small York County plantations had become somewhat diversified operations. Diary products, cider, fodder, and wool were probably produced on all the farms, and some had modest surpluses for sale. Most too raised more livestock than were required for plantation needs. All of the estates also grew a little wheat, and most made a surplus of corn. Revenues from these sources, however, were small, for the surpluses were never very large. Tobacco was by far the most important source of income for four of the five estates, accounting for 55% to 82% of gross revenues from field crops, and up to 24 72% of total gross revenues. Only on one estate in the early 1760s did income from grains exceed that from tobacco.

Comparison of these smaller farms with the much larger operation at Carter's Grove suggests that there were definite economies of scale. Supervision was a prime example. Only when there were enough field hands to make up work groups of six or more was it likely to pay to employ an overseer. In addition, the variety of tasks that had to be performed on these somewhat diversified farms clearly cut into the time that could be devoted to tobacco. Carter Burwell's field laborers produced roughly 850 pounds of tobacco, 10 ½ barrels of corn, and perhaps 10 bushels of wheat a year. Annual gross revenues per field hand from the three major crops were about £10 sterling constant value. On the orphan's estates, adult slaves made only about 385 pounds of tobacco, a bushel or so of wheat, and about five barrels of corn per hand. Total gross revenues from all plantation products averaged only £5 per hand per year. Where there were only a few hands to plow the land, look after the livestock, run the dairy, shear the sheep, spin yarn, gather fodder, catch fish, make cider, plant a vegetable garden, sow and harvest wheat, beans and peas, tend corn, make cask, and keep fences and buildings in repair, most of the slaves could not tend a full crop of tobacco as well. In the seventeenth century, many such secondary activities had been foregone on orphans' plantations, and free whites hired to do all the carpentry and coopering. However, on the York County estates in the 1740s, 50s, and 60s, diversified activities like dairying, wheat culture, and sheep raising were continued in the absence of the white family. Then such surpluses could be sold in town markets. On farms where the owner's family was present, however, most of these products were likely consumed on the plantation.

C. LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY

Determining when planters adopted specialized husbandry techniques aimed at producing livestock for sale to urban markets begins with a basic understanding of animal husbandry in the Chesapeake. Particularly since the specialized production of livestock evolved directly out of the region's plantation economy, a basic understanding of the underlying structure of animal husbandry, including how domestic livestock were reared and cared for, and the important role they played in subsistence on the plantation, is a necessary first step in the study of urban provisioning. Towards this end Bowen and her colleagues in the Department of Archaeological Research have carefully analyzed numerous archaeological faunal assemblages from the lower Chesapeake and combined this data with data from other sites that were previously analyzed by several specialists not associated with Colonial Williamsburg (Fig. 2.2). After two years of hard work, approximately fifty faunal assemblages have been analyzed, and of these, the largest, best preserved, and most tightly-dated have been combined to form one large data base broken into significant historical periods matching those established by Henry Miller, Lorena Walsh, and Lois Carr. Already the general outline of the herding system and periods when significant changes occurred are clear, although the continued analysis of these assemblages and additional research will eventually enable scholars to outline in great detail how animal husbandry evolved over a two-hundred-year period.

The presence of domesticated livestock in the Chesapeake landscape was pervasive, beginning at Jamestown with the earliest arrivals of settlers, who brought with them cattle, pigs, goats, horses, and sheep to provide food, labor, and transportation. How these animals were 25 sustained in a world that lacked pastures, fences, and protective barns, however, has been misinterpreted. For the most part, it is believed that livestock were given little or no supplemental foods and they were allowed to range freely through the woodlands. The only clear controls were some fences, which were built to keep them out of fields of corn and tobacco.8

Europe has a long and well-established traditional husbandry system that intermixes the cultivation of plants with the raising of livestock. On pastures and on fields after harvest, cattle, sheep, and other livestock graze, leaving their manure to fertilize the soil. Formerly pigs also fed in forests surrounding farms and villages. How Chesapeake colonists faced the problem of feeding livestock in the New World has been interpreted in terms of this tradition. Since livestock were allowed to graze and browse unsupervised in the unused woodlands surrounding the fields, some have viewed this woodland management system as a non-herding system, that is, the only control was to fence them out of valuable fields and orchards. But the system that evolved incorporated forms of traditional husbandry, which had been present in Britain for many generations, into the Native American landscape.

Domestication studies have guided this research.9 Biologists and archaeologists studying domestication have shown that by managing the feeding, breeding, and care of a population, livestock become more or less isolated from their wild progenitors. In effect, humans insert themselves as the dominant leader over herds. Without some form of control, natural selection would again become the predominant force. Coloring and other physical traits present in the domestic form would revert to characteristics of the wild progenitor, and livestock that had once been domesticated would return to a feral, or wild state.

Colonial livestock were not feral, since settlers could and did distinguish between those they controlled and those they did not. Numerous documentary references describe livestock that were tame and those that were wild, who they referred to as the "wild gang." Period documents describe wild stallions who stole mares for their harem, and wild cattle herds, who "resorted in company with tame cattle."10 Given this reality, our research came to focus on identifying specifically how colonists created a herding system in a Native American landscape by constructing a system of fences and other man-made barriers that would support an open woodlands form of husbandry.

26

RR040403 Figure 2.2 Location of archaeological sites analyzed for the project.

27

When settlers arrived in Jamestown in 1607 to establish plantations, they encountered Native American settlements that were composed of houses and palisaded towns with adjacent fields. Surrounding these settlements were woodlands, which were cleared of small wood and old trees for firewood and fired to clear the underbrush, where enemies could conceal themselves. So effective was this clearing that John Smith wrote in 1608 "a man may gallop a horse amongst these woods any waie, but where the creekes or Rivers shall hinder."11 Also present in this landscape were old fallow fields, which created for the newly introduced livestock rich meadows composed of indigenous weeds, and pine and hardwood forests, which held acorns and the many tubers pigs thrive on.12 When woodlands were burned, there were plentiful grasses and browse for cattle, horses, and goats. Beaches along the local streams and rivers provided access to shellfish, and mudflats and marsh zones provided shellfish, rushes, and cattails - all rich food for swine, cattle, horses, and goats.

Zooarchaeological data shows that by the 1620s herds of cattle and swine in the lower Chesapeake thrived and that they were capable of supporting the local human population (Fig.2.3). Based on useable meat weight estimates, domesticated animals composed 77% of the total meat diet during the period 1620-1660, and by 1660-1700, 91% of the total meat diet. According to Miller and others, colonists continued to hunt, but the growth of the plantations leveled forests and destroyed an ideal deer habitat.13 In lieu of this diminishing resource, domestic livestock became increasingly important. It has also been suggested that the decline in deer populations was the result of the introduced competitors for their food. Through grazing and browsing, cattle, horses, swine, and goats did much to damage the native deer habitat.14

Documents support the archaeological evidence, showing in the Virginia Company records that livestock populations increased rapidly. In a memorandum to England dated 1616, colonists claimed they were able to maintain themselves with food.15 In a 1619 census record, this view is reinforced by a description of 120 humans, 500 cattle, some horses and goats, and an 28 RR040404 Figure 2.3 Relative dietary importance in the Chesapeake 1620-1700; wild vs. domestic species (based on usable meat weight). infinite number of swine. Another census taken two years later showed the number of cattle had increased to 800.16

So successful was this woodland herding system that by the 1622 uprising, when local Native Americans killed half the European and livestock populations, livestock had established themselves to the point that colonists could rely upon domestic meat, rather than wildlife, as a primary resource (Fig.2.4). During the first half of the seventeenth century, herds of cattle had stabilized and contributed on the average 51% of the useable meat weight to the diet, while swine herds contributed 22%. Caprines (including both sheep and goats), which were present only in small numbers, contributed only 1%.

Biological evidence for the success of herds can be found in these records. In 1619 John Pory wrote that cattle "do mightily increase here, both kine, hogges and goates, and are much greater in stature, than the race of them first brought out of England. No lesse are our horses and mares likely to multiply, which proove of a delicate shape, and of as good spirite and metall." Another wrote "the cattell already there are much encreased and thrive exceedingly with the pasture…though the ground was covered most with snow, and the season sharpe, lived without other feeding than the grasse they found…."18

29

RR040405 Figure 2.4. Relative dietary Importance, rural Chesapeake 1620-1660. Based on usable meat weight.

Both predators and Native Americans were serious threats to livestock. To protect their animals colonists placed them on islands and built palisades across peninsulas. As early as 1611 palisades were run from river to river to secure hogs and cattle.19 One is reported to have been four miles long, "with twenty miles for cattle and hogs to circuit in."20 Particularly during the first years of settlement, structures were also built to protect them. As early as 1611 Sir Thomas Dale requested that a "stable for our horses... and a block house be built to prevent the Indians from killing the cattle."21

The early Virginia Company records, together with legal documents and a handful of diary and traveler accounts, provide evidence from which it is possible to develop a sense of the herding system. Controls existed over all livestock, even swine. A law in 1640 required "hoggs to be confined in pens by night and watched by keepers during the day or owner to satisfie all damages done by them."22 But more so than any other species, swine were allowed to run in the woods throughout the seventeenth century, as Robert Beverly reported, "Hogs swarm like Vermine upon the Earth..[They] run where they list, and find their own Support in the Woods, without any Care 30 of the Owner…."23 This notion of running loose in the woods, however, must be viewed from the animal's perspective. From the perspective of wild and feral populations today, running loose means living within a well-defined home range, which will be expanded only in times of extreme food shortages.24 According to biologist Caroline Grigson, pigs are recalcitrant nomads, who given a desirable food source will remain sedentary. Human sources of food such as peach orchards and newly harvested cornfields could easily have brought swine in from the woodlands in time for fattening for the fall butchering.

It is clear colonists capitalized on the social behavior of pigs. Young pigs tend to stay in a herd with the adult females, while the adult boars go off on their own, taking up with sows only during rut season.25 Beverley recognized this social nature when he remarked that if "a Proprietor could find and catch the Pigs, or any part of a Farrow," then they could claim ownership of all that ran together, since they were aware that pigs of the same litter stayed together. Beverley noted, "as they are bred in Company, so they continue to the End."26 Thus, it clear that within the free range system there were natural controls that restricted the movements of swine.

Other forms of control described in the documents include castrating the older boars; marking individuals to establish ownership; and requiring substantial fences be kept around fields, where pigs could be kept in after harvest. It appears there were few changes in pig husbandry during the seventeenth century, since there appears to be an overall consistency in the records, but it may well be that as the century progressed some owners had begun to keep a closer watch on their hogs.

This herding system is strikingly similar to an ancient form of pig husbandry that was present in Britain for hundreds of years. Known as pannage husbandry, pigs were kept in large numbers wherever there were sufficient forests.27 Often pigs were born at home during the spring. When they were weaned at three months they were sent to the woods to feed alongside their elders on mast, tubers, rhizomes, herbaceous plants, insects, birds, and carrion. There they remained until the end of the mast season, when they were brought in December.28 At times when mast was scarce, pigs were allowed to root around parks, and to graze on stubble in fields after harvest, and on whatever surplus agricultural produce was available. As in the New World these pigs had great freedom, but they were not "wild," a fact that Trow-Smith reinforces by stating that "pasturing of pigs at virtually free range either in wood or upon the open waste presupposes a close control of their movements, and ability to drive them in for shelter from prey or for 31 slaughter or for castration or for several other reasons that require pigs to be confined and handled…."29

Even when left in the woodlands, constraints were used in the form of pens, where swine were kept by night.30 So successful was this herding system that it was not until the late eighteenth century, when woodlands had decreased in many parts of Britain, and the commercial production of pigs had increased, that pig keeping diverged from pannage husbandry to a more controlled system based on penning.

During the early years of settlement, Jamestown colonists focused their commercial interests on creating fields to grow tobacco and other crops, leaving the herding of livestock as a subsistence-related activity, rather than a potential source of profit. Building on pannage husbandry, they introduced swine into a Native American landscape that included woodlands similar to those they had known in Britain. Swine had to be protected from predation, which they accomplished by pasturing them on islands and building palisade lines across peninsulas, but other methods colonists used to manage swine all had origins in their homeland. They had to be fenced out of corn fields during the growing season, but this had also been a problem for the British, who alleviated crop damage by passing even during the seventh century laws requiring individuals to fence out stock from their crops. In medieval times, farmers restrained pigs from grazing on the commons during certain times of the year using pens, fences, and hedges.31 In the New World, with the protection of islands and palisades in the ideal wooded environment, pigs adapted so successfully that feral herds developed and colonists' herds proliferated, in spite of losses to predators and Native Americans.

Cattle husbandry appears to have been defined within the parameters set out in the woodlands husbandry system. In Britain there also was a precedent for woodlands-based husbandry that permitted communal use. In areas where woodlands were common, cattle were allowed to graze alongside swine; in areas where mixed agriculture was practiced, cattle were allowed to graze freely on common woods and fields after harvest. Here in the Chesapeake, cattle also were allowed to graze freely, although in comparison to swine herding, colonists kept a relatively close watch on them, for every reference clearly distinguishes hogs-and not cattle-being "in the woods." Following an ancient precedent that has been traced back to prehistoric times, livestock were restrained by stock enclosures that ranged from as much as 1,000 acres to less than 12 acres, that were defined by boundary earthworks and reinforced by timber fences.32

In the Chesapeake, during the early years when Native Americans were a serious threat, colonists took great care to protect their cattle from marauders by keeping them within palisade boundaries, penning them near homes, and even keeping them in their houses.33 But even after the threat had subsided, cattle were managed. Those kept on islands and on peninsulas protected by 32 palisade lines found ample, relatively secure grazing lands that in some cases were at least 20 square miles in size.34 To maintain control within these boundaries, ownership of cattle was maintained by branding and earmarks, and they were herded, as one statute stated, "Catle [should] be kept in heards waited and attended on by some small watch or so enclosed by them selues that they destroy not yor corne and other seed provisions…."35 Other management techniques included penning calves close to home, where their mothers would return from the forest to nurse them and pens which were used in fields and pastures to restrain cattle movements. As early as 1609 there are references to oxen, who require constant attention and training from birth to work as a team. But even though these management techniques are well documented, many, or maybe even most, colonists left cattle to graze with little supervision, as the Frenchman Durand commented in 1687, "their animals all graze in the woods or on the untilled portions of their plantations, where they seek shelter nightly rather by instinct than from any care given them."36

Early on colonists introduced goats, which can withstand predators better than sheep, produce milk readily, and will browse on a quite diverse diet. Here in the Chesapeake, goats assisted in clearing pastures and woodlands by browsing, and provided milk to male colonists who were not used to doing the female task of milking cattle. By mid-century, however, sheep began to replace goats, even though in 1658 goats still outnumbered sheep.37

Sheep were extremely important in Britain of course, where they had been relied upon for centuries. Whether colonists postponed introducing sheep until predators had largely been exterminated, or whether sheep were introduced only when sufficient pastures had been created by felling forests, is not clear. Unfortunately, there are few indications in the early records of how either goats or sheep were herded, although a 1666 law required adequate fencing for "sheep and other cattle", an indication that the two were pastured together on pastures and fallow fields.38 Durand de Dauphine's 1687 description reinforces this view in his description of cows, sheep, and horses who grazed together on wheat fields.39 In all probability, the herding of sheep and cattle were intertwined. Mary Beaudry, in her dissertation on Chesapeake probate inventories, drew attention to this shift when she observed a change in the manner in which cattle were listed. By 33 the last quarter of the seventeenth century, cows were often referred to by their names, a sign that owners had established a greater familiarity with their animals.40

This herding system, which incorporated many elements of management techniques colonists had known in Britain, underwent few changes during the seventeenth century. A reading of historical texts shows that with the exception of the wealthiest elite, planters continued to allow livestock to graze freely in the available woodlands, marshes, and on fallow fields, providing them almost no housing and little or no supplemental feed. Those wealthy individuals such as Landon Carter, who began to engage in the commercial production of livestock during the first half of the eighteenth century, were probably exceptions.

If an assessment of herding systems is based exclusively on the historical texts available for this study, then the only possible conclusion would be that no significant change in husbandry occurred even for the wealthy planters until the eighteenth century. The analysis of the archaeological remains of livestock and systematic reconstruction of slaughter patterns from the remains of cattle, swine, and caprines, however, paints a slightly different picture, one that shows that subtle changes occurred. Since many of the assemblages analyzed for this study are the deposits of wealthier planters, they provide an ideal measure for determining how wealthy planters adapted their herding methods to changing conditions and new market demands.

The approach taken in this analysis is synthetic; each source of information provides an independent measure of past behavior with its own peculiarities, biases, and strengths. If each source is carefully considered in terms of what it can, and cannot tell about the past, then the analyst is in a position to incorporate the strengths and to produce a more viable interpretation of the past. Following this approach, documentary and archaeological evidence can tell the story of how animal husbandry evolved in the Chesapeake, and how it adapted ancient elements to a Native American landscape to form a coherent herding system that managed swine, cattle, caprines, and horses.

The zooarchaeological data includes diversity assessments, and slaughter age data based on both epiphyseal fusion and tooth wear assessments. The strength of this data base is that slaughter ages monitors change in livestock husbandry, but while it is a very sensitive barometer, it can not identify the causative factor or factors, which can include diet, changes in the environment, herding system, or intended use for the animal.41

The historical data base for this project draws upon animal husbandry information from probate inventories from York County in Virginia and Anne Arundel County in Maryland, plus descriptions of husbandry found in the Virginia Company records, legal documents from both Virginia and Maryland, diaries of elite planters, and the plantation records of two progressive planters from the region, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Information from probate inventories, which record at the time of death the number of livestock and to varying degrees of 34 specificity the ages of different types of livestock, provide a much needed independent assessment of the archaeological data. The rich textual data pulled from numerous other sources, which describes management techniques used by the wealthy, laws concerning the care of livestock, and general descriptions of husbandry, bring to light the specifics of the herding system. Together with the archaeological data, this historical information can help to identify the husbandry techniques and various causative factors contributing to the change. When combined with documentary evidence on husbandry, which reflects the husbandry of the wealthy, the picture that is emerging is bolstered by several independent data bases.

For those readers who are unfamiliar with the archaeological data base, a brief discussion of the principles underlying aging methods is in order. Since the age at which an animal is killed is related to a specific use or combination of uses, the age at which livestock were slaughtered is key to any understanding of husbandry and the economic and environmental forces that drive it. For example, when cattle or sheep are raised for multiple purposes, as they are in subsistence-oriented economies, they are slaughtered only after they have served their purpose. But if livestock are raised for sale, then farmers shift to using husbandry methods that are efficient at producing one product economically. Slaughter ages reflect these specialized purposes. Thus, it is presumed that when the purpose for raising an animal changes, so too will the age at which livestock are slaughtered.

Two methods were used to determine slaughter ages. The first is assessing the extensiveness of wear on mandibular teeth.42 Since teeth are the most resilient of all mammalian bone, this method is thought to be extremely reliable.43 The second method is measuring the degree of fusion of mammalian long bones.44 On either end of a long bone shaft are "epiphyses" that fuse to the shaft at a known stage during the maturation process. Since different epiphyses fuse at different times, zooarchaeologists use large assemblages that contain elements in proportions roughly even to that of the normal skeleton to determine the different age groups represented in the assemblage. However, because young immature bone is said to be the most susceptible to damaging taphonomic factors such as dog chewing, there is a potential for some bias in the data reflecting and skewing toward older animals.

Both methods require large samples of ageable material that have not been significantly altered by either exposure to harsh weather or to damage by humans and animals. Since faunal assemblages from North America tend to be extremely small in comparison to assemblages from Europe and the Near East, analysis has therefore tended to focus on epiphyseal fusion rather than tooth wear, since the number of long bones is generally greater than the number of ageable mandibles. Consequently, for all previously analyzed assemblages only the fusion data are available. For assemblages analyzed for this project, plus others where mandibles could be easily pulled for study, tooth wear analyses were performed. To provide yet a third independent measure 35 RR040406 Figure 2.5. Domestic cattle kill-of pattern based on long bone fusion. RR040407 Figure 2.6. Domestic cattle kill-off pattern based on tooth wear. of livestock slaughter patterns, livestock entries from seventeenth and eighteenth-century probate inventories were analyzed.45 For more complete technical descriptions of each method and the analytical technique chosen for this study, see Appendix 3.

There are clear hints from the epiphyseal fusion, tooth wear, and probate data that change occurred in Chesapeake husbandry sometime during the last quarter of the seventeenth century (see Fig. 2.5 and 2.6). Such changes in slaughter ages are normally viewed by zooarchaeologists in economic terms, meaning when the intended use of livestock changes, so too will the age at which it is slaughtered. However, as Mark Maltby has pointed out, it is equally reasonable to consider that the animals themselves responded to changing environmental and economic conditions, much like wild populations respond today to human encroachment on their habitat.46 If one considers the colonial pannage-free ranging herding system, where little or no supplemental food was provided livestock, then it should be reasonable to assume the situation was not much different for colonial livestock. Slaughter ages, therefore, also could reflect in addition to economic changes any significant shift in the environment and food resources.

By the 1660s, slaughter ages for cattle and swine tended to be older than those that were slaughtered during the first half of the seventeenth century. Based on this age data, it is clear that 36

Table 2.2
YORK COUNTY PROBATE INVENTORY RECORDS
PERCENTAGE OF CATTLE IN SPECIFIC AGE GROUPS
Age Group1620-1660 1660-1700
0-6 months0.0%0.1%
6-12 months0.8%0.0%
12-36 months58.8%43.7%
36-48 months20.6%17.2%
<48 months19.8%38.9%
Total Cattle (Specific Age Only Given)1311,482
Source: York County Records slaughter ages tended to increase during the late seventeenth century (Figs. 2.5 and 2.6). As measured by epiphyseal fusion, during the early seventeenth century 51% of the cattle population were slaughtered when they were four years and older. As measured by tooth wear, a third of the cattle population was over 40 months of age when slaughtered. Although this data is a very small sample, it shows that the long bone data under-represent the youngest age group. Such a pattern has been attributed to grass feeding, where it takes upwards of four years for cattle to mature to a good slaughter weight. By the third quarter of the seventeenth century, however, in the epiphyseal fusion the proportion of the population slaughtered at greater than four years increased to 68%, while in the tooth wear data the population slaughtered at greater than 40 months increased to 67%.

Ages derived from the York County probate records for the periods 1620-1660 (Table 2.2) support the archaeological evidence for cattle, indicating there was a decrease in livestock aged one to three years, but a large increase in cattle aged greater than 4 years. For zooarchaeologists this documentary evidence is comforting news, since the method used to depict long bone fusion data in surviving age groups has long been criticized for biological and taphonomic biases. Unfortunately, probate inventories do not include ages for either swine or sheep, thus a similar assessment is not possible for these species, but the clear resolution in ages demonstrates the simple but statistically clumsy method, which is used as either survivor or decedent curves by Chaplin, Zeder, and Redding, does portray real age groups.47

Age data for swine indicate that there was a similar increase in the age of slaughter during the late seventeenth century (Figs. 2.7 and 2.8). Although there is not as clear a match between the long bone and tooth wear data as there is in the cattle long bone and tooth wear data, the swine data base portrays a slaughter pattern of primarily younger individuals during the first half of the seventeenth century and an older population during the late seventeenth century. In terms of the long bone data, the proportion of the younger age groups decreased from 67% to 38% of 37 RR040408 Figure 2.7. Domestic swine kill-off pattern based on long bone fusion. RR040409 Figure 2.8 Domestic swine kill-off pattern based on tooth wear. the population, while the proportion of individuals aged greater than three years being slaughtered increased from 37% to 62% of the population. In terms of the tooth wear data, the proportion of younger age groups (0-6 months and 6-12 months) drops from 25% in the early seventeenth century to 10% in the second half of the seventeenth century, while the proportion of individuals aged greater than 30 months increased from 15% to 50% of the population.

Historically it is known that, except for the first half of the seventeenth century, few goats were kept in the Chesapeake. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to distinguish skeletally between sheep and goats, and only in the presence of certain anatomical features on a particular bone can it be identified as one or the other. Thus, as only one bone from this period could be distinguished as goat the decision was made to combine all the caprine (sheep or goat) remains into a single group. While this data does potentially include some goat, there can be little doubt that most, if not all, of the remains are those of sheep.

The archaeological data for the slaughter ages for caprines during the early seventeenth century is extremely small, reflecting the numbers of sheep and goats that were kept by planters (Fig. 2.9). Consequently, nothing can be said for this period. However, for the second half of the seventeenth century, there is one strong slaughter pattern that was obtained from long bone fusion data, which indicates 44% of the population was killed at greater than 3½ years.

For the late seventeenth century, these long bone data suggest meat was an important product, despite the fact that most early references refer to the usefulness of sheep for primarily 38 RR040410 Figure 2.9. Domestic caprine kill-off pattern based on long bone fusion. wool production. Robert Beverley provides some documentary support for the interpretation that sheep were raised for meat as well as wool, when he remarked in 1705 that since sheep fleeces were often torn from their backs by briars and bushes, planters often sheared their wool to cool them rather than collect their wool.48 According to zooarchaeologist Sebastian Payne, the developer of one of the most sophisticated aging techniques available and a specialist on caprines, when sheep are raised in non-specialized circumstances primarily for their meat, kill-off patterns show that the greatest proportion is slaughtered after the animal has matured, during the second and third year of life. But if wool is the primary objective, then the kill-off pattern should show only small numbers from the second year until the sixth year, when the wool quality tends to drop off, when sheep are slaughtered at a rate of approximately 10% each year.49

From an economic perspective, developments in animal husbandry during the seventeenth century Chesapeake occurred within the plantation economy, where the commercial production of tobacco was combined with corn production. To grow tobacco for sale and corn for settlers and livestock to eat, colonists felled forests to create fields. But within a few years, the intense production of tobacco and corn had worn out the soil. It is well documented that when the production of corn and tobacco had depleted the soils, planters shifted to growing wheat and raising sheep. Zooarchaeological evidence, however, indicates herding played an additional role in degrading the landscape.

As herds of cattle, swine, goats, sheep, and horses grew and flourished, by the late seventeenth century herds had stocked the woodlands, fields, and pastures. Livestock ecology and management studies show that these developments had to have impacted the feeding areas.50 Light grazing probably increased the productivity of wild pastures, but as the animals fed, they reduced available resources both in quantity and quality. Through grazing livestock change the habitat not only for themselves, but in extreme cases also alter future animal/habitat relations. Given the specific environment, grazing by too many animals, or too heavy use by a few animals, results in overuse, loss of vigor, and ultimately the disappearance of desirable plants. If deterioration proceeds even the soil will become unstable. In specific areas where livestock 39 RR040411 Figure 2.10. Heady and Child's chart showing relationship between foraging and numbers of livestock. frequented, excessive trampling might have reduced the size of soil aggregates and plant litter to the point that the soil deteriorated and the rains hastened the erosion of once-productive soil. The extent to which fields, where increasing numbers of livestock fed on harvest stubble, and forests, where livestock fed on new growth, were degraded by this behavior is not known.

In the animals themselves, excessive foraging results in reduced growth rate, weight gain, fertility, and overall health. Animals must feed for a longer period of time, but they gain less and eventually lose weight. This relationship between forage and numbers of livestock is expressed in Figure 2.10, which has been taken from Heady and Child.51 On the left, it shows a low-stocking rate, where few animals graze abundant forage. There, individual animals reach their biological potential, meaning they gain weight rapidly, increase in size, and reproduce easily. The point in the middle, where the curve breaks is the optimum level. Slightly to the right is known as the peril point, where the number of animals grazing on the land is high. Here, animals are beginning to lose weight and lose condition. With stocking at even slightly greater rates, forage availability declines and pasture conditions deteriorate. Here animals rapidly lose condition.

When two or more species of domestic animals graze together, the result can be advantageous, but historically mixed species grazing has resulted in severe overgrazing. The extent to which overgrazing in the Chesapeake was a problem remains a future research topic; at present the archaeological data simply suggests that these principles were in effect. Possibly the age data might be measuring the decline of an environment where introduced species initially thrived, but by the second half of the seventeenth century, in areas where tobacco farming had 40 depleted soils and sheep herds had increased significantly, livestock experienced the decline of a once lush environment.

There is evidence in the documents to support the interpretation that over time, as livestock fed upon the woodlands and fields that had endured tobacco and then the introduction of sheep, some level of degradation had occurred. Durand's 1687 description of one plantation reflects on this situation and the probability that cattle, horses, and sheep were likely to have been pastured in fields together. "As to wheat at M. Wormeley's plantations I saw the cows, horses, & sheep grazing on it. It was Christmas-time when I was there, & I told him they would spoil it. The servants replied that they left the cattle there until the fifteenth of March, & unless they had it thinned they would gather only straw."52

Rather, early seventeenth century references tend to extol the size, health, and general fecundity of the livestock, but the late seventeenth century references describe a different situation. Clayton wrote, for example, Cattle "have little or no Grass in winter, so that …(they) are pined and starved, and many that are brought low and weak, when the Spring begins, venture too far into the Swamps after the fresh Grass, where they perish; so that several Persons lose ten, twenty or thirty head of Cattle in a Year."53 Robert Beverley, one of the most eloquent writers, wrote in 1705 that his own countrymen were ill-treating their cattle by not feeding them in winter, "By which means they starve their young cattle, or at least stint their growth, so that they seldom or never grow as large as they would do, if they were well manag'd."54 A number wrote of the diminished size of livestock, and the diminished size of horses became enough of a problem in both Maryland and Virginia that laws requiring small horses be gelded in order to not "Lessen and spoil the whole breed and Streyne of all horses…."55 These documents support the interpretation that over time, as increasing numbers of livestock fed on available woodlands and pastures, their health and stature declined.

Building a more complete understanding of the parameters of the herding system as it evolved within the Chesapeake, and the impact the relationship between the land and animals had on each other, requires more documentary and archaeological research. More information is needed on species-specific feeding practices, social behavior, econiches, and the impact agricultural shifts from tobacco to wheat production had on the pasturing of cattle, horses, and sheep. As well, more documentary evidence is needed on the fecundity rates for each species of livestock. Alongside more detailed work with documentary sources, future work with archaeological data is needed. Additional evidence on feeding practices of different species and how different econiches were used throughout the entire colonial period can be obtained from phytoliths found on domestic mammal teeth. Additional evidence on the changing sizes of livestock can be found in measurements that have been taken on the archaeological remains of 41 cattle, swine, and caprines. Together with documentary evidence pulled from laws and legal documents, diaries, probate inventories and tax records, this evidence can spell out the ecological interrelationship that exists between livestock, the woodlands herding system, and the land they fed upon.

Husbandry in the eighteenth century built upon the foundations laid by the early colonists, and evident in both historical and archaeological sources is a clear picture that the woodlands-based herding system remained intact, essentially unchanged for the majority of planters. Introduced animals, both feral and tame, had flourished in the Chesapeake, but at the same time, the woodland pastures for these animals had decreased through the growth of human populations and the expansion of the tobacco-focused economy. Woodlands still abounded in the region, but their ability to support large herds in good health had decreased.56 In the very early years palisades had created rich pastures as much as forty square miles and herds grew. But within a short period time planters fenced in their crops to protect them from grazing livestock, and by 1642 all persons were required to make fences at least four and a half feet high, and livestock owners were liable for any damage to crops within adequately fenced areas.57 Livestock continued to break through these protective barriers as they are want to do, however, and later laws required colonists to make fences five feet high, although some are reported to have built fences as high as seven or eight feet.58 The image of rural plantation life with livestock roaming from their owners' property onto their neighbors, where they fed in the wooded and cleared lands, is strong.

As herds increased, so too did the damage to the plant community, and during the first decades of the eighteenth century laws were passed to protect landowners. As frustrating as it was for a landowner, permitting access to livestock owned by neighbors who lacked sufficient land to support their animals was considered a public right, and ever since arriving in the Chesapeake individuals who owned no pasture lands were legally permitted to graze their livestock on the land of others, provided they pay the land owner for whatever crops their livestock destroyed. But as livestock populations increased, it became enough of a problem that in 1713 a law was passed rescinding this right. "Whereas it is found by daily experience, that the great number of horses and mares, kept by persons who have no freehold or tenancy in lands, and suffered to go at large on the lands of other persons, is not only prejudicial to the breed of horses, but also injurious to the stocks of cattle and sheep of this colony …no person whatsoever…not having a freehold of fifty acres of land, or tenement of the value of twenty pounds, or not being a tenant of, and occupying lands or tenements, … shall pay five hundred pounds of tobacco, or fifty shilling in money, yearly, shall keep... any stoned horse, or unspaid mare, or…one gelding, or one spaid mare…"59 Clearly, roaming livestock were becoming much more than a nuisance, and individual rights came to prevail over communal grazing, which had been tolerated for a hundred years.

As towns began to emerge in this rural landscape, many residents kept animals, which they allowed to run on the property of nearby planters. As in rural areas, increased numbers of 42 livestock meant increased stress on nearby pastures, and laws such as the one passed in 1714 rescinded the long-held privilege for urban residents. "Whereas the Inhabitants of the Town of Delaware, at West Point…, do keep great Numbers of Cattle, Horses, Sheep, and Hogs which feed and root upon the adjacent Lands and Marshes belonging to William West, Gentleman, depriving him of many advantages he might otherwise make of his pasturage in supporting greater stocks of his own, for relieving him therein, Be it enacted…That from and after … no House keeper residing in said Town, without the Consent of the said William West or other Owner of the said adjacent Lands, shall keep in the said Town above Two Cows and Two Horses…."60

The dependency of urban dwellers on rural produce began at a very early phase in urban development. Within the continuity of the open woodlands pasture system, planters responded to the decline of the tobacco production by focusing their efforts on growing wheat and producing agricultural produce for the newly emerging urban markets. Livestock were among those products; hence planters who intended to raise livestock for profit adopted new techniques aimed at producing livestock for sale, rather than the old subsistence-oriented methods they had grown up with.

The British, including Arthur Young, Robert Bakewell and others, have long been thought as the developers of progressive, commercially-focused husbandry. But, for as long as markets and cities have been around in Britain and indeed in ancient civilizations, commercially-focused husbandry has been practiced.61 In order to identify what techniques colonial planters used to produce livestock for market, English agricultural history texts were consulted for traditional commercially-focused husbandry methods, then the historical data base on Chesapeake animal husbandry was thoroughly combed to identify which of these techniques were used in the New World.

In Britain throughout the eighteenth century, pigs remained the mainstay of subsistence farming. As Trow-Smith expressed it, "Compared to improvements in breeds and techniques of feeding cattle and sheep which were made in the course of the eighteenth century, the husbandry of the pig remained backward in the extreme. Pigs were the last species of farm animal to receive the attention of the improver or skillful commercial breeder and feeder, because its end-products of pork and bacon were still mainly the home-grown comestibles of countryman."62

Subsistence-oriented husbandry utilized the woods by day, and sometimes penning in an enclosure by night.63 From as early as Saxon times, pigs were kept in yards and in stys, where they were bred and overwintered with waste and legume crops. Fattening pigs for slaughter was done when the pigs were any age, although if they were meant to be either baconers or porkers, they were slaughtered when they were "rising to two years," a time when pigs take on weight rapidly. How pigs were fattened varied according to the specific environment. With woodland herds, pigs were fattened on peas, beans, whey, and buttermilk. They were slaughtered when they were in 43 their first year, or about nine months, since the weight was sufficient for a family and any additional substantial flesh gain occurred later at 18-24 months.64

Commercial pig husbandry brought the increased use of stys.65 Since pigs are efficient consumers of the by-products of cheese making, skim milk, buttermilk, and whey, there was a close association with dairying, and commonly dairymen kept pigs to consume the milk residue left from their operation.66 Since pigs also are efficient consumers of the by-products of distilling-barley and grains which were used for malting-distillers also kept swine on a large scale. As commercial production got underway, pigs were kept until their second year approached. Since fattening immature pigs was inefficient, farmers took store pigs (those kept for fattening) in lean condition and finished them on pulses and cereal meats. By the end of the eighteenth century, progressive farmers had begun to fatten with potatoes and turnips. Invariably, the potatoes were boiled or steamed and fed with meal to both store and fattening stock.67

In the Chesapeake, in Beverley's words, "hogs run where they list, and find their own support in the woods, without any care of the owner."68 Native resources found in the woodlands and marshes were prime food sources, although colonists intentionally allowed pigs to graze on field stubble after harvest.69 In 1744 Joseph Ball instructed his nephew, "The pasture fence must be at all times kept up Strong, close, & high, as a right Good Cornfield Fence; so that neither Horse, nor Hog, can get in or out, but as they are let in, or out…I would have the hogs kept in the Pasture in Peach time, so that they may go in and out of the Peach orchard, and no other People's hogs get in. At other times, I would have them kept out of the Pasture…."70 Fattening before slaughter seems to have been accomplished with the staple Indian corn and fodder.

From reading through the historical references on swine husbandry, it is difficult at this time to pinpoint exactly when planters began to use more aggressive fattening techniques. Descriptions by Landon Carter, John Clayton, Hugh Jones, and others are what has survived-indications are scattered, and methods that would fatten swine more quickly could well have been instituted before the historical account. However, it is clear that by the second half of the eighteenth century planters such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both read the British promoter of progressive husbandry Arthur Young, adopted potatoes, hominy, and meal to make them an integral element in swine husbandry.71

44

Archaeological age data, which is a sensitive monitor of slaughter ages, may well be a more accurate indicator of when commercial production began. This is particularly so, since virtually every rural faunal assemblage represents the household consumption of a wealthier planter, a person who was more likely to engage in commercial husbandry, at least more so than tenants or other poor households who were more likely to raise swine primarily for their own household's consumption. By comparing the rural slaughter ages from the different time periods, and then comparing these ages with those found in urban assemblages from the same time periods, it should be possible to monitor the swine husbandry of wealthy planter, and determine when a more concerted effort at producing swine for market purposes began, and the extent to which these animals were sold in town.

Further, since historians and zooarchaeologists specializing in British agriculture have clearly distinguished the first-year population as being the target slaughter age for subsistence farming, and the 18-24 month population as being the target slaughter age for pigs intended for sale, identifying the changing proportions of these age groups should help to distinguish when pig husbandry changed in response to emerging markets.

Beginning with the long bone data, there is a strong presence of the youngest age group throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth century assemblages, but a decrease over time, particularly in the second half of the eighteenth century. The early seventeenth century data shows almost half the population was less than a year when slaughtered, then in each subsequent time period, (1660-1700, 1700-1750, 1750-1775, and 1775-1800), the youngest age group fluctuates between 19% and 28% (see Figs. 2.11 and 2.12). The 12-24 month age group, on the other hand (which encompasses the commercial target age of 18-24 months), shows an increase over time, particularly during the second half of the eighteenth century. In the seventeenth century and first half of the eighteenth century, this age group ranges from 11% to 17% of the total population. Then, in the third and fourth quarters of the eighteenth century, it jumps to 31% and 38% of the population.

Comparing the proportion of ages in the rural and urban assemblages dating to the first half of the eighteenth century shows there is a very close similarity, a signal to zooarchaeologists, who interpret the similarity as being indicative of a largely unspecialized economy. What is striking, however, is what happens in the age data for the second half of the eighteenth century. Proportionately more of the youngest age group remained at home on the plantation, while proportionately more of the 12-24 month age group went to market. This evidence is significant because it points to two issues; it identifies when rural planters had begun to alter their husbandry in response to commercial markets, and it points to when urban consumers became increasingly dependent upon commercially produced goods, rather than those they might have produced themselves or obtained from friends and relatives living in the nearby countryside.

The archaeological tooth wear data, which is thought by zooarchaeologists to be the more accurate, does not support the long bone data as closely as the two sets of data do for the cattle and caprine remains. These data show, on the whole, a much younger population, and the older age groups are almost absent. If the cattle and caprine tooth wear data behaved similarly, one could support the standard interpretation that zooarchaeologists should rely upon tooth wear and dismiss the long bone data as being too problematical. However, given the extremely close correlation between the cattle long bone, tooth wear, and 45 RR040412 Figure 2.11. Domestic swine kill-off patterns based on long bone fusion. RR040413 Figure 2.12. Domestic swine kill-off patterns based on tooth wear. probate inventory data, such a dismissal should not be made. Additional analyses of these data are needed, but for now one theory explaining the discrepancy between the swine long bone and tooth wear data is under consideration. Following the zooarchaeological assumption that tooth wear captures all age groups, and it should therefore be the more reliable, one must ask the question, "Where are the mandibles of the older population?" It appears that the distribution of pig heads followed separate rules. Perhaps pig heads had become enough of a delicacy that wealthy planters kept the younger ones for themselves, and served them as elegant dishes to themselves and their guests. In kitchen refuse related to George Washington's household, for example, a large number of young pig mandibles was carefully butchered axially and longitudinally, leaving no doubt that they represent intentional cuts of meat. Heads from the older individuals may have gone to their slaves. Future analyses of faunal assemblages associated with slaves and poorer white households may some day help to verify this theory.

Nonetheless, a careful consideration of the tooth wear evidence shows that a large proportion of the population was slaughtered between 12 and 24 months, and that over time an increasing number of individuals this age group were slaughtered. In town, the proportion of 12-24 month old individuals consumed grew from 27% in the first half of the century to over 40% of the population in the second half of the eighteenth century. In this sense, there is a strong agreement between the long bone and tooth wear data, and they both point to 1750 as a time when planters began to fatten pigs specifically for market.

Documentary sources confirm this interpretation. In particular laws passed restricting livestock movements help pinpoint when urban residents began to depend upon market foods rather than foods they obtained through their own personal sources. This dependency began as early as 1710, when Williamsburg residents began a campaign to restrict hogs from rooting within the city and in certain adjacent places. Later in 1714 they enacted a law restricting hogs. "…after the first day of March, …no hog, shoat, or pig, which shall be above the age of Two Months, not being Ringed or having the nose thereof Cutt Sufficiently to prevent such Hog, Shoat, or pig from Rooting, Shall be suffered to go at large within the Space of one Mile from the Church now building in the Said City, or within the Limitts of the Ports to the Said City…".72 Despite the passing of this laws, pigs still were going at large in the city, for again in 1722 another petition was made.73

Maryland colonists also made moves to restrict hogs, when in 1731 a bill was passed by the lower House prohibiting the raising of hogs in any town in the Province.74 In Virginia, however, legislatures chose to restrict livestock movements town by town, and petitions restricting not only hogs, but also cattle, sheep, and horses continued to be made through the 47 1740s. This is very close to the time the zooarchaeological evidence identifies as the period in which planters began to raise hogs for profit.

Cattle

In the British Isles farmers had responded to markets for many hundreds of years, but for the most part they engaged in subsistence agriculture and raised livestock using the husbandry methods they had known for generations. On medieval farms little supplemental feed was provided. Oxen were given hay and then oats in the winter, calves were given a little barley or oats, and cows received only hay and straw. When bullocks were fattened, they were mostly fed straw and hay, and stall-feeding, which was expensive, was rare among these farmers.75 Those farmers who did raise livestock for sale used fattening techniques to hasten the growth of their livestock. Biddick demonstrates in a study of manoral husbandry that monasteries having differing types of land each kept cattle during different phases of their development, then when they had matured to a good slaughter weight sent them to market. During the first half of the eighteenth century, when progressive agrarian writers had begun to promote the use of highly specialized foods such as turnips, many areas still continued to rely upon old methods.76 In the highlands of Scotland, cattle continued to graze on hilly unimproved pastures most of the winter, they were fed little supplemental feed, and consequently they tended to be very small. Here in this environment cattle reached a marketable age usually in the autumn of their fourth or fifth year of life.77

In the lowlands where pasturage was rich, however, different techniques were used. During the winter months cattle were fattened by way of yard or stall-feeding with peas and oats, hay, cabbage and turnips.78 Here heifers reached maturity at 3 years of age, while steers, who matured more slowly, were ready to finish at 4-5 years.

As markets developed between 1700 and 1750, British farmers responded to the demand for meat by bringing into use the new fodder crops being promoted by the agrarian pioneers, but using them within the parameters of their traditional form of husbandry. "All in all, the early eighteenth century practices may be seen as extensions of the mediaeval and post-mediaeval husbandry methods, made to meet the needs of the great mouth [urban consumer]…. Only here and there were men to be seen digging the first trial trenches for the foundations of the great superstructure of the new stock and the stockmanship."79 As Trow-Smith advises, identifying the commercially-focused husbandry of this period is not so much in identifying fundamental shifts in herding methods, as it is in identifying the use of these new fodder and pasturage crops.

The turnip and cabbage began to replace the bare fallow obtained in mixed husbandry, while clovers, lucerne, and sainfoin were brought in to enrich pastures. Techniques used to add fat to fully grown and lean frames of mature animals varied. One method was for cattle breeders to gauge the quality of grass on their land. If it was in poor condition, they might sell off store beef cheap, but if pastures were lush and hay was plentiful, they would fatten the store cattle 48 themselves, then sell them at market for high prices.80 Working between these two extremes, graziers used pastures, grain they could not sell, hay, cereals, pulses, and the new fodder crops of the seventeenth century, turnips and cabbages. The imported concentrated foods such as oilcakes, and carrots and potatoes, which were the result of the progressive writers of the eighteenth century, were not used until the second half of the century, when the more progressive farmers introduced these into their husbandry and they began to alter the physical environments of their farms.

Cattle husbandry in the Chesapeake remained firmly rooted in the open woodlands pasture system throughout the eighteenth century. From the early seventeenth century constraints were placed on cattle. At the beginning tight constraints were in large part due to the need to defend them from Native Americans, which they did by keeping them enclosed at night and in herds that were watched by keepers.81 After these early years, constraints loosened, but penning was retained as an integral element of their herding system. References describe this element of herding in the wealthy planter's husbandry of the late seventeenth century. "After they clear'd a fresh piece of Ground out of the Woods, it will not bear Tobacco past two or three Years, unless Cow-pened; for they manure their Ground by keeping their Cattle, as in the South you do your Sheep, every night confining them within Hurdles, which they have removed when they have sufficiently dung'd one spot of Ground…."82 Since manure imparted a bad taste to tobacco, it has been presumed that planters avoided this ancient method of fertilizing soils. However, the increased numbers of references to pens for cattle and sheep, cowyards, and pig stys and their close association with manuring during the eighteenth century indicates confining livestock remained an integral and strong element of plantation agriculture, possibly for fertilizing tobacco but maybe more frequently for fertilizing corn and wheat fields .83

In the eighteenth century planters followed a path that was similar in many ways to the path followed by British farmers. Immersed in their own traditions of allowing cattle, probably steers and dry cows, to feed in woodland pasturage, and keeping cows on fields alongside the growing numbers of sheep, they managed their free ranging stock. Thomas Anburey, a Lieutenant in the Army of General Burgoyne, left valuable accounts of this form of husbandry, since he observed husbandry as it was practiced by the less privileged planters and tenant farmers. According to this visitor, even in the 1780s cattle husbandry remained firmly rooted in the past, cattle were fed little supplemental feed, and their growth remained stunted.84 Another statement 49 by visitor John Smyth exhibits a firm European bias, but it provides useful clues on how livestock were generally cared for. "…very great numbers of black cattle, horses, and hogs actually … run at large, entirely wild, without any other proprietors than those of the ground they happen to be found upon. In some parts, each person, in possession of a plantation, has what is called a right in the woods; by which he is entitled to the property of a certain proportion of the livestock that runs wild, such as I just described…."85 There can be no doubt that livestock herding remained firmly rooted in the woodland pasture system.

How extensive these woodland pastures were at any time during the colonial period remains uncertain. One late-seventeenth century traveler, Dauphine de Durand remarked that farmers generally kept the proportions of their lands at about half in woodland, a fourth as pastures, and the other quarter under cultivation, but further research is needed to determine how different farmers and planters developed their field systems at different times and in different regions.86 What is clear is that woodlands remained an integral part of the pasture system throughout the colonial period. So too was penning. A traditional element in English husbandry that was originally incorporated into the Chesapeake herding system, it remained an integral part throughout the colonial period, but determining the extent to which different farmers and planters incorporated penning into cattle, sheep, and pig husbandry needs further work.

Even as wealthy planters began to raise livestock for sale, they did so within the framework of this woodland pasture system. George Washington, who corresponded with agriculturalist Arthur Young and wrote copiously on his plantation activities at the end of the eighteenth century, gives us a balanced view of woodland husbandry. Woodlands were considered pastures. In 1787 he wrote, "…No more cattle is raised than can be supported by lowland meadows, swamps, & c., and the tops and blades of Indian corn; as very few persons have attended to sowing grasses, and connecting cattle with their crops…."87 In another passage he tells us this pasture system was widespread, and that in its unimproved form still existed throughout the middle and upper parts of the country, where cattle were raised cheaply on the "spontaneous food of forests." In the eastern portion of the Chesapeake, which had been cultivated long enough that forests were depleted, here the farmers probably managed their woodland pastures, but they still did not pen large numbers of cattle and sheep as a means of recovering manure for their fields.88

Woodland pastures remained an integral element in even the wealthy planters herding system. Washington himself refers in 1799 to how he incorporated this traditional element into his 50 progressive herding system, when he reported that the common, or woodland pasture, was to be enclosed with a post and rail fence running from the slave quarters to the river in a manner where the stock would have free and uninterrupted passage from the barn yard to the woodland pasture.89

The current understanding obtained from this research is that woodland pasturage and penning co-existed, but as planters began to raise livestock for sale, they developed fattening techniques using the traditional husbandry methods. Penning probably became the focus for keeping dairy cows, sheep, and beef cattle, while woodland pastures remained the focus of dry cows, yearlings, steers, and pigs. With additional research with plantation records and other sources, the inter-relationship that existed between penning, fields, and woodland pasture systems for both subsistence and commercial husbandry should become clear.

Documentation makes it clear that from as early as the 1730s wealthy planters managed their pastures. Fences and ditches were built to keep livestock out of fields and orchards, but it also controlled when livestock could profitably be kept in to graze on wheat and corn stubble after harvest, and to keep orchards in manageable condition. Joseph Ball affirms this technique when he requested that the calves and yearlings, along with horses, be given the free liberty to go in at all times into the peach orchard, where they would keep the broom grass which would kill the trees down.90

The use of Indian corn for supplemental feed and the use of blades and tops as fodder was widespread and probably the manner in which most farmers fed their livestock. Beginning in the 1690s, corn tops and blades began to be valued in York County, Virginia probate inventories, and indication of their more systematic preservation and use. But as early as 1724 Hugh Jones reported that some planters had introduced good clover and oats, and some even planted the imported perennial herb sainfoin. Later in 1744 Joseph Ball had begun to sow worn out tobacco soil with rye to let it revert back to a cowpen.91 In the 1760s, references to introduced feed and grasses increase, indicating more were beginning to experiment with different methods, including feeding meal and hominy, and planting burnet and lucerne in pastures. By the 1770s references indicate new feeds included potatoes and turnips, which Landon Carter tells us he used as winter's food for "the cattle that gives milk".92

Wealthy planters also recognized the effect too many livestock had on their pastures. To prevent them being overgrazed, Joseph Ball gave specific instructions of how many cattle, hogs, horses, and sheep should be kept on any one of his plantations. Writing to his nephew, he instructed him, "You must not keep too many cows, nor sows: and when there are too many calves, or Pigs, you must kill some and Eat them, and you must kill the Cow calves, if they be out 51 of proportion. The best way to have a Good Stock, is not to have too many breeders and steers are more easily kept than Cows: & will sell better…."93

Much of this effort was driven by commercial goals, and as planters responded to markets they began to shift from a subsistence-oriented form of husbandry, where livestock were allowed to fatten as they matured. As in Britain the Chesapeake planters kept an eye on profit, and husbandry techniques aimed to produce livestock more profitably for market were introduced. Penned cattle gained weight faster and their dung that accumulated in the pens could be used as fertilizer.94 Stalls also were built as a relatively new way to fatten cattle. In 1757 Landon Carter described his new additions. The pens were 40 square yards and held 60 cattle, where dung could be collected, and the new roofed cow stalls kept the cattle and their feed dry and warm. Built to hold 30 head of cattle, the stall was roofed, raised a foot above the yard, and contained a crib where cattle could feed themselves. Here, Carter kept yearlings which he fed wheat chaff and hay, and cows which were about to give birth. These calves were allowed to remain with their mother while nursing, so that they would grow strong and healthy.95

The archaeological age data supports the interpretation that cattle husbandry remained firmly rooted in its woodland-based husbandry system throughout the eighteenth century (see Figs. 2.13 and 2.14). Comparing the rural seventeenth and eighteenth century assemblages, the oldest age group composed of all cattle older than 48 months remained the dominant group for two hundred years, with the troublesome exception of the assemblages dating to the first half of the eighteenth century, which contains far greater numbers of individuals aged 24-36 months than any other period. Zooarchaeologists point to differential preservation, particularly dog chewing, as the most likely explanation for biases in the long bone data base. The tooth wear evidence, which is claimed to be the more accurate, however, does not refute the long bone data; in fact it supports ages found in the long bone data. A fuller discussion of the fine points in this problem can be found in Appendix 3. For now it appears the apparent problem might be explained in terms of variability in cattle husbandry on either a regional or individual level, but sorting the technical from husbandry-related issues requires further study. For now, the long bone data, which is supported by the tooth wear data, shows that as the eighteenth century progressed, the slaughter population in general was younger, and included larger proportions of individuals aged between 24-48 months. This fact leaves little doubt that the increasingly specialized form of cattle husbandry being adopted by the wealthy plantation owners produced cattle who matured to a slaughter weight at less than approximately four years of age.

Comparing the rural and urban assemblages, it becomes immediately apparent that from the early eighteenth century on, urban dwellers consumed proportionately greater numbers of the very young aged less than 12 months than their rural counterparts. It also is apparent that urban dwellers tended to consume younger beef, as seen in the oldest age group. During the last half of the century, this group is proportionately smaller in the urban assemblages than in the rural, and in their place are greater numbers of the middle age groups, those aged between 24-48 months.

52

RR040414 Figure 2.13. Domestic cattle kill-off patterns based on long bone fusion.

RR040415 Figure 2.14. Domestic cattle kill-off patterns based on tooth wear.

53

It has been suggested that cattle raised in either the Carolinas or the western part of Virginia may well have been marketed in Williamsburg. This indeed may be the case, but considering the similarities that exist between the urban and rural assemblages from the same periods (1700-1740, 1750-1775, and 1775-1800), it seems unlikely that imported cattle played a great role in provisioning Williamsburg residents. In summary, then, it appears that the specialized fattening methods introduced first during the second quarter, then increasingly during the third and fourth quarters of the eighteenth century, reduced the amount of time needed to fatten cattle, and that many of these individuals were bound for market.

While the tooth wear data is statistically very weak, they provide a greater resolution in the slaughter ages. Comparing the rural and urban data, they show that veal was marketed in town

Table 2.3.
YORK COUNTY PROBATE INVENTORY RECORDS
PERCENTAGE OF CATTLE IN VARIOUS AGE GROUPS
Age in Months1620-16601660-17001700-17501750-17751775-1800
0-60.0%0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%
6-120.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
12-3658.8%43.7%63.2%91.1%93.7%
36-4820.6%17.2%22.3%6.7%6.3%
>4819.8%38.9%14.5%1.3%0.0%
Total Cattle (Specific Age Given)1311,4821,258225112
Young50.0%52.0%58.0%68.0%86.0%
Old50.0%48.0%42.0%32.0%14.0%
Total Cattle (General Age Given)10102844463284
Source: York County Records
Note: Total number of probate records: 1620-1660 (52); 1660-1700 (214); 1700-1750 (628); 1750-1775 (316); 1775-1800 (172).
Table 2.4.
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY PROBATE INVENTORY RECORDS
PERCENTAGE OF CATTLE IN VARIOUS AGE GROUPS
Age in Months 1660-17001700-17501750-17751775-1800
12-3657.1%46.0%57%49.3%
36-483.6%26.6%24.9%28.0%
>4839.3%27.6%18.1%22.7%
Total Cattle (Specific Age Given)283.5701,350708
54 but seldom consumed on the plantation. Since there are consistently greater proportions of young in the urban assemblages, it is also clear that proportionately greater amounts of young beef was marketed in town then consumed on the plantation, since few cattle aged greater than 50 months found their way to town. Aged beef was consumed either by the wealthy planter or his slaves.

Further evidence of the fattening of cattle for market is found in both the York County and Anne Arundel County probate inventory records. As can be seen in the changing proportions of age groups, as the eighteenth century progressed herds were composed of fewer and fewer individuals aged greater than 48 months, while younger individuals became increasingly dominant. Since the assemblages discussed are from sites located in and around Tidewater Virginia, the age groups recorded in York County here may in fact be a better comparison than those from Anne Arundel County. On the basis of this historical evidence, it would seem that commercial production began in earnest after 1750, and increased in intensity after 1775.

In assessing the probate data, it is important to understand that in some cases exact ages were recorded, but in many cases only general ages were written down. Thus, two figures have been used, one that gives the proportions of known ages, and another that gives the general categories of "Young" and "Old." When each data set is viewed in its own terms, it becomes clear that they show the same progression. The general grouping identifies the decreasing proportions of older individuals, while the exact ages targets commercially-produced livestock to be in the 12-36 month middle age groups, the same age group identified by the long bone data. Further research with documentary sources, more detailed analyses of both archaeological age data and probate inventories may help to refine this evidence.

Sheep

The introduction of increasing numbers of sheep in the Chesapeake during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries marks an important ecological shift that was similar to the one Europe experienced from Neolithic times into the Roman occupation.96 As forests were felled and fields created out of the woodlands, the keep for browsing cattle and pannaging swine was correspondingly reduced, opening the way for short herbaceous plants that flourished in the cleared environment to become established. Sheep thrived in this evolving landscape, and populations flourished as they spread over the open faces of the countryside.97 In Britain where forests were cleared sheep grew in importance, but where woodlands were maintained herding remained strong.

Throughout the seventeenth-century Chesapeake, swine, cattle, horses, and (to a small extent) goats fed with relative freedom in the woodlands, clearing the way for sheep. By 1688, John Clayton remarked that most wealthy planters had begun to keep flocks of sheep, "so that a piece of mutton is a finer treat than wither venison, wild goose, or duck."98 Records are clear that while the wealthy tended to keep the larger flocks, the poorer did maintain some, and the care given them apparently was what they did for their cattle. In 1762, John Wiley wrote what was 55 probably a biased view: "...there is no dumb Creature taken so little Notice of in Virginia as they; there being but very few People here that take Care to sow any Thing for Winter Pasturage for them, or provide or give them any other food than a few dry Blades in the Winter."99 Landon Carter, a wealthy planter, in 1770 described the plight of less-well-off planters during times of bad weather: "…his Creatures without food very little grass and too weak to range the wet woods for the buds of trees. I have been obliged to give over feeding with Corn…a little to the poor suckling Ewes …".100

As the wealthy planters shifted their focus to raising sheep, so too came a shift from open woodlands husbandry to the mixed species usage of pastures and enclosed fields. Specifically how planters managed sheep within this system is more difficult to discern since most of the documents examined record primarily lambing rates and deaths. But those that do exist indicate that they fed them, like they did cattle, hogs, and horses, Indian corn, and blades and tops as fodder, but unlike their poorer neighbors they created pens, as seen in the 1711 reference by William Byrd, who referred to a sheep-pen and associated them with the care of his cattle, "We moved the sheep-pen with the ox down the walk by the river."101

Several planters referred to cows, sheep, and horses grazing alongside each other in their diaries and written accounts of their farming activities.102 Lord Adam Gordon, for example, wrote in 1765 of Virginia, "…their pastures afford them excellent Beef and Mutton, and their Woods are Stocked with Venison, Game, and Hogs…."103 Landon Carter also probably practiced mixed species grazing on pastures, for he wrote in 1770, "…I have seen every patch but the meadow…But nothing grows and creatures are yet poor. The lambs not filled, the Ewes very spindly, and the Cows with young calves [are pitifully] thin."104

By the end of century, George Washington wrote specifically on the close herding relationship that existed between wheat agriculture and sheep and cattle. "Arable land can yield wheat only by means of Cattle and sheep. It is not dung that is wanted so much, as a change of products, and repose under grass, which is the soul of management; all cleaning and tillage to be given in the year that yields green winter food. In such a system you may produce by means of 40 oxen and 500 sheep, 5000 bushls. of wheat; and if you raise oxen to 60 and the Sheep to 600, you may have so much more wheat. It is only by increasing Cattle that you can increase wheat 56 permanently…."105 Wheat production depended upon cattle and sheep, who grazed upon stubble fields, leaving their manure to enrich the soil. The agricultural benefit is clear.

The wealthier that left records, however, show that by the early eighteenth century some were raised on clover and fed oats, while others were allowed into peach orchards along with hogs, although Joseph Ball remarked in 1744 that they did more harm than the other animals.106 By the 1760s and 1770s planters were consciously incorporating specialized husbandry methods into raising sheep, just as they were doing for their cattle. Landon Carter provided lambs, along with yearling cattle, a house and large yard for them to lie in, and fed them hominy beat fine, fodder, and corn.107 Some were also kept in stalls, along with milch cows, oxen, and beeves.108 Records indicate they, like cattle, were fed food, such as turnips, pea vines, and buck wheat that were recommended by progressive agriculturalists such as Arthur Young.109 Thomas Jefferson, for example, sowed turnips on the wheat stubble, then folded his sheep on the field.110

Although evidence is thin, some of these references to sheep and cattle being pastured together specify cows, a provocative clue that opens the door to understanding the complexities of plantation husbandry. Quite possibly, cattle tended to be allowed to graze in the woodlands, while cows, who may have been with calf, were more likely to be kept closer to home where they could be milked more easily.

Archaeological age data from the rural and urban eighteenth century assemblages provide a useful measure of the changes that occurred in sheep husbandry (see Figs. 2.15 and 2.16). The long bone data demonstrates that in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, sheep were raised for their meat, since these slaughter profiles show a predominance of individuals that were killed during their second and third year. However, they show as the century progressed the older individuals increase dramatically in the rural assemblages, indicating sheep were increasingly were being raised for their wool. Meat had become a secondary product.

Comparing the urban assemblages to the rural of the same time period, it becomes apparent that the urban assemblages mirror the rural assemblages, but contain at any given period more younger individuals than the rural assemblages, and the rural assemblages contain proportionately more older individuals. This is particularly true for the last quarter of the eighteenth century, a sign that the urban market for sheep had increased.

Comparing this evidence with the tooth wear data, there are in any given time period a greater proportion of the youngest age group, but by looking at them in their own terms, and 57 RR040416 Figure 2.15. Domestic caprine kill-off patterns based on long bone fusion. RR040417 Figure 2.16. Domestic caprine kill-off patterns based on tooth wear. 58

Table 2.5.
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY PROBATE INVENTORIES
SHEEP HERD AGE STRUCTURE
Age Group 1660-17001700-17501750-17751775-1800
Young0.0%22.8%2.9%4.0%
Old0.0%77.2%97.1%96.0%
Total Sheep (General Age Given)07321,062790
Source: Anne Arundel County Records
Note: Total number of probate records: 1660-1700 (4); 1700-1750 (777); 1750-1775 (542); 1775-1800 (707). comparing the urban and rural assemblages for any given period, lamb is more prevalent in the urban than rural assemblages. Alternatively, for the older individuals, as seen in the groups greater than 48 months, there seems to be no distinction between urban and rural, a sign that aged mutton was as desirable as younger mutton.

Probate inventory data from Anne Arundel County unfortunately did not record the specific ages of sheep. General categories of young and old, however, were recorded, and they can give a general indication of the trend in herd populations. These data, in fact, support the archaeological evidence, suggesting that beginning at mid-century, sheep herds increased in age.

The combined historical and archaeological evidence demonstrate the close relationship that existed between the herding environment, which evolved to support the sheep herds. Through livestock continually feeding in the woodlands, colonists felling forests, and in their place creating a landscape of fields, pastures, and orchards, the world in which livestock lived slowly changed. With tobacco farming depleting the soils, and tobacco prices falling in Europe, planters shifted their commercial energies into their animals, which originally had been raised for subsistence purposes. As planters shifted their business interests to cattle, hogs, and sheep, they moved consciously to alter the herding system to a commercial base. The changes went hand-in-hand with the growing urban markets in the Chesapeake.

This study of archaeological slaughter patterns and animal husbandry has demonstrated that patterns present in the archaeological record reflect broad economic trends in the regional market system. Urban households that live in urban communities, therefore, are enmeshed in economic trade systems and personal choice is limited by the availability of foods.

The closeness that existed between the regional agricultural system and the urban market is reminiscent of such systems that exist in the modern Third World, where food staples such as meats, grains, and vegetables are produced locally.111 In these unspecialized markets, residents often maintain some relationship with rural producers. Some urban dwellers own nearby farms, some depend upon kin or friends to provide them with food, and others purchase meat from 59 farmers at the local marketplace. The age data that shows such a close similarity, particularly during the first half of the eighteenth century demonstrates that this was true of Williamsburg.

Studies of these Third World markets have shown that, as urban centers grow and become more commercially-based, personal relationships give way to impersonal business relationships, and the flow of rural produce into town increases. Farmers respond to this new opportunity by intensifying subsistence-oriented forms of husbandry.

Zooarchaeologists have demonstrated how the process of urbanization affects animal husbandry.112 In small-scale systems, farmers raise a variety of livestock to produce meat and other products primarily for their own consumption, although they also produce small surpluses that they sell to urban consumers. The ages of animals found in urban assemblages, therefore, resemble those found in rural sites. But in large-scale economies, specialized husbandry methods to raise younger animals specifically for sale are adopted. Through the comparison of rural and urban assemblages, age profiles from rural assemblages should differ from age profiles from urban assemblages, and the slaughter patterns should show evidence of specialized forms of animal husbandry.

Age data derived from the many rural and urban sites located in and around Williamsburg monitor the growth of commercialized animal husbandry in the Chesapeake. In general, the closeness between the early eighteenth century rural and urban age profiles show that during the first half of the eighteenth century, Williamsburg and its residents remained intimately tied to their rural surroundings. Some commercial activity is evident in the greater proportions of young veal, younger mutton, lamb, and younger beef that found their way into urban kitchens and into urban trash heaps, but the striking similarity indicates that a measurable degree of dependence on market foods came only after 1750, then grew increasingly thereafter.

D. IMPACT OF TOWNS ON RURAL MARKET ORIENTATION AND SPECIALIZATION

Our project has clearly demonstrated that nearby planters responded positively and creatively to the markets offered by even very small urban populations. The populations of the towns of Williamsburg and Annapolis, the urban places on which we have concentrated our study, were never large by any standard. In the first three quarters of the eighteenth century, the proportion of the Chesapeake populations living in towns seems to have remained relatively constant. In Maryland, for example, Annapolitans constituted 6% of the people of surrounding Anne Arundel County in 1704, 7% in 1755, and still only 6% in 1782-83.113 In Virginia, colonial urban 60 populations were similarly small, and it is likely that their proportion of total local populations also remained relatively constant. After the Revolution in older tidewater counties the percentage of town dwellers rose, not because these towns were growing, but because surrounding rural areas were declining in population. For example in 1790 Williamsburg and Yorktown residents were 18% of the total population of the two counties (York and James City) surrounding the towns.114 In the third quarter of the century, only the port of Norfolk surpassed Williamsburg in population, and its total size prior to the Revolution has probably been exaggerated.115 The size of the resident town populations, however, to some extent minimizes the full scope of these urban markets. During meetings of colonial legislatures and provincial courts, the temporary populations of the capital towns swelled considerably, offering briefly expanded marketing opportunities for rural suppliers able to respond to increased short term demands. Similarly, marketing opportunities in the port towns included the periodic provisioning of large numbers of ships engaged in the tobacco, grain, and West Indian trades, as well as supplying the more predictable needs of permanent town dwellers. Inland towns such as Winchester, Virginia, and Frederick, Maryland, also served as regional provisioning markets for streams of migrants passing through to the south and west, and, especially during the French and Indian War, as centers of distribution for colonial and imperial armies.

After the American Revolution, the pull of town markets increased dramatically, if unevenly. Many of Virginia's towns were severely and adversely affected by the British naval blockade of the Chesapeake throughout most of the conflict; more isolated Baltimore prospered, but Norfolk burned, and Yorktown never recovered from the devastation inflicted by occupying forces. Annapolis, which continued after the war as the Maryland state capital, gained population up to 1800; then its size stabilized up to 1830 at around 2,200. Once Virginia's capital moved to Richmond in 1780, Williamsburg became no more than a sleepy, inconsequential county seat. Between 1790 and 1830 Williamsburg's population fluctuated between 1,200 and 1,400, its size in 1782. But elsewhere in the state, Alexandria, Fredericksburg, Norfolk, Petersburg, Portsmouth, and Winchester grew into towns of a size similar to or surpassing Williamsburg. And at the same time a number of other, smaller Virginia towns also reached populations of between 300 and 600, enough, our study suggests, to have had a demonstrable impact on farmers living in their immediate hinterlands.116

During and after the Revolution, Baltimore developed as the region's first true city, reaching a population of over 13,000 by 1790. The Baltimore market, not surprisingly, markedly affected the management strategies of planters and farmers living within the immediate marketing area. In addition, the pull of this market was so strong that large planters living as far away as the relatively isolated lower Eastern shore of Maryland and Virginia, as well as in the Maryland and Virginia Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley, occasionally opted to send crops, the District of Columbia was established, similar local dynamics of demand and supply began to produce, and 61

Table 2.6.
POPULATION OF SELECTED CHESAPEAKE TOWNS, 1704-1790
Town17041747-81755177517821790
Annapolis2728751,2991,1522,170
Baltimore13,503
Alexandria2,748
Fredericksburg1,485
Norfolkc.3,0001,2102,959
Petersburg2,828
Portsmouth1,702
Richmond9723,761
Williamsburg8851,8801,4241,344
Winchester1,651
Yorktown661
Sources: Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1790 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1908); Lorena S. Walsh, "Anne Arundel County Population," in "Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, Maryland: A Study of Urban Development in a Tobacco Economy, 1649-1775, Final Report to the National Endowment for the Humanities, Grant No. RS-20199-91-1955, 1983; Edward C. Papenfuse, In Pursuit of Profit: The Annapolis Merchants in the Era of the American Revolution, 1763-1805 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), pp. 14-15, 155; Kevin P. Kelly, "The People of York County in the Eighteenth Century", in "Urbanization in the Tidewater South, Part II: The Growth and Development of Williamsburg and Yorktown," Final Report to the National Endowment for the Humanities, Project No. RO-20869-85, 1989; Michael L. Nicholas, "Aspects of the African American Experience in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg and Norfolk," ms. report, 1990. livestock there instead of selling to local dealers. Once the new national capital in influence the production strategies of planters within effective transport range.117

The extent of planters' responses to these emerging markets has been minimized in the historical literature because, in part, some of the effects of these markets cannot readily be distinguished from the effects of rising inter-colonial and trans-Atlantic demands for basic foodstuffs. In the second three quarters of the eighteenth century, towns were just one of several growing markets for wheat, corn, and, to a lesser extent, livestock, to which planters responded. General management strategies and mix of major cash crops were similar on plantations like Carter's Grove, that was producing everything but tobacco primarily for town markets, and other large plantations distant from and uninvolved with urban provisioning. Europe, the West Indies, and the northern colonies constituted much larger markets that, given trade networks centered on Britain, were as easy or easier to reach than many urban markets inside the region.

The differential impact of urban demands for grain and livestock becomes clear from comparison of Table 2.7, which shows Williamsburg's estimated requirements for meat and grain in 1775, when its population was at its height for this period, with Table 2.8 which records the quantities of foodstuffs sold off the adjoining Bray and Burwell plantations. Between 1765 and 1781 (when production records are relatively complete), the Burwell plantations alone produced enough surplus corn annually to supply the standard adult requirement of three barrels of shelled corn a year for at least 150 non farming adult town residents.118 Ten large plantations producing at a comparable level could have supplied all of Williamsburg's needs for corn to feed both the humans and their urban animals. Great planters of course were not the only area farmers producing surplus grains, so it is clear that urban needs could be easily met from nearby plantations.

62
Table 2.7.
WILLIAMSBURG POPULATION AND ESTIMATED FOOD REQUIREMENTS IN 1775
CategoryNumberMeat PoundsCorn BarrelsWheat Bushels
Whitesa
Males 16 and over327119,355981654
Males under 1617838,982320214
Femalesb389
[16 and over][195]59,075585324
[under 16][194]42,486349233
Total Whites894259,8982,2351,425
Blacks
Males 16 and over26313,6767890
Males under 162065,3563090
Females517
[16 and over][289]15,0288670
[under 16][228]5,9283240
Total Blacks98639,9882,3070
Total1,880299,8864,5421,425

Notes: The figures in brackets are estimations. For whites, it was assumed that there were equal numbers above and below 16, the approximate proportion in a Maryland census of 1755. The number of adult black females, following Kelly, "The People of York County, p. 9. was estimated by applying the child-adult ratio reported for black males.
Meat consumption was estimated as follows. For adult white males 1 lb. per day, for adult white females .83 lb. per day, for white children .6 lb. per day. For adult black males and females 1 lb per week; for black children .5 lb. per week.
Corn consumption was estimated at 3 bbls. per year for all adults and 1.5 bbls. for all children. Wheat consumption was estimated at 2 bu. per year for adult white men, 1.66 bu. per year for adult white women, and 1.2 bu. for children.

Table 2.8.
QUANTITIES OF SELECTED FOODS SOLD FROM THE
BURWELL AND BRAY PLANTATIONS, 1736-1789.
YearCorn BarrelsWheat BushelsCornmeal BushelsFlour Lbs. Pork Lbs.Beef Lbs.Mutton Lbs.Butter Lbs.
17362529145930914125
173727862170491499
173861302170491439
1739604521705014610
174035928351125336
1741154710821116107
1742649246140189917423
17443305356981307483569
17451579002
174654440638
1747813226162
17481132270619125
174942010563538171
1750403
175122560096183120108
17527390
17535767
1754
175516702843
1756142405
1764587888
1765679381134917
1766465373180836
1767621456946
17687255311366
1769487479451180781
1770296102218551
1771377462349
177247149488
17734758229129249
17741673939661244108559500
17751172891199442942001704479
1776671285894792496501220
1777568225272362636219312
1778267763475125553835351290
17795320237785403061171
178010756110
17813861820
17824052580304732
1783587913060243149
1784131181062381
17854821715116528285
1786632910797377042460
178714435221440807
178846144155117
1789138712683239
Sources: Burwell and Bray Plantation Accounts.

Notes: Quantities of products sold is understated for the 1750s, 177273, and the 1780s, years for which the plantation records are incomplete. Butter sales were probably reported only in the early 1740s and for the 1760s. Meat sales are slightly understated since some unspecified quantities could not be included, no attempt was made to convert some parts of animals sold into pounds where the weight of the piece was not stated, and sales of a small number of live cattle and sheep were omitted, since some of these may have been sold for breeding purposes rather than for meat.

64

Williamsburg's wheat requirements were probably quite modest. A variety of records from Chesapeake plantations make it clear that corn was the predominant grain consumed in the countryside; even elite rural families reserved only a few bushels out of a year's crop for household use. Urban household accounts, discussed below, make it clear that town dwellers did consume more wheat bread than countryfolk. Cultural preferences may well have played a role, especially among European immigrants, as did the ability, seldom present in the countryside, to purchase ready-baked bread in town. For town dwellers who lacked the time or the domestic staff to prepare meals that needed long cooking, wheat bread was a decided convenience. Still we are certain that they ate far less than the pound of wheat bread a day that it is estimated adult laborers in Philadelphia ate at this time. A pound of bread per week, or about one bushel of wheat per year, appears much closer to the mark.119 However in this estimate we set consumption for the white population at 2 bushels per year for adult men and proportional amounts for women and children. The half of Williamsburg's population who were enslaved surely consumed little or no wheat. So when one adds in the even greater amount of wheat flour sold from Burwell's mill in its years of maximum production (1776-78), it appears that a single big plantation was capable of providing between a third and a half of Williamsburg's likely demand for this grain. Consequently it becomes immediately clear that production of grains for local urban markets was an option only for a limited number of planters and farmers in immediately surrounding areas.

Provisioning of livestock, however, was another matter. Over the same period, the Burwell plantations produced enough surplus pork and beef to feed only 10 town dwellers at the rate of a pound of meat per day, the customary allotment for soldiers and free male laborers, and up to 70 at the niggardly provisioning rate of a pound of meat per week then customarily allotted to adult plantation slaves.120 Urban demands for meat thus appear to have had a much broader impact on farmers in both surrounding and more distant areas than did demands for grain, a finding that validates our initial decision to place special emphasis on this subject in our research design. Large planters in the immediate area could and did increase meat production to some extent, but, absent a through going commitment to intensive livestock husbandry, they could not supply town demands for meat on nearly the same scale as they could town demands for grain. Some rough calculations based on Williamsburg's census for 1775 illustrate the magnitude of the difference. If one allots the free male population age 16 and over a pound of meat per day, free adult females .83 pound, those under 16 years .6 pound, and the adult slaves a pound per week 65 and the children half a pound per week, then the meat requirements of the total population would have been about 300,000 pounds a year. Pork and beef sold off Carter's Grove averaged only 3,600 pounds a year between 1769 and 1778, just over 1% of the estimated need of the resident population. The pull of urban meat markets thus affected not only some as yet unidentified combination of large, middling, and small planters in the immediate hinterlands of the town, but of more distant producers as well.

Although the total populations of Williamsburg and Annapolis were of similar size across much of the period studied here, it is likely that their total provisioning requirements differed somewhat. At the outbreak of the Revolution, only half of Williamsburg's residents were whites or free blacks, but in Annapolis, free persons were 65% of that town's population. Evidence from probate inventories suggests that slaves were proportionately fewer in Annapolis than in Williamsburg in earlier years as well. The higher proportion of whites in Annapolis likely meant that Annapolitans' aggregate demand for meat and wheat was somewhat greater than that of Williamsburg residents overall. Any additional wheat the larger free population of Annapolis may have consumed would have been too small to have any impact on surrounding farms. But the analysis of rural meat production presented here, coupled with the archaeological evidence, suggests that the protein demands of only a few extra free households were sufficient to affect livestock management strategies among local farmers.

Moreover, the individual plantation records we analyzed for this project, as do the records of other Chesapeake farmers, suggest that planters found it much easier to expand outputs of surplus pork than of beef. Additional hogs could be fattened on inferior corn, the supply of which increased with expanded corn production, and on bran, a by-product of milling, while the number of cattle that a planter could maintain remained much more dependent on available and increasingly stressed woodland and pasture resources. The evidence from the plantation records shows that in the last half of the eighteenth century, large planters were not producing nearly as much surplus beef as they were pork. Given the clear archaeological evidence of consumption of nearly equal proportions of beef and pork, it follows that urban residents regularly drew on more distant sources for beef than they likely did for pork.

66

III. PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD IN TOWNS

A. OVERVIEW OF SOURCES OF SUPPLY, CONSUMER STRATEGIES, AND MARKET ORIENTATION

In addition to direct purchase of foodstuffs from large area planters, Chesapeake town dwellers also turned to other, town based sources to supply some of their dietary wants and needs. This section addresses these other sources of supply-self-sufficient production, town markets, intermediate processors, retail stores, mills, taverns, and petty hucksters. As town populations grew across the eighteenth century, markets and middlemen played an expanded role in town provisioning, and relations between consumers and producers began to change, shifting to some extent from ad hoc personal exchanges to the more impersonal relationships characteristic of large cities like Baltimore. Williamsburg, Annapolis, and even Norfolk and Richmond had not yet reached this scale, but even in these towns, residents were not totally isolated from the forces of increasingly integrated national and international markets in the early years of the new republic.

In small-scale regional market systems such as the one that developed in the Chesapeake early in the eighteenth century, the business of provisioning was conducted largely on the basis of personal, face-to-face relationships. Some Williamsburg residents kept a cow or two in town, or they owned a nearby plantation from which they could obtain food, while others depended upon kin or friends living in the nearby countryside to provide them with food. Families who lacked these economic and social resources purchased meat and other produce from area planters like the Burwells and Brays, or at the local marketplace from smaller farmers and from slaves. Middlemen such as merchants, butchers, and other purveyors of regionally-produced foods initially had a relatively small role to play in provisioning urban consumers.

As the eighteenth century progressed, Williamsburg's population increased and the availability of lands in town where livestock could be kept diminished. As a result of this urban growth, middlemen increasingly took over the role of urban provisioning, and urban households came to rely to a greater and greater extent on commercially-produced foods. The extent to which individuals relied upon these sources varied, depending upon their own inclination as well as their personal resources. Some continued to grow foods in their gardens, or keep livestock nearby in pastures and in stalls; some no doubt continued to obtain foods from their personal networks; others bought varying amounts from merchants, butchers, and the marketplace.

Following accepted practice, townspeople who owned livestock could let them run freely on nearby lands. But beginning as early as the first decades of the eighteenth century, attempts were made to restrict the presence of livestock in town. As the numbers of grazing livestock increased, nearby lands felt the impact of too many animals, and laws were passed to protect the landowner's ability to maintain his own herds. In the town of West Point in 1713, those living in 68 town who had no freehold or tenancy in lands were restricted to keeping only two cows and two horses.1 No doubt this forced a change on urban husbandry practices.

Probate inventories left by Williamsburg residents indicate that during the first half of the eighteenth century, only a few urban residents owned large numbers of cattle. James McKindo, for instance, owned 49 cattle, including cattle, cows, and calves, and Giles Moody owned 34 head, but generally those who left probate records owned at the time of their death one or maybe two cows and a calf. By the 1760s and 1770s, it appears very few kept large herds, although William Prentis owned 42 head of cattle when he died in 1765, and Governor Francis Fauquier owned 22 head in 1772. Generally speaking, large herds had receded to the countryside.

Bones thrown away by urban diners can often help elucidate the relationships that existed between the regional agricultural system, the urban market, availability of staple foods, and degree to which urban households depended upon commercial food sources. Zooarchaeologists, who have worked with bones from ancient civilizations where large-scale market systems evolved, have developed three means to measure the degree of urban dependency on commercially-produced foods: age profiles, dietary diversity, and element distributions.2 In an urban environment, age profiles from domesticated cattle, pigs, and sheep should show a specialized form of animal husbandry. The variety and relative importance of different animals should reveal whether the combination of decreased habitat in urban areas and decreased contact with rural residents markedly reduced the availability of wild animals for urban consumers. Element distributions of the major domestic mammals should show the effects of commercial butchery and marketing. Taken as a whole, these pieces of evidence measure the extent to which a provisioning system had become specialized.3

In practice, interpreting these changes has been an extremely complex task. The group of faunal assemblages that has been pulled together for the Chesapeake, however, has provided an unparalleled opportunity to explore the intricacies of provisioning in complex societies. Rural assemblages date from the first decades of settlement through the early nineteenth century, and urban assemblages date from the first years when Williamsburg and Annapolis were established through the colonial period. Together the rural and urban assemblages have helped to identify in greater detail that ever before the complexities of urban provisioning as it was played out in a plantation economy based on slave labor and the commercial production of tobacco.

Age Data

As developed in the previous chapter, slaughter ages reveal the extent to which rural producers had adopted specialized techniques aimed at raising livestock for sale rather than home consumption. Summarizing age data obtained for cattle, swine, and sheep, it appears that it was mid-century when wealthy planters began to intensify their efforts at raising livestock for sale. See 69 Chapter 2 for a full interpretation of the results obtained from slaughter data, and Appendix 3 for a discussion of the technical aspects of aging archaeological remains.

Diversity Estimates

The second measure used to establish the extent to which urban residents depend upon commercial food sources is an assessment of the amount of diversity of domesticated and wild animals in the diet. It is assumed that in small-scale systems, where urban consumers have direct ties to food producers, they have access to the same animals as rural consumers, and consequently the diversity present in rural and urban assemblages is similar. But in large-scale economies, where urban consumers depend almost completely on market sources for their food, there is a narrower range of animals from which to choose. As a result of the decreased availability, faunal assemblages from urban sites tend to show less diversity than assemblages from rural sites.

Most commonly, divergence between the rural and urban diet is viewed in terms of the number of wildlife species present and the proportion of wild vs. domestic taxa. Archaeologists working with historic faunal assemblages in North America have hypothesized that the proportional decrease of wildlife in urban diets is the direct result of diminishing habitat, although recent work has demonstrated that commercial fishing at times had the opposite effect of increasing the number of fish available to urban consumers.4 Clearly, the question of the diminishing presence of wildlife in the urban diet needs further exploration.

Results of dietary analyses for the faunal assemblages gathered for this study are mixed. They show slightly lower proportions of wildlife in urban sites, a general observation that would provide mild support to the zooarchaeological claim that urban diets should show an increasing dependence on domestic food sources. But the percentages for both rural and urban sites are too small to make any interpretation about whether the small proportion of wildlife is related to diminished habitat, rural connections, or, particularly in the case of fish, the commercial marketing of different sources of wildlife. Further work is are needed to identify differences that might be present.

It appears that, for both rural and urban consumers, wildlife was never a significant factor in the Chesapeake diet. In the seventeenth century wildlife made up anywhere from 9% to 23% of the total meat diet. In the eighteenth century the total consumption of wildlife remained a small and even less significant part of most people's diets. Despite this, there was a disparity between the rural and urban diet as early as 1700-1740. Differences are very slight, and useable meat weight and biomass estimates differ slightly, but each demonstrates that throughout the eighteenth century urban dwellers consumed less wildlife than their rural neighbors.

In terms of useable meat weights, during the 1700-1740 period the rural diet consisted of 6% wild, while the urban diet consisted of 5% wild; during the 1750-1775 period the rural diet consisted of 9% wild, while the urban diet consisted of 4% wild; then during the 1775-1800 period the rural diet consisted of 5% wild, while the urban diet consisted of 4% wild (Figs. 3.1 and 3.2). In terms of biomass estimates, during the 1700-1740 period the rural diet consisted of 70 RR040418 Figure 3.1. Relative dietary importance in rural Chesapeake, 1620-early 19th century. Based on biomass. RR040419 Figure 3.2. Relative dietary importance in urban Chesapeake areas, 1700-early 19th century. Based on biomass. 3% wild, while the urban diet consisted of 1% wild. During the 1750-1775 period the rural diet consisted of 7% wild, while the urban diet consisted of 2%; and lastly during the 1775-1800 period, the rural diet consisted of 3% wild, while the urban diet consisted of 2% wild.

While the urban data does differ somewhat from the rural, there is also significant regional variability between the upper and lower Chesapeake. The diets of Annapolis residents differed significantly from the diets of Williamsburg residents. Why is this so? Even though historians have 71 shown that from the early years of settlement variability in agricultural production was present in the Chesapeake, zooarchaeologists have presumed that dietary patterns were largely identical throughout the region.5 Such a position is based on the implicit assumption that dietary differences reflect a "Chesapeake culture." Normally, boundary definitions are defined internally, i.e., if a region such as the Chesapeake perceives itself, or is perceived by others to be a distinct and cohesive group, foodways will be perceived in those terms.6 So firm has this assumption been for the Chesapeake, that debates explaining variability seen in the archaeological record have focused on excavation recovery methods, analytical techniques, even sometimes the identification skill of the analyst. Never has intra-regional variability been an issue. It should be.

It appears that intra-regional agricultural variability within the Chesapeake was strong enough to cause the diets of Williamsburg and Annapolis residents to differ significantly. While Annapolis and Williamsburg residents consumed the same items, the proportions differed significantly. In fact, the diets of Williamsburg residents had more distinct similarities with the diets of their rural counterparts.

These dietary differences could be attributed to distinct cultural differences that evolved in the northern and southern Chesapeake. Distinct differences now discerned in architectural features of the surviving houses in Annapolis and Williamsburg support this interpretation, but the similarity between the faunal assemblages from Williamsburg and the nearby hinterlands, combined with distinctly different proportions of livestock and wildlife from all the Annapolis assemblages from all time periods and all households, suggests that variability in agriculture played a stronger role in defining diet. Cultural differences between the two areas may have been expressed in how individuals prepared their foods and how they served them. But the consistency of the diet which crossed over socioeconomic levels and over long time periods of time, leads to the conclusion that it was agricultural differences between the rural areas surrounding Williamsburg and Annapolis, including the availability of livestock, that were distinct and different enough to alter dietary patterns.

Even during the early years of settlement in the area surrounding Jamestown, cattle became the predominant livestock. Pigs contributed the second largest amount to the diet, and sheep followed far behind in third place. Similar proportions of cattle, pig, and sheep persisted from the seventeenth into the early nineteenth century both in rural and urban households. In fact, the relative percentages of beef, pork, and mutton found in Williamsburg trash pits are similar to 72 that found in rural trash pits, suggesting that there existed a direct connection of produce from the rural hinterlands to nearby towns.

Evidence obtained from probate inventories from York County, Virginia, and Anne Arundel County, Maryland, support the interpretation that diet reflected the local agriculture. In general, the percentages of animals listed in the inventories parallel the ranked importance of meat represented in the assemblages from sites located in those regions, with a much greater percentage of sheep in the Anne Arundel data and a much larger percentage of cattle in the York County inventories. The limited number of Annapolis assemblages makes the Maryland data less convincing, but those assemblages that were available date over the entire century, and are associated with different types of households (including the elite Calvert family, who could produce and purchase any food item they desired, and a tavern keeper and printer, both of whom are more likely to have purchased food from commercial sources). It may be that the extremely large quantities of mutton in both the early and late Calvert assemblages represent a wealthy family able to obtain even the rarest foods, but the proportions of mutton represented in the Reynolds Tavern and Jonas Green assemblages suggest that mutton was in fact important even in middle-class diets.

Table 3.1.
YORK COUNTY AND ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY PROBATE INVENTORIES
LIVESTOCK, 1620-1800
1620-16601660-17001700-17501750-17751775-1800
LivestockNo. PctNo.PctNo.PctNo.PctNo.Pct
York County
Cattle43259%381157%12,12144%4,51440%3,17836%
Swine23132%158924%9,00733%4,14937%3,39538%
Sheep00%6249%4,58217%2,00718%1,78020%
Goats416%110.2%00%70%00%
Horses/Mules266%6039%1,5316%5755%4625%
Total7306,63827,24111,2528,815
Anne Arundel County
Cattle7448%15,27934%8,74027%8,00225%
Swine5535%18,66341%13,83042%12,76639%
Sheep2013%8,46019%7,5680%8,29426%
Goats00%20%00%40%
Horses/Mules64%2,9877%2,5098%3,28910%
Total15545,39132,64732,355

An immediate contribution of this dietary evidence is the affirmation of the very local nature of historic market systems that drew directly from local plantations. Zooarchaeological evidence from Annapolis is not strong enough to determine either the strength of personal connections in that area nor the degree of dependence upon commercial foods, since no rural assemblages from that area were analyzed. But the strong rural and urban components of the Williamsburg and its hinterlands provide ample evidence that can determine if, and when, rural and urban diets came to differ from each other.

73
Element Distributions

According to zooarchaeologists, in small urban centers such as the ones that developed in the Chesapeake during the early eighteenth century, municipal governments do not regulate where the slaughtering, butchering, selling, and disposal of waste parts take place, and residents maintain livestock on or near their property, where they slaughter the animals and process the meat near their homes. Element distributions found in urban assemblages, therefore, should closely resemble those found in rural assemblages. But in increasingly specialized economies where the array of foods and middlemen selling rural produce to urban consumers increase, municipal governments begin to restrict locations where animals can be slaughtered and to regulate what parts of the animals can be sold. Assemblages from highly urbanized market systems, therefore, show an irregular distribution of body parts, a disproportionately large percentage of meat bones, and a low number of bones that are commonly associated with butchering waste.

Element distributions obtained from cattle, calves, swine, and sheep in both rural and urban sites, particularly when taken as a whole, monitor when the sale and processing of commercially produced meat began, and they measure the extent to which urban consumers depended on commercially-produced foods. In this section the overall trends of the market system will be discussed. In the next section on consumption the extent to which different households came to depend on commercial sources of food, including the household provisioning strategies of tradesmen, the elite, and those who had no rural kin, will be presented.

Middlemen and the Sale of Meat in Williamsburg and Other Urban Centers in the Chesapeake

The analysis of urban assemblages is greatly facilitated by the discovery of the remains of the middlemen in the marketing system. In 1983 the construction of a restaurant on the old firehouse lot, directly adjacent to the Historic Area of Colonial Williamsburg, uncovered a dense midden left by a colonial butcher, Benjamin Hanson. Little is known about Hanson other than that he was a free black, the son of a mulatto slave and a free woman, and that he kept sheep and cattle he purchased on pastures on the outskirts of town.7 But the faunal remains uncovered from this midden are a rich record of butchering waste. Dating to the late 1740s, this assemblage captures a time when Williamsburg was a young and growing urban community and the supply system through which rural produce was distributed to urban consumers was evolving to feed a growing population of residents and the periodic swells of rural people who came to attend court and periodic Council meetings.

Hanson's assemblage reflects what is probably waste products from a fairly elaborate butchering operation. Very high percentages of head and foot elements, compared with the normal distribution of elements in a complete skeleton suggest that most of the archaeological remains were the uneaten left-over of the butchering operation, while the meaty portions were sold off to customers (and thus taken off-site). Thus it is possible to gauge the likely "waste" remains and to use these to evaluate how urban consumers differed from their rural counterparts.

74
Table 3.2.
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION
FIREHOUSE SITE (BENJAMIN HANSON, BUTCHER)
HeadBodyFeetN
Normal Distribution—Cattle/Sheep29.7%42.2%28.1%
Firehouse/Cattle40.418.641.0473
Firehouse/Calf62.010.028.050
Firehouse/Sheep91.96.21.9890
Normal Distribution—Swine28.234.537.3
Firehouse/Swine63.821.314.972
Table 3.3.
KILL-OFF PATTERNS
FIREHOUSE SITE (BENJAMIN HANSON, BUTCHER)
CattleSwineCaprine
Age Group% KilledaAge Group%KilledaAge Group%Killeda %Killedb
0-12 Months0.0%0-12 Months33.3%0-12 Months50.0%58.0%
12-24 Months13.312-24 Months54.212-36 Months0.011.0
24-36 Months2.524-36 Months12.536-42 Months0.013.0
36-48 Months67.536-42 Months0.0>42 Months50.018.0
>48 Months16.7>42 Months0.0

Evidence that Benjamin Hanson was purchasing primarily livestock that had been raised specifically for market is found in the age data for cattle, swine, and sheep. Present in each kill-off pattern is a large proportion of livestock slaughtered at the most profitable age, an age referred to in the section on animal husbandry as the "target age." In the case of swine this was at about two years, a time during the development of young swine when they had grown to their adult size and fattened rapidly. In the case of grass-fed cattle, when given supplemental feed such as planters began to do when they fattened cattle for market, cattle matured to a good market weight when they reached three years of age. In the case of sheep, the long bone evidence is weak with only 13 ageable specimens, but it shows planters raised lamb for market. The tooth wear evidence has been included since it demonstrates that Hanson purchased sheep at two and three years, the typical slaughter age for sheep that had been raised for meat.

Sheep

In rural assemblages, element distributions represent on the whole the complete skeleton, indicating that throughout the colonial period rural households, including the wealthy planters, consumed the entire animal. Variability in the proportions of head, body, and foot elements does exist, but for the most part this variability is related to sample size, and it is clear that body parts, head, and feet were consumed by everyone.

While the heads of sheep were consumed in rural households, it is clear that in town during the first three quarters of the eighteenth century they were the least desirable of any cut of 75

Table 3.4.
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF CAPRINE BODY PARTS
RURAL-URBAN COMPARISON
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %Number of BonesNumber of Sites
Normal Skeleton29.742.228.1
Firehouse (Benjamin Hanson)29.96.21.9890
Rural
1620-166033.137.529.52756
1660-170026.326.447.212467
1700-174030.156.813.12594
1750-177543.740.515.88153
1775-180049.844.16.111622
Early 19th C48.539.711.8682
Williamsburg
1700-174018.875.85.41492
1735-175710.976.212.92022
1750-177516.272.611.16474
1775-180032.655.312.14384
Annapolis
1700-175028.563.48.11231
1750-177515.055.030.0401
Mid-Late 18th C39.838.521.34751
1775-180015.668.815.6771
meat. In fact, of all the sheep remains recovered from Benjamin Hanson's butchering waste, over 90% of the bones were from the head. The fact that mutton was seldom, if ever, salted, meant that butchers such as Hanson probably slaughtered sheep they had purchased, then while the mutton was still fresh sold it as individual cuts to urban consumers. Testimony to this marketing strategy for selling a highly perishable item is the element distributions obtained from all urban assemblages. With the exception of one assemblage that was associated with the very wealthy Custis family, all other assemblages dating from 1700 to 1775 show head and foot parts each to have been less than 20% of the sheep remains. Body parts made up anywhere from 68% to 97%. Virtually everyone, it appears, depended upon commercial sources of mutton.

The period 1775-1800, however, exhibits a somewhat different pattern, one that still shows a predominance of body elements, but one that demonstrates that heads began to be consumed in greater quantities than ever before. Reasons for the increase in heads might be related to a change in marketing, where the entire animal was made available to urban consumers. Alternatively, a reason might be that the three assemblages containing a large proportion of heads include the well-to-do silversmith James Geddy, and occupants of the Anthony Hay and Daniel Parke Custis sites. Each of these households may well have had their own source of mutton, a fact that would explain the large proportion of heads.

Looking northward to Annapolis and the element distributions exhibited in the handful of assemblages from this urban center, it is possible to find further clues on marketing patterns for sheep. There are four assemblages from Annapolis, of which two are associated with the elite Calvert family, one that is associated with a tavern, and a fourth that is associated with the 76 household of a printer, Jonas Green. On the basis of the large proportion of heads present in the Calvert assemblages, and low proportions of heads in the assemblages associated with the tavern and printer, it would seem reasonable to suggest that only the Calverts supplied themselves with sheep. Given this pattern, it would seem reasonable to suggest that Williamsburg households of great wealth also supplied their own households. Other households, such as that of John Draper, an English immigrant blacksmith who had limited resources, purchased, as indicated by the 76% body elements, mutton from butchers and other commercial sources.

Swine

The element distributions for swine remains are distinctly different from all others in that the element distributions represented in urban assemblages closely resemble the complete skeleton. One possible interpretation of this pattern is that most households either obtained a pig through their own personal rural connections, or they raised a pig, which they slaughtered and salted in the fall. But given the clear representation of heads, bodies, and feet, the most likely interpretation is that pork was not generally available in town as individual cuts of meat. Plantation account books, fortunately, have identified the pattern for commercially-produced hogs. According to the Burwell accounts, hogs were brought complete to town and sold to individual purchasers primarily in late fall and early winter, which the family could salt the meat themselves. Supporting evidence for this interpretation is found in Hanson's butcher's refuse, which contains in relation to cattle, calf, and sheep remains, proportionately more head and feet remains from hogs. Hanson, it appears, was more in the business of selling beef, veal, and mutton than selling pork. This is evidenced in an add Hanson placed in the Virginia Gazette, where he advertised "for good grass mutton or beef [at my House] next door to Col. Custis's."

Hogs probably were obtained from all three sources, and preservation factors no doubt dictated marketing patterns. To varying degrees urban residents raised pigs, brought in pigs that had been raised on their plantation, or purchased them at the marketplace in early winter, since pork was the primary preserved meat, and successful salting required cold temperatures. Yet, a careful comparison of the element distributions from the rural and urban assemblages suggests that urban residents also purchased individual cuts, possibly hams from storekeepers to supplement pork they had salted in winter time. Present in the element distributions in urban assemblages is a slightly greater proportion of body parts than in the rural element distributions, a pattern that would be consistent with the purchase of individual cuts of meat.

77
Table 3.5.
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SWINE BODY PARTS
RURAL-URBAN COMPARISON
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %Number of BonesNumber of Sites
Normal Skeleton28.234.537.3
Firehouse (Benjamin Hanson)63.821.314.972
Rural66.623.310.112716
1660-170056.522.520.935377
1700-174054.925.519.619414
1750-177563.621.614.921513
1775-180058.530.610.818482
Early 19th C59.618.821.66122
Williamsburg
1700-174031.331.936.86362
1735-175753.333.613.13812
1750-177546.536.417.118574
1775-180052.025.622.419564
Annapolis
1700-175060.124.615.21381
1750-177540.426.633.01091
Mid-Late 18th C52.426.820.85381
1775-180047.529.323.23411
Cattle

The analysis of cattle element distributions includes only the "adult-sized" cattle remains, which include all age groups except the very young veal calves. They show that rural households consumed all parts of the animal. The overall consistency of this pattern in rural assemblages, in fact, makes it clear that even heads and feet were considered desirable cuts by everyone in Chesapeake society. But, as with the heads of sheep, it is clear urban residents consumed fewer heads and feet than their rural neighbors. Particularly tradesmen such as John Brush, James Geddy, and John Draper, but also well-to-do individuals such as Thomas Everard and Archibald Blair, purchased beef in individual cuts from commercial sources.

Each of the element distributions from urban assemblages dating from 1700 to 1800 demonstrate that virtually everyone depended to varying degrees on commercial sources of food, since each assemblage contains a greater than normal proportion of body cuts, a slightly less than normal proportion of head elements, and a far less than normal proportion of foot elements. The only clear exceptions to this pattern are the element distributions from the assemblages associated with elite households such as the Annapolis Calvert family and the Williamsburg Custis family. On the basis of these element distributions, it is possible to suggest they ate a diet that was very similar to their rural counterparts. Elite families probably provisioned their urban household with foods they brought in from their plantations, and they consumed the heads and feet of cattle in proportions roughly equal to a complete skeleton.

78
Table 3.6.
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF CATTLE BODY PARTS
RURAL-URBAN COMPARISON
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %Number of BonesNumber of Sites
Normal Skeleton29.742.228.1
Firehouse (Benjamin Hanson)40.418.641.0473
Rural
1620-166050.128.920.918676
1660-170027.941.530.534407
1700-174029.438.331.616324
1750-177521.342.536.016593
1775-180054.531.214.227122
Early 19th C26.244.328.62102
Williamsburg
1700-174023.661.415.06452
1735-175732.953.413.75192
1750-177520.459.620.116794
1775-180018.159.922.014754
Annapolis
1700-17509.455.235.4961
1750-177530.129.440.51531
Mid-Late 18th C32.848.918.34761
1775-18000.079.021.01671

Preservation factors no doubt played a large role in determining how beef was sold. Since beef stays fresh longer than pork and it actually improves in flavor with aging, urban residents probably purchased beef to consume as fresh meat in amounts that reflected their household's ability to consume the meat before it spoiled. Particularly in winter, if a household could afford to do so, it could have purchased sizable portions of the carcass and stored what was not immediately eaten in a cold protected part of the homestead. Others with more limited means probably purchased smaller pieces.

An editorial placed in the Virginia Gazette in 1768 provides supportive evidence, for "Timothy Telltruth" described exactly this situation, where butchers sold both large and small pieces of meat, but those unable to pay for the more economical larger pieces had to pay extra for their services.10 Like the poor today, those less-well-off found themselves at a disadvantage.

Thus, given the level of market dependency of those individuals who either lacked rural connections or had limited incomes, their purchases of individual cuts of beef should be evident in the faunal assemblages in the form of disproportionate element distributions. Those townspeople who lacked rural connections, but could afford to purchase large pieces of beef, might have left faunal assemblages containing relatively complete bones, including at least some heads and feet, while those who could not afford quarters might have left faunal assemblages containing fewer heads and feet.

79
Veal

During the early seventeenth century, veal was relatively important, since veal-size calf remains made up anywhere from 9% to 11% of all cattle remains. By the late seventeenth century, however, calf remains had dropped to only 1 or 2% of all cattle remains. Exploring whether the decrease is the result of household variability, preservation factors, or changing husbandry patterns remains a research project for the future.

Almost from the time Williamsburg was established in 1699, however, rural planters chose to send veal to market rather than to eat it themselves. Comparing the percentages of "veal-size" and "adult-size" cattle remains present in the rural and urban assemblages demonstrates that even during the first half of the eighteenth century urban residents consumed over twice the amount of veal as their rural counterparts. As the century progressed the disparity became even greater. During the period 1700-1740, in rural assemblages young calf made up on the average 3% of all cattle remains, while in town the average was 6%. By 1750-1775, in rural assemblages young calf made up 2% of all cattle remains, while in Williamsburg it made up an average of 12%. During the last quarter of the eighteenth century, in rural assemblages young calf dropped to 1% of all cattle remains, while in town it made up 9% of all cattle remains.

On a very direct level, the percentages of veal in the various assemblages demonstrate that veal was a very affordable food item, since far greater amounts of veal are found in the assemblages that are associated with tradesmen and taverns than the assemblages that are associated with the wealthy. Determining whether veal was purchased through commercial sources, however, was made difficult by the presence of proportionately large numbers of calf heads. Normally the presence/absence of head elements is a reliable monitor for commercial purchases as opposed to the acquisition of meat through personal sources. Unfortunately, calf heads were considered a highly desirable cut of meat and were prepared in numerous ways. Undoubtedly, they were cheap enough that many Williamsburg households could afford to buy them. In lieu of this measure, the proportion of foot elements in the calf data provides some information on the extent to which urban dwellers depended upon commercial sources of food. These figures show that from the early 1700s virtually everyone purchased veal as individual cuts of meat. Why they chose to purchase individual cuts rather than the entire animal is related to preservation factors. Veal in comparison to beef and mutton spoils very quickly, a fact that determined how much a household could purchase at one time.

Evidenced by the enormous number of calf foot bones in the Custis assemblage, it is apparent that only the elite households that supplied themselves with veal. All others contain anywhere from 14% to 8% foot elements, and by 1775 the proportion of calf foot elements dropped to less than 7%. By 1775 the small proportion of calf foot elements in these assemblages suggests that by this time virtually everyone, including the occupants of the Custis home, had come to depend upon commercial sources of veal.

80
Table 3.7.
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF CALF BODY PARTS
RURAL-URBAN COMPARISON
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %N
Normal Skeleton29.742.228.1
Firehouse (Benjamin Hanson)62.010.028.050
Rural
1620-166057.135.07.9140
1660-170042.126.331.676
1700-174022.255.622.245
1750-177543.843.812.532
1775-180038.138.123.821
Early 19th C44.422.233.318
Williamsburg
1700-174015.080.05.040
1735-175743.346.710.060
1750-177542.643.014.3230
1775-180050.344.25.4147
Conclusion

Using multiple sources of information, this study has shown how faunal remains recovered from urban archaeological sites reflect the complex and variable means by which livestock were either brought to town already slaughtered and processed, or were brought to town live, then were slaughtered and sold as a whole animal or as individual cuts of meat. The faunal evidence show what types of meats were sold and whether they were sold as individual cuts. Documentary sources have identified the many sources of food. Information from probate inventories show that some raised livestock in town. Correspondence between planters and their overseers on outlying and sometimes distant plantations demonstrates that some urban residents brought in their own food. Account books show that pigs raised on plantations were brought to town and sold as complete carcasses. Household accounts show that beef, veal, mutton, and lamb were sold in town as individual pieces. Finally, merchant accounts show that some cuts of meat were available for sale in stores. Each source has provided information on an element in the overall provisioning scheme, and together with the archaeological data, the analysis has reconstructed a system that was as complex and multi-varied as were its sources.

Over the years zooarchaeologists have written that as the strength of the urban market grew, municipal regulations controlled the location of slaughter and waste disposal, and middlemen increasingly took over the processing of carcasses. But this interdisciplinary study has shown that even though the presence of commercially-produced meats and middlemen was felt almost as soon as the town was established in 1699, the market system, and the urban residents who came to depend upon it, remained in many ways intimately tied to their rural connections throughout the eighteenth century.11 The archaeological evidence is strong in showing that 81 although rural planters raised livestock for sale in town and many urban consumers came to rely on commercial foods as their primary or for some their sole source of food, the continuing presence of older livestock and heads and feet in the faunal assemblages speak to the continued intricate relationship with rural producers.

Documentary evidence establishing the nature of Williamsburg's market system confirms the archaeological evidence. By 1705, a Town Act established the right of each town in Virginia to hold markets and fairs, but as the eighteenth century progressed other urban centers such as Norfolk developed markets that apparently were much more organized and the processing and sale of animal products was more controlled than the market that evolved in Williamsburg. In Norfolk the common council first approved the building of a market house in 1736, and soon established price controls and restricted the sale of meat outside the marketplace. There beef, pork, veal, mutton, lamb, turkeys, ducks, fowl, and seafood were displayed twice-weekly for urban consumers. But, even though many of Williamsburg's town records were destroyed during the Civil War, all indications are that it was never as well organized as were other markets in the region. Until mid-century, it was only during Publick Times that the rural population descended upon town with their produce, and the building of the market house followed Norfolk's by twenty years.

This interpretation comes into sharp focus when the Williamsburg data is compared to that which has been gathered for market systems that evolved in Boston, New York, and Annapolis. Recent archaeological and documentary research, for example, has demonstrated that as municipal regulations in Boston tightened during the last quarter of the eighteenth century, faunal assemblages reflected the increased regulations by a sharp decrease in the proportions of heads and feet in the faunal assemblages left by the poor and well-to-do alike.12 The number of assemblages from sites located in Boston and Annapolis are extremely limited, but there are sufficient numbers of them to be secure in the interpretation that the provisioning system in either town had become far more specialized by this time than had Williamsburg's, since the number of sheep and cattle heads and feet are almost non-existent in assemblages from these urban centers.

Evidence found in the 1783 personal property tax lists from Annapolis and Williamsburg demonstrate that, compared to other urban centers, the scale of the Williamsburg market system never reached that of Annapolis. The presence of cows in town even in the late eighteenth century demonstrate that residents of both towns retained at least some ability to provide food for themselves, but the larger number of cows in Williamsburg demonstrates that its residents remained far more independent than Annapolis residents. In 1783 in Williamsburg one-half the residents in town owned one or two cows.13 Of the various occupational groups, 74% of the 82 service people, 67% of the merchants, 64% of the professionals, and 60% of the craftsmen kept one or two cows. Other groups less able to provide perishable milk and dairy products for their families included women, laborers, and those of unknown professions. Of these, only 41% of the women heads of households, and 30% of the laborers and others kept a cow. In direct contrast, in Annapolis overall there were fewer cows. Only 50% of the professionals, 50% of the merchants, 41% of the service group, 27% of the craftsmen, and 20% of laborers and others kept even one cow, and no female heads of households kept even one cow. Evident in the Annapolis data is a much stronger dependence by Annapolis residents on commercially produced foods.

Not surprisingly, the element distributions of livestock remains from both the Reynolds Tavern and Jonas Green faunal assemblages from Annapolis demonstrate that clearly each procured mutton and beef commercially, since both reveal proportions of cattle and sheep head elements that are equal to or less than the lowest proportion of heads found in any assemblage recovered from Williamsburg.

This study has brought into question one of the fundamental assumptions of zooarchaeological studies, that the specialized production and distribution of food is driven by the growth of an urban population unable to produce enough food to feed itself. Assumptions have been that production and distribution practices remained on a small scale until the urban demand outdistanced the ability to produce surplus animals with subsistence-oriented husbandry practices. Evidence produced in this study, however, demonstrates that change occurred almost as soon as Williamsburg was established, even though the town never became a large urban center like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. Yet rural planters responded early on to produce younger animals for market, and middlemen such as Benjamin Hanson established commercial enterprises to purchase rural produce, which were then slaughtered and sold to consumers as individual pieces. On the consumer end of the spectrum, urban dwellers came to increasingly rely upon market sources, some to greater and lesser degrees, but by the last quarter of the eighteenth century no one subsisted completely on foods they produced themselves.

B. MARKETS IN THE CHESAPEAKE

The wealthy planter Robert Carter moved from his plantation to Williamsburg in 1761. Three years later he was forced to purchase a "small settlement" nearby to provision his family. He explained that "every family here have small Farms; which supply them with Articles to be bought in good Markets." He saw the paradox: "such a Custom must inevitably bar every attempt towards improving Markets." Without a good market, town residents had to come up with a system to provision their own households; without demand of these customers, it was difficult to support a good market. Carter reluctantly followed the example of his neighbors and bought a nearby farm.14

We do not know what Carter determined to be a "good market" but no doubt implied good quality food supplied at good price and with predictable supply. The market in eighteenth-century Virginia was a civic institution, part of an economic system, and part of an urban cultural 83 landscape. This section will address the nature of the market, its history in the Chesapeake, and its larger evolution in producers, consumers, and products.

The Nature of Markets

First, the public market was an important symbol of municipal action. Cities were governed by councils, councils established rules of the market, clerks of the market collected fees and monitored activities. (The fees were used to fund civic services from road repair to fire fighting.) These rules insured that people had access to safe food at an affordable price. Municipal rules of the marketplace included 1) setting prices that could be charged for certain commodities, 2) ensuring quality of food, 3) controlling times and places of operation, 4) renting out stalls at the market house, and 5) levying fines or other punishments for those that transgressed those laws. The size, number, order, variety and quality of markets were one way that travelers noted and ranked the quality of urban life.

The public market house thus was a visible reminder of the ways in which government intervened for the good of the populace. It needed to be a watchdog because the most important commodities for sale there were perishables sold in measurable units. That meant that meat and vegetables could be spoiled; weights and measures could be slighted. Entrepreneurs needed to be monitored or the customer might be cheated.

Second, public markets were the direct urban symbols of local agricultural productivity and town growth. They were a means to channel food produced in the hinterlands into urban populations. Control was necessary to ensure that food moved from producer to consumer without forestalling (selling food outside of the market) or engrossing (charging exorbitant prices that pushed out the poor). Markets were thus about directing agricultural surplus at set prices and in set places into the hands and mouths of consumers-from craftsmen to government officials-who were involved in other economic activities. In the Chesapeake, the relation between agricultural productivity and town growth was more complex. A critical mass of people was necessary to make feeding nearby towns as profitable as growing export commodities like tobacco. Enough people needed to congregate in one place to make a town market successful It is this continuing diversification of economic activity that led to a modern economy.

Thus, markets in colonial America were about an evolving economy that looked both forward and backward. They looked backward to tight government controls, from the assize of bread (controlling prices, qualities and sizes) to mercantilism (controlling the colonists' trading partners and products). They simultaneously looked toward a more free market (laissez-faire) system of capitalism that moved by the "invisible hand" of supply and demand suggested by Adam Smith in 1776. This more capitalist economy was based on cash and the cash equivalent of commodities in a form of bookkeeping, and included prices based on profit and supply and demand.

Third, public markets were part of an urban cultural landscape. Like courthouses, stores, shops, and taverns, the market was frequented by a broad cross-section of urban society. It was a place usually marked by a particular location in town-often near the courthouse-and a space usually defined by particular uses and peoples. We might think of three groups of people in this space: producers, consumers, and passers-through and passers-by. Producers can be divided into 84 two groups, those that were formally attached to the market through the rental of stalls in the market house and those that vended other forms of produce such as fruits, vegetables, and poultry. The first group-the butchers-were usually wealthy enough to be able to gain the trust of the town council and to pay the rent for the stalls. The second group was far more likely to be the peoples on the margins of society-the enslaved, free blacks, and women (of varying social ranks based on class and marital status). This reflects the buoyancy of the little known informal economy that is only now being studied and understood.

The History of Markets in the Chesapeake

Providing a means of supplying food to townspeople was one of the earliest concerns of Virginia lawmakers, and they followed English custom of ensuring food supply through governmental control. The ideal market in England centralized the supply of food in one place, controlled quality, and ensured a just price to the citizens. An important goal was to prevent the action of middlemen who might buy up local food supply for export or enhanced profit and lead to dearth and high prices. For instance, the Wiltshire market was regulated in March 1564. Early in the morning, before the market started, grain sellers had to agree to prices with local officials. At 9 a.m. the bell was tolled twenty times and the market was officially open for transactions. For the first two hours, only small purchases could be made (less than two bushels), and the grain was meant to be for the use of the buyer. At 11 a.m. the bell was tolled another twenty times. Grain could then be bought by wholesalers or those who resold it in some form, such as bakers, brewers, and badgers as granted by license from a Justice of the Peace. Grain buying was restricted to market day, and no one was supposed to buy who had sufficient quantities of their own.15

These regulations clearly demonstrate how the "ideal" market was no longer reality by the sixteenth century. These measures were to prevent middlemen; they undoubtedly existed or there would be no attempt to disfranchise them. The supply of bread-here in the form of grain to be processed by householder-was the paramount concern. Of course, laws are often only the mirrors by which we see the prevalence of infractions. There is no real sense of how well these regulations were enforced, but probably only time of dearth prompted strict adherence.

As early as 1649, the privilege was granted to Jamestown to hold a weekly market on Wednesday and Saturday and a market place was bounded. All "bonds, bills, or other writings upon any bargains" made between eight a.m. and six p.m. in the market place on market days that were attested under the clerk of the market were considered legal judgments and had special protection at law. The governor appointed the clerks who were paid an annual fee and kept records. In only six years, the markets were considered a failure and all laws were repealed. Nonetheless, the burgesses recognized the value of a good market and optimistically decreed that anyone could solve the problem by settling on a place where merchants would "willingly come for the sale or bring of goods" would be "lookt upon as benefactors to the publique."16

85

This recognition that markets were for public good continued to undergird government action. A proper town should have a proper market. As Virginia officials mulled the movement of the capital from Jamestown in May 1699, a group of savvy students at the College of William and Mary held a celebration attended by the Governor and the Assembly. The speeches pointed out the many reasons that the capital should be moved to the area of Middle Plantation. One declared that a market would be of great assistance to the College because with it "the college itself might be enabled to keep houses, or the neighbours about this place might be better supplyd with all things necessary for our good lodging & Diet."17 The act moving the capital from Jamestown to Williamsburg in 1699 included the right of the governor to grant the liberty and privileges to hold market and fairs. A 1705 act provided for twice-weekly market days in towns.

Government officials continued to stress the importance of establishing markets, but little action seemed to follow. Williamsburg's town layout in 1705 included a place set out in the middle of town for a market, but no market house was built. The swelling of the population during public times in the capital made a market seem necessary. Governor Spotswood noted the need in 1710 to the Council and the Council recommended weekly markets at Williamsburg as a "great benefit to the said Town, and the Neighbouring Inhabitants, and a Conveniency to the people of the country who have occasion to resort there."18

Again, no action seemed to be taken. A decade later the town was incorporated and the charter granted specific privileges to town officials to hold a market twice weekly and charge tolls on all "Cattle, Goods, Wares and Merchandizes and other Commodities as shall be sold in the said Markets … as shall be by them thought reasonable." These taxes were not to exceed "six Pence on every Beast and three Pence on every hogg and the twentieth part of the Value of any such Commodity sold therein." Town residence was encouraged by cutting the toll in half for the freemen inhabitants.

With the incorporation of Norfolk in 1736, the institutional framework was now in place in Virginia's two incorporated towns for regular markets to occur. Incentive through taxing power was given to city government officials to make it happen. As most of the city bylaws, ordinances and orders have not survived, little is known of the market's functioning in Williamsburg. Numerous ordinances are extant for other towns, particularly after the right to hold markets was extended to all towns after the Revolution. It is thus possible to piece together more of the story.

The problems experienced in setting up formal institutions and legally dictated behaviors of food provisioning help explain why Robert Carter may have been so inconvenienced as to buy a nearby farm in the middle of the eighteenth century. The major need for a market was at public times; most inhabitants probably managed to somehow provision themselves. Hugh Jones did not detail how or why but nonetheless found the town "well stock'd with rich Stores, of all Sorts of Goods, and well furnished with the best Provisions and Liquors."19 A market house was finally completed in 1757, exactly 150 years after the colony's founding.

86

Even after that final action in creating a true marketplace, the market may not have functioned smoothly to ensure good quality foodstuffs. A blistering critique of market quality and prices was published in the Virginia Gazette in 1768 by "Timothy Telltruth." He wrote of "meat for poverty not fit to eat, and sometimes almost spoiled" hanging in the market for hours. Vendors charged what they liked, "which is generally exorbitant enough, especially on publick times, or when little meat is at market." If a whole side of beef was not desired, the butcher charged an extra penny a pound to cut it. Bakers sold underweight bread with "unwholesome ingredients." The letter writer complained that "the bread they bake daily, and sell to the inhabitants, justly entitles them to the pillary." He compared that to the well-functioning market in Norfolk where the magistrates ensured quality and prices and the butcher could only charge a farthing to cut meat into smaller portions.20

"Timothy Telltruth's" complaint, perhaps exaggerated, is one of the few windows we have on the market in Williamsburg. We might infer that his complaint had some cause from the praise that one James City County resident heaped on the market in Baltimore. Jamestown resident Mary Ambler kept a diary of her visit to Baltimore in 1770 to innoculate her children from smallpox. She found the Baltimore market held twice weekly to be "very fine," and was "surprised to see the nubr of People there & the variety of things for Sale." She marveled that "they say nothing can be thought of which is not brought in plenty to market." The townspeople depended on the market for their foodstuff. Whether cause or effect of the quality market, she was told that there was not "seven Gardens in the Whole Town."21

The ability of townspeople to rely on consistent supply at markets for provisions was noted in the same year in Philadelphia. The twice-weekly markets brought country people from surrounding Pennsylvania and New Jersey where "every produce of the season which the country affords" can be found. On the other days, "they are sought for in vain." Because of the ready supply, town residents only bought what was necessary until the next market. In the summer, a market was held daily to prevent problems with food preservation.22

The problems and issues of establishing a market were also felt in Annapolis. When the town was laid out in 1693, a square was left open for a market-house. None was built until at least 1717. In 1716 the corporation decided to outlaw the door to door selling of "flesh or fish, living or dead, eggs, butter or cheese, (oysters excepted)" and build a market house. Until a market house building could be constructed, sellers and buyers should meet at a flag staff on the state house hill. Unlike Williamsburg, however, Annapolis built a market-house before mid-century. This did not turn out to be a convenient location and the market was sold in 1752 and moved to another location. Destroyed in 1775 in a severe thunderstorm, a new markethouse was built in 1784 by a group of wealthy Annapolis businessmen. This was a substantial structure taking seven years to complete and cost over £550.

87
The Evolution of Markets: Producers, Consumers, and Products

Public markets continued to evolve to provide a wide range of foodstuffs to urban places. Public markets were virtual tourist destinations. Travelers recorded their impressions because they were public institutions to be evaluated to mark the quality of life and the hierarchy of urban amenities. All markets provided meat and seasonal products of garden, orchard, streams, skies, and woods. What differed was the number of days and hours they met, the quality of foods provided, and what part of the population were suppliers. Three components were necessary for a well-functioning public market: producers to bring agricultural foodstuffs, consumers to do the buying, and public monitoring of quality and price for consumer protection. Producers came from multiple walks of life, both rural and urban. Butchers had to pay stall fees and license fees but seemed often to be poorer people. Other vendors were farmers and petty entrepreneurs.

Producers: Farmers and Petty Entrepreneurs

We know little about how farmers allocated their resources and organized their time to send produce to market. Local farmers walked to town. Others had carts with hanging meat, and smaller suppliers used wheelbarrows. Wealthy planters probably sent slaves with any plantation surplus. Yet the large needs of supplying meat to towns could not be met locally, and the roads must have occasionally been filled with livestock. Jacob Engelbrecht of Maryland witnessed a flock of 400 turkeys passing his door on the way to the Washington market on February 3, 1826. He estimated they walked eight miles a day.23

By the end of the eighteenth century, truck farming had emerged as a chief means to supply large urban markets. Richard Parkinson described the farmer's wagon in the Baltimore area in the 1790s as something like a "peddlars pack," carrying butter, eggs, fruits, potatoes, turnips, cucumbers, poultry, multiple kinds of flour, and chopped straw.24 Anne Ritson's poetic description of Norfolk in 1809 helps to at least see how some farmers personally attended market in the early morning hours:

The market chiefly is supply'd,
By those who from the country ride,
Who wish their produce soon to sell,
Making their bargains quick and well,
And back to their plantations go,
To see their negroes dig and hoe.25

A number of petty entrepreneurs helped supply the market. These were most often the fringes of society: slaves, free blacks, impoverished people, and women of varying stations. The crossing of all ranks of society in the public market should come as no surprise as it was the first 88 step into petty capitalism. Because they kept few business records, it is difficult to know these petty suppliers but by their occasional crossings into public record or private account.

The market was an important forum for surplus household production. For example, Norfolk women of all ranks sold extra vegetables from their gardens and milk from their town cows. Personal circumstance could also lead more well-to-do women to produce for the market. A woman near Wilmington, North Carolina had a garden that supplied the town with vegetables, melons, and other fruits. She also made baked goods-"minced pies, cheese-cakes, tarts and little biskets"-which she sent to town once or twice a day, "besides her eggs, poultry, and butter." She would not provide credit and kept her prices low enough (halfpence) to be normal pocket change.26 Nancy Matthews regular rounds of selling cakes in Petersburg made her easy target for crime: she left her house in Petersburg to vend her goods and was robbed of all her clothes.27 Poorer people also used the market as a way to raise the cash to pay for "necessaries." The wife of the impoverished John Juitt in 1734 "used to raise things of several sorts which she disposed of in town and thereby raised a little money."28

Slaves were common figures in the market place, running errands, carrying baskets, and selling commodities-their own produce of their own labor, most often in the form of agricultural products like poultry and vegetables. West Africans were no strangers to market sales and market relations; Henry Drewel finds the Yoruba expression "the world is a marketplace" (aye l'oya) a constructive metaphor for "the dynamics surrounding transactions, the pushes and pulls, the actions and reactions, the negotiations of living life."29 But the role of slaves in the constructed economic market of the New World has only recently been understood. We now know that from the Caribbean to the lower South, black men and women were the de facto suppliers of foodstuffs for a broad cross section of the white and black urban population.

That system is not so well documented or understood in Virginia. Market regulations, by their very quantity in Virginia towns, imply a strong African American presence. As early as 1764 a committee was appointed in Norfolk to examine the problem of "slaves … selling Cakes &c and small Beer at the market and other public places." Nine years later, another law prohibited "Indians, mulattoes or negroes Bound or free from selling any kind of dressed meat, Bread, or bakes, [sic] or retailing any kind of Beer or spiritous Liquors." That the law was repealed in 1783, nonetheless, suggests that slaves and other marginal entrepreneurs were too important in the supply of food to be prohibited.30 Later eighteenth-century regulations of Virginia towns did not prohibit slave activity but tried to regulate it, most commonly through the requirement of written 89 permission by owners to prevent the sale of stolen foods.31 In the antebellum period, such economic activity by slaves may have become even more prevalent. One visitor to the Washington markets found that "Negroes are the chief sellers."32

Slaves also frequently sold poultry from their yards and produce from their gardens to their owners and others. The kitchen at Jefferson's Monticello was well supplied by plantation slaves with chickens, eggs, vegetables and fruits. Jane Francis Walker Page in nearby Albemarle County purchased multiple foodstuffs from slaves. Of the 28 people listed, a third were listed as "old." Ninety percent of the sales were of poultry and mostly, though not all, made by women. That relation between slaves and the exchanging supply of food expanded to Page's supplying consumer goods for foodstuffs with several women.33

Public markets linked plantation and urban systems of exchange in critical ways. Given permission, slaves traveled freely to carry produce from their owners or to vend their own foodstuffs and poultry. A former slave recorded her memories of life in Franklin County in western Virginia. She described how her former mistress gave her slaves Saturday afternoons free and any of the slaves who chose could go into the town of Lynchburg to sell and purchase: "Merry parties on foot followed the farm wagon, which was loaded with tobacco, brooms, nails, baskets of fruit and vegetables in season, and various articles of domestic manufacture contributed by the women, such as yarn, woolen cloth, sometimes a piece of rag carpeting or a patchwork quilt. Small pigs in boxes, with baskets of eggs and chickens, completed the outfit."34

Market days were times to freely travel, sell, buy, see and be seen. The prevalence of slaves from the country is seen in the new duty of the Alexandria constables appointed in 1810 to disperse the slaves from the Sunday market at 9 o'clock. Most specifically, their task was to "see the negroes from Maryland go over the river, to prevent the riotous play of boys of every description, and of negroes on that day, and if country negroes, to cause them to leave town."35 But it was not just the physical movement of slaves in and out of towns that provided such linkages. The knowledge of market prices was probably the most important commodity that spread far beyond urban bounds. For instance, Spencer Ball's slave Dick of Prince William County raised corn and watermelons on his truck patch and kept chickens, ducks, turkeys, and 90 geese. He credited the plantation mistress' largesse for she "always gives me the price of the Alexander market for my stock."36

The Williamsburg market was no different; slaves were common sights, vending produce, fish, and baked goods. Their presence and economic activity were only remarkable when they overreached their bounds of economic freedom and ran away. Robert Wormley Carter's 44-year-old slave Pheby had run away in September 1781. In January he advertised that she had been "seen frequently in Williamsburg, about the market, selling cakes, oysters, &c." Henry Broadnax had a more complicated dilemma. He had purchased a man named Harry from the estate of Nathaniel Crawley at Indianfield in York County at public auction. The slave had escaped and his new owner suspected that he was concealed by some persons nearby. He had been told by his new slave that "he dealt very freely in Williamsburg in the oyster and fish way, in their seasons." Broadnax was posting a warning to "all that deal in that way with Negroes" to observe his lengthy description and "detect the villain if possible."37

Both of these slaves used the relative anonymity of the slave presence at market to escape notice. Slaves commonly ran errands; many are recorded delivering food to the Governor's Palace. The freedom to act as middlemen became even more pronounced in some markets. In Baltimore where truck farming became an important business by the end of the eighteenth century, black middle men were the common buyers and sellers in the wee hours of the morning. Richard Parkinson complained that he could hardly compete within this black system of provisioning, and thought the black entrepreneurs were able to disengage from the real world of enslavement until their owners arrived some hours later.38

The location of markets also continued to evolve with the growth of towns. In smaller towns of the colonial period, markets tended to be placed like their English equivalents: in central places like the public squares of the courthouse. In larger urban cities of the northeast, markets were usually found near water transport. For example, the markets of New York spread along the riverbanks. In 1755, eight markets served an estimated population of 13,000, or about 1600 customers per market. This is similar to Williamsburg's ratio of customers to its single market in 1770. Nonetheless, by 1810 eight markets served 96,000 people, or 12,000 for each point of distribution. These were distributed in a more "rational" system like those described in central-place systems. Market neighborhoods extended from about a quarter-mile to more than a mile. By the early nineteenth century, these markets were no longer under the government control of the earlier period, and may express more free market principals of location.39

With the growth of urban markets, the nature of the suppliers themselves had changed. In large towns of the northeast, more people began to step in as middle men, preparing nightly carts for an early morning trek or meeting market boats. On the Hudson River, market sloops brought 91 livestock, butter, eggs and other country produce to market where butchers, grocers, and heads of household eagerly purchased. One Scotsman in 1821 found hucksters to be "cheeky insolent irish" carrying baskets with "eatables," such as citrus fruit and ginger cakes, anxious to "parcel out bargains."40 Slaves were also common suppliers as far north as New York but increased in frequency down the Atlantic seaboard.

Consumers and the Experience of Marketing

As market exchange evolved from face-to-face business with known tradesmen, local slaves, and rural neighbors, there may have been a change in how household marketing was carried out. The economic transformation of the market both witnessed and produced such a change.

Few colonists recorded the day-to-day workings of marketing, so many questions remain. Who did the marketing? Eighteenth-century published cookbooks were written for women, and several authors (including Hannah Glasse, the most popular cookbook author in the colonies) contain explicit instructions for marketing. When Mary Ambler visited Baltimore in 1770, she found that "Ladys here all go to markt to supply their pantry."41 In the same year in Montreal, a traveler recorded that "the daughters of all ranks, without exception, go to market," buy vegetables and other food and "carry it home themselves."42

Eighteenth-century women of all classes were engaging in behavior appropriate to a female's place as household manager. Nonetheless, the household labor of shopping may have shifted to men in some towns during the early nineteenth century. Anne Ritson's poetical treatment of the Norfolk market indicates that ladies would never go to market, and men spent their morning hours buying the needed foodstuffs. The Scotsman visiting the New York markets in the early 1820s found that "husbands both rich and poor go to market." He described with some amusement meeting an esteemed merchant with a "plucked goose and some pidgeons dangling in one hand and a species of cabbage stocks in the other." He also recounted the shock of a fashionable young English linen draper who "commenced housekeeping and to market he must go." Not the custom in England for men to do the marketing, he thought to "dangle a basket with a shoulder of mutton and vegetables home to be indelicate."43 Male heads of household with servants mixed with women in Alexandria and Philadelphia markets in the 1820s.44 These men may have sent home their early morning purchases with servants and continued on their day's work.

While this deserves much further study, a reorganization of household labor of this magnitude is significant. Why would women in some towns stop doing household marketing? One 92 explanation may be that larger economic shifts in the social class of producers (a shift from farmers to middle men, for example) may have made the markets a less savory place. As early as 1763, a New York lady complained of great rudeness and ill manners in our public markets, particularly in times of scarcity. She described pushing and shoving and concluded that "all that are weak and peaceable like myself, have been excluded from purchasing in the market, by rudeness and force."45 The Scotsman in New York was shocked at the insolent saucy behavior of the Irish hucksters. Slaves became the major suppliers in many towns in the South. Anne Ritson pointed out the distinction between women dealing with butchers ("none but of the lowest mein/ are ever with the butchers seen") and other suppliers of foodstuffs, more likely to be women themselves.46 On the other hand, other cultural changes may have led to a reorientation of affluent women's time to leisure shopping, reading, and other pursuits.

Products and Market Specialization

The final effect of market evolution was its ability to meet consumer demand for a wide variety of foodstuffs. Greater consumption may have led to an increase in the kinds of foods centralized at market places. By the second quarter of the nineteenth century, Baltimore had two market houses, one for fish and vegetables near water transport and a second for beef. William Wirt described the market to his daughter Catherine in Washington. The market houses were three to four times as large as the one in Washington. His description is unusually evocative. He saw hogsheads full of fowl and a long line or waggons and carts "with their tails turned toward the market houses and groaning under loads of country productions." He saw "loads of sweet cakes of all sorts and fashions and materials that covered the outside tables of the market house everywhere; and the breakfasts that were cooking every where around the market house for the country people who come many miles to market." He explained that "you may conceive the vast quantities of provisions that must be brought to the market when you are told that sixty thousand people draw their daily supplies from that market, which is more than twice as many people as there are in Washington, Georgetown, Alexandria and Richmond all put together."47

The Baltimore market also caught the attention of Anne Royall. She had visited a number of markets in her travels from Alabama, describing prices and quality. She reserved her greatest praise for Baltimore. "Nothing pleased me more than the markets … never had I seen anything equal to it, either for variety or abundance, and every thing much cheaper than I had expected-vegetables of all sorts, fruit, meat, and fish, both fresh and salt-in short, every thing that was to be eaten." The marketplace had now evolved to include a variety of processed foodstuffs and baked goods. She described an "old woman sitting with a table spread with nice bread and butter, veal cutlet, sausages and coffee; there another, with a table bending under the weight of candy, sweet cakes, oranges and apples; another with choice vegetables; another with fowls, as fat as 93 corn could make them. These take their stations at each end of the market-houses, and form a perfect phalanx."48

Some of the best detailed evidence for markets in the mid-Atlantic can be found in the purchases of Thomas Jefferson's French maitre d'hotel Etienne Lemaire at the markets of Georgetown. These manuscript accounts are written mainly in French, with some English and a mixture of French/English phonetic spellings. Jefferson was no ordinary market customer; he entertained frequently at the White House and was probably one of the most ardent admirers of French cuisine in the country. His food bills ebbed and flowed based on his own presence in Washington and his scale of entertaining. Nonetheless, these accounts tell us much about market economics and market choices. With the help of intern Amy Rider, we translated and analyzed Jefferson's market purchases for 1806.

Lemaire's purchases show the extraordinary range of foodstuffs available in Washington for high-style cooking and dining. In the last two weeks of October 1806, he purchased a range of specialty meats: a suckling pig, guinea fowls, partridges, squirrels, veal head and liver, guinea fowl, rabbits, pheasant, a pair of muscovy ducks (live), as well as numerous quantities of beef, mutton, lamb, and veal. The chef also needed sorrel for preserves, fresh chestnuts, white beans, and 500 gherkins "for the vinagrette." While late in the season, he was still able to purchase tomatoes on November 1.

His records also demonstrate how market prices were linked to both the agricultural calendar of producers and special seasonal swells of consumers. Like Timothy Telltruth's complaint about increased prices in public times in Williamsburg, the prices in the Washington area swelled when Congress was in session. Jefferson's purchases affirm what Anne Royall had observed: market prices at Washington were much lower in the absence of Congress.49

Meat generally decreased in price over the course of a year, although these changes were not large, usually only 1 to 3 pence difference per pound of meat. Dairy products show an overall trend of being less expensive in the summer months than in the winter. Dairy prices also exhibit more fluctuation than meat. Eggs, for example, range from 15 pence to 45 pence per dozen. Poultry prices vary according to the individual bird type. Chickens, for example, are most expensive in the winter, ducks in early spring, and turkeys at the end of their season in May. Individual prices for most fruits and vegetables cannot be determined, with the exception of oranges and lemons. In a season ranging from January to October, oranges were most expensive in January and February, and lemons became more expensive as their March to October season progressed.

Two special factors must be noted in this analysis of market purchases: Jefferson's absences and his entertaining. He was absent from Washington from May 6 to June 7, and again from July 21 to October 4. During these months (roughly May, August, and September) there is a noticeable drop in the amount of items purchased and also their quantities and total money spent, even further than the general summer decrease in purchases. This seems logical, as not only is Jefferson absent during those months, but also any guests he might otherwise have entertained. 94 However, the variety of items available at the time (summer) continues to be fully represented, particularly vegetables. Fruits continue to be purchased whether or not he is there, and in fact Jefferson all but missed the seasons for peaches, pears, and watermelons as they were available, and purchased, in Washington. There is some change, though, in the type of items purchased in Jefferson's absence. Specialty meats, such as heads, livers, and feet, are, with one exception, absent from the months Jefferson is at Monticello. The number of purchases of cabbage, on the other hand, remains the same, or climbs higher than normal.

The amount of food purchased naturally rose considerably when Jefferson entertained. From the lists of Jefferson's guests, we can see that their number decreases in the summer months, when many people left the Washington area. In the winter and spring, however, Jefferson entertained very frequently. One would then expect the amount of food purchased during the entertaining "season" to be high, whether or not that was also the time of particular abundance for those foods. Indeed, this is borne out by the data, and can be seen particularly in the huge quantities of meat bought during this time. The highest price of beef corresponded with his largest purchase. Food prices rose during the time that government was in session; that naturally coincided with his highest entertaining.

Lemaire's accounts show how markets and consumers were linked. Washington area markets carried a wide range of high-end, perhaps even unusual, foodstuffs for a population that entertained at a seasonal round. Nonetheless, its prices also rose with high consumer demand. This highlights a key point. While the market system continued to evolve into a rational linkage of local and regional products and transportation, in the colonial and early national period it was also highly local. Travelers never failed to mention price and quality variations at markets.

One final example is illustrative. When Moreau de St. Mery visited Norfolk near the end of the eighteenth century, he gave the usual catalog of market prices for beef, mutton, fowl, eggs, and milk. "But what sells for an absurdly low price in Norfolk," he wrote, "is fish." After a long list of available fish, he wrote that "fish are so abundant that the police are frequently obliged to order unsold fish to be thrown into the sea."50

Norfolk's port location made the supply of one commodity exceed its demand. Was that demand so fluctuating that it could not be predicted? It is unclear. The household of Moses Myers in Norfolk, nonetheless, took advantage of the low prices and high quality of fish. Moses Myers was a prominent Jewish merchant in Norfolk. One of the premier townspeople, he entertained lavishly and lived well. Nonetheless, banking failures rippled him to his ruin. After his own death and that of his wife, a household expense book for 1824 lists the purchases made by his unmarried daughter and her household. Their expenditures on fish are so unlike any of the other households we studied that there had to be some cause. First, Myers purchased no pork, so his foodways undoubtedly reflect his ethnic heritage. Fish and seafood was regularly purchased for household use, at rates much higher than the total household population we studied. Fish, and occasionally crabs, were the major item listed for "kitchen" (for the slaves) compared to "house" (for the family). Low cost fish may have emerged as the most inexpensive form of food to provision slaves in Norfolk. Fish was always a relatively low-cost commodity, with no cost to catch it yourself. 95 But the reliance on fish and crabs in the Myers household is so different from those in other towns studied in this project that it may well reflect the local market's overabundance.

The issue of running a well-regulated market that brings rural commodities to urban people lies at the heart of the study of provisioning. Municipal action was necessary to centralize and ensure food supply for local citizens and prevent malfeasance on the part of providers. If Williamsburg failed to meet that standard, city inhabitants could supply themselves or turn to other providers. Robert Carter acknowledged the conundrum: without a good market, people turn to other means of household provisioning. One colonist's letter may provide a final explanation. James Maury was a schoolteacher in the piedmont. When he received complaints about the price of his student's board compared to that of the College of William and Mary, he explained that the location of Williamsburg with regional access to "the Carolina Drovers" meant beef was inexpensive. Its location between two rivers with large quantities of grain, led to moderate prices of bread. This combination-apparently good local supply of grain and regional supply of beef-may have made it difficult to centralize foodstuffs at the marketplace.51

Butchers

Butchers were some of the most important players in the marketplace. In most cities, they were licensed and charged fees to rent stalls in the markethouse. Complaints about the licensed butchers abound; the market regulations in New York in 1782 complained of butchers forestalling meat and other "criminal abuses." They particularly complained that butchers would "blow" meat and stuff and add fat to meat and kidneys to hide poor quality and add weight. The market butcher in Richmond was put on probation for forestalling meat.

Butchering usually took place at town edges, key distribution points for the delivery of rural suppliers and where land was inexpensive for grazing. Town regulations were careful to forbid slaughtering at the market place. Norfolk's slaughterhouses all lay at the edge of town. A plantation on the Western Branch about nine miles from Norfolk was advertised as a prime location for slaughtering. On the main country road from Suffolk to Norfolk and the road from Carolina, it was convenient "for the Carolina drovers to kill beef and pork at, having fine pasturage."52 The town edges were also used in Williamsburg for slaughtering; Benjamin Hanson's butchering operation lay near to but west of town.

Less is known of the day-to-day workings of butchering operations. Moreau de St. Mery described the slaughterhouses on the edge of Norfolk. The process was efficient. He wrote that "the beeves are killed with a sledge hammer, their throats cut with a knife, and almost before they have stopped breathing they are skinned."53 As processors, butchers either had to raise large numbers of animals or arrange for their purchase. Most apparently did the latter. Thomas Wilkins advertised that he would be willing to buy "any beef, veal, mutton, lamb, shoat, etc. to dispose of in Williamsburg."54 Daniel Wells of Annapolis was imprisoned for debt to another man for calf, 96 deer, and sheep in 1755, perhaps animals purchased but not paid for in his business. The ancillary processing of animals included fat, tallow, and soap. All were found scattered in butcher's inventories.

Butchers were lower-level craftsmen, and we know most about them through their debts, crimes, and lack of wealth. Of the eight documented butchers in York County, most seemed to die poor. Thomas Wilkins may have had some problems in his business; his book of debts was taken over by William Cole in 1758. Benjamin Hanson was a free black mulatto of extremely humble family. While the archaeological investigation of his butchery site shows an extensive operation, his estate was so small at his death that the sheriff was ordered to administer. Joseph Vason bought 6 2/3 acres from John Blair in 1764, but at his death his estate was similarly so small that no one would administer. Stephen Brown was marginally much better off: he served in minor country offices, owned two lots, yet his personal estate totaled only £17 in 1737. Richard Smith in Yorktown is a particularly illustrative case of the marginality of butchers in society. He owned lots in Yorktown and purchased livestock. He also received twenty-five lashes in 1739 for stealing a shoat. He was similarly impoverished; his estate was too small to be administered. Just prior to his death, he was accused of neglecting his children's education and they were bound out. What caused that disapprobation is not noted, but it suggests a man without a support network of friends. Only Patrick Matthews of Yorktown seemed to be a successful entrepreneur. He owned multiple inexpensive lots and a warehouse near Yorktown in 1752. Perhaps his success in Yorktown could be partially because he functioned outside of the public market system. There was no regular market at Yorktown. When the Frenchman Rochefocualt-Liancourt visited Yorktown at the end of the eighteenth century, he noted that "each person furnishes himself with meat in the best manner he can; and they are seldom unsupplied with it."55 Yorktown was also a bustling port at mid-century and would have needed large supplies of meat to supply taverns and for export.

Most butchers in Annapolis were similarly from the bottom fringes of society. John Cummings had to petition for relief at the age of sixty-two because he was too old to work as a butcher and had no other means of support. William Metcalf was charged with assault. James Topper was bound to Sarah Graham who paid a debt for him while a freeman.

Butchering skills were valuable commodities sought in both servants and slaves. William Naylor's advertisement as a runaway servant paints a good picture: he was a "short thick-set Man, a butcher by Trade, speaks broad English, and is pretty much freckled."56 His advertisement was signed by three men: Alexander Craig, Alexander Finnie, and John Mitchelson. The linking of their names to the runaway butcher is perhaps revealing. Two of the men needed the products of animal processing themselves: Craig was a sadler (hides) and Finnie a tavern keeper (meat). Their linkage in business to owning an indentured servant butcher is unknown. Some slaves were also skilled butchers. William Pasteur advertised that he would sell a "very valuable negro fellow" who has been "regularly brought up to the butchering business."57 Butchering could also be part of a 97 package of food skills. James Hubbard offered to hire out "either in Williamsburg or the Country" a "likely cook fellow, who is also a good Butcher."

Oystermen

If butchering clustered on the edge of town, the oyster and fish business lay near the waterways. The sale of oysters and fish was an important part of supplying Williamsburg's food. Matthew Moody Jr. was an active waterman who "lived at the lowest house of Capital Landing." He kept "at all Times, fine Queen's Creek OYSTERS, fresh from the rocks, which will be dressed agreeable to the Taste of those who may please to favour him with their custom, and with the greatest Expedition." He also could offer, tea, coffee, and a "good BOWL OF PUNCH."58 Williamsburg merchant William Pasteur advertised that he was planned to begin a business as "oyster merchant" in York County. Customers could purchase oysters open or in shells at his landing at King's Creek.59 This business of supplying oysters and fish must have involved numerous watermen. A runaway slave had "dealt very freely in Williamsburg in the oyster and fish way."60

Bakers

The necessity of townspeople to supply themselves with bread was as basic-perhaps more so-than meat. Nonetheless, it was a need that could be met in many different ways. There were multiple levels of the processing in which they could participate-or opt out. Corn could be ground at home into meal. Bread of various forms could be baked on the hearth or in a dutch oven. Large brick ovens could be built at home or a housewife could take her dough to a professional for baking. Professionals could be local women or more well-to-do-artisans. Biscuit could be bought to replace other bread forms. Cakes and confectionaries could be sold at the same place and time or by different providers. All of these choices make the provisioning of bread in urban households more complicated to study.

Six bakers were identified in York County records. Like butchers, we know little about their lives and businesses, but can piece together small biographies. William Sherman was born in Bruton Parish in 1684 and was active in York County, appointed constable in Williamsburg in 1705. Like the many butchers studied, he owned land but was often in debt. A clear spiral to insolvency can be seen. His servant sued for unpaid wages in 1707, in 1708 he sold off lots. In the same year, he was sued for £210 sterling, and by September his estate had been evaluated for debt and valued at £16. Nonetheless, these were not the household furnishings of an indigent man, including six cane chairs, a cane couch, and four leather chairs. He fled the county to avoid payment. Peter Moyer was active in Williamsburg in the middle of the century and achieved rather marked personal success. He owned five slaves, multiple urban lots, and in 1789, purchased 150 acres of land near Burwell's mill pond. We can see glimpses of his business: Benjamin Weldon supplied him with large amounts of wood.

98

The most well-documented Williamsburg baker is Cornelius DeForest and it is in his life that the business of baking begins to emerge in terms of raw materials, equipment and product. He is first noted as "baker near the capitol" in Williamsburg in 1776. In the same year, Humphrey Harwood delivered a large load of bricks and built an oven. While we know little of his earlier life, he was probably a practicing baker elsewhere in Virginia before removing to Williamsburg. Landon Carter sold him a large quantity of wheat in 1758. Carter remarked in his diary that he took special care with what he sold him; he cleaned the wheat, removing twenty bushels of lesser quality. (Carter thought DeForest got a bargain at his price and he ground it for free.)61 Finally, DeForest was paid £75 by General Nelson for supplying bread for the militia in 1777. He died one of the wealthier men in town in 1782; he owned ten lots, five slaves and his estate was valued at £490.

Nicholas Scovemont was another baker in Williamsburg. Born around 1750, he was able to purchase a lot by May 1773 and added another between 1782 and 1787. His slave Bagley (or Bailey) ran away in 1777. He evidently was not returned, as Scovement was only taxed for a young slave in 1783. While the records do not record his total business across time, records of flour purchase in 1777 from Burwell's mill allow a tiny window on his business. He purchased flour regularly from Burwell's mill in January, February, and March of 1777 and again in August, September, November and December. Cash payments were made quarterly in March for his winter and spring purchases and again in September, October, and December (in full). He also picked up a little business outside baking when possible, advertising in 1779 the recent importation from Hispaniola of rum and sugar. Interested customers could also have a "few cards of neat stone sleeve buttons" at his shop.62

Like the other food trades, baking could be a profession of marginal people with good credit relations and networks. Nonetheless, the growth of commercial mills in the area and the increasing export of biscuit meant that the need for bakers increased and perhaps their wages and profits. Robert Carter built a bakehouse in conjunction with his wheat export business. He wrote to Philadelphia in 1762 that a neighbor wished to hire "a single Man well qualified in ye Bakers Art" and that one who chose to accept the offer "may expect Civil Treatment and receive Wages punctually."63 By 1771, Robert Bolling of Petersburg was also in the market for a baker. His wish to buy a skilled slave baker was rebuffed when the Norfolk slave "made the matter up to his master (who is old and infirm and easily prevailed upon)" not to sell him.64 Carter was disappointed in his schemes in 1771 when he complained that "the price of Bisket & flower for some time past, have not yielded any profits to the Makers thereof, and I have done very little in that way." As a result, he had little used the slave of Colonel Lewis (of Gloucester County) in his bakehouse.65 Greater profits came to bakers who could increase capitalization and production 99 during the Revolution in supplying the troops. This explains the high average assessed wealth of £300 to £500 for bakers after the Revolution in Annapolis. Frederick Grammar had come to the city in 1777, only two years after emigrating from Germany and spending time in Philadelphia. He provisioned troops and amassed a considerable fortune.66

In large urban places, specialized baking emerged for different markets. Bakers could provide baking for households. A bakehouse was advertised in Philadelphia in 1746/7 with two ovens that had "continual employ, by loaf bread, bisket baking, and for dinner baking."67 Joseph Calvert in Charleston made a wide range of "Household bread" and cakes. He also heated his oven daily "for the convenience of such Families as shall send Meat, Pies, Puddings, to be bak'd for dinner."68 An engraving by Charles Wilson Peale entitled "The Accident in Lombard-Street Philadelphia 1787" depicts a woman who has just dropped a pie on the street on her way home from the bakehouse. Bakers could also supply dough for baking as recommended in Hannah Glasse's cookbook. After her discussion of preparing and cooking dumpling dough in the recipe, she adds a hint. "As good a way as any to save Trouble, is to send to the Baker's for half a quartern of Dough (which will make a great many) and then you have only the trouble of boiling it."69

At the other end of specialization were the bakers who solely made biscuit or supplied ships. Early nineteenth-century Norfolk was home to thirty-eight bakers; three men were designated specifically as "biscuit baker," one as "ship bread baker." As the market for bread continued to specialize, some bakers were careful to note that they carried on all its various forms. Some combined businesses. Hutton and Colston in Baltimore advertised that they carry on the "baking business in all its branches." They provided ship and pilot bread, but also planned to send a "bread carriage" to the city to supply private families. "Any family, who will send their directions, as customers, shall be supplied regularly."

Women were also involved in the provisioning of bread. Robert Lyon, the single wigmaker in Williamsburg in 1749, had arrangements with several women in town to supply him with bread, paid on a monthly or sometimes bi-monthly basis. His particular provider varied between several women over the course of the year. One was the wife of a butcher, another of a tavern keeper. Other women sold cakes on the streets, both slave and free. Thomas Jefferson bought "cakes from a woman" on several occasions. Confectioners like Mrs. Stagg in Williamsburg sold fancy baked goods and cookies. One pastry-cook in Charleston not only provided a number of elaborate baked goods on demand, but also "collard and potted beef, and many other articles too tedious to enumerate."71

100

C. MILLS

Urban households needed corn (ground to meal) or wheat (processed to various grades of flour) for multiple provisioning needs Mills were links in the provisioning chain in multiple directions. Farmers needed mills for their own household use, local processing of wheat and corn, or export. Mill customers were also both professional and home bakers. The larger shift in the Chesapeake from tobacco to wheat also led to increased need for mills to process wheat for flour export. These two factors-urban growth and export-led to a rapid growth in the number of mills in the Williamsburg area in the eighteenth century (Table 3.8).

Only around mid-century did the region support an increase in the number of mills. Nine mills served the area between 1740-1769, while that number increased to 14 water/water grist mills after 1770. The latter time period reflects both increased export of wheat and flour but also a greater wartime need for provisioning.

Table 3.8.
DOCUMENTED NUMBER OF MILLS 1700-1784
WILLIAMSBURG, YORK COUNTY, AND JAMES CITY COUNTY
YearsWaterWindHorse
1700-171961
1720-1739511
1740-176990
1770-1784141

Williamsburg's tidewater location meant that grist mills could easily be built on the many streams that crisscrossed York County, James City County, and further north and east to New Kent and Charles City County. In trying to assess the importance of Williamsburg as a market, we wanted to know the locations of these mills and whether they suggested an orientation toward town customers or the export trade (Figs. 3.3-3.6). Only one water-powered mill before 1740 fell within an area under two miles from Williamsburg. After 1740 the number of mills quadrupled in the 2-4 mile range from Williamsburg, The growth spurt of mills farther away from the town center (5 to 10 miles) awaited the later eighteenth century.

The closest town mill was probably Ludwell's Mill. At least one town resident, St. George Tucker, had an arrangement with the mill to annually supply "Indian Corn, Indian Meal, and Hominy" for family use and settle up at the end of the time. A ticket system based on playing cards was devised as an accounting system so that illiterate people-probably slaves-could carry out the transactions.

A mill book survives for Carter's Grove covering the years 1775 through 1778. There Burwell manufactured much of the corn and wheat his plantations produced into meal and flour, as well as some grain purchased from area planters. Most was sold to neighbors and to townsfolk and professional bakers in Williamsburg and Yorktown. His was not a large scale mill geared to 101 RR040420 Figure 3.3. Mills, 1700-1719.
(Dates are based on documented references.)
RR040421 Figure 3.4. Mills, 1720-1739. Dates are based on documented references.) 102 RR040422 Figure 3.5. Mills, 1740-1769
(Dates are based on documented references.)
RR040423 Figure 3.6. Mills, 1770-1784
(Dates are based on documented references.)
the export trade, so we were surprised to discover marked seasonality in its operation. Between January and early August Burwell's miller ground little but corn, which was sold in the form of meal and to a lesser extent coarser hominy. Not until early spring were planters certain by how 103 much the previous year's crop would exceed plantation needs and could be safely marketed, and it was at this time that they shelled out and sold off their surpluses. Then between mid August and December the mill produced primarily wheat flour. The first of the wheat from the early July harvest was threshed and delivered to millers during these months. Town residents could not be certain of buying corn meal from the mill towards the end of the year, nor of getting flour early in the season. Consequently we must suppose that they either had to buy ground grains when they were most available and store reserves of meal and flour to carry them across the short season, or else to purchase part of the year from storekeepers or other dealers who presumably maintained more regular stocks.

D. STORES

Beyond the bounds of the marketplace, the most common point of sale for the provisioning of urban households was the retail store. Merchants were instrumental in supplying towns with imported goods from around the British Empire. Along with the massive flow of textiles, tools, and teacups came tea, coffee, spirits and wine. Stores also stocked foodstuffs, like sugar, spices, relishes, pickles, cooking oils, citrus fruit, cheese, and preserved fish. Any easily transportable foodstuffs that were grown in one place and shipped to another could also appear on the merchant's shelf.

The influx of the so-called new groceries (like tea and spices) from the Far East helped define new forms of the store trade in England and the colonies. The growth of these commodities were both fed by and led to new forms of consumption. Because tea drinking and more refined foodways were new forms of behavior, their choice led to new consumers. Because these items were used up and needed rapid replacement, they led to an increasing number of store visits. This combination led to a larger number of outlets. These commodities were sold side-by-side with a vast range of other manufactured goods in many small stores, but specialized outlets also developed called grocers.

It was the intersection of this long-distance trade with local suppliers that define colonial Chesapeake stores, especially those in urban areas. The importance of foodstuffs as a commodity led to a mixing of the sale of imported groceries and local foods like meat and corn. In England, these two sectors would more likely be separated into two institutions: village shops vended groceries and specialized public markets distributed meat and grain. This divergence lies at the heart of the changed role of merchants in the provisioning of urban places.

The Rise of the Retail Trade in Foodstuffs in Virginia

One of the first goals in establishing the new colony in Virginia was to replicate the old social and economic institutions left behind. Just like markets, colonial officials thought stores were critical to success. Indeed, the instructions that accompanied the first settlers from the London Company included directions for building storehouses, houses for public use, and private dwellings on streets that formed a square around a market place. Throughout the next century, the Assembly would try to impel Virginians to live in towns, particularly by controlling where and how trade could be carried out. The earliest attempts at Jamestown to establish markets included centralizing trade in all imported goods, not just local foods.

104

The history of the distribution of goods in Virginia differs markedly therefore from that of England or more Northern colonies. Planters spread out along Virginia's many rivers and ships could travel far inland to deliver goods more cheaply than overland transport. Hugh Jones, a resident in the 1720s, thought this access to water meant that it was easier for "any thing to be delivered to a gentleman there from London, Bristol, etc. than to one living five miles in the country in England."72 The first retail trade thus was a kind of water-borne peddling where merchants traveled to countless private landings to buy tobacco and sell goods. Small entrepots eventually developed on plantations where neighboring planters could bring crops and purchase goods. The development of larger nodes of distribution were necessary to the development of stores. The lack of towns and markets hurt the development of trade in another way. As late as 1697, it was reported that a Virginia "Tradesman having no Opportunity of a Market where he can buy Meat, Milk, Corn, and all other things, must either make Corn, keep Cows, and raise Stocks himself or must ride about the country" to buy it.73

The history of the retail trade in the Chesapeake was inextricably linked to the tobacco trade which moved the primary commodity out in exchange for imported goods. It was the beginning of permanent stores at specified locations that solved the problem of supplying Virginians with manufactured goods. This permanence was possible because of four factors. The Tobacco Inspection Act of 1730 in Virginia and 1747 in Maryland enabled the issuance of tobacco notes that entitled the bearer to a certain amount of tobacco in a warehouse and could serve as a form of specie. As settlement became denser, a larger population enabled a merchant to stock a wider variety of goods and offer them at a year-round basis. Without fear of a dearth of goods, consumers could purchase regularly and even impulsively. As the tobacco trade itself became more organized and permanent merchants and factors began to set up in the colony, greater efficiency meant that ships spent less time sitting idle and goods were sent more frequently. By mid century, that greater efficiency meant that two annual shipments could be made compared to the previous single voyage, with spring and summer goods shipped in February and March, and fall and winter goods shipped in late summer and early fall. Finally, a major factor in the rise of the retail trade was the re-organization of the trade as British firms established regular merchant houses in Virginia, and sent a person to manage their business in the colony.

At first glance, the tobacco trade seems tangential to the story of retail trades in town. Unlike their rural counterparts, urban stores were seldom businesses whose sole purpose was to compete for tobacco in exchange for manufactured goods and cash. Nonetheless, urban stores and the tobacco trade intersected in many ways. The tobacco trade laid the groundwork for how urban stores would evolve. First, while Williamsburg merchants began to advertise by the late 1750s that goods were sold for "ready money only," tobacco receipts or notes were considered ready money. Second, the annual meeting of rural merchants in Williamsburg to set tobacco prices and arrange supplies placed local merchants in a prime position. Third, the regular movement of ships dropped prices of transport and established relationships with English suppliers. Finally, while the kinds of imported foods sold in urban stores might exceed in range those sold in stores across the countryside, the categories sold were similar. John Mair's classification system for 105 Virginia stores included two forms of foodstuffs under the categories of "Grocery" and "West-India Goods." Grocery items were "sugar, pepper, cinnamon, nutmegs, cloves, saltpetre, raisins, currants, indigo, Tea, &" West-India Goods were "brown sugar, coffee, chocolate, rum, molasses." A third category of goods related to food was "kitchen furniture" and included "pots, frying-pans, pewter dishes, plates, and basons, jugs, spoons, candlesticks, tea-kettles, coffee-pots, &c."74

Merchants' Supply of Food and Drink

Ships came coastwise and from around the world to fill the shelves of Chesapeake stores with foodstuffs. Virginia merchants often bought the most important commodities (the West Indies goods like rum and sugar) from wholesalers in Norfolk or Portsmouth. Grocery items (tea, sweetmeats, spices, cooking oils, and the like) came from London, Glasgow, and points in the north of England. At the same time, livestock and preserved foodstuffs like salted butter flowed from the piedmont and backcountry to more eastern points.

Williamsburg and Annapolis were important distribution points for all kinds of goods. Thirty-one merchants operated in Williamsburg in 1770. Twenty-two merchants advertised their businesses in Annapolis in 1774. The rate of expansion in the decade before the American Revolution was impressive. The number of merchants in Williamsburg swelled by nearly a quarter between 1765 and 1770. The merchant community in Annapolis was also in a period of growth. Of those who advertised in 1774, three-fourths entered the trade in the previous decade.75

Not all of these merchants sold food or alcohol. The sale of these basics was, however, carried out in multiple types of retail stores or other businesses. Most important was the specialized grocer. One example will help to understand this type. Joseph Scriviner was a Williamsburg merchant who sold only grocery type goods. He owned a house and store about a block from the capital from 1751 until his death in 1772. His advertised stock included a large range of grocery items: from the standard tea to more high-end delicacies, such as sugar-candies, olives, capers, or Scotch herrings. He also advertised that he carried rice, barley, anchovies, tobacco, garden seeds and snuff. The inventory of his store at his death details the kinds and values of the goods he sold. The largest part of this stock was alcohol which included hogsheads of rum in three qualities, gin in jugs, bottles of claret, gallons of wine, and five "Juggs and carboys with dift. Liquors." Bohea tea, coffee, ginger, pepper, sugar, ginger, molasses, vinegar, and soap were stocked in bulk. Non-food items included snake root (in papers), castille soap, and candles. Eighteen bags of salt and 116 pounds of bacon were also listed. Dozens of quart bottles were on hand to sell retail quantities of liquids stored in hogsheads. His store stock amounted to £541 in Virginia currency. (Missing in this inventory are many of the small delicacies listed in the advertisements.) While we know little about how his store functioned, his death announcement in the Virginia Gazette paid tribute to his local popularity. It predicted that his loss would be "often regretted by the Lovers of a social evening and a Cheerful glass."76

106

Scrivener's stock was probably typical of an established large urban grocer. He was probably unusual in his personal success, amassing a personal fortune of over £1200 pounds. But the countless advertisements and accounts for Virginia merchants demonstrate that specialized grocers were a small percentage of all the outlets for imported food and drink. Rum, for example, was considered one of any general merchant's most important staples and could be sold in multiple ways. The Williamsburg merchant Daniel Baxter, for instance, advertised in 1774 that he had two hogsheads of rum for sale in town. If no one would buy the whole hogshead quantity, he would draw it off in smaller quantities, but none smaller than ten gallons. Many of the stock items were sold in other kinds of businesses, such as groceries at the apothecary shops of George Gilmer and Peter Hay. The gardener at the College of William and Mary advertised garden peas, beans, and other seeds for sale. Christopher Ayscough at the Palace also sold an impressive list of imported seeds.

It seems foodstuffs (like many manufactured goods) were vended whenever and however a profit could be made. Henry Fleming was sent from Whitehaven to Norfolk to enter the saddlery business. (Norfolk was chosen because of its prime location in the meat packing business.) Despite their specialty business, Fleming and his partners continually tried out new items that might make a profit. Fleming sent his partners "cow horns" for a try; his partners sent hogsheads of potatoes. They arrived in April 1773. Fleming reported the test was a rousing success: "Potatoes so good as these cou'd not have come at a better season being much wanted for planting as well as for eating." They were so popular that he could not "serve one half that apply'd, nor so quickly as demanded" though he "kept a boy constantly measuring till all were gone."77

We know much less about the vending of local produce. The Williamsburg merchant John Carter advertised local produce for sale. He was no marginal storekeeper; he was the son of the keeper of the Public Goal in Williamsburg and, along with his brothers, an important member of local society. He was one of several appointed to direct the building of the new courthouse. The Common Council elected him to be chamberlain. Both of these actions imply a well-connected man of good social standing. With his brother he built a double brick house in 1765; one side housed his store, the other side his brother's apothecary shop. Carter advertised in 1767 that he had in his store "chicken and eggs, melons and fish" to be sold amidst his long list of manufactured store items.78 Others accepted "country produce" as payment. John Lewis relocated to Williamsburg from New Kent County in 1770 and announced he was open for business. He accepted payment in "tobacco, wheat, corn, oats, or any of the country produce."79 The tavern keeper Anne Pattison bought butter at William Holt's store.

Overall Analysis of Account Books

The overall story of urban provisioning through stores can also be told through the intensive study of merchants' account books. We analyzed accounts from seven merchants to uncover how their businesses supplied foods to their towns. The sheer scale of the analysis of multiple store account 107 books is daunting. A few conventions of our study should be explained. We recorded all food, drink, fuel and fodder and related food services, including transportation and some various accounting conventions. Since we did not record all cash payments, our view of the overall workings of these stores is limited to their foodstuffs, not their overall businesses. This section will try to take the vantage point of the seller to stores; the next chapter, that of the buyer. Nonetheless, the two will overlap. Stores supplied customers with commodities, customers used commodities to pay. This circularity defines these businesses: merchants were the conduits of multiple forms of exchange.

The total volume of foodstuffs and alcohol that were sold to customers (debits) and accepted as payment (credits) in these stores totaled over £16,000. Some of the accounts recorded large scale commodity brokering in sugar and rum, particularly as forms of credit, so caution is needed in this overall analysis. Nonetheless, our study reflects the flexibility and range of the provisioning system in the eighteenth-century Chesapeake.

The most important item purchased and used in payment was alcohol (Tables 3.9 and 3.10). Francis Jerdone claimed that the "best of the trade depended on salt, rum, and sugar." Without those items, he could attract little tobacco.80 Over half of the credit values and one-third of the debits were for Virginia's favorite drink. The large-scale brokering of several of these merchants was demonstrated by the fact that the amount of alcohol on credit was greater than the amount of alcohol being sold. A second way this is shown is through the average cost of transactions. The average purchase of rum was nearly a seventh in size to the average credit transaction.

Surprisingly, meat was the second most important commodity in the urban merchant's role of provisioning towns. A quarter of the sales were meat, with 16% of credits. If we think of our overall patterns as a hypothetical account book to look at flow, the purchase of meat by merchants and their sale to customers was not a closed accounting system: meat credits totaled £1200, meat debits totaled £2155. The value of meat sold nearly doubled that brought in on credit accounts. Merchants were not simply circulating the commodity, but had other sources of supply that were not documented in the same way. The average cash value of each credit transaction for meat was £10. The value of each purchase was much smaller, only averaging £2.44. A final way to examine this system is simply by looking at the pounds of meat sold. These merchants sold 43,764 pounds of beef and took 10,056 pounds in credit. They sold 177, 541 pounds of pork, and accepted 39,252 pounds in credit. Four times the volume of beef and pork left these stores as had arrived (were accepted as payment.) In summary, bulk quantities of meat were accepted as credit. Smaller (perhaps a range of household sized) quantities were sold. Despite the smaller quantities, 108

Table 3.9.
ALL STORES
PURCHASES ONLY
CategoryCountPercentTotal ValuePercent
ALCOHOL123227.28%£3014.8636.53%
MEAT55012.182155.1726.11
FOOD GRAINS2515.561456.0117.64
SWEETENERS112324.871044.1712.65
TEA/COFFEE4109.08169.622.06
SPICES/CONDIMENTS2285.05159.421.93
DAIRY1914.23131.071.59
FOODSTUFFS1192.6438.590.47
POULTRY591.3125.780.31
FRUITS/NUTS962.1321.230.26
LEGUMES501.1110.920.13
BAKERY/BREAD972.1510.520.13
VEGETABLES461.026.970.08
FISH290.645.120.06
SEAFOOD330.734.000.05
WILD ANIMAL20.040.030.00
Table 3.10.
ALL STORES
CREDITS ONLY
CategoryCountPercentTotal ValuePercent
ALCOHOL18128.19%£4281.4055.55%
MEAT12118.851257.9116.32
FOOD GRAINS9014.021048.3913.60
SWEETENERS7211.21631.168.19
SPICES/CONDIMENTS233.58183.712.38
DAIRY274.21168.382.18
TEA/COFFEE101.5654.260.70
POULTRY6710.4426.700.35
FOODSTUFFS71.0923.820.31
FISHING EQUIPMENT60.9317.020.22
FISH71.095.270.07
FRUITS/NUTS60.933.630.05
LEGUMES20.312.350.03
WILD BIRD162.492.100.03
BAKERY/BREAD20.312.35<0.01
BEVERAGES10.160.50<0.01
VEGETABLES40.620.46<0.01
109 merchants sold four times as much meat as they accepted in payment. They were not merely serving as a kind of wholesale breakpoint that can be tracked through their account books.

The third category of both accounts was food grains. This was more closely balanced on both sides of our imaginary combined ledger. Food grain sales totaled £1456 and credits summed £1048. Sweeteners (mostly sugar) were the next most important commodity with sales exceeding credits (£1000 to £600). The ranked order of importance for the rest of the categories were surprisingly similar, even though numbers of transactions reflected the retail trade's sale of small quantities. For example, 410 purchases of tea and coffee were made with only ten credit amounts.

Local foodstuffs played a small but important part in the businesses of these stores. It is difficult to know precise quantities. For example, an entry might list poultry, not a number of birds. But the number and value of these transactions give some indication. Dairy items (mostly butter and cheese) were purchased 191 times, nearly as many as spices. Sixty-seven credits were given for poultry; 59 debits were recorded. While the amount of value these birds represented was small, they still were 10% of all credit transactions. Wild birds were 2.5% of the credits. Fish and vegetables were each less than 1 % of the transactions, but demonstrate that "country produce" could certainly be accepted. Moreover, while their overall part of the business was small, their range was large. Urban merchants in the Chesapeake accepted a number of agricultural products for payment: local fruit (apples and cranberries), vegetables (greens, potatoes, onions, peas, turnips), butchered parts (beef heart, tripe, tongue), fish (herring, sturgeon), livestock (lamb, calf, cattle, gelding, pig, sheep, shoat), poultry (ducks, geese, turkeys), and processed agricultural by-products (calf skin, beeswax, feathers, tallow, cotton).

If the accounts of the storekeeper for the Glassford chain in Colchester and the John Davidson store in Annapolis are reflective of overall patterns, some of these local products may have ended on the merchant's own dinner table. The Glassford storekeeper accepted a number of traditional market commodities as payment in trade. They were not given cash values, but were traded directly for store goods: i.e. poultry for textiles. Names were occasionally given to identify the seller, but most were unlisted which suggests that slaves may have been the sellers. John Davidson's bookkeeping of household expenses may partially be explained by his own purchase of poultry, fish, and other foods.

The exact mechanism for the flow of commodities from country to town and from producer to consumer is not always obvious in the account books. James Brice's account, for example, details transactions of enormous amounts of meat, but the purchases of meat made by store customers do not seem to correspond to the amounts that are credited to the store. Still, Brice clearly used his three outlying plantations to produce meat that must eventually have been sold in Annapolis and elsewhere.

The meat transactions in William Lightfoot's account book provide a much clearer picture of the relationship between urban storekeepers and outlying plantation suppliers. Lightfoot supplied meat to the urban areas of York County, Yorktown and Williamsburg, and to customers in Gloucester County. Gloucester residents purchased nearly 20% of the meat that Lightfoot sold. Williamsburg residents purchased 13.6% of the total meat sold, and residents of Yorktown purchased 6.5%. People in the surrounding counties purchased 27.3%.

110
Table 3.11.
MAJOR SUPPLIERS OF BEEF TO WILLIAM LIGHTFOOT'S STORE
1752-1761
NameYearsAmountsLocation
William Allen1755-57, 1759-61668 lbs. of BeefSurry County
2 quarters of Beef
William Acrill1755-58336 lbs. of BeefCharles City County
John Edloe1753-55, 1757, 1760210 lbs. of BeefCharles City County
2 quarters of Beef
Unspec. amount of Pork
Benjamin Harrison1752-5708 pound of BeefCharles City County
John Minge1755940 lbs. of BeefCharles City County
Sir William Skipwith1756, 1758-591378 lbs. of BeefLunenburg County
Teddington Estate17609072 lbs. of BeefCharles City County
Unspec. amount of Pork

While more than half his customer base was located in Williamsburg, Yorktown, and the surrounding counties, Lightfoot received his supply of meat from further away. Of his seven largest suppliers, four were located in Charles City County. Another, William Allen, sent meat from his Surry county plantation. Sir William Skipwith, who provided Lightfoot with more than 1300 pounds of meat between 1756 to 1759, owned a plantation in Lunenberg County. By far the largest supply of beef was Lightfoot's own outlying plantation, Teddington, located in Charles City County. In 1760, he recorded 9072 pounds of beef credited to his store accounts from the Teddington plantation.

Summary

In summary, the supply of foods and alcohol in urban stores linked the world to the kitchens of urban residents. The basic need for imported staples such as rum and sugar drove one sector. Rum was the backbone of sales and required linkages between merchants and other wholesalers. Meat was a surprising second in the overall picture which clearly distinguishes Chesapeake towns. The picture is clearest for Williamsburg. The sale of beef and pork was not centered solely through butchers at the market but came from large planters to the immediate west of the region. In some cases, this was from a merchant's own plantation operations. We did not see the local York County merchants reaching to the flow of meat north from North Carolina for export through Norfolk. This availability may, however, have kept prices lower. This set up another sector for the flow of goods: between planters and urban merchants

The trade in imported groceries was important but small compared to the sale of the commodities of alcohol, meat, and grains. Tea and coffee were always for sale; their quantities and value was simply overwhelmed by the large volumes of the other commodities. By the time of the American Revolution, the equipment for making and drinking tea was found in the homes of a broad cross-section of Chesapeake residents. Yet, despite tea's popularity in urban households and large cultural shifts promoting its drinking, the drink of choice for most Chesapeake residents was rum. The plethora of advertisements for imported groceries by Williamsburg merchants in the 111 Virginia Gazette probably overemphasizes their importance. Merchants placed these advertisements around the time of the General Court or General Assembly to attract a customer base for groceries whose own local stores might have more mundane stock. Their detailed listing of more specialized groceries could also be a way to indicate some unusual periods of availability. Unfortunately, our only Williamsburg store evidence falls after the removal of the capital so it is difficult to judge that importance.

E. TAVERNS

The role of taverns in provisioning colonial towns is nowhere more evident than in colonial capitals as centers of government and trade. The swelling of the town's population when courts or assemblies met does much to complicate the problem of the supply of food to both humans and horses. How Williamsburg and Annapolis tavern keepers met that demand vividly demonstrates the flexibility of the system that relied on local planters, stores, butchers, owners of grazing land, sellers of wood, and exchange of tavern keepers themselves.

Taverns in Williamsburg and Annapolis provided a wide variety of food. Tavern fare and prices were regulated by law with the main concern being price. Most meals were simple and based on readily obtained and more inexpensive supplies, such as poultry, bacon, eggs, and bread. The tavern keeper had to be ready for whoever came and perhaps could not always predict business. The regular large business in Williamsburg and Annapolis, however, led to a clear hierarchy of eating establishments known and frequented by wealthier officials and business people. Better fare was available. William Byrd often recorded his meals. At Wetherburn's tavern, he chose a wide range of meats from the common chicken and bacon to veal, venison, mutton, and beef. Special dinners were also often held to celebrate political events. The range of foods and the quantity of people served meant that tavern keepers had to arrange a large and regular supply of multiple foodstuffs.

The tavern keeper Jane Vobe relied on Anderson and Low's store for numerous tavern supplies. She made 86 purchases that could be related to her tavern business between December 1784 and October 1785 totaling £35. She made a payment of £14 toward her bill in August. All fell in the traditional grocery line of retail stores. About half of the purchases were loaf and brown sugar, summing a bit more than 60 % of her food expenditures. She relied on the store for 220 dozen lemons and 25 dozen limes. She obviously obtained her alcohol from another source but stopped by the store for bottles of ale and beer, purchased in half dozen quantities. She needed a bottle of shrub at the end of May. She never purchased tea but may have run out of her supply of coffee, purchasing 4 pounds on each of four occasions in June. Two pounds of chocolate was needed on October 7 and October 14; a bottle of lime juice on May 20 and another on May 23. Six cheese purchases were made in March and April.

She also purchased a number of objects for cooking and serving food. Six dozen knives and forks were added to her stock in April, a week later she needed a ladle. A mug must have broken; she bought one in April as well. On May 18 she bought a skillet and two bowls. She even needed a blank book to keep accounts. A half dozen cups and saucers, a wash hand basin, six yards of sheeting and an empty hogshead were all probably needed at the tavern.

112

She spent a large sum of money in this casual, probably as-needed basis. While we do not know the sum of her business, only lemons and sugar were purchased in large enough quantities to imply a regular supply and they were marketed so seasonally that they may have merely been as she was awaiting shipment from somewhere else. What is clear is that her needs were quite seasonal; she spent 60% of her money at the Anderson and Low store between May and the end of August when she also made her only payment.

Tavern keepers also relied on local merchants for local agricultural commodities. William Lightfoot kept a store in Yorktown, but had a number of Williamsburg customers for meat and livestock. The tavern keeper with the largest account with Lightfoot was Alexander Finnie, a wigmaker by trade who owned the Raleigh Tavern and twenty acres for stabling and pasturing livestock. He had sold the tavern in 1752 but still ran the business. (Washington dined at Finnie's in the fall of 1754.) In April 1754 and January 1755, he purchased £31 pounds of beef, mutton, veal, and pork. His payment included corn and exchange of debts; credit was given for Lightfoot's bill at the tavern and a sum of money owned him by William Byrd.

Other tavern keepers relied on Lightfoot's store. John Duncastle also purchased a large quantity of pork, beef, and mutton but made no payment. Christiana Campbell, Anthony Hay, and Henry Wetherburn also bought small quantities of meat.

A full picture of the provisioning system of Williamsburg tavernkeepers is beginning to unfold in the study of the Anne Pattison account book. This is currently being analyzed by Heather Wainwright, who is writing a master's thesis on the topic. Much of the following brief analysis is based on her work.81

Anne Pattison was a recent emigrant from England who married Thomas Pattison in 1738. He was operating a tavern at his death in 1742. Recently widowed, with no children, or other local family, Anne Pattison made the choice of many town women: to enter the food and drink trade. An account book of that business is extant from January 1744 to April 1749. The inventory at her husband's death shows that this was a well-furnished tavern; her list of customers illustrates that it was a favorite one. Her customers ranged from the most elite to middling tradesmen.82

Pattison relied on a large number of local rural and urban people to run her business. James Bray supplied wood and cider and (on her husband's account) mutton, veal, and corn. Henry Taylor supplied a quarter of beef; Daniel Matthews sold her six hens and a shoat. Fellow tavern keeper Alexander Finnie supplied her with a few bottles of wine and claret, and sold her (for cash) 20 fowls. The supply of butter was a particularly large network. She purchased firkins of butter from Thomas Brewer, Mr. Hutchins the Taylor, and at William Holt's store. She also sold butter to a number of town residents, usually just several pounds. Mr. Dangerfield purchased a pound of butter three times in two days, one pound "at night sent to you." Bread came from the tavernkeeper Joseph Gillam. This was probably made by his wife, who also supplied bread weekly 113 to Robert Lyon, a local wigmaker. Other women were part of her provisioning system: Sarah Jones supplied her with ducks and Mrs. Lewis with oysters.

Despite intense local competition for trade, tavern keepers apparently engaged in a network of exchange among themselves. Matthew Moody supplied pasturage for her and her customers; John Taylor gave her fifty lemons in return for four gallons of wine. Joseph Gillam supplied a small quantity of bread.

Tavern keepers continue to confirm our story of provisioning Williamsburg. They purchased beef, pork, corn, and mutton from large local planters like James Bray. Others may have turned to their most frequent customers from out of town. John Page of Caroline County paid part of his large bill with James Southall with 345 pounds of beef. 83 They purchased from local merchants, who combined the retail trade with large-scale purchase and sale of agricultural commodities. Retail merchants who solely concentrated on traditional imported groceries, such as sugar, citrus fruit, alcohol, and cheese were other suppliers. Tavern keepers often shopped and traded on an ad-hoc basis; when their supplies ran out or there were unexpected increases in customers, they went to the store. Many probably had their own kitchen garden and poultry might occasionally settle a debt. What is missing still is the overall supply of alcohol and their market purchases.

F. MISCELLEANEOUS ENTREPRENEURS

Not all suppliers of foodstuffs to the towns were full-time merchants and retailers. Many suppliers were part-time entrepreneurs, taking advantage of rural connections to funnel meat, grains, and other foodstuffs into the towns, while turning a nice profit in the process. One such enterprising moonlighter was Humphrey Harwood, a Williamsburg brick maker and building contractor who supplied his Williamsburg neighbors with agricultural products in the 1780s. His sales of meat, corn, and meal as well as fuel and fodder appeared to be a profitable sideline to his building activities. His account book, kept between 1774 and 1790, details the business transactions related to constructing and repairing buildings and shows clearly how Harwood augmented his income by selling agricultural goods to his clients.

Humphrey Harwood was born some time before 1743. He married twice and had six children before his death in 1788. Williamsburg was his home his entire adult life. From the mid-1760s until his death, he was active in civic affairs, serving on petit and grand juries almost continuously. During the Revolutionary war he became a member of the local militia. Virginia Gazette ads advertising his need for journeymen brick makers indicate that both his business and his main residence were located in town.84 Harwood purchased his Williamsburg lots from Frances and William Digges in 1769, and he added another half lot to his town holdings by 1785. Harwood also owned a plantation in James City County. According to James City County personal property tax lists, Harwood's rural property was very profitable. In 1782 he owned five slaves and 17 cattle. Just five years later, the tax assessor recorded eight slaves and 42 cattle.

114
Table 3.12.
DEBTOR TRANSACTIONS
HUMPHREY HARWOOD ACCOUNT BOOK
CategoryCountTransaction PercentValuePercent
FOOD GRAINS30055.45%£549.4434.19%
LIVESTOCK40.74356.3522.17
MEAT7413.68277.5717.27
FUEL234.25236.1014.69
FODDER509.2461.503.83
TRANSPORTATION71.2935.032.18
MISC. SERVICES101.8528.651.78
VEGETABLES40.7415.750.64
AGRICULTURAL SERVICE20.378.10.50
ALCOHOL254.627.830.49
BY-PRODUCT203.705.610.35
BARTER10.183.750.23
CASH10.183.000.19
FOOD FURNITURE10.181.830.11
ANIMAL10.181.500.09
BUILDING MATERIAL10.181.380.09
FOOD PREPARATION20.370.750.05
BOOKKEEPING ADJUST10.180.690.04
ANIMAL PRODUCT10.180.440.03
SWEETENERS10.180.380.02
FOOD SERVING10.180.350.02
GRAINS20.370.310.02
BAKERY/BREAD10.180.300.02
FISH20.370.230.01
ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE10.180.000.00
DRINKING10.180.000.00

Brick making and building contracting were Harwood's main business. Most of his clients were his Williamsburg neighbors. George Wythe, Margaret Hunter, Joseph Hornsby, and Dr. Philip Barraud were among the town residents who hired Harwood to repair and construct buildings. The College of William and Mary and the Public Hospital also retained Harwood's services for building work. A few of his customers came from further away. Mr. John Ambler from Jamestown hired Harwood as did Dr. Hall from Petersburg and Thomas Brend from Richmond.

The Humphrey Harwood ledger was kept between 1774 and 1790. Harwood died in 1788 and the account book entries continue in a different hand, presumably that of his son, William, or one of his executors, until 1790. The account book has 133 pages and lists 197 customer accounts. Harwood made no effort to keep his various enterprises separate. The food and grain sales appear mixed in with the building accounts. Indeed, many of his customers purchased both food items and building services from Harwood.

The ledger contains the accounts of 197 customers. Almost seventy of these accounts included some food purchases. Forty-one of the customer accounts included smaller amounts of 115

Table 3.13.
CREDITOR TRANSACTIONS
HUMPHREY HARWOOD ACCOUNT BOOK
CategoryCountPercentTransaction ValuePercent
ALCOHOL189.63%£444.6347.52%
FOOD GRAINS2412.83%285.3630.50
GRAINS42.1457.716.17
MEAT5931.5535.473.79
SPICES/CONDIMENTS31.6024.632.63
TRANSPORTATION21.0712.001.28
LIVESTOCK136.9510.021.07
ANIMAL21.079.000.96
FOOD PREPARATION10.539.000.96
SWEETENERS73.748.940.96
ANIMAL PRODUCT94.818.140.87
FODDER31.607.160.77
TEA/COFFEE42.145.530.59
BY-PRODUCT126.424.480.48
ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE10.534.420.47
MONEY31.602.470.26
AGRICULTURAL SERVICE10.531.780.19
HIRED LABOR42.141.580.17
FUEL52.671.330.14
SEAFOOD52.671.330.14
VEGETABLES21.070.650.07
MISC. SERVICES10.530.190.02
LEGUMES10.530.150.02
BAKERY/BREAD10.530.130.01
POULTRY21.070.130.01
foodstuffs along with larger expenditures for building services. Twenty-five customers purchased predominantly foodstuffs such as veal, corn, wheat, and beef. On the payment side of the ledger, food also appears frequently. Thirty-six customers paid Harwood either partially or totally with foodstuffs. The sale of grains make up more than 30% of the total value of sale transactions in the Harwood account book. He also sold fodder, livestock, and meat. While meat made up a smaller proportion of the total value of sales, it was the second most common food-related transaction in the account book. Of all the food and fuel sales recorded in the book, 13.68% were meat purchases.

James Galt from Williamsburg purchased meat from Harwood most frequently-a total of nine transactions. Harwood's largest meat customer in total volume was Mr. John Farqueharson whose one transaction amounted to £163.5. Hubard Watkins purchased grains from Harwood 26 times, the most of anyone in Harwood's account. Many of Harwood's customers paid their debts in grain and meat. Nathaniel Burwell's three credit transactions for grains amounted to £212.4. George Chaplin supplied meat to Harwood on 35 separate occasions, totaling almost £8.

Probably a good proportion of Harwood's sales of agricultural goods came from his own James City County plantation. Yet some evidence in the account book suggests that Harwood 116 was operating as a middleman in addition to a direct supplier. One of Harwood's more interesting economic relationships was with Major Peyton Randolph of Henrico County. Randolph's 1782 account lists debts to Harwood for agricultural work, pasturage of animals, and land taxes in York and James City County. Randolph's payment for these expenses included livestock, cash and more than 13,000 pounds of barley. Harwood does not seem to have sold this barley to his customers in Williamsburg. Rather the grain was delivered to a Mr. Price. The relationship with Peyton Randolph suggests that Harwood may have been operating as a middleman for the exchange of agricultural goods. Harwood probably sold the livestock he received from Randolph as butchered meat some time after 1782.

Humphrey Harwood was a local entrepreneur taking advantage of his ties to the countryside and to planters like Nathaniel Burwell and Peyton Randolph to supply Williamsburg residents with meat and other agricultural goods. He was a direct supplier, but seemed at times to act as a middleman. The periodic nature of his business suggests that his agricultural supply business was only a sideline to his main occupation, offering him occasional opportunities for making profits through the sale of food. Humphrey Harwood provides one direct example of a supplier of meat and grains to Williamsburg.

G. CONCLUSION

The supply of foodstuffs to urban residents in the Chesapeake flowed through multiple institutional channels and passed through the hands of many people. Public markets were the place for the vending of local, usually more perishable products. Some suppliers were institutional. Market butchers paid licenses and fees. Local town councils regulated the size and quality of bread. Many suppliers to public markets, however, were petty entrepreneurs from the fringes of society, such as poor whites, free blacks, and slaves. The sale of foods also spilled out of market bounds onto the streets. Despite these overarching principals, markets in various towns had different features based on local products and markets. Some, like the market in Williamsburg, did not seem to succeed in its goal of centralizing the supply of safe and sufficient foods and residents turned to the local agricultural economy in alternative channels. The more wealthy used their own farms to provision their households. Others relied on local stores that channeled the flow of meat and grains from plantations outside of the local area.

Larger businesses also grew to meet the provisioning needs of the Chesapeake. Changing agricultural production for export and increasing population led to more mills. Taverns, large and small, had to provision themselves before they could cater to the flood of visitors to colonial capitals during public times. They traded with merchants, planters, local residents, and amongst themselves. Stores sold the vast quantities of alcohol that Chesapeake residents craved, as well as the sugar, tea, coffee, and spices that reflect changing cultural behaviors. They also vended meat, grains and smaller quantities of perishables. It is that intersection of international and local that summarized the special qualities of Chesapeake, especially Virginia, urban merchants.

In ways large and small, changes in provisioning foodstuffs through the early nineteenth century redefined how Chesapeake people obtained their food. Zooarchaeological evidence demonstrates the evolution of animal husbandry. Livestock was increasingly raised for butchering for premium market efficiency. Large-scale hog operations developed to produce mass quantities 117 of pork. Large planters switched to wheat. Merchants bought their staples from wholesalers on the coast. All of these behaviors, and more, demonstrate the move toward capitalism as agricultural systems and their chain of distribution supplied even small Chesapeake towns.

118
119

IV. FOOD AND FUEL CONSUMPTION PATTERNS IN TOWNS

A. OVERVIEW OF DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS

Food, fuel, and fodder distribution networks involved much more than simple, impersonal economic exchanges of produce for cash. Social as well as economic relationships influenced the choice of trading partners, and helped to determine whom sellers would grant credit and whom they would sell to only for ready cash. The plantation records suggest that kin and clientage relationships remained important in the countryside, but were of somewhat less importance in towns like Williamsburg. Large planters like the Burwells chose to deal primarily with townspeople of established reputation and some economic standing, including the doctors, lawyers, government officials, and merchants with whom they interacted in their public roles as justices of the peace, burgesses, and parish vestrymen, and with whom they had other business dealings, and also with craftspeople and tavern keepers whom they and their families patronized. The planters' connections to town residents at the lower end of the economic scale were sparser, and more often limited to irregular sales of small quantities of goods, usually grain or fuel, for cash in hand. For the urban poor, storekeepers, commercial processors, and other middlemen must have been the main source of supply, a circumstance that surely resulted in their paying higher prices for what they bought.

The 1782 Williamsburg census (which lists heads of household by name and total numbers of whites and blacks in each household) is probably fairly complete, covering more individuals than appear on subsequent tax lists and including persons who do not appear in other local records. Materials in the York County biographical files do suggest the census taker missed seven additional households whose heads were present in the town in 1781 and again in 1783, so presumably in 1782 as well. The figures for Williamsburg in 1783 include the 131 residents heads of household assessed for personal property (non residents were eliminated), plus 20 lot holders shown to be resident on the basis of the prosopographical files, plus 10 individuals listed on the 1782 census who were assessed for taxable personal property in 1784 and presumed to be resident in 1783. The 1782 census also includes 47 individuals who are not known to have moved or died, but who could not be traced either to subsequent tax lists or other biographical files, but who may have continued to live in town. None of these individuals owned town lots and most did not own slaves; half were women. These 47 are one quarter of all heads of household, a proportion that we must assume may be missing from most compilations based solely on property tax lists.

Table 4.1 shows the occupational composition of Williamsburg and Annapolis households in 1782-83, and Table 4.2 shows household size for the occupational groups. From Table 4.2 it is clear that professionals, merchants, artisans, and tavern keepers were larger customers not just because of their greater wealth, but also because of their greater needs for food and fuel. 120

Table 4.1.
DISTRIBUTION OF OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS AND THEIR PROPERTY
WILLIAMSBURG AND ANNAPOLIS 1782 AND 1783
Occupational GroupNumber of HouseholdsPct of HouseholdsPct with Lot OnlyPct with Slaves OnlyPct with Lots and SlavesPct with Neither
Williamsburg 1782
Professionals/Public Servants2212036595
Merchants148014797
Craftspersons3720329618
Service Trades21125146714
Laborer/Unknown4324544744
Widow/Spinster45254362733
Total182101
Williamsburg 1783
Professionals/Public Servants3320330589
Merchants159020800
Craftspersons42261029557
Service Trades19125166811
Laborer/Unknown381910302040
Widow/Spinster22141823590
Total161100
Annapolis, 1783
Professionals/Public Servants42207294024
Merchants301410235710
Craftspersons442114202541
Service Trades492320372220
Laborer/Unknown3014310087
Widow/Spinster19915152050
Total214101
Sources: Williamsburg: 1782 Census of Households, 1782 Real Property Tax List, 1783 Real and Personal Property Tax Lists. Annapolis; 1783 Tax List.
Notes: Occupations for Williamsburg residents were obtained from the York County Project Biographical Files and for Annapolis from Edward C. Papenfuse, In Pursuit of Profit: The Annapolis Merchants in the Era of the American Revolution, 1763-1805 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), pp. 250-56. 121
Table 4.2.
HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
WILLIAMSBURG AND ANNAPOLIS
Mean Total SizeMedian Total SizeMean WhitesMean Adult Male SlavesMean Adult Female Slaves Mean Child SlavesMean Old SlavesMean All Slaves
Williamsburg 1782 and 1783
Professionals/Public Servants10.312.53.91.22.02.4n.a.6.0
Merchants10.810.04.61.22.13.7n.a.7.1
Service Trades10.78.65.01.21.32.6n.a.5.5
Craftspersons9.38.55.40.81.51.6n.a.3.7
Laborer/Unknown4.44.03.10.30.30.7n.a.1.7
Widow/Spinster6.24.03.30.50.81.0n.a.3.6
Annapolis, 1788
Professionals/Public Servants7.97.04.00.90.91.80.34.0
Merchants6.46.03.50.50.71.20.42.8
Service Trades6.15.04.10.30.41.00.22.0
Craftspersons5.85.04.70.20.20.50.20.1
Laborer/Unknown3.23.03.10.00.00.10.00.1
Widow/Spinster4.23.02.90.10.21.00.21.4
Households among these groups were usually larger than among laborers and other marginal sorts, and included both more free whites and more slaves.

B. CUSTOMERS OF LARGE PLANTERS AND COMPOSITION OF THEIR PURCHASES

The plantation accounts suggest that transactions between big planters and rural buyers were often heavily influenced by kin, friendship, and clientage relations. The Carter's Grove Burwells on occasion accommodated their planting kinsfolk living on nearby plantations with exchanges of grain, food for livestock, and meat to balance out seasonal shortfalls on one or other of the plantations. They sometimes sold provisions, exceeding the customary allowance, to their quarter overseers and farm managers, as well as to free rural artisans and laborers who worked, periodically, on their plantations. Occasionally they accommodated important town customers such as royal governors, by arranging the purchase and resale of fodder and grain from smaller planters living nearby. Neighboring planters sometimes brought their grain to be ground at the Burwell and Bray mills in exchange for the customary miller's toll (one sixteenth of each barrel of corn brought for grinding into hominy and one eighth of each barrel of corn or bushel of wheat brought for grinding into flour). Sometimes they also purchased small amounts of corn meal, wheat flour, and, during and after the Revolution, whiskey, directly from the miller. Nathaniel Burwell II also supplied by-weekly provisions for two rural Yorkhampton parish paupers, and supplied some food to workers on the farm of an orphan whose estate he administered. Many of 122 the rural transactions, then, reflect the tight-knit networks of kin, friends, and neighbors, and personalized, face-to-face relationships with a strong social content that many historians have described as characteristic of rural communities.

Exchanges of this sort were, however, not the primary ones in which the big planters engaged. Rural customers were less numerous than urban ones, and most of them did not buy frequently or in large quantities. Overall, the Burwells and Bray sold produce primarily to Williamsburg professionals, artisans, merchants, tavern keepers and other service providers including bakers and butchers, and institutional customers. The College of William and Mary was among the Burwells' largest buyers in terms of the value of their purchases, and during the Revolutionary War Nathaniel Burwell II supplied the Virginia government with immense quantities of firewood. The royal governors, Fauquier and Botetourt, depended almost exclusively on rural suppliers like the Burwells for the large quantities of meat, grain, and fodder their establishments required. Otherwise, the town gentry appear to have provisioned themselves primarily from their own plantations. With the exception of Thomas Bray, who obtained many of his needs from his son James's Littletown plantation, and members of the Nelson family, who provisioned their Yorktown households to a large extent from Carter's Grove during William Nelson's tenure as executor, other elite families were apparently purchasing little and infrequently from area planters.

Williamsburg doctors, lawyers, ministers, teachers, and government officers on the other hand, were among the big planters' most frequent and largest customers. This group, along with the artisans, included a goodly proportion of immigrants who were accustomed to obtaining provisions through the market. In addition, a number of the Virginia-born professionals did not yet own operating plantations and hence were also largely dependent on nearby planters. Providers of services like tavern keepers, bakers, and butchers, turned to big planters, as well as to merchants and other middlemen, for the not always predictable supplies of meat, grain, and fuel their businesses required. Town merchants purchased heavily from surrounding big planters, for provisioning their own households, for stocks of goods to be resold locally, and for grain intended for export in inter-regional and inter-national markets. More affluent widows and independent single women living in town also supplied their households extensively with produce from surrounding large plantations.

Different distribution networks for meat and grain are evident even in the records of these four producers-Bray, Nelson, and Carter and Nathaniel Burwell. Nearly 250 urban and rural customers bought grain from these planters, but only 150 obtained some or all of their meat from this source. Table 4.3 documents the number of purchasers and number of purchases of meats from these two nearby plantations. Frequency of purchase is one of the measures we are employing to study customer behavior. Quantities purchased and total value of purchases are two others. Each measure has strengths and weaknesses. Intensity of exchange is not always captured by measures of value or of quantity. Values are usually available even when quantity is indefinite. Total quantities purchased may give a better sense of the scope of the exchange than number of transactions. And so on. We have further work to do in sorting out the different insights that these three measures can supply. At this point it is clear that professionals and governmental officials were the most frequent buyers of various meats. They were followed in terms of frequency of 123

Table 4.3.
BUYERS OF MEAT FROM WILLIAMSBURG AREA PLANTATIONS
1736-1807
LocationNumber of CustomersPct of CustomersNumber of SalesPct of Sales
URBAN
Professional313016429
Craftsperson19189717
Tavern Keeper15158916
Merchant1414438
Gentry996812
Widow/spinster55305
Service/Laborer44173
Occupation unknown55132
Institution11397
RURAL
Planter16465230
Overseer9266235
Craftsperson5141810
Tavern Keeper224023
Laborer2232
Professional1111
LOCATION/OCCUPATION UNKNOWN1329
TOTALS
Urban1036856073
Rural352317623
Unknown139294
Total151100765100
purchases by artisans, tavern keepers, and merchants. In terms of the value of goods exchanged, merchants and the College of William and Mary led.

Large planters supplied their urban customers with pork, usually in the form of freshly killed whole animals, during the late fall/early winter slaughter time prevailing in the countryside and almost certainly by prior arrangement. They also supplied beef, veal, mutton, and lamb in their appropriate seasons, likely also by prior arrangement. These meats were sold in fairly large units, usually whole animals in the case of lambs and sometimes of muttons. The larger beasts were also often sold by the side or the quarter. The planters clearly sought to keep down processing and distribution costs, and probably pilfering as well, by selling mature sheep, calves, and sometimes old cattle as well in minimally butchered units. Not surprisingly then it was householders and business people who could use and afford to pay for meat in quantity who bought from the large planters.

On the other hand, the big planters supplied grains to a much wider range of urban and rural customers. Although it is clear, especially from the account book for the mill, that Carter's Grove slaves (and in the mid 1770s also a professional white wagoner) regularly carted grain into 124 town for frequent buyers (and probably also for some chance customers), others who purchased grain likely took care of the transportation themselves. People who bought small quantities at the mill or directly from the plantation would have carried the grain away on horseback or in their own carts, and merchants often arranged for the transport of large volume purchases.

The Burwells clearly trusted their general manager, quarter overseers, and millers to conduct grain sales and to collect the proceeds. Very possibly Burwell had instituted a ticket system similar to that described by an area miller owner in 1800 "for more easy keeping, adjusting and settling Accounts between the parties." The customer paid a sum in advance guaranteeing a supply of corn, meal, and hominy from the mill. When the customer needed grain, he was to "send a [pre-issued] Ticket in writing . . . specifying the Quantity of Indian Corn which may require, and whether the same shall be delivered without grinding, or shall be ground into meal, or homony....the Tickets so sent shall annually, or oftener, if desired be returned, and thereupon a receipt expressing the full amount thereof shall be given..., and the said Tickets and receipts shall be deemed the only and necessary and sufficient Vouchers between the parties." The tickets were fashioned by cutting up decks of playing cards; in this example red spades signified hominy and black aces, meal, orders that could be readily understood by either unlettered free workers or illiterate slaves.1

C. CUSTOMERS OF STORES AND COMPOSITION OF THEIR PURCHASES

As discussed in the previous chapter, stores were conduits for multiple systems of exchange. Alcohol and sugar linked merchants to Norfolk and the West Indies trade. Many imported groceries were purchased from London, Glasgow and the northern ports. Meat, corn, and other agricultural commodities flowed from many plantations, some outside of the immediate local region. Merchants were not major suppliers of bread nor of local perishables, although they accepted some in credit at their stores.

The mercantile activity of customers in seven store accounts in the towns of Williamsburg, Yorktown, and Annapolis form the data for this study. Each purchase of food and alcohol was coded, individual items were grouped into larger categories, and residence and occupation were assigned. While all these stores were urban, their customers were not. Sixty percent of the 346 customers were rural. These customers made about 3000 purchases summing to £6000 local currency. Rural people spent about 70% of that total.

Rural and urban people had different spending patterns at these stores. Nearly half of the rural people bought sweeteners, while only 38% of the urban ones did so. Similar patterns were found in the sale of alcohol. Half of the rural residents but only 36% of the urban residents chose alcohol. A third of the urban people bought tea and coffee, but only a quarter of rural ones did. Food grains were more similar between the two groups: 15% of urban customers bought grains, 18% of rural customers made that choice. The biggest difference lay in the purchase of meat. 125 Almost a third of urban residents but only 20% of the rural ones relied on the store for at least some part of their meat supply.

The staples of merchants' businesses were clearly the West Indies products; alcohol (mostly rum) and sugar (mostly loaf sugar) were over half of these purchases. They were consumed (quite literally, used up) often and formed the bulk of customer expenditures. Nonetheless, stores were major suppliers of meat for both rural and urban people; more than 10% of their purchase costs were for meat. Tea and coffee were slight indicators of urban living: while the proportion of money spent was similar, tea and coffee were purchased twice as frequently by urban people than rural ones. This probably suggests the more frequent purchases of smaller amounts.

These stores catered to a broad cross-section of the urban and nearby rural population. Of those we could identify, the most common customers at these stores were planters (31.3%), followed by other merchants (17.7%) and tavern keepers (11.8%). Professionals also used these stores in large numbers (7.7%). Carpenters and others in the building trades were equaled by the number of overseers (4.4% each). Retail craftspeople formed the last significant group; they were another 4% of the purchasers. The rest followed miscellaneous occupations.

These were overwhelmingly the purchases of households headed by men. While women were always important customers in urban stores (particularly in the purchase of textiles and household items), they are most often hidden behind a husband or father's name in accounting practices. Despite these constraints, women account holders made up eight percent of the purchases in these accounts.2 Seven percent of the purchases were made by a number of institutions, including the College of William and Mary, parishes, poor houses, "the Colony," "the Commonwealth," etc.

To fully explain the patterns of customer expenditures, it is necessary to look at individual suppliers. Each of these merchants had different strategies to supply their stores and each had customers that differed in time or place and could express different behavior. The following are brief snapshots of the current analysis of seven businesses. Each will briefly introduce the business and the merchant, describe the account book, then summarize some basic patterns of consumption. The circular nature of this business means that supply and consumption are integrally linked and will both be discussed. We know more about some of these businesses than others, so the brief accounts are not always parallel in their depth. Virginia stores will be discussed first, followed by Maryland businesses.

Anderson and Low (Williamsburg, 1784-85)

Matthew Anderson and David Low opened a store in Williamsburg in 1784. Born in 1745, Anderson was an established businessman who had operated a store in King William County. He was also involved in the shoe and harness making business, serving as superintendent of shoemaking in wartime Virginia from 1779 to 1781. He advertised for a partner to join Matthew Anderson and Company in June of 1784. David Low must have answered that call. Born in 1742, 126 Low was nearly the same age as his partner. He worked in the Williamsburg store of William Russell for the two years before he entered the partnership with Anderson. The Anderson and Low store thus entered into a postwar Williamsburg business after the removal of the capital to Richmond. While many longtime merchants stayed in town, others moved to Richmond or returned to England. Anderson and Low rented William Carter's half of the Brick House tavern. Carter moved to Richmond while his brother John stayed behind in the retail trade. Anderson and Low thus moved into a prime location, even if their new business stood side-by-side to a long-established merchant.3 We tracked their business from November 1784 to November 1785.

The Anderson and Low store should have functioned as an urban retail model would predict: vending only imported wares only for cash. Anderson and Low matched one part of this ideal. They granted no credit for local foodstuffs with the exception of 79¼ pounds butter from John Pelham "by M. Anderson," perhaps for personal use. Nonetheless, while Williamsburg merchants often advertised that business was for ready money only, our analysis shows that was not the case. The sales recorded here were generally made on credit. At the end of their first year of business, Anderson and Low's outstanding debts were staggering. Their debts totaled almost £3000, nearly half of their sales that year. This reliance on credit fits the general rural pattern of extending long credit. They also performed other mercantile functions; on several occasions they took hogsheads of tobacco and sold them to Scottish merchants.

Jeanne Whitney's analysis of the store in the same year enables us to put these food purchases in greater perspective. (We chose our year for that purpose.) Anderson and Low's establishment was a typical general store selling a vast range of household goods and extending cash loans. Like all such stores, textiles were the most common item sold. One hundred and fifty patrons (40%) bought sewing supplies and 140 (37%) bought linen, the most common type of textile sold. Sugar was bought only by 76 (one-fifth) of their customers, averaging sixteen pounds each. Fifty-six customers bought tea (14.7%). The same number bought alcohol.

Almost half of the food-related purchases made at their store were for particular West Indies goods: alcohol (33.04) and sugar (16.7%). (Table 4.4). The value of those sales was 70% of their business. Tea and coffee sales at their store were more significant than in any of the others we studied, about one in five sales were for that grocery item. One in ten purchases were for spices or condiments, although each purchase was small. Their sale of meat was a large percentage and is puzzling. There were large quantities of cash paid for beef and pork by Matthew Anderson that were listed as store debits but could be traced in no other way.

Most alcohol purchases were local: Williamsburg (25%), York County (35%) and James City County (2%) The same pattern was true for sugar (83%). Other customers were from surrounding (Surry and Elizabeth City County) and farther distant (Henrico and King William) rural areas, but their proportion of the overall business was small. Anderson and Low's customers included some of the largest planters in town (George Wythe) and county (Thomas Nelson). Planters made up over 40% of their customers, at a rate matched by the other Virginia merchants. Tavern keepers were also important customers. They included Jane Vobe, Christiana Campbell, 127

Table 4.4.
SALES AT THE ANDERSON AND LOW STORE
WILLIAMSBURG, 1784-1785
CategoryCountPercentTotal ValuePercent
SWEETENERS29833.04%£170.4333.97%
ALCOHOL15316.96131.7826.26
TEA/COFFEE18720.7383.8216.71
MEAT70.7844.048.78
SPICES/CONDIMENTS859.4224.134.81
DAIRY222.4412.112.41
FRUITS/NUTS586.4311.582.31
FOOD GREAINS272.9911.252.24
LEGUMES424.668.211.64
FOODSTUFFS151.663.230.64
BAKERY/BREAD70.781.180.24
VEGETABLES10.110.040.01
and James Southall. Large-scale merchants who made purchases at the store included Samuel Beale, William Prentis and William Holt. The largest customers were Robert Gilbert (a little known probable tavern keeper), Adam Byrd, James Southall, Gabriel Galt, Jane Vobe, William Carter, and Walker Murray. All spent over £30. Anderson and Low served two diverse sets of customers.

Alcohol was by far the most important item in the store's business in terms of its volume. While only a few customers purchased rum, it was bought in large quantities averaging almost £3. It was the most important item for the merchant. That same pattern of large purchases defined the sale of sugar; the average purchase was over £2.10. Nonetheless, Anderson and Low stocked a large variety of objects and commodities for the needs of their customers that had low values and were sold less frequently.

William Lightfoot (Yorktown, 1747-1764)

William Lightfoot was the son of Philip Lightfoot, a well-to-do Yorktown merchant who was active in county affairs. At his father's death in 1747, he inherited unspecified York County lands and four lots, including the "lot where he now lives." Philip Lightfoot was one of the two major players in the Yorktown market until his death; his wealth and connections discouraged new businesses. His son William did not receive the same advantage. For example, Francis Jerdone (see below) moved into town and became an active competitor.

The account book details Lightfoot's business in Yorktown and his connected business to his plantations in Charles City County. (Lightfoot was sheriff in York County from 1746 to 1748, but later served as burgess from Charles City County, 1756-58.) His business was carried out with men from all parts of the colony and several leading British merchants.

Like several other account books we studied, Lightfoot's business centered on the sale of grains, meat and alcohol. (Table 4.5) Unlike the other accounts, Lightfoot had a high concentration of business in food grains. A third of his business volume was the sale of grains and 128

Table 4.5.
SALES AT THE WILLIAM LIGHTFOOT STORE
YORKTOWN, 1747-1764
CategoryCountPercentTotal ValuePercent
FOOD GRAINS618.74%£479.1033.51%
MEAT13319.05458.5032.07
ALCOHOL31645.27308.1721.55
SWEETENERS13218.91152.8910.69
FOODSTUFFS91.299.910.69
SPICES/CONDIMENTS223.158.650.61
DAIRY131.866.540.46
FRUITS/NUTS50.723.790.27
LEGUMES20.291.380.10
TEA/COFFEE30.430.750.05
SEAFOOD20.290.100.01
this was matched closely with his acceptance of grains in payment. His other products do not show this parallel. One-third of his credits were sugar compared to one-third of his sales of meat. While the value of his sales of alcohol was only about one-fifth of his business, one out of every two purchases was alcohol. His customers were rum drinkers, not tea-sippers: tea was purchased only three times.

His credit accounts for meat were much smaller; only a third of the value of outgoing meat was represented by meat credits. Alcohol credits exceeded alcohol purchases, expressing the movement of alcohol in a different flow. Poultry was a surprising 20 % of his credit transactions, although representing a miniscule value. No customers purchased poultry from Lightfoot, so they may have been for his own use. Other items accepted for credit were wild birds and dairy.

Like Anderson and Low and Francis Jerdone (below), William Lightfoot served both the rural community and the urban residents of Williamsburg and Yorktown. Forty percent of the customers we could identify were planters. Another 12% were some form of tavern keeper; 10% were merchants or storekeepers. His clientele was notable for the number of overseers (9.0%)

Francis Jerdone (Yorktown,1751-1753)

Francis Jerdone was born in Scotland in 1730 and came to Virginia by at least 1746 as a part owner of a cargo of goods and factor for the merchants Buchanan and Hamilton of London. He first arrived in Hampton in 1746 with his cargo of goods. After a few months, he went to Yorktown with an eye to establishing business there. The town's trade was firmly in the hands of two strong rivals: Philip Lightfoot and Thomas Nelson. He at first sought advice and received strong discouragement from his potential rivals. Their actions only made Jerdone more determined: "their endeavor to remove me farther from them made me more anxious to settle among them." He settled there and began business, but his opportunity was fully opened at Philip Lightfoot's death in 1747. He explained that Lightfoot's "great riches while he continued in health deterred everybody from settling here, none being able to vie with him but Mr. Nelson who 129 always had an equal share of trade with him." By June of 1748 he had a large storehouse and a store at the waterside.

His location in Yorktown did not assure his success: Buchanan and Hamilton went bankrupt in 1751. It is unclear exactly how he carried on business for the next few years, but it seems he was selling goods in the hopes of settling the company's affairs, offering "Sundry Parcels of Sortable European and Indian Goods." Within three years, he had also become involved with David Anderson in a store in Hanover and made good profits. This success may have pulled his attention to purchasing land and further opening business westward. Another factor may have been his recent marriage to Sarah Macon of New Kent County which brought with it wealth and connections through her father. A letter to Samual Richards in August 1753 records his disgust with the current business. He complained that "tricking, evading & shuffling methods [are] practiced by almost everybody who have any dealings at all." He announced that he was "now retreating into the woods, where I am building a small hutt to live quietly with my little family." He was careful to assure a colleague that he was not giving up his business life: he had some thought of "carrying on a small peddling business." The next day he noted that he had been gone from York for about a month, living at "the Widow's" (probably Lightfoot) and Colonel Macon's (perhaps his father-in-law) in Hanover. He wrote that he hoped to be in Louisa County by the following May.4 His business interests expanded in one final direction: with Williamsburg merchant and mill owner William Holt he purchased the important forge and mills at Providence in New Kent County of Rev. Charles Jeffery Smith He died in Hanover in 1771.

The Francis Jerdone account book we studied was kept between 1751 and 1753 that records his actions as an import/export merchant operating out of Yorktown. Like John Davidson in Annapolis, Jerdone was firmly tied into the larger Atlantic economy. He records transactions with ship captains moving rum between the West Indies and Virginia and also keeps track of shipments of tobacco to England. Despite the larger context of his business, Francis Jerdone was also engaged in the local economy. Moreover, his account book sheds light on the flow of commodities in Virginia. Jerdone had property in Hanover County and for nearly every type of commodity, Jerdone's largest customer base was in Hanover County. He drew together his business and former residence in Yorktown and his new home in the piedmont.

The majority of Jerdone's accounts relate to transactions and profit and loss calculations of his import/export business (Table 4.6) Large quantities of West Indies products like rum, sugar, and molasses are recorded in this book. Jerdone also sold typical eighteenth-century store goods. Meat was the third most common commodity purchased from Jerdone. He also sold substantial amounts of food grains and some dairy products.

Customers from Hanover County purchased much of the alcohol, food grains, dairy products, foodstuffs, and import store goods. They purchased nearly 30% of the alcohol and dairy products. More than half the spices and condiments (56.16%) and almost 20% of the sugar and molasses (18.18%) flowed between Yorktown and Hanover. Meat was the one commodity that did not follow this pattern. Jerdone sold his meat locally, most of it in Yorktown (31.25%). Meat 130

Table 4.6.
SALES AT FRANCIS JERDONE STORE
YORKTOWN, 1751-1753
CategoryCountPercentTotal ValuePercent
ALCOHOL6636.67%£1749.1659.08%
SWEETENERS4625.56506.9717.13
MEAT2312.78310.3810.48
FOOD GRAINS73.89220.957.46
SPICES/CONDIMENTS105.56104.773.54
DAIRY137.2242.211.43
FOODSTUFFS42.2212.780.43
TEA/COFFEE105.5610.770.36
BAKERY/BREAD10.562.500.08
also flowed into Jerdone's business. Almost 18% of credit transactions involved meat. Jerdone's meat creditors are harder to identify. Jerdone purchased large quantities of barreled meat, often from ship captains, and on a few occasions he paid freight charges on it. He probably imported at least some of the meat he sold.

Like the other Virginia merchants, planters were Jerdone's most important customers (40%). Another 12% were tavern keepers. His cargo business involved a number of ship's captains and seafarers (7.50%). His participation in the cargo trade is seen in the number of ship's captains and seafarers. Jerdone exchanged goods with a number of ship captains in the 1750s, and he recorded frequent purchases of rum, sugar, molasses, and spices in his account book. During the years he operated his mercantile business from Yorktown, he was an active member of the cargo trade between the mainland colonies, the sugar islands, and England.

William Coffing (Annapolis 1770-1771)

William Coffing kept a dry goods store that supplied a broad cross-section of Annapolis residents and those from the surrounding rural area. An account book is extant from 1770 to 1771. Very little is known about the merchant himself. The previous analysis by Edward Papenfuse, however, helps tell the larger story of his trade. About half of his customers were Annapolis residents, and most made their living in some way supplying wealthy town dwellers. These included the high end professions (doctors, lawyers, and merchants) as well as those who built their houses. (We found brickmakers and plasterers to be active consumers). Over forty percent of the rural customers were planters; most of the rest had similar professions to the townspeople, suggesting they made their livelihood at some times in town.5

Coffing's account book reveals the typical sales of commodities in eighteenth-century retail stores (Table 4.7). Of food and drink, almost half of his sales were for alcohol, both in terms of number of transactions and amount sold. Sweeteners (mostly sugar) were the next most common item purchased. About a third of the purchases made were for sugar, although they formed only one-fourth of the value of business. A few meat transactions were also listed. Most 131

Table 4.7.
SALES AT THE WILLIAM COFFING STORE
ANNAPOLIS, 1770-1771
CategoryCountPercentTotal ValuePercent
ALCOHOL50842.69£243.1345.33
SWEETENERS37731.68126.2123.53
MEAT242.0273.3413.67
TEA/COFFEE14312.0250.759.46
FOOD GRAINS121.0119.083.56
SPICES/CONDIMENTS544.549.301.73
FOODSTUFFS645.387.601.42
BAKERY/BREAD20.172.980.56
FISH10.082.000.37
DAIRY20.171.350.25
LEGUMES10.080.360.07
FRUITS/NUTS20.170.290.05
were barrels of pork. Other listed transactions might be merely bookkeeping forms, a record of exchange between two people appearing as credit or debit on one person's account. For example, he records "cash paid for mutton and veal" when Joseph Gale was sick. Another records "paid for meat for Nance for broth." Small amounts of meat were entered on what might be described as his expense account: "4 pounds pork." Tea and coffee sales totaled about 10% of his sales.

Coffing's business is closer to the urban model of people involved in urban occupations and selling mostly for cash. Nineteen percent of his customers were in the retail trades. An equal number were tavern keepers. The building boom in Annapolis in this period meant high wages and good employment for those in the building trades. This is further reflected in the number of purchases of those so employed. Only 11% of his customers were identified as planters.

John Davidson (Annapolis, 1780-87)

John Davidson was born in Scotland about 1737 and arrived in Annapolis some time before 1766. He became a partner in the mercantile firm of Wallace, Davidson & Johnson in 1771. The firm was involved in the Atlantic trade, but Davidson stayed in Annapolis to keep the store and maintain the running accounts. When the firm dissolved in 1777, he went into partnership with Charles Wallace and Matthew Ridley of Baltimore. Davidson held a number of civic offices in the 1780s. His household expenses and more biographical detail can be found in the next chapter.

Similar to Francis Jerdone's Yorktown business, Davidson's store sold a large quantity of alcohol (Table 4.8). While only one out of four purchases were alcohol, its sale made up over 90% of the value of his business. Unlike some of the other merchants studied, however, his sales were not mainly of rum, but of finer spirits and beer. Bottles of madieria and claret were sold. Barrels of beer made up the bulk of his other alcohol sales. He even sold sacrament wine to St. Anne's Parish. He was not, however, purely a specialist in alcohol. The huge expense of those sales merely masked his other store business. For instance, the number of sales of alcohol were 132

Table 4.8.
SALES AT THE JOHN DAVISON STORE
ANNAPOLIS, 1780-1787
CategoryCountPercentTotal ValuePercent
ALCOHOL1926.76%£506.6692.97%
TEA/COFFEE1521.1314.742.70
FOOD GRAINS11.416.671.22
DAIRY68.456.331.16
SPICES/CONDIMENTS2028.174.660.86
MEAT11.412.740.50
SWEETENERS57.042.600.48
FOODSTUFFS11.410.210.04
BAKERY/BREAD22.820.200.04
FRUIT/NUTS11.410.170.03
exceeded by the number of sales of spices and condiments. The first was valued at over £500, the latter at less than £5. Still nearly 30% of the individual sales transactions were spices. While meat made up only a very small amount of sales, it made up nearly 20% of the creditor lines. The bulk of this comes from one transaction in November of 1780. Otherwise, Davidson dealt with meat only occasionally and in small quantities. Nearly all his meat customers lived in Annapolis.

James Brice (Annapolis, 1746-1801)

James Brice was born in Annapolis in 1746, the son of Sarah Frisby and John Brice, a prominent government official. He was a prominent lawyer and a planter. While he owned a substantial townhouse in Annapolis, he was chiefly a country gentleman, with substantial plantations in Cecil and Kent counties. In 1771, he purchased another large plantation in Anne Arundel County on the banks of the Severn. Brice served in many county and parish offices in the latter quarter of the eighteenth-century.

Brice's store accounts cover the period between 1767 to 1801. He was primarily involved in the retail trade in Annapolis, but his accounts reveal the relationship between his town enterprises and his outlying plantations. Plantation receipts make up a good portion of the account book entries.

Brice's business mainly brought rural products to town to sell to urban people. He particularly specialized in the sale of meat (Table 4.9). Nearly 40% of the sales in his account were pork purchases. Corn, beef, wheat, flour, and butter along with pork accounted for nearly 75% of the whole. Of the twenty-four customers in Brice's accounts, four were planters and three were either farmers or planters. The rest were largely an urban clientele including tavern keepers, blacksmiths, a mariner, a stonemason, a carpenter, and a bricklayer. Even though other businesses in Virginia we studied similarly harnessed the flow of meat and corn into urban areas, Brice was unusual in his reliance on his own massive plantations.

133
Table 4.9.
SALES AT THE JAMES BRICE STORE
ANNAPOLIS, 1767-1800
CategoryCountPercentTotal ValuePercent
MEAT10141.91%£1134.5461.10%
FOOD GRAINS4719.50615.2033.13
DAIRY218.7148.272.60
ALCOHOL2510.3720.401.10
POULTRY114.5617.300.93
FISH20.837.040.38
FRUIT/NUTS83.323.060.17
FOODSTUFFS72.902.550.14
VEGETABLES20.832.110.11
SWEETENERS72.901.900.10
SPICES/CONDIMENTS31.241.830.10
FISH52.071.830.07
TEA/COFFEE10.410.780.04
LEGUMES10.410.670.04
William Farris (Annapolis, 1795-1800)

William Farris opened a store in Annapolis about 1759. He was born in London in 1728 and arrived in Philadelphia with his mother while still an infant. His father was a clock maker who died shortly after the family's arrival in the colonies. Farris became a watch and clock maker by the time he set up his mercantile business. By 1764 he had expanded his enterprises into tavern keeping, silversmithing, and furniture making. He was also an avid gardener, both ornamental and practical. He sold seeds and surplus vegetables. He also traded seeds with multiple townspeople. Farris died in 1804 with an estate valued at £804. The period of his store account covers the period 1795 to 1800.

Like James Brice, Farris moved quantities of rural foodstuffs into Annapolis. (Table 4.10). More than 30% of the total purchases made at Farris' store were for meat. Food grains constituted nearly 24% of the value of his sales, while sugar accounted for nearly 20%. Alcohol was a small percentage of his business, summing only 13%. This pattern does not match any of the other merchants whose businesses were defined by large quantities of alcohol sale.

Farris did not list customers for all transactions making it difficult to characterize his business. The six customers listed are a blacksmith, carter, slave, storekeeper, a milk maid, and an itinerant peddler.

134
Table 4.10.
SALES AT THE WILLIAM FARRIS STORE
ANNAPOLIS, 1795-1800
CategoryCountPercentTotal ValuePercent
MEAT26121.12%£131.6530.60%
FOOD GRAINS967.77103.7624.12
SWEETENERS25820.8783.1919.34
ALCOHOL14511.7355.5712.92
DAIRY1149.2214.273.32
POULTRY483.888.481.97
TEA/COFFEE514.138.021.87
SPICES/CONDIMENTS342.756.081.41
VEGETABLES433.484.831.12
SEAFOOD312.513.900.91
BAKERY/BREAD856.883.670.85
FRUITS/NUTS221.782.350.55
FOODSTUFFS191.542.320.54
FISH231.861.790.42
LEGUMES40.320.320.07
WILD ANIMAL20.160.030.01

D. PROVISIONING FUEL AND FODDER

Fuel for cooking and heating was an essential need for all town residents. Given high transport costs, the supply had to come from the local area unless the towns were accessible to water transport. Much of our information on urban fuel supplies comes from land locked Williamsburg where the sole source was the immediately surrounding countryside. (Scattered plantation records for the hinterlands of Annapolis, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., demonstrate that after the Revolutionary War landowners who could harvest and transport firewood to these markets by water were quick to take advantage. By the early 1800s such planters used their own slaves or else employed free blacks to cut down pine cordwood and to harvest wood from swamps during the winter in order to provision town markets.) Town residents who owned nearby farms likely supplied their heating and cooking needs from off these lands. Those who did not own adjoining rural land had to rely on neighboring planters like Bray and the Burwells, who earned extra income by having their slaves cut firewood during the winter and cart it into town, or on more transient suppliers who have left no trace of their activities in surviving records. At the lower end of the economic scale, it is possible that some households in towns like Williamsburg still supplied themselves at least in part by scavenging fallen wood in surrounding woodlands.

At this point it is impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the requirements of Chesapeake town dwellers for heating and cooking. Presumably their requirements for warmth were somewhat less than those estimated for more northerly towns like Philadelphia. On the other hand, the greater propensity of Chesapeake townsfolk to relegate cooking to separate outbuildings would have increased total household requirements for the combined purposes of heating and cooking. Assuming from the basis of Williamsburg's 1782 census of a total of 182 135 households, and apportioning an estimated 48 affluent households at a high consumption estimate of 25 cord per year, 59 households at a middling estimate of 12.5 cords per year, and 75 households at the minimal estimate of 5 cords a year, the resident householders would have required at least 2,300 cords of firewood per annum. Clearly many suppliers were involved in meeting such urban requirements.6

The total output of the plantations we analyzed is problematic in that, until 1776, they recorded production only in cartloads of undefined volume. Between 1742 and 1744 Bray was supplying Williamsburg residents with an average of 250 loads per year. Production at Carter's Grove in 1767-68 was about 300 loads a year. Apparently governmental agencies, even those in the throes of a civil war, required more precise accounting. In 1776 Nathaniel Burwell started the year valuing a cartload of firewood at 6s, but in November he began selling by the cord at 7s. Possibly the standard "load" was always a cord, and Burwell simply took advantage of the going price paid by the government to raise the price he charged private customers. In 1776 Burwell delivered into Williamsburg just over 2,000 cartloads plus 319 cords of wood, a level of exploitation his plantations clearly could not sustain for long. The next year Burwell's sales amounted to 461 cords, and thereafter dwindled to 25 to 50 a year, although it is not certain that all later wood sales were recorded. Reported prices for a single wood delivery rose after the war, so we have to assume that fuel prices were increasing, as they clearly were in larger cities like Philadelphia, although the ambiguity as to possible changes in the size of the unit normally delivered prevents close measurement.

It appears that before the Revolution Bray and the Burwells may have been managing their relatively abundant woodlands with an eye to marketing small, sustainable harvests of firewood over the long run. This changed during and after the war when the chance to make windfall profits by cutting down and selling off most marketable timber and firewood not required for plantation building, fencing, and fuel apparently proved irresistible. Increased wood sales are also consistent with a shift away from tobacco in favor of grain which required more cleared acres for corn and wheat, and more pastures and improved meadows for livestock. Comments about marked reductions in woodlands in the immediate hinterlands of towns, in the Chesapeake and elsewhere, frequently appear in early national period sources. This inevitably raised the price of fuel, as townspeople had to turn to increasingly distant sources of supply.7

As a rule these large planters delivered firewood primarily to regular customers, often during the winter on a prearranged schedule, either weekly or biweekly during colder weather. In the early 1740s Bray usually charged either 5s 6d or 6s for a load of wood. (Bray had made arrangements with one William Bryan to supply wood at the 5s 6d rate, while he charged 6s for wood his own slaves delivered. The two prices may reflect the use of carts of different capacity, or else Bryan was willing to provide wood at a slightly lower price than Bray.) However Bray also offered a discount of 1s per load to large customers who agreed to purchase their entire season's supply from him. Between May and November 1743, for example, Williamsburg tavern 136 keeper Ann Pattison paid 5s instead of 6s each for 51 loads of wood "because you are a large customer". Bray offered John Burdett, another Williamsburg tavern keeper, the same option. He could buy individual loads at "5/6 unless you are a Customer for the Year, if You are, then @ 5/." Burdett, it seems, opted to buy from several suppliers, since he paid 5s6d for the 29 loads he purchased that year from Bray.

After the Revolution, Nathaniel Burwell II often marketed firewood in town on a ticket system similar to that described above for grain. Customers who had previously paid for a supply of firewood presented the requisite tickets to the slaves or free wagoner who made the deliveries. Anyone who bought more tickets than he or she needed could sell them to others. This system was definitely not a recent innovation, for the Bray accounts include a mention of wood tickets in the 1740s. The fuel delivery system was thus a relatively sophisticated one through which planters often received payment in advance and one that minimized the need for workers who made the deliveries to handle cash. Negotiation of yearly contracts or purchase of tickets assured customers of a certain and regular supply of fuel. Such acquisitions allowed them to plan in advance the amounts of firewood they would cut and market in any given year.

Table 4.11 tabulates the Williamsburg residents who bought firewood from Bray and the Burwells. Town professionals, artisans, tavern keepers and other service providers predominated. Clearly one or two large area plantations were insufficient to meet the town's needs. Presumably gentry households supplied themselves from their own farms, and poorer folk bought small quantities of firewood (presumably at higher prices) from other suppliers on the open market.

The evidence from the plantation accounts regarding purchases of fodder and straw for provisioning urban livestock is considerably clearer. The primary purchasers of corn fodder and wheat straw were the royal governors, a few town-dwelling gentry families, and town professionals. These supplemental livestock foods must then have been used almost exclusively to feed the carriage horses of elite town residents or gentry visitors during the winter and early spring when grass was in short supply or else to enable doctors and lawyers to keep their horses in high condition so that they could travel at will. Otherwise Williamsburg townsfolk must have fed their milk cows and riding horses with whatever pasturage was available in the immediate area, or else with supplemental grain rather than with purchased fodder. Even tavern keepers, who had to accommodate the equine needs of a variety of travelers, made only a few minor purchases of fodder. Apparently, then, most townspeople managed to provision their livestock from immediate local resources, except only for those who opted for the comfort and status symbol of traveling by carriage.

137
Table 4.11.
FUEL CUSTOMERS IN WILLIAMSBURG
1740-1807
Occupation Number of CustomersPct of CustomersNumber of PurchasesPct of Purchases
Craftpersons1619549
Service16197211
Professionals1012274
Tavern Keepers8912720
Merchants78234
Gentry45549
Widows45396
Institutions2213521
Laborers1191
Urban, Occupation Unknown56447
Rural, Planters22152
Location and Occupation Unknown1113315
Total8610163099

E. ECONOMICS OF ACQUISITION

In order to determine how different sorts of customers paid for their purchases of foods and fuel, we systematically recorded information on methods of payment from the various account books. At this point we need to do additional work to refine the analysis of means of payment, especially for those who paid for their purchases by more than one means, and to differentiate between long term and short term extensions of credit. However preliminary results show that most buyers of food and fuel paid their big planter suppliers with some combination of cash and of goods or services.

In an economy like that of the colonial and early national Chesapeake where hard money was in short supply, it was a major convenience and sometimes a necessity to conduct as many transactions as possible by bookkeeping offsets that required no actual physical transfers of scarce coin. A preliminary count of methods of payment reveals that 201 customers of Bray and the Burwells paid for food and fuel with cash, 215 paid in goods and services, and just 76 bought on credit. There was considerable overlap between the three groups. Most of those who paid cash not surprisingly were residents of Williamsburg and Yorktown. Some cash payments, especially for small amounts, were made at the time of purchase. More substantial cash payments were made within a few months or at most within a year. Planters and other rural folk were much more likely than townspeople to pay wholly or at least in part with goods and services. But town professionals, merchants, artisans, and service providers also frequently satisfied a portion of their food and fuel bills with offsetting accounts for medical care, legal and other services, and durable goods supplied the planters. How often accounts were balanced and outstanding shortfalls settled by an actual transfer of money depended both on the volume and frequency of transactions between buyer and seller, and upon whether or not exchanges remained relatively equal or became 138 decidedly unbalanced in favor of one of the parties. Payments were made sooner on the unbalanced accounts than on the relatively balanced ones.

Our preliminary analysis suggests that the large planters were decidedly conservative about selling substantial amounts of perishable foods on credit. Only 30 of the 76 credit transactions involved amounts of more then £10, and these purchasers were almost exclusively merchants, professionals, institutional buyers like the state government and the College of William and Mary, and well-established tavern keepers and artisans. Large planters, it appears, engaged in urban provisioning as a disciplined business, and took sensible precautions for avoiding much risk. Although some of their customers did not pay as promptly as the planters might have wished, the planters eventually received almost all sums due. Unlike country storekeepers, whose books were frequently overburdened with a numerous bad debts and long-outstanding balances, in the plantation accounts very few debts were eventually written off as uncollectable, and these were generally for small sums advanced to marginal individuals. Town customers were apparently sufficiently numerous that the big planters could restrict their dealings to solvent and responsible buyers.

139

V. CONSUMPTION PATTERNS IN INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDS

A. HOUSEHOLD DIET THROUGH HOUSEHOLD ACCOUNTS

Nine lists or account books of urban household expenses from Virginia and Maryland were analyzed to understand the kinds of foods purchased, the sources for those items, and the relative dietary expenses of various categories of foodstuffs. These accounts varied widely based on the personal needs of each household or keeper of the accounts; some recorded all foodstuffs, including grocery items and alcohol, and others only regular market purchases. At least one recorded costs of supporting a number of slaves in an industrial setting; others recorded expenses for household slaves. Several were mere jotted notes, others more elaborate bookkeeping forms. Since the number of people represented by these expenses was seldom documented, relative frequencies were often used within households.

Despite our wish to understand all sectors of society, these accounts overwhelmingly represent the elite, the group most likely to document their activities. At one extreme were the records of the managers of kitchens or chefs for a governor of Virginia (Governor Botetourt) and president of the United States (President Jefferson). Most others were merchants or storekeepers. Only one account represented the actions of a lower middling craftsperson. Other forms of evidence can be utilized to examine the diet of the poorer sorts through institutional records for poor relief, and provisioning slaves and hired servants.

Urban residents may have attained more direct self-sufficiency by keeping livestock and growing vegetables in local gardens. Such choices, however, had direct costs. Large kitchen gardens were not common on small urban lots. Livestock needed space, and labor was necessary for butchering and preservation. Cows could be kept for a supply of milk, butter and cheese, but only about half of Williamsburg residents in 1783 made the choice to keep even one animal. In the same way, urban residents were not always reliant on urban systems or urban peoples. These lists of expenses, therefore, can by omission demonstrate a greater degree of self-sufficiency, alternative arrangements not recorded in daily records, or foodstuffs grown on nearby farms. The delicate balance is deciding whether what is not paid for is not part of the diet or is merely not recorded in this accounting system.

Overall Household Patterns

The data studied were nine accounts of household provisioning dating from 1721 to 1827. These included the records of the wealthy planter Charles Carroll of Annapolis (1721-1739); the so-called Williamsburg Wigmaker (probably Robert Lyon) in 1749; the Colchester, Virginia storekeeper for the Glassford chain (1766-1768); the Governor's Palace in Virginia (1769-1770); the Annapolis merchant John Davidson (1780-1787); and the household of the Norfolk merchant Moses Myers (1824-1827). The prodigious record keeping of Thomas Jefferson enabled us to analyze his expenses in several small series of accounts: a combined list of all his food expenses in Williamsburg (1768-1784); in Annapolis, while residing with James Madison while Congress was 140 meeting in Annapolis (1783-1784); and at Washington as President (1806). See Appendix 2 for more details.

These records were combined to create a database of about 6000 purchases and credits for food, drink, and fuel spanning a century. We first looked at them as a group.Three methods are intrinsic in this quantified data to study food provisioning and diet. One measure of analysis is the number of purchase transactions. Each time a purchase was made for a particular item, it can be noted as a choice made and ranked with other choices. Another was the amount of money spent, simply summing up investment in particular categories. A third is to count the total quantity of a given category. That measure is least consistently recorded and hence the most complicated. For instance, some keepers of accounts lumped prices of several items for a day; others may have simply recorded an unknown unit, such as "some fish," "butter" or "a bunch of herbs." Some recorded quantities but no prices; others prices, but no quantities. Other units were simply difficult to compare; one chicken, for instance, represented a very different consumption expense than one quarter of beef. One purchase could be a barrel of rum, another a quart of rum. Further refining of the data overcame some of these difficulties in terms of price and quantity by ultimately converting units to their lowest common denominator. A chicken and a beef were made comparable, for example, by a distillation into pounds of useable meat.

The broadest category of analysis of expenses totaled almost £ 4000, and included costs for fuel, fodder, and some quantities of grain that could have been for either human or livestock consumption (Table 5.1). The most frequently purchased item was poultry (19.3%), followed by beef, pork, mutton, and veal (18.0%). Vegetables (15.4%), fruits and nuts (8.4%), dairy products (8.1%), and fish (7.0%) fell next in ranking. Oysters and crabs were a small but notable part of the diet.

Nonetheless, the relative cost of each of these items in the household diet was quite different. About a third of the food expenses were for meat. Poultry were the most common item purchased, but were relatively inexpensive at about 8% of the cost. The difference between the frequency of vegetable purchases and their cost was even more striking. They accounted for 15.4% of the purchases, but only 3% of the cost. On the other hand, food grains were also relatively infrequently purchased but made up 15% of the budgetary cost. Alcohol was not included in all account books, so is underrepresented here. Even so, it totaled ten percent of overall dietary expenses.

For complete comparability, it is necessary to remove various categories of goods that were not uniformly recorded in each account book. These will be discussed in appropriate individual household sections below. For instance, excluding the categories of alcohol, grocery items, and food grains allows the overall analysis of locally produced foodstuffs as part of the diet. These items were recorded in each individual account book.

As Table 5.2 demonstrates, over half the cost of provisioning a household from local agricultural products was for pork, beef, and mutton (54.1%). When poultry (12.8%), fish (3.0%), seafood, (1.6%), wild animal such as rabbit, (.7%), wild bird (.7%), and wild meat such as venison (.6%) are added, nearly three-fourths of a household's direct local food costs were for various sources of meat.

141
Table 5.1.
FOOD AND DRINK EXPENSES
FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS
CategoryCountPercentage of TransactionsTotal ExpensePercentage of Value
Meat104818.01%£1277.3834.78%
Food Grains2514.31564.9315.38
Dairy4778.20389.4210.60
Alcohol1562.68337.049.18
Poultry112519.33302.108.22
Bakery/Bread1282.20302.108.22
Vegetables89315.35115.583.15
Fruits/Nuts4888.39102.402.79
Fish4117.0670.091.91
Spices/Condiments951.6346.111.26
Sweeteners1141.9644.001.20
Tea/Coffee500.8642.121.15
Seafood1953.3538.821.06
Foodstuffs230.4021.080.57
Wild Animal310.5316.860.46
Wild Bird911.5616.710.46
Wild Meat140.2414.580.40
Fuel50.0914.130.39
Legumes1011.7413.750.37
Livestock90.154.650.13
Herbs991.701.890.05
Storage30.050.340.10
Dairying10.020.150.00
Beverages10.020.140.00
By-Product10.020.060.00
Unknown40.070.030.00
Drinking10.020.000.00
Grains40.070.000.0
Table 5.2.
LOCAL FOODSTUFF PURCHASE FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDS
CategoryCountPercentage of TransactionsTotal ExpensePercentage of Value
Meat104821.07%£1277.3854.14%
Dairy4779.59389.4216.50
Poultry112522.62302.1012.80
Vegetables89317.96115.584.90
Fruits/Nuts4889.81102.404.34
Fish4118.2670.092.97
Seafood1953.9238.821.65
Wild Animal310.6216.860.71
Wild Bird911.8316.710.71
Wild Meat140.2814.580.62
Legumes1012.0313.750.58
Herbs991.991.890.08
142

Other parts of the diet reflected the inability of these urban residents to completely provision themselves without resorting to markets. Keeping a cow for butter, milk, and cheese was one of the easier ways to cut cash costs to supply a household's food. But the cost and space needed to keep a cow may have mitigated against this choice. Butter and milk added another 16.5% to the cost of feeding these households. Vegetables could have been procured from home gardens, but remained a large 18% of the transactions and 4.9% of the cost. Fruits and nuts were similarly important; 9.8% of the purchases were for fruits. Finally, legumes and herbs were insignificant costs but were common purchases, about 2% each of all transactions.

The relative importance of beef, pork, and poultry is even clearer when converting from animals or part of animals to pounds of useable meat (Table 5.3). Beef remained the most important (41.6%), followed by pork (32.3%), poultry (10.7%), fish (6.4%), mutton (5.2%) and seafood (2.4%).

Table 5.3.
POUNDS OF USEABLE MEAT PURCHASED
Meat TypePounds of Useable MeatPercentage of Meat
Beef24926.2941.57%
Fish3850.036.42
Mutton3125.255.21
Pork19365.6132.30
Poultry6512.0010.69
Seafood1443.242.41
Venison208.500.35
Wild Animal373.500.62
Wild Bird254.600.42
Grand Total59959.02

Caveats continue. The supply of large quantities of beef or pork were sometimes purchased through other arrangements (through merchants or relatives, for example) and perhaps were not always recorded here. Nonetheless, the general patterns here mesh with the zooarchaeological data, which shows a greater reliance on beef than pork. It is worth questioning previous historical assumptions about Virginians' dietary reliance on pork.

These documents may even overestimate the amount of pork in white diets. They record total purchases for households, and would include any slaves who lived there. The diet of slaves in urban households is currently under investigation by Patricia Gibbs and is a complex problem. Most rural slave diet was based on portions of corn meal cooked into pots of hominy.1 When rations were allotted to slaves on plantations, pork was the preferred meat. Urban slaves were probably more likely to share the kitchens and food supplies of their owners than rural ones, even if it took the form of less desired leftovers. (The diet of many white households included regular reliance on hashed meat from previous meals. Leftovers may be a bit of an anachronism.) 143 Whatever the case, the pork purchased may reflect in an unmeasurable way the slave presence in these households.

What is equally significant is the absence of wild meat. Less than 2% of the meat purchased was venison, rabbit, and wild birds. This is a key marker of the difference between rural and urban diet. Zooarchaeological evidence shows a much greater reliance on wild animals in rural places than urban ones. This urban reliance was about 4 to 5% of all the useable meat. The zooarchaeological record and the documentary record dovetail nicely here.

How the meat was purchased is also significant. Beef and pork were most often purchased by the pound. If large quantities were purchased, it was often listed as parts of the animal-a side, a quarter, a piece, for example. However, the number of pounds were the unit of cost. This suggests, of course, that the animal was already slaughtered. Poultry, on the other hand, was by the unit and was probably purchased live or freshly killed. Other cuts like head, feet, and pluck were also purchased, but these were limited to the most elite households like Jefferson's and Botetourt's, clearly eating the elite dishes described in contemporary cookbooks. By 1824, the Myers household purchased beef in brisket and side, mutton in legs, and veal in breast, loin, and filet. This may represent a dramatic final shift in commercial butchering.

As the story of meat consumption illustrates, individual accounts can help in understanding these larger patterns and provide proverbial flesh on the bones of these numbers. Three accounts were chosen to represent different parts of the social hierarchy, as well as their ability to answer distinctive questions. Purchases for Virginia governor Lord Botetourt detail provisioning for the most elite Virginia cuisine at the time of the American Revolution. A Williamsburg craftsperson at mid-century demonstrates how much of the total expenses were devoted to food in a lower middling craftsperson's life. Finally, an Annapolis family just after the Revolution shows how provisioning systems were complex and varied.

The Governor's Palace of Virginia

The supply of food to Governor Botetourt's palace is well documented. William Sparrow arrived from England around the first of July 1769 to serve as a cook for Lord Botetourt. He began a book for his cash expenses on July 3, 1769, recording purchases of necessary items daily until he left to return to England in February. The book was then kept by Mrs. Wilson, who served as cook until Lord Botetourt's death in 1770. After Botetourt's departure, the book continued to be kept, albeit less completely, until July 24, 1771.2 Each day the recorder entered purchases of necessary items to run the Governor's kitchen, occasionally noting from whom they were obtained. Local agricultural foodstuffs were the major items noted. Other foodstuffs were obviously ordered directly or arranged from other suppliers. No alcohol was recorded, nor were sweeteners or spices purchased more than occasionally. A second book "Dayly Acct. of Expenses 1768 June 24-October 14,1770" had some occasional overlapping of food details, but they were sporadic. Our analysis concluded at the annual audit in June 1770.3

144

The account book recorded the major items of daily food provisioning for the palace household and staff (Table 5.4). Meat (beef, pork, and mutton) remained the most important item purchased (39.4%), with poultry and dairy slightly higher than the whole household sample. But unlike most customers in the overall sample, Sparrow did purchase the special parts of animals for elite cuisine. Heads and feet of calves were purchased, as well as a pig's head.

Table 5.4.
LOCAL FOODSTUFF PURCHASES AT THE VIRGINIA GOVERNOR'S PALACE
CategoryCountPercentage of TransactionsTotal ExpensePercentage of Value
Meat 13714.24%£123.8433.31%
Poultry25025.9961.2416.47
Dairy16316.9455.2714.87
Fruits/Nuts15015.5928.567.69
Bakery/Bread222.2925.636.89
Spices/Condiments101.0419.895.35
Fish656.7613.973.76
Wild Animal101.0413.653.67
Foodstuffs151.569.972.68
Wild Meat60.627.502.02
Seafood535.513.450.93
Wild Bird272.813.040.82
Vegetables343.532.860.77
Food Grains131.351.710.46
Legumes50.520.580.16
Sweeteners10.100.500.13
Beverages10.100.140.04

Dairy products were also frequent purchases. Butter was about 80% of the dairy cost, purchased several times weekly, or sometimes daily. The amount purchased was as small as a pound, but on two occasions in the fall of 1769, more than three hundred pounds were acquired. Milk was procured for cash either daily or three to four times a week, usually in small quantities of one or two quarts. Bread was also purchased for cash. While quantities of bread were not given, price information suggests a single unit. If the average price of a pound of bread is used as a denominator, these basic units were a little over a pound, ranging up to about eight pounds of bread. The account book demonstrates, however, how the supply of bread varied. The purchases ranged from daily to weekly, with five months totally missing. The accounts include two large payments for "bill for bread," one in December 1769 and another in February 1770, the latter equivalent to about 60 pounds of basic bread. It is possible that the bills for bread were for the special and more refined breads for special events, and the daily bread purchases for the kitchen staff. This assumption is born out by the accounts after the death of Lord Botetourt; bread continues to be an expense along with basic provisioning, like butter, poultry, and beef. It is unclear how these small purchases, larger relations with bakers, and palace ovens combined to produce enough bread for household, guests, and servants.

The purchase of fruits and nuts was another way that the Governor's position was unique: he had to entertain a number of guests with food and drink in formal settings. A course of fruits and nuts was an important part in the orchestrated set of prescribed dining courses printed in 145 cookery manuals and documented in the homes of the elite. The relative cost of fruits and nuts in the Governor's household was twice that of the overall the household sample. Oranges were the most costly item in the supplying of fruits to the Governor's household, making up about 10 percent of all the fruit expenditures. They were purchased infrequently and in large quantities, such as one hundred china oranges from Norfolk on October 24, 1769, only a few weeks after purchasing a dozen from Mr. Jackson. This suggests high usage but also the vagary of supply of citrus from the West Indies. Nonetheless, these accounts actually under represent the cost of citrus to the Governor's household. The "Dayly Account of Expenses" also includes expenditures for 500 limes (September 1769), two barrels of limes (October and November 1769), and four dozen Seville oranges (January 1770). These citrus were used in punches and other alcoholic drinks as well as served and used in cookery.

Local produce was far less expensive but no less eagerly consumed. Apples were purchased regularly from July to January and were about three percent of the fruit cost. The range of other fruits was astonishing, and included pears, peaches, damsons, plums, figs, and watermelons. Berries, such as cherries, cranberries, gooseberries, huckleberries, mulberries, and strawberries, were important. Nuts included walnuts and chestnuts.

Fish was also significant (nearly four times the percentage of the overall sample). Most important was rockfish, nearly half of the total of fish and seafood expense. They were purchased in quantities as large as sixteen fish, as small as one, and in strings. Rockfish were large creatures and together equaled over 288 pounds of useable meat. Wild animals and fish summed 4% of the Palace expenses as compared to less than 1 percent for the household sample. The Palace cook purchased partridges often; at least 55 in the eleven months studied, often grouped by ten or more birds. Other wild birds included shell drakes and blue wings. Finally, large amounts of turtle meat were purchased on two occasions. One weighing 50 pounds was purchased in September 1769; six turtles weighing almost 200 pounds made a feast on October 7, 1769, a date that fell between a Council meeting and General court session. Turtle meat came at a premium price; at one shilling per pound it cost more than three and a half times that of a pound of beef. Further diversity was accomplished through dining on hares and venison.

The Governor's purchases reflect the diversity of diet in the homes of the most elite. The addition of wild birds and animals, fish, and seafood (oysters and crabs) demonstrate a large provisioning system that traversed the countryside and crossed economic and racial boundaries. The town's most important political leaders, such as the Speaker of the House or the President of the Council curried favor by sending special foods, usually carried by their slaves. These slaves were tipped well for their services. The generosity of the Governor meant that the value of the tips in some cases equaled the value of the foods themselves. This regular movement of cash into the slave economy ensured that the power of the governor to command attention rested at the top and bottom of the Williamsburg hierarchy. The provisioning of the colony's most important political leader took on special significance. One group gained or buttressed political patronage, the other added to pocket change.

Supplying the governor spread far past the town limits. His position brought the seasonal bounty of the countryside to his door. Pamunkey Indians were noted in the "Daily Expense Book" as providing wild fowl and were paid over £1 in November 1770. A month later Colonel Moore's servant was given two shillings, six pence for wild birds. Fruits and vegetables were also added, often acquired from servants or slaves. For example, Anthony Hay's servant brought king crabs, 146 Philip Ludwell's servant brought peaches, Thomas Nelson's yams. And it was not just the kind of commodity but when it appeared that carried cachet. The earliest strawberries of the season, a coveted commodity, were carefully carried to the governor's gate.

This ability to reach in multiple directions for supply of a large variety of specialty foods to fit the special cuisine of Virginia's governor is a large metaphor. The governor hosted large entertainments, dispensing food and drink to curry favor. Townspeople reciprocated with small treats of special luxuries, a tasty wild bird, a few luscious berries. If food greased the machine of the town, the governor was a master mechanic.

"The Williamsburg Wigmaker"

The wealth and power of the governor allowed a bountiful table. But what of the town's less wealthy citizens? An unknown individual kept a diary of expenses in The Virginia Almanack in 1749.4 Based on occasional uses of the French language and a note about supplying wig making services in the book, he has become identified by the shorthand "The Williamsburg Wigmaker." (George Washington's accounts also refers to a visit to the French Wigmaker in Williamsburg.) He was probably Robert Lyon, who was in town by at least mid 1749 when he appeared in court. He began his career as a barber and maker and seller of wigs and locks. His business did not flourish; he advertised in February 1750 that he labored "under several Inconveniences at present, by reason of having a great many outstanding Debts, and some of them of a long Standing."5 He did not have the capital to invest in slave labor, but instead chose imported servants from Ireland, at least one of whom was a convict. One ran away in 1752, another in 1755. Robert Lyon frequently appeared to be indebted during his days as a wigmaker. In 1755, he announced that he now kept Tavern at "the Sign of the Edinburgh-Castle near the Capitol."6 He later went on to become a merchant.

Wigmakers catered to the elite, but their personal advancement was limited. Barbers in Annapolis after the war ranked low in the hierarchy of wealth, generally between £100 and £l200 with widows, spinsters, clerks, shoemakers, tanners, coach makers, and ship carpenters, but above other service jobs and laborers.7

The account begins with a brief entry detailing a January payment for the "last three loads of wood," then notes the next ten months of expenses. January and December are in essence missing. This is a brief diary. The author often includes multiple lines of expenses in one row with a sum expense. Nonetheless, the range of things that he records is quite broad: fuel, making clothing, an "old Negro who wash'd for me," cleaning, candles, even the expenses of entertaining "Compaigne from Charles City." The amount of money spent and recorded in this ledger for various purchases and services is significant: £27 for the ten months listed. If the wigmaker's 147 annual expenses were estimated based on the ten months detailed here, it would exceed £32. The Williamsburg craftsman spent a great deal for living in the colonial capital.8

We do not know the cost of this wigmaker's housing or who shared his household. He includes no details of expenses that might suggest a resident female. Because few colonial men would engage in domestic behavior assigned to the female gender, he pays women to sew, clean, and cook. These multiple arrangements may not have been satisfactory for he was ready to hire live-in help by the fall of the year. On October 24, he notes that "Nanny a Mullato Girl came to stay with me and try whether we could agree." In June he changed residence, paying a carter to move his belongings and for two days worth of labor setting up his furniture. He also paid numerous slaves to perform labor and other tasks, implying no slave labor at his own discretion. He had a garden and paid Charles to work in it in August. He thus owned furniture, but probably no slaves or livestock. It is likely that he was a single man renting housing of more than one room.

The basic costs for anyone were housing, clothing, and food. This analysis will attempt to establish how much a part of the cost of living was spent on food out of the larger categories of housing, clothing, heating and lighting (Table 5.5).

Lyon does not record his expenses for housing, so a proxy is necessary. Rent in Williamsburg in the 1750s averaged £16, but this average included a number of more wealthy residents. The cabinetmaker Peter Scott rented a house and shop for £10 on the Duke of Gloucester Street in the 1750s, and may better represent craftsmen housing.9 He did record clothing, which we included in this account's analysis. Lyon recorded £1.14 in costs for clothing, including the purchase of textiles, sewing and tailoring. Clothing was thus his second largest expense after food, five percent of his costs in his account book. The wigmaker outfitted himself with four new shirts in the summer of 1749 made by Betty and Mrs. Foesi. Another four were purchased in November from Mrs. Johnson. The textile costs were recorded for one shirt and two caps. He also had breeches made. His new clothing-shirts, shirts, a pair of breeches, and a new pair of garters-was not lavish and must have only been replacements for the most used and visible part of his wardrobe. We can guess Robert Lyon's clothing by that described for his runaway Irish servants. Each left in standard coats and waistcoats (one wearing a wig) but their breeches betrayed their status as working men. Their breeches were leather and "ticken." But even the most basic clothing was not inexpensive. The cost of clothing an inmate at a Philadelphia workhouse in the 1760s was over £3 Pennsylvania currency.10

Lyon purchased fuel for heating and cooking. Four purchases of wood summed £1.8.0 and about 4 percent of his costs. Candles were purchased six times in the eleven months recorded here. The cost of lighting through the purchase of candles comprised another 2%.

Feeding himself was the largest portion of his budget. Fully 43% of his roughly assigned cost of living were for the provision of food and drink. One hundred and fifty five purchases of 148

Table 5.5.
OVERALL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF A
WILLIAMSBURG CRAFTSMAN: ROBERT LYON, 1749
CategoryCountPercentage of TransactionsTotal ExpensePercentage of Value
Rent10.44%£10.0027.26%
Alcohol5323.455.5415.11
Dairy198.413.409.28
Money41.773.068.34
Sweeteners156.642.697.33
Bakery/Bread187.961.925.22
Clothing62.651.484.03
Fuel41.771.484.02
Foodstuffs62.651.163.15
By-Product41.771.103.00
Poultry187.960.822.23
Lighting62.651.163.15
Tea/Coffee20.880.501.36
Hired Labor52.210.290.80
Misc. Financial41.770.290.77
Storage31.330.280.75
Spices/Condiments52.210.250.69
Transportation41.770.230.63
Textile/Linen10.440.230.61
Legumes20.880.220.61
Personal10.440.190.51
Meat20.880.140.38
Fruits/Nuts41.770.120.32
Hygiene41.770.110.31
Retail Craft31.330.110.31
Seafood31.30.070.18
Fish10.440.060.17
Laundry31.330.060.17
Cleaning10.440.050.14
Medicine31.330.050.14
Tavern10.440.030.08
Agricultural Eqiup10.440.000.00
Building Material10.440.000.00
Food Grains41.770.000.00
Food Preparation10.440.000.00
Loan10.440.000.00
Misc. Services31.330.000.00
Sewing10.440.000.00
Vegetables83.540.000.00
149 food and drink totaled £16 for the year, (about 60% of the expenses recorded in his account book) (Table 5.6). Over a third of the cost and more than a third of the transactions involving food and drink were for alcohol. The wigmaker purchased rum frequently and avidly. Small quantities of rum were purchased several times a week. Not all quantities were given, and rum was often lumped in with other items. Nonetheless, he consumed at least 48 quarts in the 48 weeks detailed. The dog days of summer may even have necessitated the consumption of two gallons between August 1 and August 12 alone. He occasionally paid for labor with rum, such as to the man who cut wood or for "the people who carried my things." A pint of madiera was necessary for medicinal purposes, "to take the bark" in October.

Table 5.6.
FOOD AND DRINK EXPENSES:
ROBERT LYON, WILLIAMSBURG, 1749
CategoryCountPercentage of TransactionsTotal ExpensePercentage of Value
Alcohol5334.19%£5.5434.82%
Dairy1912.263.4021.39
Sweeteners159.682.6916.89
Bakery/Bread1811.611.9212.03
Poultry1811.610.825.15
Tea/Coffee21.290.503.14
Spices/Condiments53.230.251.60
Legumes21.290.221.40
Foodstuffs10.650.191.18
Meat21.290.140.87
Fruits/Nuts42.580.120.71
Seafood31.940.070.42
Fish10.650.060.40
Food Grains42.580.000.00
Vegetables85.160.000.00

If his alcohol consumption remained constant, his diet varied. Dairy items were the second most common expense; eighteen purchases of butter were made throughout the year. A cheese on June 28 was a large expense, costing eight shillings. Eggs were the second important category. His purchases of eggs were frequent, three or four times a week in February, March, and April. Nonetheless his meat acquisitions were infrequent, only twice in the eleven months listed. On July 12 he purchased a quarter of lamb for three shillings and six pence, as well as rum, salt, butter and milk. On August 22 he may have dined on a breast of veal costing one shilling and three pence. Fish and seafood were occasional purchases; fish on June 20, crabs on July 4, oysters in October and November. He had a garden at his disposal, although little is known of its size or what was grown. Vegetables were thus infrequent purchases that varied seasonally: peas (in July and November), cucumbers (July), turnips (February), onions (July and August), and English potatoes (August, October, and twice in November). A muskmelon was a treat in August, pears in July, and dried apples in August.

The backbone of his diet was bread. The wigmaker had arrangements with several women in town to supply him, paid on a monthly or sometimes bi-monthly basis. Mrs. Goosley was his 150 supplier in March. Mrs. Lane was his choice for bread paid monthly from April to July, and she reappeared in August, September, and November. Mrs. Gillem supplied his bread in July (perhaps for two weeks), October, and, again, in November. These women were adding to their family incomes by becoming providers in the food and drink trades, one of the few opportunities for women in the urban economy. Martha Goosley of Yorktown was the wife of Ephraim, a blacksmith, but had relatives in Williamsburg. In 1749, she would have been a young wife and mother of a two-year old son. Rebecca Gillem was the wife of Joseph, who owned a boarding house in town. Mrs. Lane may have been Susannah, wife of John Lane, sergeant of Williamsburg.

The monthly fee to Mrs. Lane was a constant two shillings and six pence, which may have equaled five pounds of bread. Mrs. Gillem was usually paid one shilling or one shilling and three pence. February's supply may have been more ad hoc. In that month he specified its purchase on February 7, a loaf a week later, and more bread on February 18. On February 6, he purchased two persimmon pones, probably of corn meal for one shilling and three pence. Meal was also purchased in February, the only amount noted. Flour was purchased in March, May, and June (from Mrs. Lane).

Finally, grocery items were infrequent but necessary items. Sugar was an important part of his expenditures, the third most important relative expense, following alcohol and dairy items. Seventeen percent of his expenses was for a variety of sweeteners. Their analysis is made difficult by the wigmaker's imprecision in recording amounts and prices (sugar was often lumped with other items in single lines). Brown sugar was bought six times, peaking in August with three purchases; loaf sugar was designated twice, and undistinguished sugar on seven occasions. One of the loaves of sugar was from a Mr. Penman (perhaps Thomas Penman the carpenter) costing fully thirteen shillings and nine pence. His largest sugar expense was for twenty five pounds of muscovy sugar totaling over £1 on April 10. The linkage of sugar with his rum purchases is clear. Sugar was often purchased with rum on a given day and peaked in August, his greatest month of rum purchase.

He probably also used sugar to sweeten his rare purchases of tea, although the small amounts of tea consumed and their infrequent purchase do not suggest common usage. The one pound of bohea tea purchased in February may have lasted until his quarter pound purchased in November. Finally, allspice, sugar, pepper, and cooking oil were small expenses. The purchase of an "Indian pan" suggests that someone in the household was involved in food preparation.

The Williamsburg wigmaker's world of food was a world away from the Governor's Palace. His most significant choice was the common and consistent purchase of rum. Rum provided calories, eased work, paid for labor, and measured sociability. When company came (from Charles City in October) he purchased a loaf of bread and a quart of rum. When a "great Compagnie" came "from the other side of the River" in late November he had to treat them well. When he moved to new lodging in June, he not only had to pay the people who worked for two days to carry his furniture and set up his closets and beds, but needed rum, sugar, and "victuals" to supply and treat them. His choice of rum also necessitated large quantities of sweetener-another expensive commodity. Nonetheless, the prevalence of drinking as entertainment crossed up and down all social ranks. After all, the barrels of limes and hundreds of oranges purchased for the Governor's Palace demonstrates the ubiquitous presence of rum punch.

151

Governor Botetourt and Robert Lyon shared other similarities. They both had continual supplies of bread, arranged and billed by the commercial bakers in town or townswomen. They both had seasonal additions of seafood, vegetables, and fruits, although the wigmaker's were rare and not of a wide variety. They both had gardens. Butter and imported groceries were a part of their diet.

Nonetheless, the most significant difference was the absence of meats from the wigmaker's diet. His accounts record two purchases of meat, veal and lamb. He could have made a large meat purchase in December or January, two months of extensive fresh meat processing, which do not appear in his accounts. He may have had alternative arrangements for meat that he did not record in this book, perhaps not billed during this time period. That he received services during the year that were not paid that same year can be found in his account at Anne Pattison's tavern in 1749, where Mr. Lyon ("The Barber") stopped in for punch on March 6, 9, and 24. He may have taken away a pint of wine on March 24, as well. The tavernkeeper recorded no payments for Mr. Lyon.11

Did Lyon obtain meat from other sources? Small quantities of meat were routinely supplied to poorhouses, slaves and servants, and was considered a normal part of the Chesapeake diet. Yet, it could also be true that meat was simply a minimal part of his diet. The common strategy of the poor was to rely on grains (bread or porridge) with other sources of protein, such as eggs and cheese. The working man with no female household help had little time for preparation of long-cooking stews or other inexpensive meats. Bread, sweets, and tea were the common diet of the early nineteenth-century England laboring poor.

The bill of fare supplied to the young female orphans at the Boston Female Academy in 1803 is a good example of the kind of diet that relied on small amounts of meat (Table 5.7). Sundays were special days with "chocolate or shells with bread" for breakfast, "roast beef and pudding" for dinner, and milk porridge, thickened with flour or Indian meal with a slice of bread and butter for supper. Other days, supper and breakfast were "hasty-puddings, boiled thick with molasses, or milk, or milk-porridge, as the season will admit." Meat was served at dinner, but was stretched through the use of soups and leftovers for stock.12

The wigmaker's choices were certainly constrained by finances-the cost of foods, their cooking, storage, and preservation. But like the Governor, the wigmaker drew upon a wide variety of townspeople for the supply of foods, fuel, and performing of services. Charles worked his garden, "an old negro woman" washed for him, "Negro John" sold him "dry'd appples and other things." "The Quaker" supplied him with tallow and several married women sewed his shirts and made his bread. He stored some foodstuffs in an "Indian pan."

Robert Lyon made many choices in how he spent his limited resources. One final comparison is telling (Table 5.8) Alexander Hanson, an Annapolis lawyer, published a list of estimated annual household expenses in the Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser on April 6, 1787.13 This estimate was for a household of ten people, half of whom were servants. 152

Table 5.7.
DINNERS FOR ORPHAN GIRLS IN BOSTON 1803:
STRETCHING MEAT IN THE DIET
Sunday:Roast Beef and Pudding
Monday:Soup
Tuesday:Boiled meat and pudding, or vegetables
Wednesday:Soup
Thursday:Bean or Peas, with Pork
Friday:Broth made of Mutton or Lamb
Saturday:Fish
Source: An Account of the Rise, Progress, and Present State, of the Boston Female Asylum (Boston, 1803), p. 19. Cited in Porter, 1994.
Table 5.8.
"AN ESTIMATE OF THE ANNUAL EXPENSES OF A FAMILY IN ANNAPOLIS,
CONSISTING OF TEN PERSONS (HALF OF WHOM ARE SERVANTS)
KEEPING TWO HORSES AND ONE MILC COW"
House rent£75.00.0
Pork, 1600lb @37/630.00.0
Beef & other butcher meat, 1200 lb @ 6d30.00.0
Poultry, fish, fruit, vegetables30.00.0
Tea, coffee, salt, spice, etc.25.00.0
Loaf sugar, 180 lb @1/210.10.0
Brown sugar, 150 lb @8d5.00.0
Superfine flour, 10 bbls @ 40/-20.00.0
Indian corn, 20 bbls @ 15/-15.00.0
Oats, 180 bus @ 3/-27.00.0
Hay, 2 tons @ £612.00.0
Firewood, 50 cords @ 20/-
including carting, cording, etc.50.00.0
Candles, 140 lb @ 15d8.15.0
spirits to represent table liquors, every kind
30 gallons @ 6/810.00.0
Wine of every kind, 50 gallons @ 12/-30.00.0
Butter, 150 lb @ 15d9.07.6
Hire and cloathing of 5 servants60.00.0
Medicines, physicians, etc.15.00.0
Cloathing of family, 5 persons to appear decently, no less than120.00.0
Expence of attending twice a year on the Eastern Shore 37.07.6
No allowance for casualties or for what is called Pocket Moneyc. 80.00.0
Total£700.00.0
Source: Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, April 6, 1787. 153 The contrast with Robert Lyon's life is interesting. Both households spent a similar percentage on lighting: Lyon about 1%, Hanson 2%. Lyon spent about half as much for fuel and rent. His clothing costs were minuscule compared to the lawyer's. Even Hanson's minimal estimate for "5 persons to appear decently" was 17% compared to Lyon's 5%. Lyon's alcohol consumption was 14% of his budget; the lawyer's less than half of that at 6%. But it was the cost of food that was less elastic. Hanson's food totals made up 29% of his costs; Lyon's 45%. Even if the quantity, quality, and range of foodstuffs were minimal for the less wealthy, food remained the most significant cost and one that could not be escaped.

John Davidson of Annapolis

Merchants were especially fond of keeping records. John Davidson was a careful bookkeeper. His partner in a mercantile venture once wished that he would do less bookkeeping and more bill collecting. Fortunately, his passion for numbers extended to his household for he carefully noted "house expenses" in several ledgers.

Davidson was born in Scotland around 1737. It is unknown when he arrived in Annapolis, but he had a successful career. He was deputy collector and deputy comptroller of the Annapolis subdistrict of the Patuxent customs district and had several profitable partnerships in the store trade. He was registrar of the Free School in 1766. He was made a partner in the mercantile firm of Wallace, Davidson, and Johnson in 1771. While his partners traveled abroad to secure good markets for tobacco and better-selected and -priced imports of goods, Davidson stayed in Maryland to keep the books. When the firm dissolved in 1787, he went on in partnership with Wallace and Matthew Ridley, moving into the wheat trade. By 1786 he was city councilman.14

Like so many merchants, we know more about his business doings than his home life. The 1783 tax list lists ten slaves, five white females and three males, and one more white male in the 16 to 50 age group. He owned one horse valued at £12 and a cow. He lived in a large 40 x 40 brick home (with smokehouse) on a one acre lot in Annapolis and held another lot for Joseph Johnson. After his death in 1794, his wife Eleanor was listed on the 1798 direct tax list owning two houses. One was 28 x 14 foot brick house with smokehouse and stable. Another was a frame 28 x 16 house with an 18 x 16 foot kitchen. In the year that his household expenses began, his landed wealth was assessed at over £1000, ranking him fifteenth in the city.15

The white members of his household can be partially reconstructed based on letters from Davidson's partner who occasionally passed on familial regards and made special purchases in England. The account book also lists Mrs. (Eleanor) Davidson, Peggy, Nelly (Little Nell), Billy or Will, and Mrs. Strachan, Mrs. Davidson's mother. Other small children were in the household: Joshua Johnson sends a hat to Master Will in 1772 and mentions birth of a son to Mrs. Davidson.16 Possible slaves in the account book who performed marketing services included Cloe, Hannah, Jack, and Tom.

154

Account books for his business with Wallace and Ridley are extant, and Davidson's household expenses are listed carefully from December 23, 1783 to April 28, 1787 in this large ledger. They are cross-posted in a second account book, grouped under the title household expenses from December 1784 to January 1786.17 What is important about these cross-postings is that they included different kinds of information. The second book often listed in more detail who in his family did the shopping or from whom items were purchased. This enables us to open the lid of the black box of household consumption-ever so slightly-and see who made purchases.

His bookkeeping is also a window to changing consumption strategies. For only one month did he detail local market purchases amidst a number of groceries, alcohol, and imported foodstuffs. For the remainder of 1785, he posted "cash for marketing" nearly weekly and gave a simple £3 expense. Perhaps he found this blank check for marketing unsatisfactory, for beginning in 1786 different amounts for marketing were entered irregularly.

That first month's list of expenditures is worth careful examination. In January he noted each expense under a generic month's heading, with ten dated items for groceries, corn, and alcohol. The Davidson household spent over £50 in January on food-related expenses. The largest purchases were 14 barrels of corn purchased from Governor Paca for £14 and a hamper of porter (3 dozen bottles) for £3. Tea and coffee were summed at £9. Sugar cost nearly £3; bread over £2. Local market purchases summed almost £14. The largest expense was for dairy items (50%), mostly for butter in several small amounts and a large payment for 83 ¾ pounds. Poultry was more frequently purchased; over half of the purchase items were ducks, turkeys, "fowl" (i.e. chickens), a goose, and eggs. Apples, lemons, and oranges were his third expense. Thirty-two and a half pounds of pork was the only meat purchased, for a small 6% of the total cost. Four bushels of oysters varied their diet, and cabbages were the only vegetables purchased.

January is not an average month of household provisioning. Nonetheless, it is the only month available to examine particular kinds of purchases. He purchased no specialty meats that month, relying on pork, poultry, and oysters for his diet. His imported groceries-tea and sugar-nearly equaled that of local foodstuffs. Bread was a large expense as well. Summing bread with local market purchases demonstrates that £15 of local products were consumed by one family.

This one month also begins to show the multiple forms of the provisioning system. The Governor supplied a large quantity of corn; Mr. Boardley's slave Jacob sold them three cakes for five shillings. The wine merchant Joseph Eastman sold the wine. The store supplied a number of grocery items, like sugar, tea, and mustard. Davidson also accepted the payments of various store customers in the forms of food listed as "household expenses."

All of Davidson's expenses for 1785 can also be analyzed in comparison to the larger household sample (Table 5.9). This does not include the five payments for approximately £3 cash given to Mrs. Davidson, Peggy, Tom, and to an unknown Joseph Mogg for marketing nor the meat purchased in the previous December. Nonetheless, some major differences are clear. Of the £315 spent on food that year, a full 10% was for tea and coffee compared to 1% for the larger sample. Alcohol was another third of the expenses, compared to 15% in the overall sample. Meat 155

Table 5.9.
ALL FOOD AND DRINK EXPENSES:
JOHN DAVIDSON, ANNAPOLIS, 1785
CategoryCountPercentage of TransactionsTotal ExpensePercentage of Value
Alcohol8731.18%£104.0432.92%
Meat134.6684.5028.74
Tea/Coffee3412.1930.419.62
Dairy165.7327.288.63
Food Grains93.2324.707.82
Sweeteners3311.8322.277.05
Seafood145.025.971.89
Spices/Condiments72.514.681.48
Poultry207.174.681.48
Fruits/Nuts165.733.631.15
Bakery/Bread227.892.430.77
Fish41.431.190.38
Dairying20.720.150.05
Vegetables20.720.070.02
fell to a quarter of the expenses (compared to a third of the overall sample). Food grains were 8% compared to 15%. Dairy items were about the same.

Davidson's purchases show that overall provisioning of the household was a regular weekly occurrence and a job that required the labor of many household members. The provisioning of meat was special. The preservation needs of meat meant that large purchases of beef and pork were made in the cold season. In January 1784, the Davidson household bought 101 pounds of beef from Ephram Duvall, and ten days later a whole beef, including a fifth quarter weighing 640 pounds. He purchased another 32 ½ pounds of beef in January 1785. By March the household's earlier supply must have been diminished. His son Billy Davidson bought 303 pounds, with another 200 pounds purchased a week later. Beef was not purchased again until October. Six purchases of 400 pounds were made averaging 66 pounds each in the next two months. Pork, on the other hand, was purchased only in January, February and December. January and February summed 901 pounds. December's totals were 1653 pounds. Mrs. Davidson purchased seventeen and a half pounds of veal in March.

It is the quantity of money spent on food and the importance of the store items that help define the consumption of elite merchants like John Davidson. In the large store ledger, he recorded household expenses for three years and four months, or 172 weeks (December 21, 1783 to the end of April 1787). This gives one more lens to examine the complex accounting of his household consumption (Table 5.10). The ledger included 169 payments for marketing totaling £264, or only about £1.5 pounds a week. We assume that those were expenses for market purchases such as vegetables, poultry, fish, bread, wild animals and dairy. Nonetheless, we must add in another £56 that was added up separately for dairy, as well as small quantities of all those other market commodities listed individually. Why these purchases were not included in the generic sums for marketing is unclear, but perhaps represent an alternative provisioning system-his store, his customers, and perhaps even his own purchases.

156
Table 5.10.
FOOD AND DRINK EXPENSES:
JOHN DAVISON, ANNAPOLIS, 1783-87
CategoryCountPercentage of TransactionsTotal ExpensePercentage of Value
Meat607.63%£619.0240.07%
Alcohol12215.52306.8119.86
Cash for Marketing16921.50264.1017.10
Food Grains293.69110.537.16
Sweeteners607.6369.274.48
Tea/Coffee729.1656.443.65
Dairy394.9653.713.48
Seafood425.3415.531.01
Poultry536.7413.670.89
Fruits/Nuts334.2010.590.69
Fish334.208.490.55
Spices/Condiments182.296.760.44
Bakery/Bread202.543.770.24
Vegetables273.443.370.22
Wild Bird20.251.320.09
Foodstuffs60.761.090.07
Legumes10.130.250.01

His largest expenses were for meat, about 40% of all his total consumption of food and drink. Alcohol was also significant, about 20% of his cost. Food grains followed (7.2%), then sweeteners (4.5%), and tea (3.6%).

Because of the generic listings for marketing, the total detailed diet that these expenses produced cannot be determined. Nonetheless, several markers of elite foodways and consumption are found. His tea and sugar expenses were large, making up almost ten percent of his purchases. Eight pineapples costing seven shillings, sixpence made a special treat along with four watermelons on July 31, 1783. Asparagus, spouts, and greens were listed. Four pounds of currants were purchased the week before Christmas in 1784 from Baker Johnson, perhaps for special baking. He purchased play tickets, punch and cake on one occasion.

All of these are clues to the diet of well-to-do urban residents who entertained and lived well. Nonetheless, they may not have been living extravagantly for the size of their household. Nine whites and ten slaves filled his house. Andrew Hanson's letter to the newspaper in 1787 is once again illustrative. He estimated expenses for a family in Annapolis, "consisting of ten persons (half of whom are servants) keeping two horses and one milch cow." Davidson's household was twice the size of his neighboring lawyer, but he managed to spend less in 1785 (Table 5.11). The greater price of dairy products may have meant that the Davidsons kept no cow for milk. The greater price of alcohol may merely reflect preference or easier access through his store. Nonetheless, £200 a year spent on food seems to be a fair estimate for the expenses of elite urban residents.

157
Table 5.11.
FOOD PURCHASES IN POST-REVOLUTIONARY ANNAPOLIS
MONEY SPENT
ProductsHansonDavidson 1785
Pork and beef£60.0£55.0
Poultry, vegetables, etc.30.028.0
Tea, coffee, salt, spices25.026.0
Loaf and brown sugar15.116.0
Flour, meal, bread35.024.4
Wine & spirits40.052.0
Butter9.818.0
Total food/drink expenses£204.0£193.0

John Davidson's provisioning system stretched from Governor Paca to slaves. He bought 14 barrels of corn from Paca. Fellow merchant James McCubbin supplied flour, butter, and spirits. Beef was supplied by several people, none of which were known butchers. Davidson bought a whole beef from Phillip Key, a well-to-do lawyer and merchant who owned over 2000 acres of land. He probably resided in St. Mary's County, but traveled often to Annapolis for legislative sessions. Ephraim Duvall also sold him beef. Less is known of him, except that he lived in Broad Neck Hundred with a small family. He was only taxed for a horse. Thomas Harwood was a fellow merchant who owned four slaves; Mrs. Harwood provided butter. Whitehall Will purchased fabric at the store and traded apples and greens, perhaps gathered from the fields.

Agricultural commodities like beef and pork and corn flowed in channels among people of wealth and standing. Market purchases took place within the nameless world of the market place where we know petty entrepreneurs were more common. It is in the town and market that the women in Davidson's family moved. His wife Eleanor purchased veal from a town doctor, not at the market from a butcher. She traded cabbage and peace bean seeds with William Farris, the middling craftsperson.18 She shopped regularly at retail stores (perhaps her husband's) for fabric, clothing, sugar and tea. Little Nelly came home with a peck of apples on one occasion but she too mainly shopped at retail stores. Davidson's mother-in-law Mrs. Strathan purchased tea once. John and Eleanor Davidson's daughter Peggy was a young woman. Her father paid for her schooling, and like her mother and sister, she frequented retail stores. But she also took part in the household's marketing. She was often paid cash for marketing (her mother only was named once). She bought oysters, spirits, sugar, and a watermelon and arranged for wood and carting. Her brother Billy was also still in school, but he too paid for spirits and wood and arranged at least one delivery of beef. Other members of the household cannot yet be put on the family tree, and were probably slaves. Hannah was once given cash for marketing; Chloe paid cash for rum. Jack also was once paid for marketing and the purchase of a half gallon of spirits.

Davidson does not list who does the lion's share of the marketing. "To cash for marketing" remains an impenetrable phrase. But the lid has at least been cracked on the way different family members may have participated in the provisioning of their food. Mrs. Davidson worked the garden. Their children occasionally seemed to be at the market or on the streets.

158

Davidson's life placed him well between the world of the Williamsburg craftsman and the Governor of Virginia. But their similarities remain. Like all the households in this sample-storekeepers, merchants, visiting statesmen-obtaining food in an urban environment was a labor intensive business. All purchased for cash and entered credit relations with multiple provisioners; all had to find a way to eat. The Davidsons and the Governor purchased food daily or twice weekly; Robert Lyon regularly purchased rum. Each followed the season of the agricultural calendar and no doubt welcomed the fresh vegetables and fruits that arrived in due season. The provisioning of staple meats was the major expense and it was marketed differently than other foodstuffs; it clustered in winter when it could be more easily preserved. Fish and fowl were common parts of the diet for rich and poor alike. (Davidson even belonged to a "fish club.") Finally, all of these dry numbers were choices that were ultimately converted into meals on the table that sustained life and evoked pleasure.

B. Household Diet Through Zooarchaeology

The study of subsistence systems is one of the foundations of archaeological interpretations of the past. Since pottery, lithics, glass, bones, seeds, and shells (the last three known in the archaeological world as "ecofacts") are all related to the procurement, distribution, preparation, and consumption of food, archaeologists have reconstructed subsistence systems, which they define as the organized means through which humans obtain nourishment from the landscape. Typically because archaeologists working in North America have studied prehistoric cultures, studies have focused on identifying the "subsistence strategies" used to procure food. Borrowing from this term that has become synonymous with hunting and gathering, an important goal of our research has come to focus on the "provisioning strategies" of urban residents. The approach is to determine, as well as the available documentation will allow, the overall provisioning system, including the agriculture, animal husbandry, and economic and social foundations of the distribution system that carried rural produce to urban market systems, and how individual urban households drew upon their own social and economic resources to obtain nourishment. Faunal evidence (in the form of diversity estimates, slaughter data, and element distributions) works hand-in-hand with documentary sources on every level, helping to identify what different households relied upon. With all these resources marshaled together, a fuller and more complete picture of foodways in colonial America becomes possible. The section that follows is a beginning effort to differentiate how different households worked within their social and economic means to provide nourishment for themselves and their families.

Age Data

Zooarchaeologists have tended to assume slaughter ages found in domestic faunal assemblages reflect the type of husbandry being practiced on a regional basis and not specific household provisioning. This project, however, has analyzed sufficient numbers of domestic faunal assemblages from the same region that is has become possible to suggest that age data also reflects individual household provisioning strategies.

Age data from households who provisioned themselves with livestock they produced on plantations show a more subsistence-oriented kill-off pattern, while age data from those households who provisioned themselves almost completely with commercial meats show kill-off 159 patterns with proportionately larger amounts of livestock that had been slaughtered at younger ages. But there is an intriguing variability in the majority of assemblages. Some assemblages, which one would believe would reflect subsistence-oriented husbandry, show greater proportions of the age group that was the target age for commercial fattening, while others show a more even spread. This seems to be true for all economic and occupational groups.

One reason for the inexplicable variability might be problems with the weaving together of the archaeological and documentary record-the assemblages may be associated with the wrong household, or it may not be possible to determine who actually lived at the site and deposited the food remains. Other biases might include sample size, preservation, or even analytical technique. However, if one considers the strength of the known assemblages, and compares the patterns obtained from these assemblages with the others, it is possible to suggest that in a general way age data reflect individual provisioning strategies rather than regional trends.

The Hanson butcher data obtained from the Firehouse site provides important evidence on commercial patterns for a time when Williamsburg's provisioning system was still largely based on direct urban-rural connections and relatively few planters had begun to fatten livestock for commercial purposes. The age data seen in his assemblage reflect this transitional mix of husbandry orientations. Nonetheless, it provides an important anchor from which it is possible to obtain clues on the provisioning strategies of individual households. By comparing the Hanson data with the late eighteenth-century Jonas Green assemblage from Annapolis, a household that probably provisioned itself exclusively with commercial produce, further evidence on the commercial focus of animal husbandry in the Chesapeake is obtained. Since the region surrounding Annapolis appears to have developed a specialized provisioning economy much sooner than in the lower Chesapeake, the age data from this assemblage anticipates the trajectory of husbandry in the lower Chesapeake region.

If age data from both these assemblages are compared with the age data from the domestic Williamsburg assemblages, then both the variability and consistent patterning in the Williamsburg assemblages become clear. The variability is the result of a husbandry and provisioning system that was still quite diffuse. In this sense, the individual site kill-off patterns reflect the variability in husbandry that existed in the region, and the fact that many households continued to keep some livestock in town throughout the century. As evidenced in the 1783 Williamsburg personal property tax, half the households listed owned one or two cows, which they could have taken to the butcher to have slaughtered for credit towards future purchases. Others obtained a certain amount from the countryside from kin, friends, or acquaintances.

The Annapolis data, however, reflects a far more specialized economy that had developed in this region, where many more planters had begun to engage in fattening livestock for sale and fewer households in town kept any livestock themselves. Individuals like the Greens who depended on market sources found the meat available there to have come from animals slaughtered at younger ages than was the meat eaten by those who obtained livestock from their own plantations. Present in the Green assemblage are clear and extremely well-defined target age groups, a sign that Annapolis' provisioning system had become specialized, while the data from the wealthy Calvert family home, also in Annapolis, exhibits the same diffuse pattern that is exhibited in the Williamsburg household data. Within this context the Calvert data is fascinating, for even though this very wealthy family lived within a highly developed market system, they chose to supply themselves through their own resources.

160
Table 5.12.
KILL-OFF PATTERNS BASED ON LONG BONE FUSION
CATTLE, WEALTHY/ELITE HOUSEHOLDS
Assemblage0-12 Months12-24 Months24-36 Months36-48 Months>48 Months
1700-1750
Butcher Benjamin Hanson0.013.32.567.516.7
Archibald Blair0.00.00.050.050.0
Charles Calvert0.033.328.20.038.5
1750-1775
Custis (Dandridge)20.00.07.00.672.4
Thomas Everard3.925.38.542.919.4
Mid-Late 18th Century
Benedict Calvert9.19.70.032.948.4
Table 5.13.
KILL-OFF PATTERNS BASED ON LONG BONE FUSION
CATTLE, CRAFTSMEN
Assemblage0-12 Months12-24 Months24-36 Months36-48 Months>48 Months
1700-1750
Butcher Benjamin Hanson0.013.32.567.516.7
John Brush21.215.50.043.619.7
1750-1775
Anne Geddy and sons7.719.614.424.433.9
Anthony Hay8.30.015.233.642.9
1775-1800
Widow Elizabeth Hay0.04.010.836.049.2
John Draper12.50.05.734.447.4
Frederick & Samuel Green0.00.00.090.010.0
Table 5.13.
KILL-OFF PATTERNS BASED ON LONG BONE FUSION
CATTLE, CRAFTSMEN
Assemblage0-12 Months12-24 Months24-36 Months36-48 Months>48 Months
1700-1750
Butcher Benjamin Hanson33.354.212.50.00.0
Archibald Blair50.050.00.00.00.0
Charles Calvert14.385.70.00.00.0
1750-1775
Custis (Dandridge)27.637.625.70.09.1
Thomas Everard13.574.60.01.110.8
Mid-Late 18th Century
Benedict Calvert34.312.431.10.022.2
161
Table 5.15.
KILL-OFF PATTERNS BASED ON LONG BONE FUSION
SWINE, CRAFTSMEN
Assemblage0-12 Months12-24 Months24-36 Months36-48 Months>48 Months
1700-1750
Butcher Benjamin-Hanson33.354.212.50.00.0
John Brush7.4539.222.226.05.21
1750-1775
Anne Geddy & sons0.075.017.30.07.7
Anthony Hay0.050.04.545.50.0
1775-1800
Widow Elizabeth Hay0.042.917.123.316.7
John Draper30.036.716.77.69.1
Frederick & Samuel Green 18.281.80.00.00.0
Table 5.16.
KILL-OFF PATTERNS BASED ON LONG BONE FUSION
SHEEP, WEALTHY/ELITE HOUSEHOLDS
Assemblage0-12 Months12-36 Months36-42 Months>42 Months
1700-1750
Butcher Benjamin Hanson (Tooth Wear)58.011.013.018.0
Butcher Benjamin Hanson (Long Bone)50.00.00.050.0
Archibald Blair0.022.265.312.5
1750-1775
Custis (Dandridge)0.018.86.375.0
Thomas Everard5.435.122.037.5
Mid-Late 18th Century
Benedict Calvert17.929.18.644.4
162
Table 5.17.
KILL-OFF PATTERNS BASED ON LONG BONE FUSION
SHEEP, CRAFTSMEN
Assemblage0-12 Months12-36 Months36-42 Months>42 Months
1700-1750
Butcher Benjamin Hanson (Tooth Wear)50.00.00.050.0
Butcher Benjamin Hanson (Long Bone)58.011.013.018.0
John Brush17.08.012.562.5
1750-1775
Anne Geddy & sons12.544.60.042.9
Anthony Hay7.731.47.07.0
1775-1800
Widow Elizabeth Hay14.316.535.933.3
John Draper0.036.413.650.0
Frederick & Samuel Green7.728.70.063.6
Element Distributions

Of the measures used to indicate the development of specialized economies, the most useful is element distribution. Through monitoring the presence of waste portions of the carcass in household assemblages, it is possible to determine the extent to which different households supplied themselves or relied upon commercial sources of meat. Provisioning strategies employed by various households, including the wealthy, craftsmen, professionals, and tavern keepers, will be described for the individuals who are associated with the analyzed faunal assemblages. Resources of the individuals will be briefly summarized, followed by an assessment of the extent to which households were self-sufficient and how this degree of self-sufficiency might have changed over the course of the century as markets became increasingly specialized.

Craftsmen

Throughout the century craftsmen as a group had some ability to provide foods for themselves and their households. Many owned or rented town lots and therefore could have kept a kitchen garden, and the 1783 personal property tax demonstrates that 67% of the craftsmen owned a cow or two. More specific estimates of the degree of self-sufficiency and the extent to which they depended upon the various commercial sources of meats will be possible once the household and merchant account book data is fully integrated with the zooarchaeological data. For now all indications are that most craftsmen did not own substantial amounts of real property, their livestock holdings were limited, and that generally they must have depended heavily upon commercial sources of food. Evidence from the faunal assemblages suggests the extent to which this dependency developed as the century progressed.

There are five households headed by craftsmen that are represented in the analyzed faunal assemblages. Among them are two individuals who immigrated from England to work for the governor. One was John Brush, a gunsmith, brought over by Governor Spotswood in the 1710s, and the second was John Draper, a blacksmith brought over by Governor Botetourt in the 1760s. 163 Two others, the James Geddy and Anthony Hay families, are craftsmen from local, well-established families who operated businesses in Williamsburg for many decades. Since both individuals had broad-based connections to the countryside, the data from their assemblages provide an important look at what happened to rural ties as the commercial world came to dominate the urban scene. Lastly, one assemblage from Annapolis is associated with printers Frederick and Samuel Green. This provides a look at the provisioning strategies of craftsmen households who lived in a more fully developed urban economy.

JOHN BRUSH19

John Brush was trained in England and admitted into the Gunmakers Company Guild in 1699. Documents hint that Governor Spotswood brought Brush to Williamsburg, but after a short period of time he became keeper of the arms at the Magazine and established a gunsmithing operation on the lot he purchased near the Palace Green. When he purchased this property in 1717, Brush was around forty and a widower with four children. There is no record that he owned any slaves, and the value of his probate inventory placed him squarely in the middling ranks of York County society, but he stood out among his social peers, for his probate listed such unusual items as a tea table, corner cupboard, silver watch, and clock. Archaeological remains showed that he owned ceramics which are normally thought of as high status items. Interestingly, faunal analysis revealed that he also owned an African monkey called a guenon (Circopithecus aethiops).

As a man of solid middling rank, Brush's ability to provision his family was probably limited. He may have kept a kitchen garden on his property, but according to his probate inventory he owned no livestock. As an immigrant, his family resources were limited to those of his wife and her kin. With these resources, he must have been relatively dependent on commercial sources of food.

JOHN DRAPER

In 1768 John Draper came from Portsmouth, England, to assume the duties of blacksmith and farrier in Governor Botetourt's household.20 About a year later he left the Governor's service to live and begin his own business on the former Shields Tavern property. Here he rented a tenement consisting of two rooms, a kitchen, a shed, two rooms above the stairs, a blacksmith shop, and the use of one half of the garden and part of the stable, where he might have kept the 4 cattle and 6 horses that were listed in the 1783 personal property tax. He had arrived single in the colonies, but by 1779 he was married to a woman named Molly, who may have maintained ties she had with friends and relatives living in the nearby countryside. Together they had at least three children, and in addition his household included at various times, a servant known as "his Man Jack," an apprentice by the name of Francis Moss, a destitute orphan named John Marten, a slave named Emmanuel, a slave woman, and at one time four titheables. As a blacksmith he had done well enough that by 1782, after the capital was moved to Richmond and when land was more affordable, he was able to purchase a parcel and move two blocks east of his former residence.

164

Some blacksmiths (such as James Anderson) were far better off than Draper, yet he was better off than most craftsmen. According to the 1783 personal property tax, he owned 4 cattle. Only 60% of the craftsmen in town owned even one or two cows. But, as an immigrant his connections with rural planters and farmers were probably weak in comparison to craftsmen who had been born in Virginia, and therefore his ability to provide food through this avenue was only through his wife's connections. With four cattle listed in the 1783 tax list, it is clear Draper was able to provide milk and possibly beef for his family. He may perhaps have kept pigs and/or fowl, or possibly he may have been paid in kind for his blacksmith and farrier-related business.

JAMES GEDDY AND SONS

The first James Geddy was a gunsmith and brass founder who died in 1744, leaving most of his estate to his widow, Anne. The earlier pre-1762 assemblage is associated with this household, which included Anne and her sons, David, James, William, and John, all of whom lived on this property. David and William went into partnership to continue their father's business until 1760, when Anne deeded one lot to her son James Geddy, Jr.

Available documentation shows James Geddy, Sr., owned a plantation in Dinwiddie County, and that his son James Geddy, Jr. owned 16 slaves, 6 horses, and 24 cattle. Whether he kept some of his livestock in town, or not, certainly he could have provided his family with provisions if he chose to do so. What resources his widow Anne and her sons had to provision themselves is not known.

By 1778, James Geddy, Jr. deeded the lot to Robert Jackson, a merchant, who soon died. His widow married again to Capt. Robert Martin, and the home was rented until the property was sold in 1803.21 Additional research is needed to identify the household associated with the later assemblage; thus this assemblage has been excluded from the analysis of household provisioning strategies.

ANTHONY HAY SITE22

Anthony Hay and his family is clearly associated with the earlier pre-1770 faunal assemblage. The later assemblage dating to post-1770 is probably associated with his widow Elizabeth and her children, since she renounced her right to the property to her children in 1779 but bought the lots in 1782 and owned them until 1788. After this time, carpenters and cabinetmakers Benjamin Bucktrout and Edmund Dickinson ran the shop.

Anthony Hay married twice, had five children, and he owned more than one slave. A carpenter by trade, it is not known how wealthy he was, although the fact that his son, George Hay married Antoinette Monroe, President James Monroe's daughter, might indicate he had some social status. Assessing the resources of the Hay household will require further work. For now 165

Table 5.18.
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION
CATTLE AND CALF, CRAFTSMEN
CattleCalf
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %Head %Body %Feet %
1700-1750
Benjamin Hanson40.418.641.062.010.028.0
John Brush19.565.115.417.577.55.0
1750-1775
Anne Geddy & Sons21.262.316.545.342.212.5
Anthony Hay21.366.911.833.352.414.3
1775-1800
Widow Elizabeth Hay10.873.415.931.362.56.3
John Draper12.568.519.050.043.16.9
Fred & Samuel Green0.079.021.0
Table 5.19.
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION
SWINE AND SHEEP, CRAFTSMEN
SwineSheep
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %Head %Body %Feet %
1700-1750
Benjamin Hanson63.821.314.991.96.21.9
John Brush37.932.329.819.670.310.1
1750-1775
Anne Geddy & sons50.337.212.510.371.118.6
Anthony Hay46.538.714.910.786.42.9
1775-1800
Widow Elizabeth Hay62.831.95.229.662.08.5
John Draper60.824.314.96.376.017.7
Fred & Samuel Green47.529.323.215.668.815.6
one can only generalize that, like other craftsmen, Anthony Hay's household probably kept a garden on the property they owned, and they may have kept one or two cows, as did 60% of craftsmen living in Williamsburg in 1783.

166

FREDERICK AND SAMUEL GREEN23

Sons of New England immigrant Jonas Green, Frederick and Samuel Green are probably associated with the analyzed faunal assemblage from the Jonas Green site. Their grandfather Deacon Timothy Green was a printer, as was their father Jonas, who came to Annapolis in 1738 after he married a woman of Dutch descent, Anne Catherine Hoof. Here Jonas Green established a government-supported print shop and published the Maryland Gazette. Soon he established a monopoly on printing in town, and by 1756 he printed and stamped Maryland bills of credit. Over the years he become a well-respected businessman, and served on many community administrative positions, including senior member and alderman of the Annapolis Common Council, and vestryman and registrar of the St. Anne's Church.

After Jonas' death in 1767, his wife and son William inherited the business, but William soon died and his mother soon afterwards in 1775. At this time Frederick and his brother Samuel became partners in the shop, where they printed the Gazette until their deaths in 1811. Like his father, Frederick served in public positions, including councilman and church vestryman. In addition to his public roles, he succeeded in amassing sufficient wealth to place him in the top fifth of those listed in the 1783 tax assessment.24 How well they able to provide provisions for their family is not known. In the 1783 personal property tax for Annapolis, the mean number of cows/household was 0.5, and only 27% of craftsmen such as Green owned even one cow. There should be little doubt that the Greens depended primarily on commercial sources for staple foods.

ANALYSIS

By looking at the element distributions present in all the Williamsburg assemblages, including those associated with John Brush, Anthony Hay and his widow, Anne Geddy and her sons, John Draper, and Frederick and Samuel Green, it becomes apparent that these individuals and their families consumed all parts of the animal. Generally speaking, however, the proportions of cattle heads decrease as the century progressed, from approximately 19% to 21% during the first three quarters of the 18th century, to 11% and 12% during the last quarter. In Annapolis the proportion drops to 0%.

Generally speaking, zooarchaeologists read the decreased presence of heads and feet as a direct measure of increased regulations on where butchering could take place and the disposal of slaughter waste. However, this assessment presumes the modern-day consideration of heads and feet as virtually taboo to be a very old value. A brief consultation with cookbooks from the period, however, demonstrates that all portions of the animal were considered valuable, and many, including ox cheeks, ox palates, calf's heads, etc., were highly valued. Nonetheless, as historians Stephen Mennell and Keith Thomas have pointed out so elegantly, the aversion to life-like parts is more related to changing attitudes resulting from urban populations that found themselves 167 becoming increasingly distant from their rural roots.25 As a result, heads and feet came to be considered waste, and as cities grew during the 18th century, slaughtering operations were banned to the outskirts of town, and increasingly heads and feet were disposed of into rubbish heaps, given to poor houses, or recycled into fertilizer or pig food. Thus, the decreased presence of cattle heads reflects changing attitudes as much as they reflect market dependency.

Possibly a more accurate measure of market dependency can be found in the proportions of body elements that include the part of the legs above the carpals and tarsals, plus the ribs, chops, and loins. A brief assessment of the proportions of body elements demonstrates through a strikingly high proportion of these elements that craftsmen obtained individual cuts of beef, veal, and mutton from as early as the 1720s.

Elite Families

The elite in the Chesapeake were a truly privileged group. Founded on a plantation economy focused on tobacco production, the wealth of this group gave them provisioning options that were not available to the less privileged. They owned large plantations, and since tobacco agriculture rapidly depleted soils, they purchased western lands to continue the production of tobacco. Given these resources, they could as a group supply their families, relatives, and friends who lived in town with whatever produce they chose.

THOMAS EVERARD26

An orphaned immigrant from England, Thomas Everard arrived in Williamsburg to become an apprentice to a merchant, Matthew Kempe. Later he became the Clerk of York County, an office he served in for thirty-six years, and eventually he served twice as mayor of Williamsburg. Arriving in Virginia as an apprentice, over his lifetime he gradually accumulated wealth, slaves, a plantation of 600 acres in James City County, and another 1136-acre plantation in Brunswick County (possibly from his father-in-law), and last but not least a home in Williamsburg and several offices. Married with at least two children and owner of slaves, Everard was more than able to provide an ample subsistence for them. He may well have kept a kitchen garden, and according to the Virginia Gazette, Everard owned several cattle and horses, which he kept in town on a pasture near a pond.27

THE JOHN CUSTIS SITE

In 1749 Daniel Parke Custis inherited the Custis property near the western edge of town from his father John Custis. Until 1757, when he died, he used it as a town house. A legend claims that after Daniel Parke Custis died, Martha Dandridge Custis Washington lived there with her new husband George until 1759. In 1760, however, she rented the house first to her brother 168

Table 5.20.
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTIONS
CATTLE AND CALF, WEALTHY HOUSEHOLDS
CattleCalf
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %Head %Body %Feet %
1700-1750
Butcher Benjamin Hanson40.418.641.062.010.028.0
Charles Calvert9.455.235.4
1750-1775
Custis (Dandridge & Byrd)31.333.135.635.532.332.3
Thomas Everard8.777.014.344.347.58.2
Mid-Late 18th Century
Benedict Calvert32.848.918.3
Table 5.21.
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTIONS
SWINE AND SHEEP, WEALTHY HOUSEHOLDS
CattleCalf
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %Head %Body %Feet %
1700-1750
Butcher B. Hanson63.821.314.991.96.21.9
Charles Calvert60.124.615.228.563.48.1
1750-1775
Custis (Dandridge & Byrd)51.131.317.630.154.415.5
Thomas Everard41.239.419.415.972.112.0
Mid-Late 18th Century
Benedict Calvert52.426.820.839.838.521.3
Bartholomew Dandridge, then William Byrd III, followed by Reverend Michael Smith. Beginning in 1770, a group of tradesmen became the tenants. Joseph Kidd, an upholsterer who was brought over from England to work for Governor Botetourt, rented the home until 1773, when P. Hardy, a coachmaker, became the tenant. In 1778, Martha Custis Washington sold the home to Dr. James McClurg, who rented it to others until 1815.

Given the multiple numbers of families who lived in this home, associating the assemblages with any specific household seems a difficult and ill-advised task. For now, since the earlier assemblage dates to the time when the house was occupied by Custis, Washington, Dandridge, and Byrd families (all members of the gentry ), the preliminary assumption is that this assemblage is associated with an elite household, and therefore an attempt will be made to interpret the provisioning strategy of the elite. Since the later assemblage dates to the time when tradesmen, professionals, and numerous unknown individuals rented the property, the later assemblage will not be analyzed in this way.

THE CALVERT SITE

Faunal assemblages recovered from the Calvert House represent the best documented and most clearly-associated urban elite household in this study. As heads of exceptionally wealthy and powerful families, both Charles Calvert and his son Benedict were more than capable of provisioning their households with anything they wished.

ANALYSIS

All families owning substantial resources outside of town were grouped together into a wealthy/elite category. Thomas Everard owned a 600-acre plantation outside of Williamsburg, in addition to another 1136-acre plantation he inherited from his father-in-law, but even this resource was small in comparison to the many thousands of acres owned by the others. Did this make a difference in how the Everard family provisioned themselves in town? If the relative proportion of body elements, which may represent the meaty cuts sold individually by butchers and merchants, is any indication, then one could claim that the Everards purchased more meat in individual cuts than either the Calvert or Custis (and related) families. In the element distributions for cattle, swine, sheep, and calf remains, body parts are proportionately greatest in the Everard assemblage. The cattle and sheep element distributions, with small proportions of heads and large proportions of body parts, in particular, point to a heavy dependency on commercial sources of meat.

Alternatively, the assemblages associated with the elite families, including the Custis, Dandridge, Byrd, and Calvert households, show a more complex provisioning strategy, one that demonstrates they did not depend upon commercial sources of meat in the same way that their less wealthy neighbors did. With the notable exception of the Charles Calvert assemblage, where the element distributions for cattle show an enigmatically high proportion of feet and low proportion of heads, the element distributions of the elite assemblages closely resemble the element distributions of the rural households. Clearly, they were provisioning themselves through their own resources, and they had no aversion to either heads or feet.

Professionals

Professionals represented in the faunal assemblages include Dr. Archibald Blair, who lived on Nicolson Street, and Dr. George Gilmer, who purchased property and established an apothecary shop near what is now the Brush-Everard House. Both Archibald Blair and George Gilmer were immigrants who became respected members of the community.

ARCHIBALD BLAIR

A Scottish physician and partner in one of Williamsburg's leading mercantile businesses, the Prentis Store, Dr. Archibald Blair lived on what is now known as the Grissell Hay property from 1716 to 1733 with his second wife Sara Howlen Blair and four children. Though he was an immigrant, he became a community member of some standing, since during his lifetime he served as a member of the House of Burgessess for Jamestown, and held the office of Justice for 170 Jamestown and James City County. The number of slaves he owned is not known, but he is reported to have owned two female slaves in the late 1720s, and he held a deed to port land at Williamsburg.29

GEORGE GILMER

An apothecary and surgeon, Gilmer was born in Edinburgh and educated at the University of Edinburgh. Following the death of his first wife, Gilmer immigrated to Williamsburg in 1731, and purchased the house near what is now the Brush-Everard property in 1735. In addition to his professional occupation, he also was Justice of the Peace from 1738 to 1756, Sheriff of York County, and Mayor of Williamsburg. Towards the end of his life, he purchased, along with a partner John Chiswell, the Raleigh Tavern, which he kept until his death in 1757.

It does not appear that either of these men owned plantations from which they could have provisioned their families. There can be little doubt that most professionals could have maintained a garden and kept a cow or two to provide milk, since the 1783 personal property tax lists 64% of all professionals as owning one or two cows. Given their immigrant status they probably had fewer personal ties to the countryside than most residents who had been born in Virginia, and they therefore were relatively dependent upon commercial sources of food.

Looking over the element distributions for the two professionals represented in the faunal assemblages, it is readily apparent that both depended upon commercial sources of food. In every instance, the cattle, calf, and sheep distributions show large proportions of the meaty cuts and much less than normal proportions of heads and feet. In fact, no sheep heads were found in Dr. Gilmer's rubbish, and even the swine element distributions show fewer foot elements than almost any other assemblage that is associated with the craftsmen or wealthy.

Taverns

There are two taverns that are represented in the faunal assemblages, one from Williamsburg (Shields Tavern) and another from Annapolis (Reynolds Tavern). Although the two are from different urban centers, they fortunately date to approximately the same time period.

SHIELDS TAVERN

During the second quarter of the 18th century, the tavern was run by John Taylor from 1738-1742, then afterwards by James Shields, II, and his wife, Anne Marot Ingles Shields, daughter of the former innkeepers, Jean Marot and Anne Marot Sullivant.30 The household kept by James and Anne Shields was a relatively large one, including five children by their former marriages, and possibly three or more slaves.

171
Table 5.22.
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTIONS
CATTLE AND CALF, PROFESSIONAL HOUSEHOLDS
CattleCalf
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %Head %Body %Feet %
1700-1750
Butcher B. Hanson40.418.641.062.010.028.0
Dr. Archibald Blair23.762.713.6
1735-1757
Dr. George Gilmer29.857.013.238.152.49.5
Table 5.23.
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTIONS
SWINE AND SHEEP, PROFESSIONAL HOUSEHOLDS
SwineSheep
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %Head %Body %Feet %
1700-1750
Butcher B. Hanson63.821.314.991.96.21.9
Dr. Archibald Blair24.448.718.114.385.70.0
1735-1757
Dr. George Gilmer57.434.38.30.096.63.4

While the tavern was operated by the Marots, it attracted an elite clientele. But when Jean Marot died in 1717, and particularly after Anne Marot Sullivant retired in 1738, the more aggressive tavern keepers of the neighboring Raleigh and Wetherburn establishments had begun to successfully woo away the elite. From 1738 to 1742 John Taylor leased the tavern, when Jean and Anne Marot's daughter and her new husband, James Shields, took over the lease. During the time that Taylor and Shields kept the tavern, typical patrons were more from ranks of lesser gentry and middling sorts. When Shields died 1750, Anne Shields closed the establishment, married Henry Wetherburn, and relinquished her legal rights to the facility. Soon the establishment was reopened under the management of Daniel Fisher, who operated an ordinary and boardinghouse for only four months, when he opened a store. Afterwards the house became a tenement.

James Shields had the ability to provide provision or at least supplement foods with staples produced on one of his two plantations, either the one at Mill Swamp or the second at Skimino. He could also have obtained provisions from relatives, and account books document his purchases of meat from plantations located just outside town. Carter Burwell's 1736-1756 account records him as purchasing beef in 60 to over 100 pound pieces, and the James Bray account records John Taylor as purchasing mutton, lamb, beef, and veal.31

172
Table 5.24.
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTIONS
TAVERNS
CattleCalf
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %Head %Body %Feet %
1735-1757
Butcher Benjamin Hanson40.418.641.062.010.028.0
Shields Tavern42.142.915.046.243.610.3
1750-1775
Reynolds Tavern30.129.440.5
Table 5.25.
ELEMENT DISTRIBUTIONS
TAVERNS
SwineSheep
AssemblageHead %Body %Feet %Head %Body %Feet %
1735-1757
Butcher Benjamin Hanson63.821.314.991.96.21.9
Shields Tavern48.632.818.615.368.116.7
1750-1775
Reynolds Tavern40.026.633.015.055.030.0

REYNOLDS TAVERN

William Reynolds was owner of this establishment, which he operated as both a tavern and hat business from 1755 to 1768. Little is known about the site, except that the faunal remains analyzed came from trashpits associated with the Reynolds occupation.

ANALYSIS

How tavern keepers provisioned their families and eating establishments no doubt varied considerably. Depending upon their own personal resources, and what was available commercially, tavern keepers aimed their selections towards the clientele's economic means and expectations. Choices of meats may have reflected the fact that, as today, colonists dining out may have chosen to eat foods that were not their usual fare.

It is not known what resources William Reynolds could draw upon, but some documentary evidence is available to determine that James Shields may very well have supplied his establishment with meats produced on one of his two plantations. The plantation accounts of Carter Burwell demonstrates he and his predecessor, John Taylor, purchased meat directly from nearby planters.

Based on the element distributions obtained from the two tavern-related assemblages, one gets a sense that Shields', Taylor's, and Reynolds' sources were varied. If the zooarchaeological assumption is correct that the relative lack of heads and feet indicate commercial sources, then element distributions for cattle indicates that at least Shields and Taylor obtained on occasion the 173 entire animal, since in comparison to the professionals and craftsmen who clearly relied upon commercial sources, the Shields assemblages contains only 43% body parts, while the Dr. Archibald Blair assemblage contains 63% body parts and the Dr. George Gilmer assemblage contains 57% body parts. In comparison to the cattle data, the sheep element distributions, with 68% present in the Shields assemblage and 55% present in the Reynolds assemblage, indicate they purchased individual cuts of mutton, possibly more often than they purchased relatively small pieces of beef.

Provisioning Strategies, Urbanizing Economies, and Element Distributions

The faunal study has shown that the element distributions are one of the surest means of establishing market dependency. They show through the complex patterns of presence/absence of heads and feet that markets in the Chesapeake were emerging from their rural origins. The many feet and heads found in everyone's faunal assemblage, particularly the elite's, remind us that urban dwellers still brought in some produce and consumed a diet that was very similar to what their rural kinsmen consumed. But the smaller proportions of feet and heads that are found in varying proportions in every other assemblage signal the small-scale character of Williamsburg's market system. The larger proportions of body parts found in the well-to-do individuals such as Thomas Everard, the professionals such as Archibald Blair and George Gilmer, and the many tradesmen who are represented in the faunal assemblages, all signal the purchase of individual cuts of meat. How dependent each was can be seen in the strength of the proportions of body parts found in the faunal assemblages. Unfortunately, the strength is camouflaged by the small-scale nature of the provisioning system, where townspeople kept cows and pigs until laws restricted the practice.

Despite the small-scale nature that is evident in the faunal assemblages, it is apparent that from the early years Williamsburg residents depended on commercial foods. Evidence of the degree to which professionals such as Archibald Blair and George Gilmer depended on commercial foods is revealed in the numbers of body parts found in the cattle, veal, and mutton element distributions. So too in this data is the degree to which taverns and craftsmen depended on commercial sources of food evident. With the documentation supporting it, the faunal data has presented a complex and varied provisioning system that reaffirms element distributions as one being of the basic measurements of urbanizing economies.

174
175

VI. URBAN CONSUMPTION, CULTURE, AND WELFARE

A. THE CULTURE OF FOOD PREPARATION AND CONSUMPTION

Dietary Patterns as Viewed from Below: Provisioning Strategies and Beyond

Archaeology has provided history with a unique view of past dietary patterns. From the early years of settlement, colonists ate a basic diet that persisted throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. For almost everyone, their diet consisted of maize prepared in a variety of ways and of varying proportions of beef, pork, mutton, veal, domestic fowl, supplemented by fish, wild mammals, birds, and reptiles. For the upper class whites, this diet consisted predominantly of beef, followed by pork, mutton, and smaller amounts of domestic fowl, wild fowl, fish, wild mammals, and turtles. Less than a handful of assemblages associated with middling white households have been analyzed, but they indicate that this social and economic group consumed the same meats, but they consumed proportionately more pork and wildlife. A handful of slave-related assemblages that have been analyzed show that the slaves consumed proportionately greater amounts of fish and wildlife than either the wealthy or middling white households.

Why the same animals appear in all the faunal assemblages relates to the local environment and agricultural economy. Planters produced their own domestic animals, hunted in the nearby forests, and fished in nearby waterways; hence their diets tended to be composed of very similar animals. Since urban provisioning systems drew directly from the nearby countryside, and towns remained very small in relation to the northern cities, the urban diet retained distinct similarities with the diets of their rural counterparts. Walsh's research is showing that the pigs that found their way to Williamsburg were raised in nearby plantations, while cattle were raised at somewhat further distances. However great a distance that was, it is clear from the biomass data that the urban centers of Williamsburg and Annapolis were agriculturally distinct and separate from each other. Each urban market system drew in produce from nearby plantations.

Generally the proportions found in both the Shields and Reynolds assemblages are in line with the proportions present in assemblages from nearby sites; a sign that local availability played a strong role in determining what was served in a tavern. In the Reynolds assemblage the proportions are in line with the proportions present in the Green assemblage, and the only major difference with the Calvert assemblages is that the latter contain extremely large proportions of mutton. Given the status of the Calverts in relation to everyone else, the large quantity of mutton, which was the most expensive meat available, should not be a surprise.

Testimony to the strength of the local economy are the many Williamsburg assemblages that illustrate the sameness of diet that existed for the elites, craftsmen, and professionals. In only one instance do we find significant variability. Looking at the biomass estimates for the faunal assemblages in the Williamsburg sample, the one distinctive assemblage comes from Shields Tavern. While the proportions of fish, wild life, and domestic fowl appear in about the same proportions, mutton, veal, and pork appear in greater quantities than any other assemblage from the lower Chesapeake. Why the tavern diet differed from household diets in some ways may be related to the fact that colonists chose to eat foods that were not their usual fare. Beef was 176

Table 6.1.
RELATIVE DIETARY IMPORTANCE
PERCENT TOTAL BIOMASS
MuttonVealBeef & VealPorkDom FowlWildFish
Williamsburg 1700-1750
John Brush3.43.462.513.30.30.50.2
Dr. Archibald Blair16.52.128.313.60.11.70.8
Shields Tavern20.19.149.228.90.60.30.0
Dr. George Gilmer3.72.461.513.20.11.40.2
Williamsburg 1750-1775
Martha Custis4.13.549.912.30.31.20.7
(Dandrige & Byrd)
Anne Geddy & sons5.15.459.614.70.20.30.3
Anthony Hay5.32.348.911.50.10.60.2
Thomas Everard7.012.549.818.10.60.90.6
(Custis) Dr. J. McClurg & tenants6.33.544.518.80.71.31.1
John Draper5.08.153.116.70.60.91.8
(Geddy) Rob'ts Jackson & Martin3.92.155.811.70.10.20.0
Widow Elizabeth Hay3.22.155.811.70.10.20.0
Annapolis 1700-1750
Charles Calvert14.1--29.416.60.91.21.7
Annapolis 1750-1775
Reynolds Tavern3.6--33.16.80.90.80.8
Annapolis, Mid-Late 18th Century
Benedict Calvert11.2--29.69.00.83.21.6
Annapolis, 1775-1811
Fred & Samuel Green5.1--3.5912.50.62.71.4
common fare in the lower Chesapeake, while mutton was expensive and not commonly consumed by most people, and veal was a seasonal treat that was available primarily during the spring and early summer.1

But explanations other than the distinctive demands and tastes of the clientele who ate at Shields need to be explored. One possible explanation why mutton and veal were consumed in greater proportions in the Shields Tavern than in nearby urban and rural homes is that these meats were seldom preserved, and diners might have chosen the fresh over the preserved. A possible explanation for the large proportion of pork might relate to the clientele, who were from the ranks of the middling and lesser gentry who frequented this establishment. The proportions of meats represented in this assemblage may well relate to the types of foods these individuals consumed.

Taking this interpretation further will require evidence from other faunal assemblages from taverns, as well as more faunal assemblages from archaeological sites that were occupied by 177 households from the middling and lower ranks of Chesapeake society. Unfortunately the sites occupied by those less well off are few and far between, but one assemblage from Site 44JC298 that has been analyzed is located on the Chickahominy River in James City County.2 In this assemblage the relatively high proportion of pork indicates this middling farmer and his household consumed more pork than the elite, but more work is needed before there can be any interpretation of class-related variability in household diets.3

The meats available for the urban residents were for the most part a given, and the meat diets of urban craftsmen, professionals, and elites in our study demonstrate the relative sameness of their diets. But, that does not mean everyone shared the same meals. Given an individuals' wealth, occupation, and ethnic background each carved out a distinctive cuisine for themselves and their families. Both elites, professionals, craftsmen, and slaves consumed the heads and feet of cattle, calves, sheep, and pigs. But the elite prepared them in elegant dishes using receipts that are found in contemporary printed and manuscript cookbooks, while the slaves and poor whites used them to flavor hominy, stews, and soups.

Variability in cuisine can also be observed in the manner in which the bones were butchered. Zooarchaeological evidence that has been gathered separately from this provisioning study has shown that bones from known slave sites are highly fragmented, but that the bones from white sites tend to be larger and more intact.4 This is a future topic well worth exploring, but these butchering patterns no doubt represent separate cuisines; the wealthy whites tended to prepare large cuts, often roasting them, while slaves tended to chop the meat into small pieces, no doubt to use in stews and other one pot meals that could be left on hearth while they worked. It's how individuals prepared the cut of meat and served the dish that created distinctive differences reflecting their cultural, social, and economic background.

The continued integration of the varied resources this project has marshaled together will help to spell out the fine details that distinguished the cuisine of the different cultural groups living in the region. Faunal assemblages, particularly those associated with slaves and several sites of middling whites that are currently under excavation, will help identify variability that existed in the diets of each group. Butchery studies of each assemblage will spell out certain elements of the cuisine, i.e., whether meats were chopped and prepared in one pot meals, or they were prepared as larger cuts in various ways.

Manuscript cookbooks contain information on how the elite and professionals prepared the cuts of meat faunal assemblages tell us they consumed, and store accounts contain information on who purchased what spices and sweeteners. Store and household accounts, as well as probate inventories, contain information on who purchased and used different types of food preparation equipment and tableware to prepare and consume foods. Diaries, traveler's accounts, and 178 personal letters contain information on the specific dishes that were prepared by the rich and poor, and they provide essential information on the cultural and social context of eating. And last, but certainly not the least, the archaeological remains of this material culture contain valuable information on who actually owned what. From the detailed analysis of the cooking equipment and types of tableware found in sites that were occupied by the elite, craftsmen, professional, poor white, and slave, it should be possible to explore in great detail the variability that we know surely existed in the foodways of these different cultural, social, and economic groups who lived together in the Chesapeake.

B. SEASONALITY OF CONSUMPTION

In an era preceding means of refrigeration, everyone's diet changed markedly from season to season. On the surface much of this seems patently obvious and thus unremarkable. On one level, the data we have collected can be viewed simply as a tool for refining what we think we already know about seasonal variability in diet in historic periods. And, of course, it will be employed within the museum at Colonial Williamsburg to reproduce seasonally varying period meals more accurately. However we think our data bases promise much more. Seasonal variations are a topic that we have been able to explore only in a preliminary way during the period of the grant. Since we have linked purchasing patterns to individual biographies, we plan to explore further how marked seasonal variations in the supply of different kinds of foods affected households of differing wealth and status. Sections of this report have already shown that urban elites were willing to devote both resources and energy to minimizing seasonal dearths of highly desired foods. What we must do next is to determine the extent to which seasonal variations in the supply of different kinds of foods varied between different sorts of households below the level of the elite. This, too, is not just a matter of antiquarian curiosity. Seasonal variations in the availability of different components of the diet surely had a major impact on the quality of nutrients consumed, if not always on the gross caloric sufficiency of the diet.5 The urban poor were especially affected. In towns, the deleterious effects of typically nutrient-poor winter fare were further exacerbated by the need to purchase stocks of expensive firewood in order to keep warm at the very time when seasonal under or unemployment was at its height.

We are currently investigating seasonality as revealed in historical documents using three different measures: 1) the number of transactions made in a given month, 2) the monthly totals of quantities of various foods sold or purchased, and 3) the total value of the different commodities by season. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses which we are now in the process of sorting out. We are also in the process of looking for changes over time by further subdividing the data sets into discrete time periods.

At this point we can advance only a few general observations. In a grain surplus producing region, stocks of the essential cereal portion of the diet were available year round. Only in a few years of extremely unfavorable weather when area planters were forced to reserve all the corn they grew for plantation use were town dwellers likely to be affected by escalating prices and 179 short supply. Region-wide dearth almost never occurred, but high transport costs, coupled with trading networks centered primarily on international rather than inter-regional trade usually precluded a quick response to localized regional deficits. Temporary shortages of ground corn meal in late summer or early fall, when droughts sometimes shut down tidewater mills for several weeks, were more common. Then families were decidedly inconvenienced for a short period, but so long as grain was in good supply, they did not suffer in the long run in their pocketbooks. As preceding sections on town markets and household buying patterns have amply demonstrated, supplies of fruits, vegetables, sea foods, dairy products and game were seasonal indeed. A preliminary comparison of monthly store and market transactions with sales of selected products from individual plantations suggests that the inter mediation of markets and middlemen served to mitigate, to some extent, pronounced variations in the supply of meats and dairy products available in towns. General seasonal patterns reflecting local agricultural cycles were readily apparent in all the data, but less pronounced than those derived only from the records of an individual large plantation.

One major finding that we highlight here is firm confirmation of sophisticated strategies for ensuring a supply of some kinds of meats throughout the year. Bowen initially documented such strategies for colonial Connecticut, and we find them reproduced in the colonial and early national Chesapeake. Larger Chesapeake planters ensured themselves of a continuous supply of meat, predominantly fresh, by closely coordinating the varying optimal slaughter times of different kinds of domestic livestock as shown in Figure 6.1. Hogs were fattened, often with recently harvested inferior corn, in the fall and early winter, and slaughtered between November and January. Some of the fresh pork was consumed immediately, but the bulk was salted down, and the best parts later smoked for consumption throughout the winter, spring, and early summer. Most adult cattle were slaughtered between late fall and the end of the winter when these larger amounts of meat would keep the longest. Those fattened on grass only were most often killed in October when they had reached their optimal weights for the season. Others were further fattened on corn and marketed between January and March, the coldest months. As temperatures climbed, farmers turned for their supply of fresh meat to smaller animals. Lambs were killed and marketed primarily in spring and early summer (March through June). Then farmers harvested older sheep (muttons) in July and August. There was a second surge of mutton in December and January as farmers culled their flocks of inferior animals unlikely to survive the winter. These strategies ensured a supply of some kind of fresh meat throughout the year.

The account books we examined demonstrate that planters who sold surplus livestock to urban consumers followed this seasonally balanced slaughtering schedule which was also practiced on self-sufficient small farms and on large plantations across the region. Seasonal supplies of domestic meats were also to a small extent supplemented by periodic seasonal surpluses of wild protein resources. Shad, herring, oysters, crabs, and wild ducks and geese were harvested in season. Big planters bothered to market only the periodically plentiful anadromous fish which they harvested with nets. Slaves, free blacks, and marginal whites brought a wide variety of wild foods to urban consumers. By the time Chesapeake towns became firmly established, then, rural meat procurement strategies that assured a reasonably regular supply throughout the year were already in place. These strategies satisfied town dwellers' needs for continual supplies of fresh meat equally well.

180

RR040424 Figure 6.1. Seasonality of meat sales.

C. MAJOR TRENDS IN FOOD PRICES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR WELFARE

We assembled a data base of prices for all foodstuffs, fodder, and fuel mentioned in plantation, store, and household accounts for which a unit value could be obtained. The data was first examined separately for each of the individual accounts books, and problematic entries corrected in each series. Then we combined the plantation, store, and household accounts into three aggregated sets for each colony, and examined differences in price levels collected from the three different sources. Next we aggregated the data into separate files for Virginia and for Maryland in order to ascertain whether or not price levels and trends in the two colonies were consistent. Having satisfied ourselves that they were, we then aggregated all the price data into one comprehensive series, making adjustments for differences in exchange rates against British sterling in the two colonies, and converting later prices stated in U.S. dollars back into colonial currency equivalents.6 The results are displayed in Appendix 5. This is the most comprehensive collection of prices so far assembled for food and fuel in urban areas in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century Chesapeake. It will provide scholars of the region with more representative data than do 181 Bezanson's frequently used Pennsylvania price series, which was almost the only source available prior to 1990, when Billy G. Smith published additional data on food, fuel, and other prices for the city of Philadelphia.7 It also extends backwards in time and complements the work of Donald Adams on price trends in Maryland between 1750 and 1850.8

This series reflects a very rough average of the prices that town consumers would have paid when purchasing foods from a combination of local planters, storekeepers, and petty hucksters--a scenario borne out in the analysis of individual households discussed above. Separate analysis of plantation and store prices revealed, not surprisingly, that local foods bought from merchants were usually somewhat more costly than those bought directly from area planters. This reflected the expenses the storekeepers encountered for storing food products, as well as the profit they exacted for distribution. We made no attempt to weight the relative contributions of direct plantation, store, and urban market purchases. As the preceding sections have demonstrated, the food procurement strategies of individual urban households depended a great deal on the peculiar and multiple resources available to particular individuals and families. In addition, the number of price observations that can be gathered for all but the most common of foods remains decidedly sparse, even in a data base as large as ours that includes most of the universe of surviving high-quality sources. For less widely accounted foods, especially perishable vegetables and fruits, often small numbers simply obviate further refinement.

Among the variables one should keep in mind in evaluating such an aggregated series are seasonal variations in prices, a family's ability to preserve and store foods, discounts for high volume purchases, the presence or absence of aggressive competitors, and reciprocal and sometimes non-economic relationships. Those who bought meats in quantity and in season and preserved some for later use paid less, pound for pound, than did those who had to buy in smaller quantities and sometimes out of season. Individuals who could not afford to buy a whole hog in late fall and salt it down for later consumption had to choose between going without such meat or paying a higher price for smaller quantities. Fruits and vegetables bought early in the year commanded a premium for those willing to pay for an early treat. Storekeepers sometimes offered discounts for high volume purchases-they sold beef by the hundredweight, for example, at considerably lower unit prices than those charged for beef by the pound. Intense competition between town merchants tended to drive down the prices of imported groceries for town dwellers. But especially in the first half of the eighteenth century, big planters who purchased sugar in quantity from visiting ship captains for family use often resold some of it to neighbors and dependant laborers at cost, and so offered a better deal to those connected to them than did local storekeepers. Petty hucksters might choose to eat surplus chickens themselves rather than to sell at less than the prevailing market rate, but they may well have accepted something under the 182 going rate towards the end of the market day in order to dispose of highly perishable stocks of vegetables, fruits, or fish.

Transportation costs were also involved, but are not always detectable in stated prices. High volume purchasers may have benefited not only from lower nominal prices, but also from hidden discounts in the form of free deliveries provided by the suppliers. Carter's Grove slaves, for example, routinely delivered flour and meal, free of charge, to the Burwells' regular town customers, but small and irregular buyers had to fetch their grain from the mill themselves. The price paid per bushel of meal or flour was the same. But in the first case a family member or household slave spent no more than a few minutes helping to unload the cart and stow away the delivery. In the second case, the buyer likely invested half a day of her or her own time in making this single purchase. Anyone who owned or could easily borrow the use of a horse or horse and cart from a neighbor was likewise in a position to take advantage of chance opportunities offered by sellers outside of convenient walking distance. Those lacking either horse or connections had either to pay stiff carting fees or else forego volume purchases. Householders who had to walk to market, and who had often to make a choice between working and going to market, had fewer options than did those who could delegate most food procurement chores to older children, slaves or servants. Their options were further limited by the weight of the purchases that the buyer could conveniently carry home from market, on foot, in a sack or basket.

Crude price series, we are convinced, are considerably better measures than undocumented wild guesses, but we continue to emphasize that at the level of individual households, these aggregate measures constitute exceedingly crude indicators of particular circumstance.

Nevertheless, a few generalizations immediately stand out. Overall, basic food prices were relatively unchanged from the 1730s until the Seven Year's War, when they began gradually to rise. Although by mid century some Chesapeake planters were producing substantial surpluses of corn and wheat, growing international demand for grain raised farm gate prices for these basic foodstuffs throughout the region. As a result, Chesapeake town dwellers had to pay more. And when the price of corn rose, so, in tandem, did the price of meat, reflecting the increased costs farmers encountered in fattening livestock for market.

The situation during the Revolution was more complex. Normal trading networks were disrupted throughout the war by the British naval blockade and periodically by warfare within the region. Farm gate prices for grains expressed in hard currency did not rise for the region overall, but there were marked regional variations. In areas where normal outlets were disrupted, but which were isolated from any fighting, prices fell. In areas like the lower York and James Basins which experienced prolonged campaigns, occupying armies, and pitched battles, food prices rose.9 Most book exchanges were recorded throughout the war in hard currency. This was true, for example, of the grain bought, sold, and ground at Burwell's mill between 1775 and 1778. Transactions valued in the account books in paper currency, which depreciated rapidly between 1777 and 1781, show enormous rises. This does not mean that the cost of living rose several hundred or thousand fold, but rather that whenever possible, people paid in bad money rather than in good. However, day-to-day uncertainties about a ready supply of essential foods, coupled with longer term uncertainties about the eventual outcome of the war, made basic food procurement a 183 more troublesome problem for town dwellers dependent on urban markets than for families who could in the worst case manage to provision themselves off their own land.

At the close of the war, prices for locally produced foods were considerably higher than in prewar years. There was some decline in the late 1780s, but from the early 1790s through the early 1800s food prices rose substantially. By 1800-07 grain and meat prices reached double the level of the late 1760s. Growing urban populations in the Chesapeake were clearly putting increasing pressure on regional supplies. Rising prices were the rule for all foods produced in the region, and not just for grain and meat. Similar increases occurred in the prices town dwellers paid for dairy products, seafood, and poultry, and doubtless for vegetables and fruits as well.

On the other hand, most imported foods became relatively less expensive after the Revolution. Commodities like salt, sugar, tea, and coffee were available to town dwellers at the same prices prevailing in the colonial period. Such groceries were also increasingly available in a wider range of grades and prices. More affluent consumers could choose to buy finer sorts of sugar and tea at elevated prices, but the less discriminating could buy lower grades at the pre war price. Only imported rum passed at a higher price than before the war. However, in compensation, domestically-produced whiskey became increasingly available after the Revolution at low prices comparable to that of rum, the traditional common peoples' drink, before the war.

These relative changes in food prices go a long way towards explaining changes in diet among the urban poor at the turn of the century. Social emulation and changing tastes were certainly one factor, but declining relative costs of sweeteners, caffeinated beverages, and alcohol, in comparison to grains, meats, and dairy products, almost certainly affected, adversely, the customary diets of the urban poor. Wheat bread similarly remained more expensive than grain porridges, but purchased bread could be consumed without further preparation, while the preparation of porridge and stews necessitated a supply of firewood. In a situation where food and fuel prices were rapidly increasing, town dwellers living at the margin were surely constrained to make increasingly problematic tradeoffs between price, basic nutrition, and convenience.

Our meat price series proved sufficiently robust to identify further interactions between changing tastes and available supply. Across the colonial years mutton remained a luxury meat, its cost consistently double the price of pork or beef (Figure 6.2) Not surprisingly then it was consumed primarily in elite households, as the faunal remains have amply demonstrated. After the Revolution its price relative to other meats declined; by the 1790s prices for mutton and beef reached parity. This surely reflected in part an increase in supply. Much of the region was shifting from tobacco to wheat as the main export crop, and grain farmers were much more likely than tobacco planters to incorporate sheep raising into their agricultural schemes. As the price fell relative to other meats, mutton was likely eaten more regularly by a wider spectrum of households, and its value as a status meat surely fell.

In the first half of the eighteenth century, on the other hand, pork and beef were equal in price. This is surely one good reason why, as archaeology has consistently demonstrated, these meats were eaten in equal proportions. By the 1760s the price of beef became consistently higher than that of pork. As urban populations grew and grain fields replaced open woodlands, beef production per capita was likely falling throughout much of the tidewater, driving up price. Higher prices also reflected changes in quality. Cattle were increasingly fattened on grain prior to slaughter. The net slaughter weights of Chesapeake cattle rose from the scrawny colonial average 184 RR040425 Figure 6.2. Chesapeake beef, pork, and mutton prices. of 350 pounds per beast to over 500 pounds between 1790 and 1820.10 While beef raised solely on grass could usually be rendered palatable only by long cooking, cuts from fatter animals lent themselves to a wider range of preparation techniques, thus enhancing the desirability of this meat. The various meat price series also demonstrate that different sources of supply were not equal. Pork bought from area planters was consistently cheaper than that purchased from storekeepers. Plantation pork was usually delivered in the form of whole hogs on which minimal butchery had been performed. Many people had little choice or else were willing to pay more for the convenience of buying smaller, further cut up meat. The scenario was the same with mutton. On the other hand, throughout the eighteenth century at least, plantation beef turned out to be consistently more expensive than store beef. Perhaps the quality of the cattle sold off large plantations was higher than those sold to storekeepers or perhaps town dwellers were willing to pay a premium for fresher meat.

Figure 6.3 shows an index of urban Chesapeake meat and grain prices standardized to base years 1767-1770.11 Table 6.2 compares this index with a food index for Philadelphia composed of a wider base of 19 items standardized to the year 1762. In both, the substantial rise in urban food prices after the Revolution is pronounced. A more comprehensive Chesapeake food price index, which we plan to construct in the future, will further identify fine price shifts. At the 185 moment this basic meat and grain index is adequate for assessing major trends. Had we included other foods, especially imported groceries, in our index the numbers would have been lower, but only slightly so, since most families devoted the majority of their food expenditures to locally produced foods. The price rise was steeper in the Chesapeake than in Philadelphia in part because in the former the populations of individual towns had reached no more than 2,000 to 3,000 before the war. Few farmers outside the limited hinterlands of these places had much experience with producing food for urban consumers. After the war the needs of burgeoning urban populations outstripped the ability or willingness of staple export oriented farmers to respond.

The implications for urban standards of living are equally clear. Chesapeake town residents who derived some of their income from rural plantations or from trade likely experienced rising standards of affluence, despite rising costs of town living. Those at the lower end of the economic scale who depended largely or entirely on wage labor almost certainly experienced declines. In this project we did not attempt to measure the levels of urban wages. However other studies, for the Chesapeake and elsewhere, consistently depict a picture of relatively stagnant wage levels and of consistently rising prices for basic necessities.12 Examinations of the situation of urban free blacks present an even bleaker picture.13 The situation of town dwelling slaves surely varied with the varying circumstances of their respective owners.

RR040426 Figure 6.3. Index of urban meat and grain prices.

186
Table 6.2.
FOOD PRICE INDICES FOR CHESAPEAKE TOWNS AND PHILADELPHIA
1733-1807
Chesapeake TownsPhiladelphia
YearMeatGrainMeat & Grain19 Items
1733746570
1734749585
1735997286
1736668576
1737707874
1738707975
1739747675
1740547866
1741498567
1742668777
1743709080
1744748680
1745706869
1746706869
1747627066
1748587969
1749788180
1750878486
1751958791
1752788984
1753788280
175462777094
175574878189
175676878299
1757107799398
175889799480
1759101898589
176080898595
176182918786
1762829287100
1763829488115
17648210493101
1765821059491
17668511910290
1767821149894
176810710010486
176995959581
17701159110390
177114611012896
177213011912599
177313212913190
1774120127124100
177510710010489
177699989997
1777101122112
1778101122112
187
1779101122112
1780101122112
1781120131126
1782165148157
1783144180162154
1784165215190147
1785181171176123
1786169181175124
1787161171166119
178813615914899
1789146137142107
1790130166148134
1791122136125130
1792151143147131
1793161151156143
1794161151156161
1795165154160207
1796173151162227
1797181151166192
1798144151148183
1799157100129188
1800165172169201
1801202244223
1802202182192
1803202188195
1804221217208
1805239195217
1806334123229
1807334113224

Sources: For Chesapeake towns in the plantation, store, and household account books listed in the bibliography. For Philadelphia, Smith, The "Lower Sort", pp. 100-101.
Notes: For Chesapeake towns base year=1767-1770. For Philadelphia the base year is 1762.
The meat index=(1 lb. beef + 1 lb. Pork) ÷ 2. The grain index=(1 bu. corn X 5 + bu. Wheat) ÷ 6. The meat and grain index=meat + grain ÷ 2. For the calculation of the Philadelphia index see Smith, The "Lower Sort", pp. 100-101.

In the countryside, established local custom precluded reduction of already minimal rations. Whether these customs afforded similar protections to slaves living in urban places is entirely unclear. Any allowed to work for wages but expected to provision themselves would have been hard pressed to maintain even the minimal dietary standards prevailing among those depending on owner-supplied rations.

188

D. CONCLUSION

This multidisciplinary study of eighteenth and early nineteenth century urban food provisioning systems has made substantial progress in explaining how town dwellers of differing status and wealth procured this most basic essential to life. Our aim was to synthesize the results of earlier documentary studies and already processed archaeological collections, as well as to analyze and explore additional unprocessed artifact collections and here to fore little-used historical resources. The project team approached each of these disparate sources as independent sources of evidence that had first to be dealt with according to the standards of our respective disciplines--economic history, zooarchaeology, and material culture studies. We began with the understanding that none of us would confine her or his efforts exclusively to the sources and issues peculiar to our individual disciplines. We believe our collaborative effort has achieved a great deal more than any of us could have managed working individually in isolation, and we are particularly grateful to the Endowment for providing funding that made such a collaborate effort possible.

The recent work of historical archaeologists has made some major contributions to the field of urban studies, but often the answers they have supplied to the question, "What did it mean to live in a modern, urban-based, market economy?", have been so narrowly focused as to appear irrelevant to most social and economic historians. Economic historians have so concentrated on narrow issues of prices, wages, aggregate outputs and incomes, and profit maximization so as to alienate many social historians interested primarily in cultural constructions and perceptions. The relatively new field of anthropometric history has also influenced our project. Studies of average heights among various economic and social groups are posing questions about the overall quality of life in urban and rural America in the mid nineteenth century that confound the generally optimistic picture painted by most economic historians, and which clearly cannot be answered with conventional historical sources and approaches. Many museum interpreters find the concerns and findings that preoccupy scholars in all of these areas all too abstracted from life experiences of real past people in specific places and specific times. We have tried to benefit from the insights and approaches of all.

In this report we have chosen to emphasize findings about individual people, households, archeological sites, and towns. We are convinced that sound and lasting broader generalizations can be reached only by first developing a detailed understanding of individual experience. Our results demonstrate that there is no simple answer to the question "How did townspeople in Virginia and Maryland supply themselves with food in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries?" We believe we have made substantial progress, not only in putting flesh on individual bones, but also in showing how these individual pieces were articulated into a complex and inter-related whole. We still have much work remaining, both in further fleshing out those individual bones and in more fully understanding the workings of provisioning systems as a whole. The materials we have drawn together in the course of this project constitute a resource that will enable both researchers at Colonial Williamsburg and the wider community of scholars to continue to pursue these and related questions.

Footnotes

^1 See for example, Bruce M. S. Campbell, James A. Galloway, Derek Keene, and Margaret Murphy, A Medieval Capital and its Grain Supply: Agrarian Production and Distribution in the London Region c. 1300 (Institute of British Geographers, Historical Geography Series, no. 30, 1993) and Maryanne Kowaleski, Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
^2 N. S. B. Gras, The Evolution of the English Corn Market (Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1915); Steven Laurence Kaplan, Provisioning Paris: Merchants and Millers in the Grain and Flour Trade during the Eighteenth Century (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984); Roger Scola, Feeding the Victorian City; The Food Supply of Manchester, 1770-1870 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991); R. B. Outhwaite, Dearth, Public Policy and Social Disturbance in England, 1550-1800 (Cambridge, Eng.; Cambridge University Press, 1991); Erik Aerts and Peter Clark, eds., Metropolitan Cities and Their Hinterlands in Early Modern Europe, vol, 9 of Proceedings, Tenth International Economic History Congress, Leuven, August 1990 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), especially E. A. Wrigley, "Metropolitan Cities and their Hinterlands: Stimulus and Constraints to Growth," pp. 12-20; Joanne Bowen, "A Study of Seasonality and Subsistence: Eighteenth-Century Suffield, Connecticut," Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1990.
^3 See, for example, Lorena S. Walsh, "Consumer Behavior, Diet, and the Standard of Living in Late Colonial and Early Antebellum America, 1770-1840," in Robert E. Gallman and John Joseph Wallis, eds., American Economic Growth and Standards of Living Before the Civil War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), pp. 217-64; Christopher Clark, The Roots of Rural Capitalism: Western Massachusetts, 1780-1860 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990); Peter O. Wacker and Paul G. E. Clemens, Land Use in Early New Jersey: A Historical Geography (Newark, N.J: New Jersey Historical Society, 1995; Karen J. Friedman, "Victualling Colonial Boston," Agricultural History 47 (1973): 189-205; D. C. Smith and A. E. Bridges, "The Brighton Market: Feeding Nineteenth-Century Boston," Agricultural History 56 (1982): 3-21; Ritchie Garrison, "Farm Dynamics and Regional Exchange: The Connecticut Valley Beef Trade, 1670-1850," Agricultural History 61 (1987): 1-17; Andrew H. Baker and Holly V. Izard, "New England Farmers and the Marketplace, 1780-1865: A Case Study," Agricultural History 65 (1991): 29-52; Winifred Barr Rothenberg, From Market-Places to a Market Economy: The Transformation of Rural Massachusetts, 1750-1850 (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992); Joan M. Jensen, Loosening the Bonds: Mid-Atlantic Farm Women, 1750-1850 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986).
^4 Carole Shammas, The Pre-Industrial Consumer in England and America (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), chap. 5; Billy G. Smith, "'The Best Poor Man's Country': Living Standards of the 'Lower Sort' in Late Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia," Working Papers from the Regional Economic History Research Center 2 (1979); 53; Billy G. Smith, The "Lower Sort": Philadelphia's Laboring People, 1750-1800 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), chap. 4; Simon Kuznets, Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure, and Spread (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 262-84; Philip J. Coelho and James F. Shepherd, "Differences in Regional Prices: The United States, 1850-1880," Journal of Economic History 34 (1974): 551-91.
^5 Gregory Clark, Michael Huberman, and Peter H. Lindert, "A British Food Puzzle, 1770-1850," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Economic History Association, September, 1992. See also Nathan Koffsky, "Farm and Urban Purchasing Power," in Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 11 of Studies in Income and Wealth (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1949), pp. 151-219.
^6 Jay Anderson, "'A Solid Sufficiency': An Ethnography of Yeoman Foodways in Stuart England," Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1971; Jack Goody, Cooking, Cuisine, and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Mary Douglas, Food and the Social Order: Studies in Food and Festivities in Three American Communities (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984).
^7 The extensive literature on the international market sector is surveyed in John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard, The Economy of British America, 1607-1789 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985).
^8 For example, James A. Henretta, "Families and Farms: Mentalité in Pre-Industrial America," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 35 (1978): 3-32; Robert A. Gross, The Minutemen and Their World (New York: Hill and Wang, 1976).
^9 Anthropologists who have made contributions in the study of market economies include Ralph Beals, The Peasant Marketing System of Oaxaca, Mexico (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); Scott Cook and Martin Diskin, eds., Markets in Oaxaca (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976); Paul Bohannan and George Dalton, eds., Markets in Africa (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1975); Sidney Mintz, "Pratik: Haiian Personal Economic Relationships," in Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1961); Sidney Mintz, Caribbean Transformations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989); Marshall Sahlins, Stone Age Economics (New York: Aldine Publishing Co., 1972); William Davis, Social Relations in a Philippine Market (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973).
^10 The composition of the populations of Williamsburg and Annapolis and their occupational structures are summarized in Lorena S. Walsh, "Characteristics of the York County Urban Population"; Walsh, "A Comparison of the Social Structures of Williamsburg and Annapolis in 1783," and Peter V. Bergstrom, "The Business of Williamsburg and Yorktown," in "Urbanization in the Tidewater South, Part II: The Growth and Development of Williamsburg and Yorktown," Final Report to the National Endowment for the Humanities, Project #RO-20869-85, 1989.
^1 For the 17th century Chesapeake see Russell R. Menard, Lois Green Carr, and Lorena S. Walsh, Robert Cole's World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991) and Henry M. Miller, "Colonization and Subsistence Change on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Frontier," Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University, 1984. For New England see Betty Hobbes Pruitt, "Self-Sufficiency and the Agricultural Economy of Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 41 (1984): 333-64; Sarah F. McMahon, "A Comfortable Subsistence: the Changing Composition of Diet in Rural New England, 1620-1840," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 42 (1985): 25-65; Carole Shammas, "How Self-Sufficient Was Early America?" Journal of Interdisciplinary History 13 (1982): 247-72. For livestock husbandry in the two regions see Joanne Bowen, "A Comparative Analysis of New England and Chesapeake Herding Systems," in Paul Shackel and Barbara Little, eds., Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994), pp. 155-68.
^2 Menard, Carr, and Walsh, Robert Cole's World, chap. 4.
^3 Lois Green Carr and Lorena S. Walsh, "Economic Diversification and Labor Organization in the Chesapeake," in Stephen Innes, ed., Work and Labor in Early America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), pp. 144-88.
^4 Aerts and Clark, eds., Metropolitan Cities and Their Hinterlands.
^5 Lorena S. Walsh, "Plantation Management in the Chesapeake, 1620-1820," Journal of Economic History 49 (1989): 393-406.
^6 William F. Kelso, Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia (Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1984), pp. 36-40.
^7 For documentation on Carter's Grove see Lorena S. Walsh, From Calabar to Carter's Grove: The History of a Virginia Slave Community (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, forthcoming 1997). The analysis of agricultural operations is based on Walsh, "'To Labour for Profit': Plantation Management in the Chesapeake, 1620-1820," manuscript in progress.
^8 Lewis Cecil Gray, History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1933); Wesley Newton Laing, "Cattle in Early Virginia," Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 1984; Miller, "Colonization and Subsistence Change on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Frontier"; Bowen, "A Comparative Analysis of New England and Chesapeake Herding Systems."
^9 Juliet Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Animals from Early Times (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981); H.M. Hecker, "Domestication Revisited: Its Implications for Faunal Analysis," Journal of Field Archaeology 9(1982):217-238; Helmut Hemmer (ed.), Domestication: The Decline of Environmental Appreciation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Pamela J. Crabtree, "Early Animal Domestication in the Middle East and Europe," in Michael B. Schiffer (ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory 5 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1993), pp. 201-246.
^10 Descriptions from "An Act concerning the Killing of wilde Cattle." Archives of Maryland, Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland. Vol. I, January 1637/38-September 1664. Ed. William Hand Browne (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883), pp. 418-419.
^11 Helen C. Rountree, The Powhatan Indians of Virginia: Their Traditional Culture (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989), p. 60.
^12 Timothy Silver, A New Face on the Countryside: Indians, Colonists, and Slaves in South Atlantic Forests, 1500-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 49.
^13 Henry M. Miller, "An Archaeological Perspective on the Evolution of Diet in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1620-1745," in Lois G. Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo, eds., Colonial Chesapeake Society (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), pp. 176-241; Henry M. Miller, "Colonization and Subsistence Change on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Frontier" (Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University, 1984); Joanne Bowen, "Foodways in the 18th-Century Chesapeake," in Theodore R. Reinhart, ed., The Archaeology of 18th-Century Virginia, Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 35 (Richmond: Archeological Society of Virginia, 1996), pp. 87-130; Elise Manning-Sterling, "Great Blue Herons and River Otters: The Changing Perceptions of All Things Wild in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake" (master's thesis, The College of William and Mary, 1994).
^14 Timothy Silver, A New Face on the Countryside, p.177-180.
^15 Description from "A Briefe Declaration of the present state of things in Virginia…" Reproduced in Alexander Brown, ed., The Genesis of the United States A Narrative of the Movement in England, 1605-1616, which Resulted in the Plantation of North America by Englishmen, Disclosing the Contest between England and Spain for the Possession of the Soil Now Occupied by the United States of America; Set Forth through A Series of Historical Manuscripts Now First Printed Together with a Reissue of Rare Contemporaneous Tracts, Accompanied by Bibliographical Memoranda, Notes, and Brief Biographics, Vol. I (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1890), p. 776.
^16 The Virginia Company. "A Note of the Shipping, Men, and Provisions, Sent to Virginia, by the Treasurer and Company in the Yewere 1619." Reproduced in Susan Myra Kingsbury, ed., The Records of the Virginia Company of London, Vol. III (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1933), p. 118; "The Discourse of the old Company, 1625 [a discussion by a committee of the Virginia Company for a committee of Charles I's Privy Council]." Reproduced in Lyon Gardiner Tyler, ed., Narratives of Early Virginia 1606-1625 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907, reprinted, Barnes & Noble, 1946). The discourse was originally published in The Virginia Magazine of History I: 155-167, 287-302, 404.
^17 "John Pory. "A Letter to 'The Right Honble and my Singular Good Lorge [Dudley Carleton],'" in Narratives of Early Virginia. Also reproduced in Susan Myra Kingsbury, ed., Records of the Virginia Company, Vol. III, P. 220 (Washington, D. C., 1933), p. 283.
^18 "The Relation of the Right Honourable the Lord De-La-Warre, Lord Governour and Captaine Generall of the Colonies, planted in Virginea…to the Lords and others of the Counsell of Virginia…" (London: Printed by William Hall for William Welbie, 1611). Reproduced in Narratives of Early Virginia, p. 213.
^19 Robert Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia. 1705. Ed. Louis B. Wright. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1947), p. 37.
^20 Captain John Smith, The Generall Historie of Virginia: The Fourth Booke. (London, 1624). Reproduced in Narratives of Early Virginia, p. 306.
^21 "Letter of Sir Thomas Dale to the President and Counsell of the Companie of Adventurers and Planters in Virginia." Reproduced in Edward Duffield Neill, ed., Virginia Vetusta During the Reign of James the First, Containing Letters and Documents Never Before Printed (Albany: Joel Munsell's Sons, 1885), p. 81.
^22 William Waller Hening , ed., The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619 (New York: Printed for the Editor by R. & W. & G. Bartow, 1823). Facsimile reprint published for the Jamestown Foundation of the Commonwealth of Virginia. (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1969), Vol. I, XXIII, p. 228.
^23 Robert Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia., p. 318.
^24 Caroline Grigson, "Porridge and Pannage: Pig Husbandry in Neolithic England," in Martin Bell and S. Limbrey, eds., Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 146 (Oxford: B.A.R. Series, 1982), p. 297-312.
^25 Grigson, "Porridge and Pannage: Pig Husbandry in Neolithic England."
^26 Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, 318.
^27 Kathleen Biddick, The Other Economy: Pastoral Husbandry on a Medieval Estate. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 23-45; Grigson, "Porridge and Pannage: Pig Husbandry in Neolithic England"; Robert Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957), pp. 50-55.
^28 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700, pp. 50-55; Grigson, "Porridge and Pannage: Pig Husbandry in Neolithic England."
^29 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700, pp. 50-53.
^30 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700, p. 51; Grigson, "Porridge and Pannage: Pig Husbandry in Neolithic England."
^31 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700, p.50.
^32 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700, p. 23-24 .
^33 Current research by Charles Hodges is exploring this issue. See "Pig Snouts, Lion Teeth, and Human Eyes: A Study of Two Prime Competitor Species with Early Homo sapiens" (paper completed for Anthropology 501, The College of William and Mary, 1994, photocopy).
^34 Captain John Smith, The Generall Historie of Virginia: The Fourth Booke. Reproduced in Narratives of Early Virginia, p. 330.
^35 Statute in "Instruccons Orders and Constitucons To Sr Thomas Gates Knight Governor of Virginia." (Ashmolean Manuscripts, 1147, folios 175-190A). Quoted in Kingsbury, The Records of the Virginia Company of London, Vol. III, p. 18.
^36 Durand de Dauphine, A Huguenot Exile in Virginia or Voyages of a Frenchman exiled for his Religion with a description of Virginia & Maryland. Tr. and Ed. Gilbert Chinard (New York: The Press of the Pioneers, 1934), p.122.
^37 John Hammond, "Leah and Rachel, or, the Two Fruitfull Sisters Virginia and Mary-Land, Their Present Condition, Impartially stated and related" (London: Printed by T. Mabb, 1656). Reproduced in Peter Force, ed., Tracts and Other Papers, Relating Principally to the Origin, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies in North America, from the Discovery of the Country to the Year 1776, Vol. III, No. 14 ([1844], reprinted, New York: Peter Smith, 1947), p. 13.
^38 Hening, The Statues at Large, Vol. II, XV, p. 243.
^39 Durand de Dauphine, A Huguenot Exile in Virginia or Voyages of a Frenchman exiled for his Religion with a description of Virginia & Maryland, p. 119.
^40 Mary C. Beaudry, "'Or What Else You Please to Call It': Folk Semantic Domains in Early Virginia Probate Inventories" (Ph.D. diss. , Brown University, 1980).
^41 Mark Maltby, "Patterns in Faunal Assemblage Variability," in Graeme Barker and Clive Gamble, eds. Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe (New York: Academic Press, 1985), pp. 33-74; Joanne Bowen, "A Comparative Analysis of the New England and Chesapeake Herding Systems," in Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, eds., Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994), pp. 155-168.
^42 Sebastian Payne, "Kill-Off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Asvan Kale," Anatolian Studies 23 (1973): 281-303; Bob Wilson, Caroline Grigson, Sebastian Payne, eds., Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (British Archaeological Reports, British Series 109, 1982).
^43 J.N.P. Watson, "The Interpretation of Epiphyseal Fusion Data," in Don Brothwell et al., eds., Research Problems in Zooarchaeology (London: University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1978).
^44 I. A. Silver, "The Aging of Domestic Animals," in Don Brothwell and Eric Higgs, eds., Science in Archaeology. (New York, Praeger Publishers, 1969), pp. 283-302; Raymond Chaplin, The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (London: Seminar Press, 1971).
^45 Richard Redding, "Decision Making in Subsistence Herding of Sheep and Goats in the Middle East" (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. 1981); Roger Cribb, "The Logic of the Herd: A Computer Simulation of Archaeological Herd Structure," Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6(1987):376-415.
^46 Mark Maltby, "Patterns in Faunal Assemblage Variability."
^47 Raymond Chaplin, The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites; Melinda Zeder, Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near East (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991); Richard Redding, "The Faunal Remains in an Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain," in Henry T. Wright ed., An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain, Museum of Anthropology Memoirs 13 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1981), pp. 231-261.
^48 Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, pp. 297, 317.
^49 Sebastian Payne, "Kill-Off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Asvan Kale."
^50 Harold F. Heady and R. Dennis Child, Rangeland Ecology and Management. (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994).
^51 Heady and Child, Rangeland Ecology and Management.
^52 Durand de Dauphine, A Huguenot in Virginia or Voyages of a Frenchman exiled for his Religion with a description of Virginia and Maryland, p.119.
^53 John Clayton, "A Letter from Mr. John Clayton, Rector of Crofton at Wakefield in Yorkshire, to the Royal Society, May 12, 1688." Published in Force, Tracts and other Papers, Vol. III (12), pp. 25-26.
^54 Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, p. 318.
^55 "An Act to prevent the greate Evill occasioned by the multiplicity of horses within this Province," in Bernard Christian Steiner, ed., Archives of Maryland, Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, Hitherto Unprinted, Vol. XXXVIII, 1694-1729 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1918), p. 11. Also see Hening, The Statutes at Large, pp. 36-37.
^56 Timothy Silver, A New Face on the Countryside.
^57 Hening, The Statutes at Large, p. 332.
^58 Thomas Anburey, Travels through the Interior Parts of America, Vol. II. Ed. William Harding Carter (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, Riverside Press, 1923), p. 187.
^59 Hening, The Statutes at Large, pp. 46-47.
^60 Waverly K. Winfree, compiler, The Laws of Virginia Being a Supplement to Hening's The Statutes at Large 1700-1750. (Richmond: The Virginia State Library, 1971), p. 357.
^61 Zeder, Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near East.
^62 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry 1700-1900, p. 216.
^63 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700, pp.51-53.
^64 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700, pp. 250-251.
^65 Grigson, "Porridge and Pannage: Pig Husbandry in Neolithic England."
^66 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry 1700-1900, p. 220.
^67 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry 1700-1900, pp. 42, 76.
^68 Beverley, The History and Present State of Virginia, p. 318.
^69 Hugh Jones, The Present State of Virginia Giving a particular and short Account of the Indian, English, and Negroe Inhabitants of that Colony. Showing their Religion, Manners, Government, Trade, Way of Living, &c. with a Description of the Country (London: Printed for J. Clarke, 1724). Published as Richard L. Morton, ed., The Present State of Virginia (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1956), pp. 78, 79, 138.
^70 Joseph Ball, "Instructions for my Newphew Jos. Chinn in Virginia to observe abut my affairs there." Letterbook. England, 02/18/1744 to 12/03/1759, p. 8.
^71 See John Beale Bordley, Essays and Notes on Husbandry and Rural Affairs (Philadelphia: Printed by Budd and Bartram for Thomas Dobson, At the Stone House, No. 41, South Second Street, second edition, 1801); see also "Letter to Matthew Leonard Overseer at Cole's Point Quarter" (Carter Papers. Letter Book of Robert Carter of Nomini Hall. Vol. III-b, January 9, 1776 to November 26, 1777), p. 72.
^72 Virginia Council, Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. Ed. H.R. McIlwaine. 3 Vols. Vol. I (1680-1714) (Richmond), pp. 495, 497, 498; H.R. McIlwaine, ed., Journal of the House of Burgesses, 10 Vols., 1619-1776. Vol. IV 1702/03-1705, 1705-06, 1710/12 (Richmond, 1912), pp. 269, 272-273; Winfree, The Laws of Virginia Being a Supplement to Hening's The Statutes at Large 1700-1750, p. 134.
^73 Virginia Council, Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, Vol. II (1715-1753), p. 678.
^74 "Assembly Proceedings," in Steiner, Archives of Maryland, Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, Vol. XXXVII (1730-1732), p. 273.
^75 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry 1700-1900, pp. 116-117, 238-239.
^76 Biddick, The Other Economy: Pastoral Husbandry on a Medieval Estate.
^77 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry 1700-1900, p. 238.
^78 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry 1700-1900, pp. 4-6, 32-33.
^79 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry 1700-1900, pp. 43-44.
^80 Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry 1700-1900, p. 33.
^81 "Instruccons Orders and Constitucons to Sr Thomas Gates Knight Governor of Virginia" (Ashmolean Manuscripts, 1147, folios 175-190A). Quoted in Kingsbury, The Records of the Virginia Company of London, Vol. III.
^82 John Clayton, "Letter to Royal Society (May 12, 1688)," in Force, Tracts and other Papers, Vol. III, No. 12., p. 21.
^83 Jack P. Greene, ed., The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, Vol. I (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1965), pp. 155-156, 237-238; John Wily, "A Treatise on the Propagation of Sheep, the Manufacture of Wool, and the Cultivation and Manufacture of FLAX, with Directions for making several Utensils for the Business. (Williamsburg: Printed by J. Royle, 1765), p. 6; "Charles Carter of Corotoman, from Cleve, to Landon Carter [1710-1778]" (Letters of Landon Carter, 1737-1778. Letters and Papers of the Carter Family of Virginia, 1667-1862, Folder 2).
^84 Thomas Anburey, Travels through the Interior Parts of America, Vol. II, pp. 260-261.
^85 John Ferdinand Dalziel Smyth, A Tour in the United States of America, Vol. I (London: Printed for G. Robinson, Pater-Noster Row, 1784), pp. 143-144.
^86 Dauphine de Durand, A Huguenot Exile in Virginia or Voyages of a Frenchman exiled for his Religion with a description of Virginia & Maryland, p. 151.
^87 Arthur Young, "Letters from His Excellency George Washington to Arthur Young-containing an account of his husbandry, with a map of his farm; his opinions on various questions in agriculture; and many particulars of the rural economy of the United States" (London: Sold by W.J. and J. Richardson, 1801). Also published in Farmers' Register, October, 1837, Vol. V, No. 7.
^88 Arthur Young, "Letters from His Excellency George Washington to Arthur Young-containing an account of his husbandry, with a map of his farm; his opinions on various questions in agriculture; and many particulars of the rural economy of the United States" (London: Sold by W.J. and J. Richardson, 1801). Also published in Farmers' Register, October, 1837, Vol. V, No. 7.
^89 George Washington, "Crops for the River Farm, and operations thereon, for the year 1800." Reproduced in John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799 (Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1940), Vol. 37 (1798-1799); see also "Washington's Agricultural Notes" (Farmers' Register, December 1, 1837, Vol. 5, No. 8), pp. 468-469, 489.
^90 Joseph Ball, "Instructions for my Newphew Jos. Chinn in Virginia to observe abut my affairs there." Letterbook. England, 02/18/1744 to 12/03/1759, pp. 15-16, 18.
^91 Jones, The Present State of Virginia, p. 78; Joseph Ball, "Instructions for my Newphew Jos. Chinn in Virginia to observe abut my affairs there." Letterbook. England, 02/18/1744 to 12/03/1759, p. 14
^92 Landon Carter, The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, Vol. II, p. 1137.
^93 Joseph Ball, "To Mr. Jos. Chinn in Lancaster County Rappa. Virginia By Capt. Wilcox." Letterbook. England, 02/18/1744 to 12/03/1759., pp. 64-65, 173.
^94 Landon Carter, The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, Vol. II, p. 697.
^95 Landon Carter, The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, Vol. I, pp. 150, 155-156, 195.
^96 Susan Alling Gregg, Foragers and Farmers: Population Interaction and Agricultural Expansion in Prehistoric Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).
^97 Gregg, Foragers and Farmers; Trow-Smith, A History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700, p. 34-36.
^98 John Clayton, "A Letter from Mr. John Clayton, Rector of Crofton at Wakefield in Yorkshire, to the Royal Society, May 12, 1688…," in Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, No. 12, p. 35.
^99 John Wily, A Treatise on the Propagation of Sheep, the Manufacture of Wool, and the Cultivation and Manufacture of FLAX, with Directions for making several Utensils for the Business, p. 5.
^100 Landon Carter, The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, Vol. I, pp. 378-379.
^101 William Byrd, The Secret Diary of William Byrd of Westover, 1709-1712. Ed. Louis B. Wright and Marion Tinling (Richmond: Dietz Press, 1941), p. 355.
^102 Durand de Dauphine , A Huguenot in Virginia or Voyages of a Frenchman exiled for his Religion with a description of Virginia and Maryland., p, 119; Byrd, The Secret Diary of William Byrd of Westover, 1709-1712, p. 255.
^103 "Journal of an Officer Who Travelled in America and the West Indies in 1764 and 1765." Reproduced in Newton D. Mereness, ed., Travels in the American Colonies (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916), pp. 405-406.
^104 Landon Carter, The Diary of Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, Vol. I, p. 401.
^105 "From George Washington," in John Catanzariti, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. XXVI (1793) (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 28.
^106 Hugh Jones, The Present State of Virginia, p. 78; Ball, "Instructions for my Newphew Jos. Chinn in Virginia to observe abut my affairs there," pp. 8, 15.
^107 Landon Carter, The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, Vol. I, pp. 381-382.
^108 Robert Carter, "Memorandum Concerning Building of Stalls for Cows." (Carter Papers. Day Book and Letter Book of Robert Carter of Nomini Hall. Vol. XIII, January 1, 1773 to November 9, 1776), p. 152.
^109 George Washington, The Diaries of George Washington, Vol. III (1786-1788). Ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925), pp. 230, 255.
^110 Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book with Commentary and Relevant Extracts from Other Writings. Facsimile edition. Ed. Edwin Morris Betts (Princeton: Published for the American Philosophical Society by Princeton University Press, 1953), p. 80.
^111 Davis, Social Relations in a Philippine Market; Beals, The Peasant Market System of Oaxaca, Mexico; Mintz, "Pratik: Haitian Personal Economic Relationships"; Florence Babb, Between Field and Cooking Pot: The Political Economy of Market Women in Peru (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989).
^112 J. Mark Maltby, Faunal Studies on Urban Sites: The Animal Bones from Exeter 1971-1975, Exeter Archaeological Reports (Exeter: Sheffield University, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, 1979); Zeder, Feeding Cities; Gil J. Stein, "Regional Economic Integration in Early State Societies: Third Millennium B. C. Pastoral Production at Gritille, Southeast Turkey," Paleorient 13(2):101-111; Kathleen Galvin, "Forms of Finance and Forms of Production: The Evolution of Specialized Livestock Production in the Ancient near East," in E. Brumfiel and T. Earle, eds., Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 119-129.
^113 Lorena S. Walsh, "Anne Arundel County Population," in "Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, Maryland: A Study of Urban Development in a Tobacco Economy, 1649-1775," Final Report to the National Endowment for the Humanities, Grant No. RS-20199-91-1955, 1983.
^114 Kevin P. Kelly, "The People of York County in the Eighteenth Century," in "Urbanization in the Tidewater South, Part II: The Growth and Development of Williamsburg and Yorktown," Final Report to the National Endowment for the Humanities, Project No. RO-20869-85, 1989.
^115 Michael L. Nicholls, "Aspects of the African American Experience in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg and Norfolk," ms. report, 1990.
^116 See, for example, Robert D. Mitchell, Commercialism and Frontier: Perspectives on the Early Shenandoah Valley (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977), pp. 196-99.
^117 Lorena S. Walsh, "Chesapeake Planters and the International Market, 1770-1820," in Lois Green Carr: The Chesapeake and Beyond-A Celebration (Crownsville, Md.: Maryland Historical & Cultural Publications, 1992); Walsh, "'To Labour for Profit.'"
^a include free backs
^b Females were not classified in the census by age.
^118 For the standard ration see Carr, Menard, and Walsh, Robert Cole's World, pp. 36-37.
^119 Smith, The "Lower Sort", pp. 97-98. Smith estimated that in addition to the pound of bread per day, Philadelphia workers consumed 45 pounds of corn meal per year. If Chesapeake residents ate corn and wheat in inverse proportions, this implies consumption of a bushel of wheat per year.
^120 Smith, The "Lower Sort", pp. 98-99; Philip Ludwell Lee Ledger, 1743-1783, Ms, Perkins Library, Duke University; Walsh, "Work and Resistance in the New Republic: The Case of the Chesapeake, 1770-1820," in Mary Turner, ed., From Chattel Slaves to Wage Slaves: The Dynamics of Labour Bargaining in the Americas (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), pp. 98-105.
^1 Hening, The Statutes at Large, Vol. IV, VIII, pp. 46-47.
^2 Pam J. Crabtree, "Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status, and Ethnicity," in Michael B. Schiffer, ed., Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1990), pp. 155-205.
^3 Zeder, Feeding Cities.
^4 Nan Rothschild, "The Effect of Urbanization on Faunal Diversity: A Comparison between New York City and St. Augustine, Florida, in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries," in Robert Leonard and George Jones, eds. Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989), 92-99.
^5 Henry M. Miller, "An Archaeological Perspective on the Evolution of Diet in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1620-1745," in Lois G. Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo, eds. Colonial Chesapeake Society. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 176-199; Joanne Bowen, "Foodways in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake," in Theodore R. Reinhart, ed. The Archaeology of Eighteenth-Century Virginia. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 35 (Richmond: Archeological Society of Virginia, 1996), pp. 87-130; Elise Manning-Sterling, "Great Blue Herons and River Otters: The Changing Perceptions of All Things Wild in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake" (master's thesis, The College of William and Mary. 1994); Anne E. Yentsch, A Chesapeake Family and their Slaves: A Study in Historical Archaeology (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
^6 Linda Keller Brown and Kay Mussell, eds., Ethnic and Regional Foodways in the United States: The Performance of Group Identity (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1984); Mary Douglas, ed., Food in the Social Order: Studies of Food and Festivities in Three American Communities (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984).
^7 The plantation records show that Hanson purchased a number of cattle at the sale of James Bray III's estate.
^a Based on long bone fusion.
^b Based on tooth wear.
^8 Virginia Gazette, October 24, 1745.
^9 By the end of the century the role of retail stores in distributing preserved meat was surely increasing. In January 1796, for example, the manager of Providence Forge in New Kent County, Virginia, who regularly sold surplus live hogs on the market at the end of each year decided that since he could find no "ready money" buyers so late in the season, he would kill and salt the hogs and make bacon to sell in Richmond "to some of y[ou]r shops that deal largely in that article." William Douglas to Francis Jerdone, 4 January 1796, Jerdone Papers, Swem Library, College of William and Mary.
^10 Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, September [July] 7, 1768.
^11 For a summary of market-related research, see Gregory J. Brown, "Distributing Meat and Fish in Eighteenth-Century Virginia: The Documentary Evidence for the Existence of Markets in Early Tidewater Towns." (report on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1988); Carl Lounsbury, "The Williamsburg Market House: Where's the Beef?" Report for the Educational Planning Group, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.(report on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1986).
^12 Joanne Bowen, "Analysis of the African Meeting House Faunal Remains," in Beth Anne Bower, ed., The African Meeting House, Boston, Massachusetts: Summary Report of Archaeological Excavations 1975-1986. (Boston: Museum of African American History, 1986); Joanne Bowen, "Faunal Remains and New England Urban Household Subsistence," in Anne E. Yentsch and Mary C. Beaudry, eds., The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology: Essays in Honor of James Deetz (Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1992), pp. 267-281; Joanne Bowen, "To Market, To Market: Animal Husbandry in New England," Historical Archaeology, in press.
^13 1783 Personal Property Tax lists for Williamsburg and Annapolis.
^14 Robert Carter to James Buchanan and Co. May 10, 1764. Letterbook of Robert Carter III of Nominy Hall for the Years 1764-68. Manuscript, Special Collections, Colonial Williamsburg.
^15 Mark Overton, Agricultural Revolution in England: The Transformation of the Agrarian Economy, 1500-1850 (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 135-136.
^16 Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 362, Vol. III, p. 397.
^17 "Speeches of Students of the College of William and Mary Delivered May 1, 1699," William and Mary Quarterly 10, 2nd ser., 1930, p. 329.
^18 Executive Journals of the Council, III, p. 251.
^19 Hugh Jones, The Present State of Virginia, pp. 30-32.
^20 Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, July 7, 1768.
^21 "Diary of M. Ambler, 1770," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography XLV, no. 2 (April 1937), pp. 156, 165-66.
^22 Adolph B. Benson, ed., Peter Kalm's Travels in North America…1770 (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1964), p. 30.
^23 William Quinn, ed., The Diary of Jacob Engelbrecht, 1818-1878 (Frederick, Maryland: Historical Society of Frederick County, 1976), vol. 1, n.p.
^24 Barbara Sarudy, "The Gardens and Grounds of an Eighteenth-Century Craftsman" (master's thesis, University of Maryland, 1988), pp. 71-72.
^25 Anne Ritson, A Poetical Picture of America (London, 1809), p. 39.
^26 [Janet Shaw], The Journal of a Lady of Quality. Ed. Evangelina Walker Andrews (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939), pp. 178-179.
^27 Petersburg Hustings Court, May 6, 1793, p. 77. My thanks to Mick Nichols for this reference.
^28 Anne Arundel County Court Judgments 1734: p. 251.
^29 Henry John Drewal, "Introduction: Yoruba Art and Life as Journeys," in The Yoruba Artist: New Theoretical Perspectives on African Arts, ed. by Rowland, Abiodun, Henry J. Drewal, and John Pemberton III (Washington: Smithsonian Press, 1994), p. 195.
^30 Norfolk Borough Records, 1 August 1764, 29 June 1773, 30 December 1783, reprinted in Brent Tartar, ed., The Order Book and Related Papers of the Common Hall of the Borough of Norfolk, Virginia, 1736-1798 (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1979), pp.142, 175, 217.
^31 See, for example, Petersburg Common Council Minutes, 16 July 1785, Richmond Common Hall, 2 January 1793.
^32 Henry Bradshaw Fearon, Sketches of America (New York: Benjamin Blom, Inc., 1969), p. 287.
^33 Anne Cary Randolph Slave Crop Accounts, reprinted in Gerard W. Gawalt, "Jefferson's Slaves: Crop Accounts at Monticello, 1805-1808," in Journal of the Afro-American Historical and Genealogical Society, vol. 13, nos. 1 and 2, Spring/Fall 1994. Jane Francis Walker Page Commonplace Book, Virginia Historical Society. Amy Rider has recently completed a sophisticated analysis of this book in "The Castle Hill Commonplace Book and the Plantation Mistress' World, 1802-45" (senior history honors thesis, Princeton 1997), p. 61.
^34 Orra Langhorne, Southern Sketches from Virginia, 1881-1901. Ed. Charles E. Loynes (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1964), p. 117.
^35 April 16, 1810. Act published in the Alexandria Daily Gazette, Commercial and Political. My thanks to Mick Nichols for this material.
^36 John Davis, Travels of Four Years and a Half in the United States of America (London, 1803), p. 388. Cited in Pat Gibbs, "Hominy, Ashcakes, and other 'Belly Timber': Slave Diet in the Early Chesapeake to 1825" (position paper in progress, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation).
^37 Virginia Gazette, or Weekly Advertiser (Richmond) 19 January 1782; Virginia Gazette, Rind, May 26, 1768.
^38 Sarudy, "The Gardens and Grounds of an Eighteenth-Century Craftsman," pp. 72-75.
^39 Nan A. Rothschild, New York City Neighborhoods: The Eighteenth Century (New York: Academic Press, 1990), pp. 57-66.
^40 "Narrative of the Travels of a Scotsman from Glasgow," 1821-1824 (New York: New York Historical Society), p. 204.
^41 "Diary of M. Ambler, 1770," p. 156.
^42 Benson, Peter Kalm's Travels in North America…1770, p. 184.
^43 "Narrative of the Travels of a Scotsman," p. 43.
^44 For Alexandria, see Anne Royall, Sketches of History, Life, and Manners, in the United States. By a Traveller (New Haven, 1826, reprinted New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1970), p. 102. For Philadelphia, see "The Autobiography of S. Dillwyn, Daughter of Dr. Phillip S. Physick and Wife to Commander Conner, UNS, 1826," Susan Conner Papers, Library, Independence Seaport Museum, p. 39.
^45 "The Lady," New York Gazette, January 10, 1763. Cited in Thomas F. De Voe, The Market Book (New York, 1862; reprinted Augustus M. Kelley, 1970) p. 139.
^46 Ritson, A Poetical Picture of America, p. 71.
^47 William Wirt to Catherine Wirt, Washington City, November 4, 1822. Wirt papers, Maryland historical Society, Microfilm 5. My thanks to Ellen Donald for this reference.
^48 Royall, Sketches of History, Life, and Manners, in the United States, pp. 136-137.
^49 Royall, Sketches of History, Life, and Manners, in the United States, p. 102.
^50 Moreau de St. Mery's American Journey [1793-1798], trans. and ed. by Kenneth Roberts and Anna M. Roberts (Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday and Company, 1947), p. 55.
^51 James Maury to Colonel John Bolling, December 2, 1767. American Philosophical Society, Miscellaneous manuscripts. Microfilm, CWF M-1170.
^52 Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, July 4, 1766.
^53 Moreau de St. Mery's American Journey , p. 61
^54 York County Biographical files; Virginia Gazette January 30, 1752.
^55 Duke de la "Rochefoucault Liancourt, Travels through the United States of North America. (London: R. Phillips, 1799), p. 22.
^56 Virginia Gazette, May 24, 1751.
^57 Virginia Gazette, August 19, 1780.
^58 Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, April 21, 1774.
^59 Virginia Gazette, November 6, 1779.
^60 Virginia Gazette, Rind, May 26, 1768.
^61 Jack P. Greene, ed., Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, 2 vols (Richmond: Virginia Historical Society, 1987), p. 230.
^62 Virginia Gazette, Dixon, 11 December 1779.
^63 Robert Carter to Mr. Amos Strettell, Philadelphia, August 16, 1762.
^64 Thomas Newton, Jr to Colonel Robert Bolling, December 20, 1771. Bolling Papers, Virginia Historical Society. Mss2N4882a!.
^65 Robert Carter to Col. Warner Lewis, October 16, 1773. Robert Carter Letter Book, Volume II [1774-1775], pp. 54-55. Letterbook. Special Collections, CWF.
^66 Edward C. Papenfuse, In Pursuit of Profit: The Annapolis Merchants in the Era of the American Revolution, 1763-1805 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press), p. 144.
^67 Pennsylvania Gazette, February 3, 1746/47.
^68 South-Carolina Gazette, Charleston, 9 September 1745.
^69 Hannah Glasse, The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy (1747 edition) (London: Prospect Books, 1983).
^70 My thanks to Mary Ferrari for this Norfolk information.
^71 The South Carolina Gazette and Country Journal, Charles Town, S.C., 21 Feb 1769.
^72 Hugh Jones, The Present State of Virginia, p. 73.
^73 Henry Hartwell, James Blair, and Edward Chilton, The Present State of Virginia, and the College. Ed. Hunter Dickinson Farish, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1940), pp. 9-10.
^74 John Mair, Book-keeping Methodiz'd, fifth edition, (Edinburgh, 1757), pp. 349-359.
^75 Papenfuse, In Pursuit of Profit , p. 33.
^76 Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, August 20, 1772.
^77 Henry Fleming to Fischer and Bragg, April 13, 1773. Letterbook, 1772-1775. Cumbria County Council Archives Department. Microfilm, CWF.
^78 Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, June 25, 1767.
^79 Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, February 15, 1770.
^80 Francis Jerdone to Neill Buchanan, May 20, 1741. Jerdone Letterbook, 1736-1744. Swem Library, College of William and Mary.
^81 Heather R. Wainwright, "Inns and Outs: Anne Pattison's Williamsburg Tavern," (master's thesis, Armstrong Atlantic University, forthcoming).
^82 Betty Leviner discovered this newly acquired account book at the Virginia Historical Society in 1991. A discussion of Anne Pattison is published by her in "Patrons and Rituals in an Eighteenth-Century Tavern," in David Harvey and Gregory Brown, ed., Common People and the Material World: Free Men and Women in the Chesapeake, 1700-1830 (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Research Publications, 1995)
^83 Page's administrators vs. Southall, B-65-79. Fredericksburg District Court Papers. Microfilm, CWF.
^84 Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon, June 3, 1771, June 6, 1773.
^1 Agreement between St. George Tucker and Henry Skipwith, 27 Dec. 1800, Accounts, Receipts, and Bills, 1796-1800, Tucker Coleman Papers, Swem Library, College of William and Mary.
^2 For example, see the expense accounts of the Annapolis merchant John Davidson. His mother-in-law, wife, and daughter made frequent purchases of tea and textiles. These are discussed in Chapter V.
^3 Jeanne Ellen Whitney, "Clues to a Community: Transactions at the Anderson-Low Store, 1784-1785" (master's thesis, College of William and Mary, 1983), pp. 2, 11-12.
^4 "Letter Book of Francis Jerdone," extracts in William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine 14 (January 1906): 141-145.
^5 Papenfuse, In Pursuit of Profit, p. 27-28.
^6 Household firewood consumption estimates are taken from Smith, The "Lower Sort", pp. 102, 104-105. These are perhaps too low. In 1787 Annapolis lawyer Alexander Hanson estimated annual firewood consumption for an affluent Annapolis family consisting of ten persons at 50 cords per year (see Table 5.8).
^7 Timothy Silver, A New Face on the Countryside, pp. 132-134. For Philadelphia, see Smith, The "Lower Sort", pp. 102, 104-105.
^1 Patricia Gibbs, "Food Position Paper" (ms. on file, Department of Historical Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, April 1997).
^2 William Marshman, "An Account of Cash Paid by William Sparrow for his Excellency Lord Botetourt," ALS. Orig: Duke of Beaufort and Gloucestershire Record Office, Botetourt Manuscripts from Badminton, ffr 297-329. Microfilm, CWF.
^3 "Daily Account of Expenses June 14, 1768-October 14, 1770." Botetourt Ms. F. 155-190.
^4 Anonymous, "Diary," in The Virginia Almanack for the year of Our Lord 1749 ( [Printed] and sold by William Parkes), CWF Special Collections.
^5 Virginia Gazette, February 14, 1750.
^6 For runaway advertisement, see Virginia Gazette, November 10, 1752, and April 4, 1755.; change in business, Virginia Gazette, July 30, 1755.
^7 Papenfuse, In Pursuit of Profit, p. 140.
^8 Determining the costs of living for those below the elite is always complicated, but a few benchmarks are possible. For example, Billy Smith has estimated the income of the Philadelphia mariner John Shenton to be approximately £32 for 1751. Smith, The "Lower Sort" , p. 93.
^9 Emma L. Powers, "Landlords, Tenants, and Rental Property in Williamsburg and Yorktown, 1730-1780" (master's thesis, College of William and Mary, 1990), p.40.
^10 Smith, The "Lower Sort" , p. 106.
^11 Anne Pattison Account Book. Virginia Historical Society. Thanks to Heather Wainwright.
^12 Susan Porter, "The Benevolent Asylum-Image and Reality: The Care and Training of Female Orphans in Boston, 1800-1840" (Ph.D. diss., Boston University 1994), p. 133.
^13 Papenfuse, In Pursuit of Profit , p. 138.
^14 Jacob M. Price, ed., Joshua Johnson's Letterbook: Letters from a Merchant in London to his Partners in Maryland (London: London Record Society, 1979), p. x. Also biographical report by Larry Peskin drawn from Maryland Hall of Records files.
^15 Papenfuse, In Pursuit of Profit , p. 263.
^16 Price, Joshua Johnson's Letterbook, p. 31a. Mrs. Strachan is mentioned in several letters to Davidson as is a Miss Peggy Strachan whose marriage is congratulated in 1772. See, for example, pp. 3b and 22.
^17 John Davidson Account Book, 1780-83. Ledger, 1780-94. Microfilm, Maryland State Archives, M-1171-1172.
^18 Sarudy, "The Gardens and Grounds of an Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake Craftsman."
^19 Patricia Samford, "The Brush-Everard Archaeological Site Excavations" (draft report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, n.d.).
^20 Gregory J. Brown, "The Faunal Remains from the John Draper Well: An Investigation in Historic-Period Zooarchaeology" (master's thesis, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, 1989).
^21 Ivor Noël Hume. James Geddy and Sons Colonial Craftsmen, Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 5 (Williamsburg: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1970).
^22 Ivor Noël Hume. Williamsburg Cabinetmakers: The Archaeological Evidence, Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 6 (Williamsburg: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1971).
^23 C. Jane Cox and John J. Buckler. "A Summary of Archaeological Excavations from 1983-1986 at the Green Family Print Shop, 18AP29, Annapolis, Maryland" (Annapolis: University of Maryland at College Park and the Historic Annapolis Foundation, 1995), pp. 17-19; Justin Lev-Tov, "The Faunal Analysis of Jonas Green's Printshop Cellar in Annapolis, Maryland" (anthropology honors thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 1990).
^24 Lev-Tov, "The Faunal Analysis of Jonas Green's Printshop Cellar in Annapolis, Maryland."
^25 Stephen Mennell, All Manners of Food: Eating and Taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the Present (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1985); Keith Thomas, Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England, 1500-1800 (London: Allen Lane, 1983); Bowen, "Faunal Remains and New England Urban Household Subsistence".
^26 Samford, "The Brush-Everard Archaeological Site Excavations."
^27 Virginia Gazette, August 16, 1770, September 27, 1776, November 23, 1776.
^28 Anne E. Yentsch, A Chesapeake Family and their Slaves: A Study in Historical Archaeology (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1994), pp. 53-71.
^29 Patricia Samford, "The Grissell Hay Site Archaeological Excavations" (draft report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, n.d.).
^30 A history summarizing the Shields Tavern household, in eds. Gregory J. Brown, et al., "Archaeological Investigations of the Shields Tavern Site, Williamsburg, Virginia" (Williamsburg: Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1990). pp. 91-97.
^31 Brown, et al., "Archaeological Investigations of the Shields Tavern Site, Williamsburg, Virginia," pp. 221-226.
^1 Joanne Bowen, "The Social Importance of Pork" (paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology meetings, Richmond, 1990).
^2 Barbara Davis, "Faunal Analysis at Governor's Land: Two Rural Eighteenth Century Sites in James City County, Virginia" (master's thesis in Anthropology, Hunter College, The City University of New York, 1986).
^3 Joanne Bowen, "Eighteenth-Century Foodways in the Chesapeake."
^4 John Otto, Cannon's Point Plantation, 1794-1860: Living Conditions and Status Patterns in the Old South. (New York: Academic Press, 1984); Stephen C. Atkins, "An Archaeological Perspective on the African-American Slave Diet at Mount Vernon's House for Families" (master's thesis, The College of William and Mary, 1994); Joanne Bowen, "Slavery at Mount Vernon: A Dietary Analysis" (paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology meetings, 1995).
^5 See, for example, Sarah F. McMahon, "A Comfortable Subsistence: The Changing Composition of Diet in Rural New England, 1620-1840," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 42 (1985)" 26-65; McMahon, "'All Things in Their Proper Season': Seasonal Rhythms of Diet in Nineteenth-Century New England," Agricultural History 63 (1989): 130-51.
^6 Prices are expressed in fractions of a pound Virginia currency. In order to create a consistent series, prices are expressed in pounds local currency, with pieces of eight valued at 6s 8p, the value established in Virginia across the colonial period. In eighteenth century Maryland the piece of eight was rated at 6s, so we multiplied prices in Maryland paper currency by 1.111 to adjust for the difference in the exchange rate against British sterling. From 1765 Maryland hard currency passed at 7s 6d, so we divided Maryland prices after this year by 1.125. From 1780 on Virginia currency was valued at 6s. These we multiplied by 1.111 to make them comparable to the prewar value of the piece of eight. Prices expressed in dollars and cents were reduced by 3.3333. Items valued in inflated Revolutionary War paper currency between 1777 and 1781 are omitted from this series; only valuations expressed in hard currency are included.
^7 Anne Bezanson, Robert D. Gray, and Miriam Hussey, Prices in Colonial Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1935); Anne Bezanson, assisted by Blanch Daley, Marjoie C. Denison, and Miriam Hussey, Prices and Inflation during the American Revolution: Pennsylvania, 1770-1790 (Industrial Research Department, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, Research Studies, 35; Philadelphia, 1951); Smith, The "Lower Sort". See also Billy G. Smith, "'The Best Poor Man's Country': Living Standards of the 'Lower Sort' in Late Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia," in Regional Economic History Research Center, Working Papers, 2, no. 4 (1979):1-70.
^8 Donald R. Adams, Jr., "One Hundred Years of Prices and Wages: Maryland, 1750-1850," Regional Economic History Research Center, Working Papers, 5 (1982): 90-129; Adams, "Prices and Wages in Maryland, 1750-1850," Journal of Economic History 46 (1984): 625-45.
^9 Walsh, "Chesapeake Planters and the International Market."
^10 Walsh, "Consumer Behavior, Diet, and the Standard of Living," pp. 248-49.
^11 In the composite index meat and grains were weighted equally. The meat index weights beef and pork equally. The grain index measures the price of a barrel of corn plus a bushel of wheat, thus weighting corn at 5 to 1 over wheat.
^12 Smith, The "Lower Sort", chap. 4; Adams, "Prices and Wages in Maryland."
^13 Susan E. Klepp, "Seasoning and Society: Racial Differences in Mortality in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d. ser., 51 (1994): 473-506; Howard Bodenhorn, "'A Most Wretched Class: Heights, Health, and Nutrition of Free Blacks in Antebellum Virginia" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Economic History Association, September, 1997).
189

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

  • Alexandria Daily Gazette, Commercial and Political. 1810.
  • Ambler, Mary. "Diary of M. Ambler, 1770," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 45 (1937):156, 165-166.
  • Anburey, Thomas. Travels through the Interior Parts of America. 2 vols. William Harding Carter, ed. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, Riverside Press, 1923.
  • Anderson and Low Account Book, 1784-1788. Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va.
  • Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Anne Arundel Court Judgments. 1774. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Md.
  • Anon. American Husbandry. Harry J. Carman, ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1939.
  • Anon. [French Wigmaker in Williamsburg]. Household Expenses for 1749 recorded in The Virginia Almanack for the Year of our Lord…1749. Special Collections, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Va.
  • Archives of Maryland. Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, 1638-1774. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883.
  • Ball, Joseph. Letter Book, 1744-1745. Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress.
  • Bard, Samuel. A Guide for Young Shepherds or Facts and Observations on the Character and Value of Merino Sheep…as Well as Sheep in General. New York: Collins and Co., 1811.
  • Baron, Robert C., ed. The Garden and Farm Books of Thomas Jefferson. Golden, Col.: Fulcrum, 1987.
  • Basset, Burwell. "Account Book of Burwell Basset," in Basset Family Papers, 1693-1837. Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, microfilm.
  • Betts, Edwin Morris, ed. Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book with Commentary and Relevant Extracts from Other Writings. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1953.
  • Beverley, Robert. History and Present State of Virginia. Louis B. Wright, ed. Raleigh: n.p., 1947.
  • ---. Letter Book, 1761-1775. Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress.
  • ---. Letters to Landon Carter, 1762-1775. Virginia Historical Society. 190
  • Bordley, John Beale. Essays and Notes on Husbandry and Rural Affairs. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Budd and Bartram for Thomas Dobson, 1801.
  • Botetourt Manuscripts from Badminton. "An Account of Cash Paid by William Sparrow for his Excellency Lord Botetourt. [Kept] by William Marshman" (Governor's Palace Kitchen Accounts). Duke of Beaufort and the Gloucestershire Records Office.
  • Bray, James. Ledger, 1736-1746. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Brice, James. Ledger, 1767-1799. Maryland State Archives.
  • Brock Collection. Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, Ca. Microfilm.
  • Brown, Alexander. The Genesis of the United States…A Series of Historical Manuscripts Now First Printed. Vols. I and II. Boston and New York: n.p., 1890.
  • Bullock, William. Virginia Impartially Examined, and Left to Public View, to Be Considered by All Judicious and Honest Men. London: John Hammond, 1649.
  • Burnaby, Andrew. Travels through the Middle Settlements in North America in the Years 1759 and 1760 with Observations upon the State of the Colonies. 2d ed. London: T. Payne at Mews-Gate, 1775; repr. ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1963.
  • Burwell, Carter. Account book, 1738-1755. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Burwell, Nathaniel. Daybook, 1773-1779; Daybook, 1779-1786. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Burwell, Nathaniel. Ledger, 1785-1808. George H. Burwell Collection. Clarke County Historical Society, Berryville, Va.
  • Burwell, Nathaniel. Mill Day Book, 1774-1778. George H. Burwell Collection. Clarke County Historical Society.
  • Burwell, Nathaniel, Jr. Philologic Exercise Book, 1801-1806. George H. Burwell Collection. Clarke County Historical Society.
  • Byrd, Col. William, III. List Book of the Honorable William Byrd's Estate in the Lands, Negroes Stack & C., 1757. Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, microfilm.
  • Catanzariti, John, ed. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.
  • Carroll, Charles. Account Book, 1720-1812. Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress.
  • Carter Family. Letters and Papers of the Carter Family of Virginia, 1667-1862. Mss., Swem Library, College of William and Mary. 191
  • Carter, Landon. The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778. Jack P. Greene, ed. 2 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1965.
  • Carter, Robert III. Letter Book of Robert Carter III of Nominy Hall for the Years 1764-68. Manuscript, Special Collections, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Carter, Robert, III. Carter Papers, 1772-1793. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, microfilm.
  • Carter, Robert Wormeley. The Diaries of Robert Wormeley Carter. Mss., Swem Library, College of William and Mary.
  • Chastellux, Francois-Jean, Marquis de. Travels in North America in the Years 1780, 1781, and 1782. 2 vols. Tr. Howard C. Rice, Jr. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1963.
  • Cheyne, Roderick. Roderick Cheyne: His Book of Debts & Credits Book B, 1759. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, microfilm.
  • Coffing, William. Account book, 1770-1771. Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, Md., microfilm, Maryland State Archives.
  • Corran, Martha Dangerfield Bland Blodgett. Excerpts from Mrs. B's Diary, 1763-1796 Kept at Cawsons in the County of Prince George, Virginia, in the years 1795, 1796. Mss., Huntington Library, San Marino, Ca.
  • Cumberland County Records. Estray Book, 1773-1805. Mss., Library of Virginia, Richmond.
  • Davidson, John. Account Book, 1780-1783; Account Book, 1787-1794; Ledger, 1780-1794. Maryland State Archives.
  • Davis, John. Travels of Four Years and a Half in the United States of America. London: 1803.
  • De Voe, Thomas F. The Market Book. New York: 1862; repr. ed. New York: Augustus M. Kelley. 1970.
  • Dillwyn, S. "The Autobiography of S. Dillwyn, Daughter of Dr. Phillip S. Physick and Wife to Commander Conner, UNS, 1826." Susan Conner Papers, Library, Independence Seaport Museum, Philadelphia.
  • Durand de Dauphine. A Huguenot Exile in Virginia or Voyages of a Frenchmen Exiled for His Religion with a Description of Virginia and Maryland. Tr. and ed. Gilbert Chinard. New York: The Press of the Pioneers, Inc., 1934.
  • Engelbrecht, Jacob. The Diary of Jacob Engelbrecht, 1818-1878. William Quinn, ed. Frederick, Md.: Historical Society of Frederick County, 1976, vol. 1, n.p.
  • Executive Journals of the Council of Virginia. H. R. McIlwaine, ed. Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1927-1966. 192
  • Farris, William. Household Accounts, 1770-1800, and Day Book, 1773-1780. Maryland Historical Society.
  • Fithian, Philip Vickers. Journal and Letters of Philip Vickers Fithian, 1773-1774: A Plantation Tutor of the Old Dominion. Hunter Dickinson Farish, ed. Williamsburg, Va.: Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., 1965.
  • Fitzpatrick, John C., ed. The Diaries of George Washington. Vols. 1-4. Boston and New York: n.p., 1925.
  • ---. The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799. Vols. 1-37. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-1940.
  • Fleming, Henry. "Henry Fleming to Fischer and Bragg." April 13, 1773. Letter Book, 1772-1775. Cumbria Country Council Archives Department. Microfilm, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Fontaine, John. "Journal 1710-1719" in The Fontaine-Maury Papers. 1840. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Force, Peter, ed. Tracts and Other Papers Related Principally to the Origin, Settlement , and the Progress of the Colonies in North America, from the Discovery of the Country to the year 1776. Vols. 1-4. Washington DC: n.p., 1836; New York: n.p., 1947.
  • Glasse, Hannah. The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy. (1747 edition.) London: Prospect Books, 1983.
  • Glassford, John. Ledgers, Colchester Store 1766-68. Library of Congress, Microfilm, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Gloucester County Land Tax Records, 1782-1813. Library of Virginia.
  • Gooch, Sir William. Papers. Part I. Microfilm, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Goochland County Records. Estray Notices, 1777 -1815. Mss., Library of Virginia.
  • ---. Bounty Warrants, 1733-1741. Mss., Library of Virginia.
  • Goodwin, Rutherford. A Brief and True Report Concerning Williamsburg in Virginia. Richmond: August Dietz for Colonial Williamsburg, 1959.
  • Gordon, Lord Adam. "Journal of an Officer Who Travelled in America and the West Indies in 1764 and 1765" in Travels in the American Colonies. Newton D. Mereness, ed. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916.
  • Grymes, Philip Ludwell. The Philip Grymes Papers. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, microfilm. 193
  • Hartwell, Henry, James Blair and Edward Chilton, The Present State of Virginia and the College. (London: 1727.) Hunter Dickinson Farish, ed. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1940.
  • Harwood, Humphrey. Account book, 1776-1794. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Hening, William Waller, ed. The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619. Vols. 1-13. New York: n.p., 1823.
  • Henrico County Records. Estray Lists, 1781-1802. Mss., Library of Virginia.
  • ---. Estray Book, 1806-1826, vol. 1. Mss., Library of Virginia.
  • Hunter, Robert. Quebec to Carolina in 1785-1786 Being the Travel Diary and Observations of Robert Hunter, Jr., a Young Merchant of London. Eds. Louis B. Wright and Marion Tinling. San Marino, Ca.: The Huntington Library, 1943.
  • Jackson, Donald and Dorothy Twining, eds. The Diaries of George Washington. Vols. 1 5. Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1976.
  • Jefferson, Thomas. Memorandum book, (Market Accounts 1806, probably kept by Etienne Lemaire), Huntington Library. Forthcoming in James A. Bear Jr. and Lucia C. Stanton, eds. Jefferson's Memorandum Books: Accounts, with Legal Records and Miscellany, 1767-1826. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  • Jefferson, Thomas. Memorandum Book, Annapolis accounts (with James Monroe. 1783-1784) in Bear and Stanton, Jefferson's Memorandum Books.
  • Jefferson, Jefferson. Extracts of Williamsburg Trips, Typescript, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (Jefferson Papers of the University of Virginia: special series 2 and "Memorandum Book, 1767-1770," Series 4, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress. Microfilm, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Jerdone Family. Jerdone Family Papers. Swem Library, College of William and Mary.
  • Jerdone, Francis. Cargo Waste Book, 1751-1753. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Jerdone, Francis. "Letter Book of Francis Jerdone," in William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine 14 (January 1906):141-145.
  • Jones Family. Papers of the Jones Family of Northumberland County, Virginia, 1693-1837. Mss., Manuscripts division, Library of Congress.
  • Jones, Hugh. The Present State of Virginia. Ed. Richard L. Morton. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1956. 194
  • Kalm, Peter. Travels into North America. Ed. Adolph B. Benson. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 1964.
  • Kingsbury, Susan M., ed. The Records of the Virginia Company of London. Vols. 1-4 Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1906, 1933, 1935.
  • Lee, Philip Ludwell. Ledger, 1743-1783. Ms., Perkins Library, Duke University, Durham, N.C.
  • Lampon Family. Receipt Book, 1781-1806. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, microfilm.
  • Langhorne, Orra. Southern Sketches from Virginia, 1881-1901. ed. Charles E. Loynes. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1964.
  • Lee, Richard Henry. The Letters of Richard Henry Lee. Ed. James Curtis Ballagh. 2 vols. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911.
  • Lewis, James. "Georgical Calendar adapted to the Gloucester Low Grounds, originally written by J. Lewis Esq. Of Belle-Farm" in James Lewis, His Book, a Notebook on Farming and Mathematics. Gloucester County, 1777.
  • Lightfoot, William. Store Accounts, 1747-1787. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Ludwell, Philip. Lee-Ludwell Papers. The Virginia Historical Society.
  • Mair, John. Book-keeping Methodiz'd. Fifth edition. Edinburgh, 1757.
  • Major-Marable Family. Papers, 1703-1929. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Martin, George. Diary, 1779-1800. Ed. Walter E. Minchinton. Public Library, Whitehaven, Eng. Microfilm.
  • Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, April 6, 1787.
  • Maury, James. Letter Book of James Maury, December 14, 1763 - September 24, 1768. The Feinstone Collection of the American Philosophical Society. Microfilm.
  • McIlwaine, H. R., ed. Journals of the House of Burgesses 1619-1776. 10 Vols. Richmond: The Colonial Press, 1912.
  • ---. Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 3 Vols. Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1979.
  • Mereness, Newton D. Travels in the American Colonies. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1916.
  • Moreau de Saint- Mery, Mederic-Louis-Elie. Voyage aux Etate-Unis de l'Amerique, 1793-1798. Ed. Stewart L. Mims. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1913.
  • Myers, Moses. Account Book, 1824-1827. Chrysler Museum, Norfolk, Va. 195
  • "Narratives of the Travels of a Scotsman from Glasgow," 1821-1824. New York Historical Society, New York, N.Y.
  • New York Gazette. January 10, 1763.
  • Newton, Thomas Jr. "Thomas Newton, Jr. to Colonel Robert Bolling, December 20, 1771." Bolling Papers, Virginia Historical Society. Mss2N4882a.
  • Neill, Edward Duffield. Early Settlement of Virginia and Virginiola. Minneapolis: n.p., 1878.
  • ---. History of the Virginia Company of London with Letters to and from the First Colony Never Before Printed. Albany: n.p., 1869.
  • ---. Virginia Carolorum, The Colony under the Rule of Charles the First and Second, A.D. 1625-A.D.1685, Based upon Manuscripts and Documents of the Period. Albany: n.p., 1886.
  • ---. Virginia Vetusua, During the Reign of James the First, Containing Letters and Documents Never Before Printed. Albany: n.p., 1885.
  • Niemcewicz, J.U. "A Visit to Mt. Vernon in 1798," in The Journal of J.U. Niemcewicz. Mt. Vernon, Virginia: The Mt. Vernon Ladies' Association, 1940.
  • Norfolk Borough Records, 1 August 1764, 29 June 1773, 30 December 1783, reprinted in Brent Tartar, ed., The Order Book and Related Papers of the Common Hall of the Borough of Norfolk, Virginia, 1736-1798. Richmond: Virginia State Library. 1979.
  • Overton Family. Papers, 1751-1778. Special Collections, Swem Library, College of William and Mary
  • Page, Jane Francis Walker. Jane Francis Walker Page Commonplace Book, Virginia Historical Society.
  • John Page's Administrators vs. Southall, B-65-79. Fredericksburg District Court Papers. Microfilm, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Pattison, Anne. Account Book. Virginia Historical Society.
  • Peckham, Howard H., ed. Narratives of Colonial America, 1704-1765. Chicago: R.R. Donnelley and Sons Company, The Lakeside Press, 1971.
  • Pennsylvania Gazette. February 3, 1746/47.
  • Petersburg, Virginia. Records of the Petersburg Hustings Court, 1793. Petersburg Court House, Petersburg, VA.
  • Petersburg Common Council Minutes. 1785. Petersburg Court House, Petersburg, Va. 196
  • Powhatan County. Records for Strays, July 1777-March 1786. Ms., Library of Virginia.
  • Price, Jacob M. ed. Joshua Johnson's Letter Book: Letters from a Merchant in London to his Partners in Maryland. London: London Record Society, 1979.
  • Randolph, Anne Cary. "Anne Cary Randolph Slave Crop Accounts." Reprinted in Gerard W. Gawalt, "Jefferson's Slaves: Crop Accounts at Monticello, 1805-1808." In Journal of the Afro-American Historical and Genealogical Historical Society vol. 13, nos. 1 and 2, Spring/Fall, 1994.
  • Reichel, Bishop and Mrs. "Travel Diary of Bishop and Mrs. Reichel and Their Company from Lititz to Salem in the Wachau (Wachovia) from May 22, to June 15, 1780" in Travels in the American Colonies. Ed. Newton D. Mereness. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916.
  • Richmond Common Hall, 1793. Library of Virginia.
  • [Ritson, Anne.] A Poetical Picture of America being Observations made during a Residence of Several Years, Alexandria and Norfolk in Virginia Illustrative of the Manners and Customs of the Inhabitants and Interspersed with Anecdotes Arising from A General Intercourse with Society in that Country, from the Year 1799 to 1807. London: 1809.
  • La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt. Voyage dans les Etats-Unis d'Amerique fait en 1795, 1796, et 1797. Vol. 4. Imrimerie-Libraire, rue de la loi, Paris, 1798.
  • Rose, Robert. Diary, 1747-1751. Special Collections, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • [Royall, Anne]. Sketches of History, Life, and Manners, in the United States. By A Traveller. New Haven: 1826. repr. ed. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp. 1970.
  • Sargent, Winthrop. "The History of an Expedition against Fort Du Quesne in 1755 under Major-General Edward Braddock" in Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Vol. 5. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott and Co. for the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1855.
  • [Shawl, Janet]. The Journal of a Lady of Quality, ed. Evangelina Walker Andrews. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939.
  • Sinclair, Sir John. Facsimiles of letters from his Excellency George Washington president of the United States of America, to Sir John Sinclair, Bart., M.P. on agricultural and other interesting topics. Philadelphia: The Lost Cause Press, 1976.
  • Skipwith, Sir Peyton. Family Papers, 1764-1793. Swem Library, College of William and Mary.
  • Smyth, John Ferdinand Dalziel. A Tour in the United States of America Containing and Account of the Present Situation of that Country. London: G. Robinson, Paternoster Row, 1784.
  • South-Carolina Gazette. Charleston. 1745. 197
  • South Carolina Gazette and Country Journal. Charles Town, South Carolina, 1769.
  • "Speeches of Students of the College of William and Mary Delivered May 1, 1699." William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd ser. , 10 (1930), p. 329.
  • Surry County. Deeds, Wills, etc., 1694-1804. Microfilm, Library of Virginia.
  • Tinling, Marion, ed. Correspondence of the Three William Byrds of Westover, Virginia 1684-1776. 2 vols. Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia for the Virginia Historical Society, 1977.
  • Tinling, Marion and Louis B. Wright, eds. The Secret Diary of William Byrd of Westover, 1709-1712. Richmond: The Dietz Press, 1941.
  • Tucker-Coleman Family Papers. "Accounts, Invoices, Receipts, Notes of St. George Tucker, 1778-1827." Mss., Swem Library, College of William and Mary.
  • Tyler, Lyon G., ed. Narratives of Early Virginia, 1606-1625. New York: n.p., 1907.
  • Valentine, Edward Pleasants. Papers. 4 vols. Richmond: Valentine Museum, Whittet and Shepperson.
  • Vaughan, Samuel. Diary, 1787. Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress.
  • Virginia. Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts…1652-1869. Richmond, 1875-1893.
  • Virginia Council. Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. Ed. H.R. McIlwaine. 3 vols. Richmond, 1918.
  • Virginia House of Burgesses. Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1619-1776. Eds. John Pendleton Kennedy and H.R. McIlwaine. 12 vols. Richmond 1906-1915.
  • Virginia Gazette. Advertisements. Williamsburg, September 10, 1736 to August 8, 1751.
  • Washington, George. "Crops for the River Farm, and operations thereon, for the year 1800" in "Washington's Agricultural Notes," The Farmer's Register. Vol.5, no. 8, December 1, 1837.
  • Wily, John. A TREATISE on the Propagation of Sheep, the Manufacture of Wool, and the Cultivation and Manufacture of Flax, with Directions for making several Utensils for the Business. Williamsburg: J. Royle, 1765.
  • Winfree, Waverly K., compiler. The Laws of Virginia Being a Supplement of Hening's The Statutes at Large 1700-1750. Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1971.
  • Wirt, William. "William Wirt to Catherine Wirt, Washington City, November 4, 1822." Wirt papers, Maryland Historical Society. Microfilm 5 198
  • Woodfin, Maude H., ed. Another Secret Diary of William Byrd of Westover, 1739-1741. Tr. Marion Tinling. Richmond: The Dietz Press, 1942.
  • York County. Deeds, Orders, and Wills, 1645-1729. Microfilm, Library of Virginia.
  • York County Master Biographical File, Department of Historical Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Young, Arthur. Letters from his Excellency George Washington to Arthur Young-containing an account of his husbandry, with a ma of his farm; his opinions on various questions in agriculture; and many particulars of the rural economy of the United States. London, 1801.

Secondary Works

  • Adams, Donald R., Jr. "One Hundred Years of Prices and Wages: Maryland, 1750-1850." Working Papers from the Regional Economic History Center 5, no. 4 (1982): 90-129.
  • ---. "Prices and Wages in Maryland, 1750-1850." Journal of Economic History 46 (1984): 625-45.
  • Aerts, Erik and Clark, Peter, eds. Metropolitan Cities and Their Hinterlands in Early Modern Europe, Session B-6 Proceedings, 10th International Economic History Congress, Leuven, August 1990. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990.
  • Aitken, R.J. "Cementum Layers and Toothwear as Criteria for Ageing Roe Deer (Caproleolus capreolu)." Journal of Zoology 174(1975):15-28.
  • Anderson, Jay. "'A Solid Sufficiency': An Ethnography of Yeoman Foodways in Stuart England." Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1971.
  • Andrews, A.H. "The Use of Dentition to Age Young Cattle." In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, edited by B. Wilson, C. Grigson, and S. Payne, 141-153. BAR British Series 109(1982).
  • Arter, Susan. "Tooth Eruption and Wear Analyses: Determining Age at Death in Cattle, Swine, and Caprines for the Colonial Williamsburg Provisioning Study." San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, 1997. Photocopy.
  • Atkins, Stephen C. "An Archaeological Perspective n the African-American Slave Diet at Mount Vernon's House for Families." Master's thesis, College of William and Mary, 1994.
  • Babb, Florence. Between Field and Cooking Pot: The Political Economy of Market Women in Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989. 199
  • Baker, Andrew H. and Holly V. Izard. "New England Farmers and the Marketplace, 1780-1865: A Case Study," Agricultural History 65, no. 3 (Summer 1991): 29-52.
  • Bartram, L. E., E. M. Kroll, and H. T. Bunn. "Variability in Camp Structure and Bone Food Refuse Patterning at Kua San Camps." In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by E. M. Droll and T. D. Price, 77-148. New York: Plenum Press, 1991.
  • Beals, Ralph. The Peasant Marketing System of Oaxaca, Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.
  • Beaudry, Mary C. "Or What Else You Please to Call It: Folk Semantic Domains in Early Virginia Probate Inventories." Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1980.
  • Belden, Louise. "Setting the Gentleman's Table." In The Festive Tradition. New York: W.W. Norton, 1983.
  • Bergstrom, Peter V. et al. "Urbanization in the Tidewater South, Part II: The Growth and Development of Williamsburg and Yorktown." Final report to the National Endowment for the Humanities (project #RO-20869-85), 1989.
  • Bernard, R.J. "Peasant Diet in Eighteenth-Century Gévaudan." In European Diet from Pre-Industrial to Modern Times, edited by Elborg and Robert Foster, 19-46. Harper Torchbooks, 1975.
  • Bezanson, Anne, Robert D. Gray, and Miriam Hussey. Prices in Colonial Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1935.
  • ---, assisted by Blanch Daley, Marjorie C. Denison, and Miriam Hussey. Prices and Inflation During the American Revolution: Pennsylvania, 1770-1790. Industrial Research Department, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania Research Studies, 35. Philadelphia, 1951.
  • Biddick, Kathleen. The Other Economy: Pastoral Husbandry on a Medieval Estate. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
  • Binford, Lewis. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
  • ---. "Butchering, Sharing, and the Archaeological Record." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3, no. 3(1984): 235-257.
  • Binford, Lewis and Bertram, J.B. "Bone Frequencies and Attrition Processes." In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by Lewis Binford, 77-153. New York: Academic Press, 1977. 200
  • Bodenhorn, Howard. "'A Most Wretched Class': Heights, Health, and Nutrition of Free Blacks in Antebellum Virginia." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Economic History Association, September, 1997.
  • Blackman, Janet, "The Food Supply of an Industrial Town: A Study of Sheffield's Public Markets 1780-1900." Business History 5 (1963): 83-92.
  • Bohannan, Paul and Dalton, George, eds. Markets in Africa. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1962.
  • Bonnet, Jean-Claude. "The Culinary System in the Encyclopédie. In Food and Drink in History, pp. 139-165. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979.
  • Bonnichsen, Robson and Sorg, Marcella H., eds. Bone Modification. Orono, Maine.: Center for the Study of the First Americans, 1989.
  • Bowen, Joanne. "Probate Inventories: An Evaluation from the Perspective of Zooarchaeology and Agricultural History at the Mott Farm." Historical Archaeology 9(1975): 11-25.
  • ---. "Seasonality: An Agricultural Construct," In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by Mary C. Beaudry, 161-171. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
  • ---. "Analysis of the African Meeting House Faunal Remains." In The African Meeting House, Boston, Massachusetts: Summary Report of Archaeological Excavations, 1975-1986, edited by Beth Anne Bower. Boston: Museum of African American History, 1986.
  • ---. "A Study of Seasonality and Subsistence: Eighteenth-Century Suffield, Connecticut." Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1990.
  • ---. "The Social Importance of Pork in the Southern Diet." Paper presented to the Society for Historical Archaeology, Richmond, 1990.
  • ---. "Faunal Remains and New England Urban Household Subsistence." In The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology: Essays in Honor of James Deetz, edited by Anne E. Yentsch and Mary C. Beaudry, 267-281. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1992.
  • ---. "A Comparative Analysis of the New England and Chesapeake Herding Systems." In The Historic Chesapeake: Archaeological Contributions, edited by Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, 155-168. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994.
  • ---. "Slavery at Mount Vernon: A Dietary Analysis." Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology meetings.
  • ---. "Foodways in the 18th Century Chesapeake." In The Archaeology of 18th Century Virginia, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart, 87-130. Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 35. Richmond: Archaeological Society of Virginia, 1996. 201
  • ---. "To Market, To Market: Animal Husbandry in New England." Historical Archaeology, in press.
  • Breitburg, Emanuel. "Verification and Reliability of NISP and MNI Methods of Quantifying Taxonomic Abundance: A View from Historic Site Zooarchaeology." In Beamers, Bobwhites, and Blue-Points: Tributes to the Career of Paul W. Parmalee, edited by James Purdue et al., 153-162. Carbondale: Illinois State Museum, 1991.
  • Brown, Gregory J. "Distributing Meat and Fish in Eighteenth-Century Virginia: The Documentary Evidence for the Existence of Markets in Early Tidewater Towns." Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, 1988. Typescript.
  • ---. The Faunal Remains from the John Draper Well: An Investigation in Historic Period Zooarchaeology. Master's thesis, San Francisco State University, 1989.
  • Brown, Gregory J., et al. "Archaeological Investigations of the Shields Tavern Site." Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1990.
  • Brown, Linda Keller and Kay Mussell, eds. Ethnic and Regional Foodways in the United States: The Performance of Group Identity. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1984.
  • Brown, W.A.B., D.V.M. Christofferson, M. Masler, and M.B. Weiss. "Postnatal Tooth Boar." American Journal of Veterinary Research 21, no. 80(1975): 7-34.
  • Bull, Gail and S. Payne. "Tooth Eruption and Epiphyseal Fusion in Pigs and Wild Boar." In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, edited by B. Wilson, C. Grigson, and S. Payne, 55-71. BAR British Series 109(1982).
  • Bunn, L. R. "Patterns of Skeletal Representation and Hominid Subsistence Activities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, and Koobi Fora, Kenya." Journal of Human Evolution 15 (1986): 673-690.
  • Burnett, John. Plenty and Want: A Social History of Diet in England from 1815 to the Present Day. London: Scholar Press, 1979.
  • Campbell, Bruce M.S., James A. Galloway, Derek Keene and Margaret Murphy. A Medieval Capital and its Grain Supply: Agrarian Production and Distribution in the London Region c. 1300. Historical Geography Research Series, no. 30, 1993.
  • Carr, Lois Green and Lorena S. Walsh. "The Standard of Living in the Colonial Chesapeake." William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 45 (1988): 135-59.
  • ---. "Economic Diversification and Labor Organization in the Chesapeake, 1650-1820." In Work and Labor in Early America, edited by Stephen Innes. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1988. 202
  • ---. "Changing Lifestyles and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake." In Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert, 59-166. Charlottesville, The University of Virginia Press, 1994.
  • Carroll, Michael P. "The Logic of Anglo-American Meals." Journal of American Culture 5, no. 2 (1982): 36-45.
  • Carson, Barbara G. Ambitious Appetites: Dining, Behavior, and Patterns of Consumption in Federal Washington. Washington, DC: American Institute of Architects Press, 1990.
  • Chaplin, R.E. The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. London: Seminar Press, 1971.
  • Chaplin, R.E. and R.W. White. "The Uses of Tooth Eruption and Wear, Body Weight and Antler Characteristics in the Estimation of Male Wild and Park Fallow Deer (Dama dama)." Journal of Zoology 157(1969): 125-132.
  • Chartres, J.A. "City and Towns, Farmers and Economic Change in the 18th Century." The Institute of Historical Research LXIV, no. 154 (June 1991):138-155.
  • ---. "No English Calvados? English Distillers and the Cider Industry in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries," In English Rural Society, 1500-1800, Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk, 313-342. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  • Clark, Christopher. "Household Economy, Market Exchange and the Rise of Capitalism in the Connecticut Valley, 1800-1860." Social Science History 13 (Winter 1979): 169-189.
  • ---. The Roots of Rural Capitalism: Western Massachusetts, 1780-1860. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.
  • Clark, Gregory, Huberman, Michael, and Lindert, Peter H. "A British Food Puzzle, 1770-1850." Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Economic History Association, Boston, 1992.
  • Cleland, Charles. "Comparison of the Faunal Remains from French and British Refuse Pits at Fort Michilimackinac: A Study in Changing Subsistence Patterns." Canadian Historic Sties: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History 3 (1970): 7-23.
  • Clutton-Brock, Juliet. Domesticated Animals from Early Times. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.
  • Coelho, Philip J. and James F. Shepherd. "Differences in Regional Prices: The United States, 1850-1880." Journal of Economic History 34 (1974): 555-591.
  • Cole, Stephanie. "Changes for Mrs. Thornton's Arthur: Patterns of Domestic Service in Washington, DC, 1800-1835," Social Science History 15, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 367-379. 203
  • Collins, Jane L. "The Household and Relations of Production in Southern Peru." In Society for Comparative Study of Society and History, 651-671. 1986.
  • Conlin, Joseph R. "Another Side to William Byrd of Westover, An Explanation of the Food in his Secret Diaries." Virginia Cavalcade 26 (Winter 1977): 125-133.
  • Cook, Scott and Diskin, Martin, eds. Markets in Oaxaca. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976.
  • Coon, David L. The Development of Market Agriculture in South Carolina, 1670-1785. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1989.
  • Cosman, Madeline P. Fabulous Feasts: Medieval Cookery and Ceremony. New York: George Brazeller Press, 1976.
  • Cox, C. Jane and John J. Buckler. "A Summary of Archaeological Excavations from 1983-1986 at the Green Family Print Shop, 18AP29, Annapolis, Maryland." Annapolis: University of Maryland at College Park and Historic Annapolis Foundation, 1995.
  • Crabtree, Pamela J. "Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status, and Ethnicity." In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, 155-205. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1990.
  • ---. "Early Animal Domestication in the Middle East and Europe." In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, 201-246. Tucson: The University of Arizona, 1993.
  • Cribb, Roger. "The Analysis of Ancient Herding Systems: An Application of Computer Simulation in Faunal Studies." In Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, edited by Graeme Barker and Clive Gamble, 75-106. New York: Academic Press, 1985.
  • ---. "The Logic of the Herd: A Computer Simulation of Archaeological Herd Structure." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6(1987): 376-415.
  • Cruz-Uribe, Kathryn. "The Use and Meaning of Species Diversity and Richness in Archaeological Faunas." Journal of Archaeological Science 15(1988): 179-196.
  • Davis, Barbara. "Faunal Analysis at Governor's Land: Two Rural Eighteenth Century Sites in James City County, Virginia." Master's thesis, Hunter College, City University of New York, 1986.
  • Davis, Dorothy. Fairs, Shops, and Supermarkets: A History of English Shopping. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966.
  • Davis, William. Social Relations in a Philippine Market. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. 204
  • Davis, Simon. The Archaeology of Animals. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.
  • Deetz, James. "American Historical Archaeology: Methods and Results." Science 289 (4838): 362-267.
  • Deniz, Esrif and S. Payne. "Eruption and Wear in the Mandibular Dentition as a Guide to Ageing Turkish Angora Goats." In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, edited by B. Wilson, C. Gregson, and S. Payne, 105-205. BAR British Series 109(1982).
  • Derven, D.L. "Wholesome, Toothsome, and Diverse: Eighteenth-Century Foodways in Deerfield, Massachusetts." In Foodways in the Northeast, edited by Peter Benes. Boston: Boston University for the Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife, 1984.
  • Doerflinger, Thomas M. "Farmers and Dry Goods in the Philadelphia Market Area, 1750-1800." In The Economy of Early America: The Revolutionary Period, 1763-1790, edited by Ronald Hoffman, et al., 167-195. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia for the U.S. Capitol Historical Society, 1982.
  • Douglas, Mary. Food in the Social Order: Studies of Food and Festivities in Three American Communities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984.
  • Drewel, Henry John. "Introduction: Yoruba Art and Life as Journeys." In The Yoruba Artist: New Theoretical Perspectives on African Arts, edited by Rowland Abiodun, Henry J. Drewal, and John Pemberton III. Washington: Smithsonian Press, 1994.
  • Dyer, Christopher. "The Consumer and the Market in the Later Middle Ages." Economic History Review, 2nd ser., XLII, 3(1989): 305-327.
  • Earle, Carville and Ronald Hoffman. "Staple Crops and Urban Development in the Eighteenth-Century South." Perspectives in American History 10 (1976): 7-78.
  • Ewbank, J.M., D.W. Phillipson, R.D. Whitehouse, and E.S. Higgs. "Sheep in the Iron Age: A Method of Study." Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 30(1964): 423-426.
  • Fisher, F.J. "The Development of the London Food Market, 1540-1640." In London and the English Economy, edited by P.J. Corfield and N.B. Harte. London: Hambledon Press, 1990.
  • Flannery, Kent V., Joyce Marcus, and Robert G. Reynolds. The Flocks of the Wamani: A Study of the Llama Herders on the Punas of Ayacucho, Peru. New York. Academic Press, 1989.
  • Friedmann, Karen J. "Victualling Colonial Boston." Agricultural History 47 (1973): 189-205.
  • Galvin, Kathleen F. "Forms of Finance and Forms of Production: The Evolution of Specialized Livestock Production in the Ancient Near East." In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited by E. Brumfiel and T. Earle, 119-129. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 205
  • Garrison, Ritchie. "Farm Dynamics and Regional Exchange: The Connecticut Valley Beef Trade; 1670-1850." Agricultural History 61, no. 3(1987): 1-17.
  • Gibbs, Patricia A. "Re-creating Hominy: The One-Pot Breakfast Food of the Gentry and Staple of Blacks and Poor Whites in the Early Chesapeake." Conference Proceedings from the Oxford Symposium on Food & Cookery (1988): 46-54.
  • Gibson, A.J.S., and T.C Smout. Prices, Food and Wages in Scotland 1550-1780. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  • Gifford, Diane. "Taphonomony and Paleoecology: A Critical Review of Archaeology's Sister Disciplines." In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 4, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, 364-438. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
  • Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane. "Bones are Not Enough: Analogues, Knowledge, and Interpretive Strategies in Zooarchaeology." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10(1991): 215-254.
  • Gill, Harold, and George M. Curtis, III. "Virginia's Colonial Probate Policy and the Preconditions for Economic History." The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 87, no. 1 (1979): 68-73.
  • Goody, Jack. Cooking, Cuisine and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
  • ---. "The Height and Low: Culinary Culture in Asia and Europe." In Cooking, Cuisine and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology, 97-153. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
  • Grant, Annie. "The Use of Toothwear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Ungulates." In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, edited by B. Wilson, C. Grigson and S. Payne, 91-108. BAR British Series 109(1982).
  • ---. "The Use of Toothwear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Animals: A Brief Explanation." In The Excavations at Portchester Castle Volume I: Roman. Reports and Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries, London, 33(1975): 437-450.
  • ---. "Variation in Dental Attrition in Mammals and its Relevance to Age Estimation." In Research Problems in Zooarchaeology, edited by D.R. Brothwell, K.D. Thomas, and J. Clutton-Brock, 103-106. The Institute of Archaeology, Great Britain, Occasional Publication 3 (1978).
  • Gras, N. S. B. The Evolution of the English Corn Market . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1915.
  • Gray, Lewis Cecil. History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860. Vol. 1. Washington. The Carnegie Institution of Washington. 1933. 206
  • Grayson, Donald K. Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Orlando: Academic Press, 1984.
  • ---. "Bone Transport, Bone Destruction, and Reverse Utility Curves." Journal of Archaeological Science 16, no. 6(1989): 643-652.
  • Gregg, Susan Alling. Foragers and Farmers: Population Interaction and Agricultural Expansion in Prehistoric Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
  • Grigson, Caroline. "Porridge and Pannage: Pig Husbandry in Neolithic England." In Archaeological Aspects of Woodland Ecology, edited by Martin Bell and S. Limbrey, 297-312. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International Series 146 (1982).
  • Gross, Robert A. The Minutemen and Their World. New York: Hill and Wang, 1976.
  • Heady, Harold F. and R. Dennis Child. Rangeland Ecology and Management. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1994.
  • Hecker, H.M. "Domestication Revisited: Its Implications for Faunal Analysis." Journal of Field Archaeology 9 (1982): 217-238.
  • Helmut, Hemmer, ed. Domestication: The Decline of Environmental Appreciation. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  • Henn, Roselle E. "Reconstructing the Urban Foodchain: Advances and Problems in Interpreting Faunal Remains Recovered from Household Deposits." American Archaeology 5 (3): 202-209.
  • Henretta, James A. "Families and Farms: Mentality in Pre-Industrial America." William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 35 (1978): 3-32.
  • Hess, Karen. "Changing Patterns in Tideland Virginia Cookery: The Early Days to the Nineteenth Century." Williamsburg, Virginia, 1987. Photocopy.
  • Higham, C.F.W. "Stock Rearing as a Cultural Factor in Prehistoric Europe." Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33:84-106. London: H.K. Lewis and Company LTD. 1967.
  • Hillson, Simon. Teeth. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
  • Hodges, Charles. "Pig Snouts, Lion Teth, and Human Eyes: A Study of Two Prime Competitor Species with Early Homo sapiens." Paper completed for Anthropology 501, The College of William and Mary, 1994. Photocopy.
  • Hoffman, Ronald, et al., ed. The Economy of Early America: The Revolutionary Period. 1763-1790. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1988.
  • Hughes, Jeanne. "Eating on the Move." In Consuming Passions. Papers presented at the 101st Annual Conference of the Ontario Historical Society, Ottawa, Ontario, 1989. 207
  • Jenkins, Virginia S. "Early Nineteenth Century Road Food: What People Ate When They Traveled in the United States." The Mid-Atlantic Almanack 2 (1993): 28-44.
  • Jensen, Joan M. Loosening the Bonds: Mid-Atlantic Farm Women, 1750-1850. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
  • Johnson, Eileen. "Current Developments in Bone Technology," In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, 157-235. Orlando: Academic Press, 1985.
  • Jones, K. T., and D. Metcalfe. "Bare Bones Archaeology: Bone Marrow Indices and Efficiency." Journal of Archaeological Science 15, no. 4(1988): 415-423.
  • Kalcik, Susan. "Ethnic Foodways in America: Symbol and the Performance of Identity" In Ethnic and Regional Foodways in the United States: The Performance of Group Identity, edited by Linda Keller Brown and Kay Mussell, 37-65. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1984.
  • Kaplan, Steven Lawrence. Provisioning Paris: Merchants and Millers in the Grain and Flour Trade During the Eighteenth Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984.
  • Kelly, Kevin P. "The People of York County in the Eighteenth Century." In "Urbanization in the Tidewater South, Part II: The Growth and Development of Williamsburg and Yorktown." Final report to the National Endowment for the Humanities, Project No. RO-20869-85, 1989.
  • Kelso, William F. Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia. Orlando: Academic Press, 1984.
  • Klein, Richard F., and Kathryn Cruz-Uribe. The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
  • Klepp, Susan E. "Seasoning and Society: Racial Differences in Mortality in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia." William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 51 (1994): 473-506.
  • Koffsky, Nathan. "Farm and Urban Purchasing Power." Studies in Income and Wealth 11. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1949.
  • Komlos, John. "Nutrition, Population Growth, and the Industrial Revolution in England." Social Science History 14, no. I (Spring 1990): 69-92.
  • Kowaleski, Maryanne. Local Markets and Regional Trade in Medieval Exeter. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  • Kuznets, Simon. Economic Growth of Nations: Total Output and Production Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Belknap Press, 1971. 208
  • ---. Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure and Spread. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.
  • Laing, Wesley Newton. "Cattle in Early Virginia." Doctoral dissertation series, publication no. 9652. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1954.
  • Landon, David. "Feeding Colonial Boston: A Zooarchaeological Study." Historical Archaeology 30, no. 1(1996): 1-153.
  • Lemon, James T. "Household Consumption in Eighteenth-Century America and Its Relationship to Production and Trade: The Situation Among Farmers in Southeastern Pennsylvania." Agricultural History 41 (1981): 283-314.
  • Lev-Tov, Justin. "The Faunal Analysis of Jonas Green's Printshop Cellar in Annapolis, Maryland." Anthropology honors thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 1990.
  • Leviner, Betty. "Patrons and Rituals in an Eighteenth-Century Tavern." In Common People and the Material World: Free Men and Women of the Chesapeake, 1700-1830, edited by David Harvey and Gregory Brown. Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Research Publications, 1995.
  • Lounsbury, Carl. "The Williamsburg Market House: Where's the Beef?" Report for the Educational Planning Group, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, 1986. Photocopy.
  • Lowe, V.P.W. "Teeth as Indicators of Age With Special Reference to Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) of Known Age from Rhum." Journal of Zoology 152(1967): 137-153.
  • Lyman, R. Lee. "Available Meat from Faunal Remains: A Consideration of Techniques." American Antiquity 44, no. 3(1979): 536-546.
  • ---. "Archaeofaunas and Butchery Studies: A Taphonomic Perspective." In Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory, Volume 10, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, 249-337. New York: Academic Press, 1987.
  • ---. "On Zooarchaeolgical Measures of Socioeconomic Position and Cost-Efficient Meat Purchases." Historical Archaeology 21, no. 1(1987): 58-66.
  • ---. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
  • Main, Gloria L. "The Standard of Living in Southern New England, 1640-1773." William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 45 (1988): 124-134.
  • Maltby, J.M. Faunal Studies on Urban Sites: The Animal Bones from Exeter, 1971-1975. Exeter Archaeological Reports 2. Sheffield: Sheffield University Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, 1979. 209
  • ---. "The Variability of Faunal Samples and their Effects on Ageing Data." In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, edited by Bob Wilson, Caroline Grigson, and Sebastian Payne, 81-90. British Archaeological Reports, British Series 109 (1982).
  • ---. "Patterns in Faunal Assemblage Variability." In Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, edited by Graeme Barker and Clive Gamble, 33-74. New York: Academic Press, 1985.
  • Manning-Sterling, Elise. "Great Blue Herons and River Otters: The Changing Perceptions of All Things Wild in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake." Master's thesis, College of William and Mary, 1994.
  • Marten, Cathy. "Foodways Research Project, in Conjunction with Analysis of Archaeological Investigations Conducted on the Site of the African Meeting House, Boston, Massachusetts: A Survey of Available Data." 1982. Photocopy.
  • Masters, Betty R. "The Public Markets of the City of London Surveyed by William Leybourn in 1677." London: London Topographical Society, Publication No. 117, 1974.
  • Matschke, G.H. "Ageing European Wild Hogs by Dentition." Journal of Wildlife Management 31(1967): 109-113.
  • Mathias, Peter. The Brewing Industry in England, 1700-1830. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1959.
  • McCusker, John and Menard, Russell R. The Economy of British America, 1607-1789. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985.
  • McCloskey, Donald N. "The Extent of the Market, Ancient and Modern: A Project in the Economic History of Global Change." Proposal for National Science Foundation project. Photocopy.
  • McMahon, Sarah F. "A Comfortable Subsistence: The Changing Composition of Diet in Rural New England, 1620-1840." William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 42 (1985): 26-65.
  • ---. "Laying Foods By: Gender, Dietary Decisions, and the Technology of Food Preservation in New England Households, 1750-1850." In Early American Technology Making and Doing Things from the Colonial Era to 1850, edited by Judith A. McGaw. Charlottesville: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1995.
  • ---. "'All Things in Their Proper Season': Seasonal Rhythms of Diet in Nineteenth-Century New England." Agricultural History 63 (1989): 130-151.
  • Medick, Hans. "The Post-Industrial Family Economy" In Industrialization before Industrialization, 38-73. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1981. 210
  • Mennell, Stephen. All Manners of Food: Eating and Taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the Present. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1985.
  • Menard, Russell R., Lois Green Carr, and Lorena S. Walsh, Robert Cole's World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991.
  • Miller, F.L. "Eruption and Attrition of Mandibular Teeth in Barren-ground Caribou." Journal of Wildlife Management 36, no. 2(1972): 606-612.
  • Miller, Henry M. "An Archaeological Perspective on the Evolution of Diet in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1620-1745." In Colonial Chesapeake Society, edited by Lois G. Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo, 176-199. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988.
  • ---. "Colonization and Subsistence Change on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Frontier." Ph.D. diss. Michigan State University, 1984.
  • Milward, Rosemary. "A Glossary of Household and Farming Terms from sixteenth-Century Probate Inventories." Derbyshire: Derbyshire Record Society, Occasional Paper No. 1, 1977.
  • Mintz, Sidney. "Pratik: Haitian Personal Economic Relationships." Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society: 54-63. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1961.
  • ---. Caribbean Transformations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989.
  • Mitchell, Robert D. Commercialization and Frontier: Perspectives on the Early Shenandoah Valley. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977.
  • Moore, Stacy Gibbons. "Established and Well Cultivated," Virginia Cavalcade 39, no. 2 (Autumn 1989): 70-83.
  • Morris, P. "A Review of Mammalian Age Determination Methods." In Mammal Review 2, no. 3(1972): 69-102.
  • Mouer, L. Daniel. "Farming, Foraging and Feasting: Powhatan Foodways and Their Influences on English Virginia." Address to the Foodways Research Planning Conference, Colonial Williamsburg, 1987. Photocopy.
  • Nicholls, Michael L. "Aspects of the African American Experience in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg and Norfolk," Manuscript report, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library. Photocopy.
  • Nobles, Gregory. "The Rise of Merchants in Rural Market Towns: A Case Study of Eighteenth-Century Northampton, Massachusetts," Journal of Social History 24 (1): 5-23. 211
  • Noël Hume, Ivor. James Geddy and Sons Colonial Craftsmen. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 5. Williamsburg: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. 1970.
  • ---. Williamsburg Cabinetmakers: The Archaeological Evidence. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 6. Williamsburg: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. 1971.
  • O'Bannon, Patrick W. "Inconsiderable Progress, Commercial Brewing in Philadelphia Before 1840" In Early American Technology: Making and Doing Things from the Colonial Era to 1850, edited by Judith A. McGaw, 148-163. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Technology, 1988.
  • O'Connell, J., and K. Hawkes, and N. Burton-Jones. "Hadza Hunting, Butchering, and Bone Transport and their Archaeological Implications." Journal of Anthropological Research 44 (1988): 112-162.
  • ---. Patterns in the Distribution, Site Structure and Assemblage Composition of Hadze Kill-Butchering Sites." Journal of Archaeological Science 19, no. 3(1992): 319-345.
  • Otto, John Soloman. Cannon's Point Plantation, 1794-1860: Living Conditions and Status Patterns in the Old South. New York: Academic Press, 1984.
  • ---. "Livestock-Raising in Early South Carolina, 1670-1700: Prelude to the Rice Plantation Economy." Agricultural History 61, no. 4(1987): 13-24.
  • Outhwaite, R. B. Dearth, Public Policy and Social Disturbance in England, 1550-1800. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
  • Overton, Mark. Agricultural Revolution in England: The Transformation of the Agrarian Economy, 1500-1850. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
  • Papenfuse, Edward C. In Pursuit of Profit: The Annapolis Merchants in the Era of the American Revolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.
  • Pardailhé-Galabrun, Annik. The Birth of Intimacy Privacy and Domestic Life in Early Modern Paris. Trans. Jocelyn Phelps. Philadelphia: University Press of Philadelphia, 1988.
  • Payne, Sebastian. "Kill-Off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Asvan Kale." Anatolian Studies 23 (1973): 281-303.
  • ---. "Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibular Teeth of Young Sheep Ovis and Goats Capra." Journal of Archaeological Science 12 (1985): 139-147.
  • Perkins, D., and P. Daly. "A Hunter's Village in Neolithing Turkey." Scientific American 219, no. 5(1968): 96-106. 212
  • Polk, Roni Hinote. "Determining Urbanity from Public Foodways at Colonial Taverns in Tidewater Virginia." Paper presented at the Jamestown Conference at the Monticello Visitors Center, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1987. Photocopy.
  • Porter, Susan. "The Benevolent Asylum-Image and Reality: the Care and Training of Female Orphans in Boston, 1800-1840." Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1994.
  • Powers, Emma L. "The Palace Cellars, Foods and Beverages in the Botetourt Inventory," Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Research Department. 1980. Photocopy.
  • ---. "Landlords, Tenants, and Rental Property in Williamsburg and Yorktown, 1730-1780." Master's thesis, College of William and Mary, 1990.
  • Pruitt, Betty Hobbes. "Self-Sufficiency and the Agricultural Economy of Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts." William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 41 (1984): 333-64.
  • Quimby, D.C., and J.E. Gaab. "Mandibular Dentition as an Age Indicator in Rocky Mountain Elk." Journal of Wildlife Management 21(1957): 435-451.
  • Redding, Richard. "Decision Making in Subsistence Herding of Sheep and Goats in the Middle East." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1981.
  • ---. "The Faunal Remains in an Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain." In An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain, edited by Henry T. Wright, 233-261. Museum of Anthropology Memoirs 13. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1981.
  • Reitz, Elizabeth J. "A Faunal Report on the Calvert House Faunal Assemblages." Report on file at Historic Annapolis, Inc., 1986. Photocopy.
  • Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Dan Cordier. "Use of Allometry in Zooarchaeological Analysis." In Animals and Archaeology: 2 Shell Middens, Fishes and Birds, edited by C. Grigson and J. Clutton-Brock, 237-252. London: B.A.R. Series, 1983.
  • Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Margaret Scarry. Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an Example from Sixteenth-Century Spanish Florida. Special Publication Series, Number 3. The Society for Historical Archaeology, 1985.
  • Richards, Gertrude R.B., ed. "Dr. David Stuart's Report to President Washington on Agricultural Conditions in Northern Virginia." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 61(1953): 283-92.
  • Rios, Alicia. "The Pestle and the Mortar," Proceedings from the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery (1988): 125-135.
  • Robinette, W.L., D.A. Jones, G. Rogers and J.S. Gashwiler. "Notes on Tooth Development and Wear in Rocky Mountain Mule Deer." Journal of Wildlife Management 21(1957): 134-153. 213
  • Rorabaugh, W.J. The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
  • Rothenberg, Winifred B. From Market Place to a Market Economy: The Transformation of Rural Massachusetts, 1750-1850. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
  • ---. "The Market and Massachusetts Farmers, 1750-1855." Journal of Economic History 41 (1981): 283-314.
  • Rothschild, Nan. "The Effect of Urbanization on Faunal Diversity: A Comparison between New York City and St. Augustine, Florida, in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries." In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert Leonard and George Jones, 92-99. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
  • ---. New York Neighborhoods: The Eighteenth Century. New York: Academic Press, 1990.
  • Rountree, Helen C. The Powhatan Indians of Virginia: Their Traditional Culture. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989.
  • Rolett, B.V. and M. Chiu. "Age Estimation Of Prehistoric Pigs (Sus scrofa) by Molar Eruption and Attrition." Journal of Archaeological Science 21(1994): 377-386.
  • Sahlins, Marshall. Stone Age Economics. New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1972.
  • Samford, Patricia. "Report on the Brush-Everard Archaeological Site Excavations." Manuscript on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. n.d. Photocopy.
  • ---. "Report on the Grissell Hay Archaeological Site Excavations. Manuscript on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. n.d. Photocopy.
  • Sarudy, Barbara W. "Eighteenth-Century Gardens of the Chesapeake." Journal of Garden History: An International Quarterly 9 (1989): 103-59.
  • ---. "The Gardens and Grounds of an Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake Craftsman." M.A. thesis, University of Maryland, 1988.
  • ---. "Table Produce Grown and Sold in the Chesapeake Bay Region of Maryland During the Last Third of the Eighteenth Century." Typescript., 1990.
  • Scheuermann, Mona. "Daniel Defoe: Moll Flanders and Roxana." In Her Bread to Earn, Women, Money, and Society from Defoe to Austen , 12-59. Louisville: University Press of Kentucky, 1993.
  • Schiffer, Michael B. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1987. 214
  • Scola, Roger. Feeding the Victorian City: The Food Supply of Manchester, 1770-1870. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.
  • Schultz, Peter, and Sherri Gust. "Faunal Remains and Social Status in 19th Century Sacramento." Historical Archaeology 17 (1983): 44-53.
  • Scola, Roger. Feeding the Victorian City: The Food Supply of Manchester, 1770-1870. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.
  • Severinghaus, C.W. "Tooth Development and Wear as Criteria of Age in White-tailed Deer." Journal of Wildlife Management 13, no. 2(1949): 195-216.
  • Shaffer, Brian. "Quarter-Inch Screening: Understanding Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal Remains." American Antiquity 57, no. 1(1992): 129-136.
  • Shammas, Carole. "How Self-Sufficient Was Early America?" Journal of Interdisciplinary History 13 (1982): 247-72.
  • ---. The Pre-Industrial Consumer in England and America. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
  • ---. "Food Expenditures and Economic Well-Being in Early Modern England," Journal of Economic History XLIII, no. 1 (March 1983): 89-100.
  • Shelley, Fred, ed. "The Journal of Ebenezer Hazard in Virginia, 1777," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 62 (1954): 400-423.
  • Silver, I. A. "The Aging of Domestic Animals," In Science in Archaeology, edited by Don Brothwell and Eric Higgs, 283-302. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1969.
  • Silver, Timothy. A New Face on the Countryside: Indians, Colonists, and Slaves in South Atlantic Forests, 1500-1800. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  • Sisson, S. and J.D. Grossman. The Anatomy of Domestic Animals. Fifth ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1975.
  • Smith, Billy G. "'The Best Poor Man's Country': Living Standards of the 'Lower Sort' in Late Eighteenth-century Philadelphia." Working Papers from the Regional Economic History Research Center 2. 1979.
  • ---. The 'Lower Sort': Philadelphia's Laboring People, 1750-1800. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.
  • ---. "The Material Lives of Laboring Philadelphians, 1750 to 1800." William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 38 (1981): 163-202.
  • Smith, D.C., and A.E. Bridges. "The Brighton Market: Feeding Nineteenth-Century Boston." Agricultural History 56 (1982): 3-21. 215
  • Stallibrass, S. "The Use of Cement Layers for Absolute Ageing of Mammalian Teeth: A Selective Review of the Literature, with Suggestions for Further Studies and Alternative Applications." In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, edited by B. Wilson, C. Grigson and S. Payne, 109-126. BAR British Series 109 (1982).
  • Stein, G. "Regional Economic Integration in Early State Societies: Third Millennium B.C. Pastoral Production at Gritille, Southeast Turkey." Paleorient 13, no. 2(1987): 101-111.
  • Sutch, Richard. "The Care and Feeding of Slaves." In Reckoning with Slavery: A Critical Study in the Quantitative History of American Negro Slavery, edited by Paul A. David et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
  • Symons, Michael. "Simmel's Gastronomic Sociology: An Overlooked Essay," Food and Foodways 5, no. 4 (1994): 333-351.
  • Tebbetts, Diane. "Food as an Ethnic Marker," Pioneer America Society Transactions VI (1984): 81-88.
  • Thick, Malcolm. "Root Crops and the Feeding of London's Poor in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries." In English Rural Society, 1500-1800, Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk, 279-296. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  • Thomas, Keith. Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England, 1500-1800. London: Allen Lane, 1983.
  • Thwaites, W. "Women in the Market Place: Oxfordshire c. 1690-1800," Midland History 9 (1984): 23-42.
  • Trow-Smith, Robert. A History of British Livestock Husbandry to 1700. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957.
  • ---. The History of British Livestock Husbandry, 1700-1900. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1959.
  • Usher, Dan. The Measurement of Economic Growth. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.
  • Usner, Daniel H., Jr. "Food Marketing and Interethnic Exchange in the 18th-Century Lower Mississippi Valley." Food and Foodways 1 (1986): 279-310.
  • ---. Indians, Settlers, and Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992.
  • Wacker, Peter O., and Paul G. E. Clemens. Land Use in Early New Jersey: A Historical Geography. Newark: New Jersey Historical Society, 1995. 216
  • Wainwright, Heather. "Inns and Outs: Anne Pattison's Williamsburg Tavern." Master's thesis, Armstrong Atlantic University, forthcoming.
  • Walsh, Lorena S. "Chesapeake Planters and the International Market, 1770-1820." In Lois Green Carr: The Chesapeake and Beyond-A Celebration. Crownsville, Maryland: Maryland Historical and Cultural Publications, 1992.
  • ---."Consumer Behavior, Diet, and the Standard of Living in Late Colonial and Early Antebellum America, 1770-1840." In American Economic Growth and Standards of Living Before the Civil War, edited by Robert E. Gallman and John Joseph Wallis, eds., 217-264. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
  • ---. From Calabar to Carter's Grove: The History of a Virginia Slave Community. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997.
  • ---. "Plantation Management in the Chesapeake, 1620-1820." Journal of Economic History 49 (1989): 393-406.
  • ---. "Report on Selected Agricultural and Food-Related Items in York County, Virginia, and St. Mary's County, Maryland, Inventories, 1783-1820." Typescript, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1991.
  • ---. "'To Labour for Profit': Plantation Management in the Chesapeake, 1620-1820." Manuscript in progress.
  • ---. "Urban Amenities and Rural Sufficiency: Living Standards and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1643-1777." Journal of Economic History 43 (1983): 109-117.
  • ---. "Work and Resistance in the New Republic: The Case of the Chesapeake, 1770-1820." In From Chattel Slaves to Wage Slaves: The Dynamics of Labour Bargaining in the Americas, edited by Mary Turner, 98-105. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995.
  • Watson, J. N. P. "The Interpretation of Epiphyseal Fusion Data." In Research Problems in Zooarchaeology, edited by Don Brothwell et al., 97-102. Institute of Archaeology Occasional Publication 3. London: University of London Institute of Archaeology, 1987.
  • Wattenmaker, P. "The Organization of Production and Consumption in a Complex Society: A Study of a Village Site in Southeast Turkey." MASCA Journal 4(1988): 191-203.
  • Weatherill, Lorna. Consumer Behavior and Material Culture in Britain, 1660-1760. New York: Routledge, 1988.
  • Weiglhofer, Mary Ann. "Inventories as a Barometer of Room Function in Colonial York County, Virginia." Typescript, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1981.
  • Weinreb, M.M. and Y. Sharav. "Tooth Development in Sheep." American Journal of Veterinary Research 25(1964): 891-908. 217
  • Weir, David R. "Family Income, Morality, and Fertility on the Eve of the Demographic Transition: A Case Study of Rosney-Sous-Bois." The Journal of Economic History 55, no. 1 (1995):1-26.
  • White, T. E. "A Method of Calculating the Dietary Percentages of Various Food Animals Utilized by Aboriginal Peoples." American Antiquity 18(1953): 396-398.
  • Whitney, Jeanne Ellen. "Clues to a Community: Transactions at the Anderson-Low Store, 1784-1785." Master's thesis, College of William and Mary, 1983.
  • Williams, David Allen. Political Alignment in Colonial Virginia Politics, 1698-1759. Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1959.
  • Williamson, Jeffrey G., and Lindert, Peter H. American Inequality: A Macroeconomics History. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
  • Williamson, Raymond H. "Virginia's Early Money of Account," The Colonial Newsletter 26, no. 1(1986): 927-948. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  • Wilson, Bob, Caroline Grigson, and Sebastian Payne, eds. Aging and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. British Archaeological Reports, British Series 109, 1982.
  • Wilson, Robert J., III. "Early American Account Books: Interpretation, Cataloguing, and Use." AASLH Technical Leaflet 140, 1981.
  • Wing, Elizabeth, and Antoinette Brown. Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric Foodways. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
  • Wrigley, E.A., Erik Aerts, and Peter Clark, eds. "Metropolitan Cities and Their Hinterlands: Stimulus and Constraints to Growth," Proceedings from Tenth International Economic History Congress, 12-20. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990.
  • Wu, Ethel. "Biased Bite: Annie Grant's Tooth Wear Analysis Method Revisited." Paper prepared for the Westinghouse Student Science Competition. November, 1996. Photocopy.
  • Yellen, John. "Cultural Patterning in Faunal Remains: Evidence from the !Kung Bushmen." In Experimental Archaeology, edited by Daniel Ingersoll et al. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977.
  • Yentsch, Anne Elizabeth. "Gudgeons, Mullet, and Proud Pigs: Historicity, Black Fishing, and Southern Myth." In The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology, Essays in Honor of James Deetz, edited by Anne Elizabeth Yentsch and Mary C. Beaudry, 283-314. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1994.
  • ---. A Chesapeake Family and their Slaves: A Study in Historical Archaeology Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 218
  • Yoder, Don, ed. "Historical Sources For American Traditional Cookery: Examples from the Pennsylvania German Culture," Pennsylvania Folklife 20, no. 3 (Spring 1971): 16-29.
  • ---. "Food Cookery." In Folklore and Folklife: An Introduction, edited by Richard M. Dorson, 325-350. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
  • ---, ed. "Folklife Studies in American Scholarship." In American Folklife, 3-18. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976.
  • Yoder, Paton. "Tavern Regulation in Virginia: Rationale and Reality," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 87 (1979): 259-78.
  • Zeder, Melinda. Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near East. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.

APPENDIX 1.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES ANALYZED

INTRODUCTION

This section describes the analysis of some 53 animal bone assemblages undertaken during the N.E.H.-supported Provisioning Early American Towns project. These assemblages were carefully selected to reflect a range of site types and temporal periods, and consist both of previously-analyzed data which has been somewhat re-worked and of completely new research funded in part by the grant.

The bones were analyzed by a team of zooarchaeologists at Colonial Williamsburg, under the direction of Dr. Joanne Bowen. Primary members of the team included Stephen Atkins, Gwenyth Duncan, and Jeremiah Dandoy; others, including students from Dr. Bowen's zooarchaeology courses, assisted on occasion. Data was entered into a custom-built software program written for the Microsoft FoxPro database management system, which has been used to generate both the data given in the main text and the tables shown in the following sections.

Each assemblage analyzed is described briefly below, with the analyst(s), a short description of the site, a breakdown of the assemblage, the household or households involved, and supporting documentation. It should be noted that the degree of documentation varies by site, and often attribution to a particular household is difficult at best. In virtually all cases the description and household affiliation was obtained from conversations with the archaeologist involved in excavating the site, or explicitly from the report. In cases where the information is ambiguous, that has been spelled out in the text.

For the sake of analysis, the assemblages were divided into seventeen groups (Table 1), representing both rural and urban assemblages dating to various periods. Each assemblage was assigned an arbitrary designation in the computer system (e.g., "72BS-A"), but will be generally referred to by a common name (e.g., "Jordan's Journey (Site 44PG300)"). The recovery method, also shown here, provides some means of evaluating the completeness of the sample; hand picked material, it is generally believed, is somewhat biased toward the recovery of larger animals, and small elements such as fish bones are somewhat underrepresented. Material screened through quarter-inch mesh is more likely to contain a greater diversity of elements, while material that is both screen through quarter-inch mesh and partially floated ("Screen +" in the table) is most likely to represent a more complete and representative sample.

Each assemblage description is accompanied by a table of faunal distribution, providing a general breakdown of the major categories in terms of NISP, MNI, usable meat weight, and biomass. On several sites, biomass estimates could not be calculated, as individual bone weights were not obtained (mostly, it should be added, because this particular technique is of relatively recent vintage). On a few others, MNI figures were not obtained, and thus both the MNI and usable meat weight columns are blank (since usable meat weight is determined from the MNI figures). It is important to note that the absence of either usable meat weight or biomass for a 220 particular assemblage does not by any means make that assemblage less useful for certain types of analysis.

For the purposes of these tables, taxa are broken down into nine categories: cattle, swine, caprines (sheep and goats), fish, turtles, wild birds (which are defined to include turkey, a wild bird that was gradually somewhat domesticated), wild mammals, domestic birds (largely chicken, domestic duck, and domestic goose), and commensals (including dogs, cats, horses, and rats). Commensals, as they were rarely if ever eaten, are not included in usable meat weight calculations.

Where two numbers separated by a slash are given in the MNI column, it indicates that this particular group is composed of both adult and skeletally-immature animals. Thus, a figure of "10/3" indicates an MNI of 10 adults and 3 immatures. Corresponding meat weight estimates are calculated using separate factors for both adults and immatures. Where only one number is given, it represents the number of adult animals.

A number of assemblages were re-analyzed through the generosity of the original analysts, Henry Miller of the St. Mary's City Commission and Elizabeth Reitz of the University of Georgia. In these cases the data was transcribed from their notes into the computer program. In a few cases (e.g., Utopia and Pettus), only the identifiable bone was available, and thus the percentage of identifiable bone is of course greatly inflated.

For several sites analyzed specifically for this project (Kingsmill Slave Quarter, the Boothe site, Gloucester Point, the Custis site, the Geddy Kitchen, and the Anthony Hay site), full faunal reports have not been completed. All of the data, however, is available for study in the Zooarchaeology Lab in the Colonial Williamsburg Department of Archaeological Research.

221

Table A1.1.
SITES ANALYZED AS PART OF THE PROJECT

AssemblageState Site No.County/CityComputer DesignationDug byRecovery Method
Rural 1620-1660
Hampton University44HT55Hampton55AACWFScreen +
Jordan's Journey (44PG302)44PG302Prince George72BIVCUScreen
Jordan's Journey (44PG300)44PG300Prince George72BS-AVCUScreen
Jordan's Journey (44PG307)44PG307Prince George72BT-AVCUScreen
Bennett Farm (Early Period)44YO68York72CE-BVDHRHand
Kingsmill Tenement44JC39James City72CFVDHRHand
Rural 1660-1700
Rich Neck Plantation44WB52James City68ACCWFScreen +
Jenkins Neck44GL320Gloucester72AYWMCARScreen
Clifts Plantation (Phases I and II)44WN33Westmoreland72BU-001RELMAScreen
Utopia44JC32James City72BVVDHRHand
Pettus44JC33James City72BYVDHRHand
Bennett Farm (Late Period)44YO68York72CE-AVDHRHand
Drummond Site44JC43James City72CG-001VDHRHand
Rural 1700-1740
Hornsby44JC500James City70ADCWFScreen
Hampton Carousel44HT39Hampton72AB-001WMCARScreen
Jordan's Journey (Bland Plantation)44PG151Prince George72BR-BVCUScreen
Clifts Plantation (Phases III and IV)44WN33Westmoreland72BU-002RELMAScreen
Rural 1750-1775
Rich Neck Slave Quarter44WB52James City68AL-BCWFScreen +
Curles Neck44HE388Henrico72AMVCUScreen +
Mount Vernon44FX762Fairfax72BNMVLAScreen
Kingsmill Plantation44JC37James City72BXVDHRHand
Rural 1775-1800
Ferry Farm44VB138Virginia Beach65AA-001CWFScreen
Kingsmill Slave Quarter44JC39James City72BM-001VDHRHand
Rural Mid-Late 18th Centuries
Gloucester (44GL357,44GL177)44GL357,Gloucester72BC-AWMCARScreen
44GL177
Boothe Site44IW111Isle of Wight72BHASVScreen
Gloucester Point44GL197Gloucester72BKVDHRHand
Hopewell (Route 10 Bridge)44PG381Prince George72BQ-AWMCARScreen
Rural Late 18th - Early 19th Centuries
Settlers Landing Road44HT68Hampton72AIVDOTScreen
Thomas Brown Site44FX1965Fairfax72CC-004WMCARScreen
Rural Early 19th Century
Massie Farm44JC240James City72ACWMCARScreen
Hewick Plantation44MX28Middlesex72BFCWMScreen
222
Frontier 1750's
Fort Chiswell44WY19Wythe72BAVDHRHand
Williamsburg 1700-1740
Public Hospital44WB30Williamsburg04CACWFHand
Firehouse44WB30Williamsburg15CACWFScreen +
Peyton Randolph (Planting Beds)44WB30Williamsburg28G-001CWFScreen
Grissell Hay (Blair Root Cellar)44WB30Williamsburg29CA-003CWFScreen
Brush-Everard (John Brush44WB30Williamsburg29F-001CWFScreen + Ravine)
Brush-Everard (John Brush Privy)44WB30Williamsburg29G-002CWFScreen
Williamsburg 1735-1757
Shields Tavern (Late Tavern)44WB30Williamsburg09L-BCWFScreen
Brush-Everard (Gilmer Trash Pit)44WB30Williamsburg29G-009CWFScreen
Williamsburg 1750-1775
Custis Site (Pre-1780)44WB30Williamsburg04BA-CCWFHand
Geddy Kitchen (Pre-1762)44WB30Williamsburg19BB-002CWFHand
Anthony Hay (Pre-1770)44WB30Williamsburg28DZ-BCWFHand
Brush-Everard (Thomas Everard) 44WB30Williamsburg29F-ACWFScreen +
Brush-Everard (Late Everard) 44WB30Williamsburg29F-005CWFScreen +
Williamsburg 1775-1800
Custis Site (Post-1780)44WB30Williamsburg04BA-001CWFHand
Shields Tavern (John Draper)44WB30Williamsburg09L-CCWFScreen
Geddy Kitchen (Post-1762)44WB30Williamsburg19BB-001CWFHand
Anthony Hay (Post-1770)44WB30Williamsburg28DZ-ACWFHand
Annapolis 1700-1750
Calvert House (Early Period)18AP28Annapolis72CH-AHAScreen +
Annapolis 1750-1775
Reynolds Tavern18AP23Annapolis72CIHAScreen
Annapolis Mid-Late 18th Century
Calvert House (Late Period)18AP28Annapolis72CH-BHAScreen +
Annapolis Late 18th - Early 19th Centuries
Jonas Green18AP29Annapolis72BZ-001HAScreen +

Note: Screen + =Flotation/wet screen
ASV = Archaeological Society of Virginia, CWM = College of William and Mary, CWF = Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, HA = Historic Annapolis, MVLA = Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, RELMA = Robert E. Lee Memorial Association, VCU = Virginia Commonwealth University, VDHR = Virginia Department of Historic Resources, WMCAR = William and Mary Center of Archaeological Research

223
Rural Sites, 1620-1660
Hampton University
44HT55
Analyzed by:Gregory J. Brown, 1989, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Christopher Windmill (1628-1632); Joseph Hatfield (1632-1642?); Henry Poole (1642?-1655); Richard Hull (1655-16??). All were apparently middling planters.
Faunal Rpt:Hampton University Archaeological Report: A Report on the Findings, by Andrew C. Edwards, William E. Pittman, Gregory J. Brown, Mary Ellen N. Hodges, Marley R. Brown III, and Eric E. Voigt. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg.
Description:Early 17th-century site, with five buildings, storage pits, a ditch, slot fences, and a well. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Andrew C. Edwards, October 1987-March 1988.
Excavation Rpt:Hampton University Archaeological Report: A Report on the Findings, by Andrew C. Edwards, William E. Pittman, Gregory J. Brown, Mary Ellen N. Hodges, Marley R. Brown III, and Eric E. Voigt. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg.
No. of Bones:13,885 (3585 identifiable, 10,300 unidentifiable). 25.8% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle12509.0%10/310.2%4150.054.6%227.6857.2%
Swine6504.717/416.41900.025.050.5112.7
Caprines950.75/14.7190.02.514.873.7
Fish144410.42015.6304.54.07.782.0
Turtles320.253.95.00.10.710.2
Wild Birds430.31410.951.00.70.650.2
Wild Mammals1230.9129.4552.87.313.913.5
Domestic Birds2601.911/512.546.00.63.370.8
Commensals180.153.90.00.00.320.1
Totals13885100.0%115/13100.0%7599.3100.0%397.72100.0%
224
Rural Sites, 1620-1660
Jordan's Journey (Site 44PG302)
44PG302
Analyzed by:Joanne Bowen, 1996, for Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Household:Samuel and Cicely Jordan (ca. 1620-1623); William Farrar and Cicely Jordan (1623-1635). Planters.
Faunal Rpt:Beef, Venison, and Imported Haddock in Colonial Virginia: A Report on the Analysis of Faunal Remains from Jordan's Journey, by Joanne Bowen. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. May 1996.
Description:Early 17th-century fortified manor house complex containing at least 11 buildings. Excavated by Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, directed by Dan Mouer and Douglas McLearen, 1900-1992.
Excavation Rpt:Jordan's Journey: A Preliminary Report on the Archaeology of 44Pg302, Prince George County, Virginia, 1990-1991, by L. Daniel Mouer, Douglas C. McLearen, R. Taft Kiser, Christopher P. Egghart, Beverly J. Binns, and Dane T. Magoon. Prepared for Virginia Division of Historic Resources and the National Geographic Society by Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center. June 1992.
No. of Bones:11,742 (1833 identifiable, 9909 unidentifiable). 15.6% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle1431.2%5/24.1%2100.045.3%69.3036.1%
Swine1761.55/13.5550.011.99.364.9
Caprines280.252.9175.03.84.212.2
Fish215618.47544.1389.28.47.644.0
Turtles2281.942.416.30.42.681.4
Wild Birds2622.24727.6127.92.83.301.7
Wild Mammals2402.0169.4859.018.526.9814.1
Domestic Birds280.242.413.50.30.270.1
Commensals60.131.80.00.00.180.1
Totals 11742 100.0% 167/3 100.0% 4630.9 100.0% 191.74 100.0%
225
Rural Sites, 1620-1660
Jordan's Journey (Site 44PG300)
44PG300
Analyzed by:Joanne Bowen, 1996, for Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Household:Nathaniel and Thomasine Cawsey (ca. 1620-1635). Planters and tenants.
Faunal Rpt:Beef, Venison, and Imported Haddock in Colonial Virginia: A Report on the Analysis of Faunal Remains from Jordan's Journey, by Joanne Bowen. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. May 1996.
Description:Early 17th-century dwelling complex consisting of one dwelling and two possible outbuildings, 11 burials, and five major refuse pits. Buildings include Str. XXII, a three-bay building with a 29 x 19 foot core; Str. XXI, a shed or agricultural barn measuring 18 x 23 feet; and Str. XXIII, a building identified from only three postholes. Excavated by Virginia Department of Historic Resources, directed by Jay Harrison and David Hazzard, February-October 1989.
Excavation Rpt:Preliminary Report on Archaeological Excavation at Jordan's Point: Sites 44PG151, 44PG300, 44PG302, 44PG303, 44PG315, 44PG333, by Tim Morgan, Nicholas M. Luccketti, and Beverly Straube. Prepared for the Virginia Division of Historic Resources by Christopher Newport University and the Virginia Company Foundation. May 1995.
No. of Bones:3036 (263 identifiable, 2773 unidentifiable). 8.7% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle441.4%25.3%800.063.6%10.6821.9%
Swine311.012.6100.07.90.891.8
Caprines00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Fish1846.1410.510.00.80.771.6
Turtles250.825.30.60.00.460.9
Wild Birds431.41539.577.96.21.893.9
Wild Mammals622.01128.9265.021.14.338.9
Domestic Birds110.425.35.00.40.110.2
Commensals50.212.60.00.00.170.3
Totals3036100.0%38100.0%1258.5100.0%48.84100.0%
226
Rural Sites, 1620-1660
Jordan's Journey (Site 44PG307)
44PG307
Analyzed by:Joanne Bowen, 1996, for Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Household:Fisher household (Thomas and Joane Fisher, daughter Priscilla, and servant Richard English) or Palmer household (Robert and Katherine Palmer, daughter Sisly, and servant Idye Halliers). Thomas Fisher was an "ancient planter," possibly a carpenter. Palmer was also a planter. Both appear in Muster of 1624/25; it is not clear which household is represented by this site.
Faunal Rpt:Beef, Venison, and Imported Haddock in Colonial Virginia: A Report on the Analysis of Faunal Remains from Jordan's Journey, by Joanne Bowen. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. May 1996.
Description:Part of fortified plantation village, including Str. 10 and 11, large earthfast houses; Str. 12, smaller earthfast building of unknown function; Str. 3 and 16, enigmatic building fragments; one deep and three shallow trash pits; and palisade fence. Excavated by Virginia Department of Historic Resources, directed by David Hazzard, 1991, and by Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, directed by Dan Mouer and Douglas McLearen, 1992-1993.
Excavation Rpt:Jordan's Journey III: A Preliminary Report on the 1992-93 Excavations at Archaeological Site 44PG307, by Douglas C. McLearen and L. Daniel Mouer. Prepared for the Virginia Division of Historic Resources by Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center. 1994.
No. of Bones:1997 (443 identifiable, 1554 unidentifiable). 22.2% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle1608.0%5/214.6%2100.050.3%44.1436.8%
Swine814.15/316.7650.015.67.586.3
Caprines00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Fish281.448.312.50.30.260.2
Turtles231.212.13.00.10.480.4
Wild Birds140.7612.528.90.70.580.5
Wild Mammals1185.917/137.51375.032.917.7514.8
Domestic Birds60.32/16.39.50.20.070.1
Commensals10.112.10.00.00.010.0
Totals1997100.0%41/7100.0%4178.9100.0%119.93100.0%
227
Rural Sites, 1620-1660
Bennett Farm (Early Period)
44YO68
Analyzed by:Henry Miller, early 1980s, for Virginia Research Center for Archaeology.
Household:Humphrey Tompkins (1644?-1673). Middling planter.
Faunal Rpt:Colonization and Subsistence Change on the 17th Century Chesapeake Frontier, by Henry M. Miller. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, Lansing. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1984. Appendix I.
Description:On small inlet of Chesapeake Bay near mouth of York River. Faunal remains from five large pits and several smaller features. One large, multi-layered pit was dated circa 1646-1660; other dated to 1670-1700. Excavated by Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, directed by Nick Luccketti, 1977-78.
Excavation Rpt:17th-Century Planters in "New Pocosin": Excavations at Bennett Farm and River Creek, by Nicholas Luccketti. Notes on Virginia 23:26-29.
No. of Bones:1190 (1164 identifiable, 26 unidentifiable). 97.8% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle1079.0%43.6%1600.045.7%--
Swine998.376.3700.020.0--
Caprines00.000.00.00.0--
Fish91877.19282.1966.527.6--
Turtles50.410.90.30.0--
Wild Birds00.000.00.00.0--
Wild Mammals342.954.5223.06.4--
Domestic Birds20.210.92.50.1--
Commensals00.000.00.00.0--
Totals1190100.0%112100.0%3501.3100.0%--
228
Rural Sites, 1620-1660
Kingsmill Tenement
44JC39
Analyzed by:Henry Miller, early 1980s, for Virginia Research Center for Archaeology.
Household:Tenants leasing from Richard Kingsmill of Jamestown. Probably middling class, based on artifacts.
Faunal Rpt:Colonization and Subsistence Change on the 17th Century Chesapeake Frontier. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, Lansing. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1984. Appendix I.
Description:Dated to second quarter of 17th century. Faunal remains from five large trash-filled pits and several smaller features. Excavated by Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, directed by William M. Kelso,1972-74.
Excavation Rpt:Kingsmill Plantation, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia, by William M. Kelso. Academic Press, San Diego. 1984.
Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1974 Season, Interim Report, by William M. Kelso. March 1976.
No. of Bones:2958 (1837 identifiable, 1121 unidentifiable). 62.1% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle2849.6%810.4%3200.050.8%--
Swine2347.92228.62200.034.9--
Caprines421.411.335.00.6--
Fish112137.979.1144.52.3--
Turtles622.11114.3111.81.8--
Wild Birds270.979.120.00.3--
Wild Mammals1073.61722.1577.09.2--
Domestic Birds120.433.97.50.1--
Commensals00.000.00.00.0--
Totals2958100.0%77100.0%6297.3100.0%--
229
Rural Sites, 1660-1700
Rich Neck Plantation
44WB52
Analyzed by:Stephen Atkins, 1994, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Richard Kemp (1640-1653), Thomas Ludwell (1660-1678). Government officials.
Faunal Rpt:The Zooarchaeological Remains from a Rich Neck Plantation Site, by Susan T. Andrews, Stephen C. Atkins, Joanne Bowen, and Jeremiah R. Dandoy. Paper presented at 1997 annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Corpus Christi.
Description:Plantation complex one mile west of Williamsburg. Faunal remains from boundary ditch and clay quarry pit. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by David F. Muraca, 1993-1997.
Excavation Rpt:The Archaeology of Rich Neck Plantation, by Leslie McFaden with David Muraca and Jennifer Jones. Prepared for McCale Development Corporation by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. April 1994.
No. of Bones:4174 (1116 identifiable, 3058 unidentifiable). 26.7% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle48711.7%----145.5053.5%
Swine2044.9----17.226.3
Caprines1052.5----12.274.5
Fish1152.8----1.460.5
Turtles471.1----1.440.5
Wild Birds70.2----0.150.1
Wild Mammals1343.2----23.198.5
Domestic Birds130.3----0.160.1
Commensals20.0----0.100.0
Totals4174100.0%----271.99100.0%
230
Rural Sites, 1660-1700
Jenkin's Neck
44GL320
Analyzed by:Gregory J. Brown, 1994, for William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research.
Household:William Warren II. Probably planter. Original patent to William Warren I (1642->1653), assigned to Christopher Allen and Rice Maddox. Maddox assigned his share to Nathaniel Warren (son of William Warren I?), who passed his share to son William Warren II. Allen assigned his share to daughter Fra. Allen, who married William Warren II.
Faunal Rpt:Faunal Analysis of the Jenkins Neck Site (44GL320), Gloucester County, Virginia, by Gregory J. Brown. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, College of William and Mary. March 1994.
Description:Late seventeenth-century site on north shore of York River. Faunal remains come from large pit features salvaged in early 1990s. Excavated by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, intermittently 1991-1997.
Excavation Rpt:Archaeological Salvage Excavations at Site 44GL320: A Middle Woodland/Early Colonial Site in Gloucester County, Virginia, by David A. Brown and Thane H. Harpole. Prepared for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. June 1997.
Archaeological Investigations at Site 44GL320: A Late Woodland/Early Colonial Site in Gloucester County, Virginia, by Ronald Fuchs. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. 1994.
No. of Bones:1694 (468 identifiable, 1226 unidentifiable). 27.6% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle432.5%1/13.6%450.021.3%13.2619.7%
Swine1669.86/214.3700.033.219.5329.1
Caprines50.335.4105.05.00.540.8
Fish62737.026/148.2422.520.08.3712.5
Turtles00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Wild Birds20.111.87.50.40.070.1
Wild Mammals412.46/112.5381.018.17.0210.4
Domestic Birds20.111.82.50.10.060.1
Commensals20.111.80.00.00.100.2
Totals1694100.0%51/5100.0%2110.5100.0%67.15100.0%
231
Rural Sites, 1660-1700
Clifts Plantation (Phases I and II)
44WN33
Analyzed by:Joanne Bowen, 1977, for Robert E. Lee Memorial Association.
Household:Middling tenants on land owned by wealthy planters Thomas and Nathaniel Pope.
Faunal Rpt:The Analysis of Faunal Remains from Clifts Plantation, by Joanne Bowen. Prepared by American Indian Archaeological Institute. September 1979.
Description:Several cellars, borrow pits, a privy, possible storage pits. Phase I dated by artifacts to ca. 1670-1685; Phase II to ca. 1685-1705. Excavated by Robert E. Lee Memorial Association, directed by Fraser D. Neiman, 1976-1978.
Excavation Rpt:An Archaeological Survey of Stratford Plantation, Westmoreland County, Virginia, by Fraser D. Neiman.
No. of Bones:6332 (654 identifiable, 5678 unidentifiable). 10.3% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle1652.6%410.8%1600.050.7%--
Swine2033.2821.6800.025.3--
Caprines00.000.00.00.0--
Fish177828.11540.5123.53.9--
Turtles40.112.70.30.0--
Wild Birds30.025.47.50.2--
Wild Mammals130.238.1215.06.8--
Domestic Birds130.225.45.00.2--
Commensals50.1--
Totals6332100.0%37100.0%3158.3100.0%--
232
Rural Sites, 1660-1700
Utopia
44JC32
Analyzed by:Henry Miller, early 1980s, for Virginia Research Center for Archaeology.
Household:Middling tenants leasing from Thomas Pettus.
Faunal Rpt:Colonization and Subsistence Change on the 17th Century Chesapeake Frontier. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, Lansing. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1984. Appendix I.
Description:On land owned by Thomas Pettus. Occupied by tenants, based on artifacts. Faunal remains from a cellar under the house and a well. Excavated by Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, directed by William M. Kelso, 1974. Miller (1984) states that assemblage is biased toward medium to large mammals.
Excavation Rpt:Kingsmill Plantation, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia, by William M. Kelso. Academic Press, San Diego. 1984.
Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1972 Season, Interim Report, by William M. Kelso. April 1973.
No. of Bones:1003 (1003 identifiable, 0 unidentifiable). 100.0% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle59959.7%1622.9%6400.068.4%--
Swine23123.02231.42200.023.5--
Caprines444.468.6210.02.2--
Fish262.6710.0178.51.9--
Turtles60.645.74.20.0--
Wild Birds90.922.99.50.1--
Wild Mammals373.7710.0338.83.6--
Domestic Birds80.822.95.00.1--
Commensals424.234.30.00.0--
Totals1003100.0%70100.0%9353.0100.0%--
233
Rural Sites, 1660-1700
Pettus
44JC33
Analyzed by:Henry Miller, early 1980s, for Virginia Research Center for Archaeology.
Household:Colonel Thomas Pettus (1640-1700). Major landowner and member of Governor's Council.
Faunal Rpt:Colonization and Subsistence Change on the 17th Century Chesapeake Frontier. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, Lansing. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1984. Appendix I.
Description:Built in 1640s by Colonel Thomas Pettus, burned around 1700. Faunal remains from a well, a cellar, and several pits. Excavated by Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, directed by William M. Kelso, 1972-73. Miller (1984) states that assemblage is biased toward medium to large mammals.
Excavation Rpt:Kingsmill Plantation, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia, by William M. Kelso. Academic Press, San Diego. 1984.
Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1972 Season, Interim Report, by William M. Kelso. April 1973. Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1973 Season, Interim Report, by William M. Kelso. 1974.
No. of Bones:5420 (5419 identifiable, 1 unidentifiable). 99.9% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle65812.1%138.9%5200.052.4%--
Swine196636.33221.93200.032.2--
Caprines89916.61812.3630.06.3--
Fish10.010.72.00.0--
Turtles70.132.113.00.1--
Wild Birds340.653.429.50.3--
Wild Mammals151427.95437.0431.04.3--
Domestic Birds1132.174.817.50.2--
Commensals2113.9106.80.00.0--
Totals5420100.0%146100.0%9930.0100.0%--
234
Rural Sites, 1660-1700
Bennett Farm (Late Period)
44YO68
Analyzed by:Henry Miller, early 1980s, for Virginia Research Center for Archaeology.
Household:Samuel Tompkins (1673-1702). Low-middling planter.
Faunal Rpt:Colonization and Subsistence Change on the 17th Century Chesapeake Frontier. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, Lansing. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1984. Appendix I.
Description:On small inlet of Chesapeake Bay near mouth of York River. Faunal remains from five large pits and several smaller features. One large, multi-layered pit was dated circa 1646-1660; other dated to 1670-1700. Excavated by Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, directed by Nick Luccketti, 1977-78.
Excavation Rpt:17th-Century Planters in "New Pocosin": Excavations at Bennett Farm and River Creek, by Nicholas Luccketti. Notes on Virginia 23:26-29.
No. of Bones:1689 identifiable; unknown unidentifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle71342.3%1313.4%4950.063.8%--
Swine34020.21919.61750.022.5--
Caprines482.855.2155.02.0--
Fish51630.64243.3559.57.2--
Turtles100.644.183.91.1--
Wild Birds70.422.19.50.1--
Wild Mammals321.966.2238.83.1--
Domestic Birds150.944.114.50.2--
Commensals60.422.10.00.0--
Totals1687100.0%97100.0%0.0100.0%--
235
Rural Sites, 1660-1700
Drummond Site
44JC43
Analyzed by:Henry Miller, early 1980s, for Virginia Research Center for Archaeology.
Household:William and Sarah Drummond (ca. 1650-1710). Major planter and one-time governor of North Carolina.
Faunal Rpt:Colonization and Subsistence Change on the 17th Century Chesapeake Frontier. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, Lansing. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1984. Appendix I.
Description:Major plantation founded by William Drummond circa 1650; tenants probably began to live there circa 1710. Three phases noted: Phase I, circa 1650-1680; Phase II, circa 1680-1710; Phase III, circa 1720-1740. Faunal remains from two cellars, four wells, and several trash pits. Excavated by Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, directed by Alain Outlaw,1977-81.
Excavation Rpt:The 1975 Survey of the Governor's Land Archaeological District, James City County, by Alain Outlaw. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology. September 1975.
No. of Bones:5169 (4977 identifiable, 192 unidentifiable). 96.3% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle137626.6%239.8%9200.067.9%--
Swine71013.72410.32400.017.7--
Caprines1563.093.8315.02.3--
Fish196538.012854.7404.03.0--
Turtles1162.273.027.20.2--
Wild Birds1022.0135.631.50.2--
Wild Mammals981.993.8321.82.4--
Domestic Birds2364.6146.042.00.3--
Commensals390.841.70.00.0--
Totals5169100.0%234100.0%13541.5100.0%--
236
Rural Sites, 1700-1740
Hornsby Site
44JC500
Analyzed by:Gregory J. Brown, 1990, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Richard Brewster (1632-1646); later owners unclear. Major planter.
Faunal Rpt:Faunal Analysis of Site 44JC500, by Gregory J. Brown. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. 1990.
Description:Several features of early eighteenth-century site, including main structure, associated root cellar, trash pit, and miscellaneous test units. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by David F. Muraca, August-October 1989.
Excavation Rpt:Archaeological Excavations at Site 44JC500, by David F. Muraca. Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. 1989.
No. of Bones:2044 (655 identifiable, 1389 unidentifiable). 32.0% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle25012.2%6/119.4%2450.065.8%77.6256.1%
Swine1859.16/119.4650.017.520.7215.0
Caprines412.03/111.1120.03.24.643.4
Fish130.625.66.00.20.130.1
Turtles1065.2411.123.30.62.381.7
Wild Birds10.012.82.00.10.010.0
Wild Mammals351.7719.464.01.71.351.0
Domestic Birds120.612.82.50.10.290.2
Commensals20.112.80.00.00.070.0
Totals2044100.0%33/3100.0%3724.8100.0%138.40100.0%
237
Rural Sites, 1700-1740
Hampton Carousel
44HT39
Analyzed by:Gregory J. Brown, 1990, for William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research
Household:Tenants on land probably owned by planter (?) William Brough (1720->1735).
Faunal Rpt:Faunal Analysis of Site 44HT39, Hampton, Virginia, by Gregory J. Brown. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, College of William and Mary. November 1990.
Description:Five structures, including Str. 17 (early eighteenth century), Str. 13 (early eighteenth century), Str. 1 (late eighteenth/early nineteenth century), Str. 16 (mid to late eighteenth century), and Str. 14 (mid nineteenth century). Only Str. 17 and Str. 13 were included in study. Str. 17 was a 26 x 37 foot building with two cellars, probably destroyed by 1740. Str. 13 was a 20 x 20 foot cellar filled about 1725. Excavated by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, directed by Thomas F. Higgins III, 1989.
Excavation Rpt:The Evolution of a Tidewater Town: Phase III Data Recovery at Sites 44HT38 and 44HT39, City of Hampton, Virginia, by Thomas F. Higgins III, Charles M. Downing, J. Michael Bradshaw, Karl J. Reinhard, Gregory J. Brown, Deborah Davenport, and Irwin Rovner. Prepared for The City of Hampton by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. July 1993.
No. of Bones:3453 (1216 identifiable, 2237 unidentifiable). 35.2% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle36710.6%6/315.5%2550.050.6%159.1354.8%
Swine3439.911/222.41200.023.839.9313.7
Caprines1574.57/113.8260.05.218.036.2
Fish1995.8915.585.51.72.380.8
Turtles10.011.71.00.00.010.0
Wild Birds200.658.621.60.40.630.2
Wild Mammals50.111.7100.02.01.180.4
Domestic Birds1193.4712.121.00.42.160.7
Commensals170.535.20.00.02.240.8
Totals3453100.0%52/6100.0%5039.1100.0%290.56100.0%
238
Rural Sites, 1700-1740
Jordan's Journey, Site 44PG151,
Bland Plantation Period
44PG151
Analyzed by:Joanne Bowen, 1996, for Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Household:Richard Bland I and II (ca. 1680-1740). Planters.
Faunal Rpt:Beef, Venison, and Imported Haddock in Colonial Virginia: A Report on the Analysis of Faunal Remains from Jordan's Journey, by Joanne Bowen. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. May 1996.
Description:Str. II, embellished earthfast dwelling, and large garden on landward side of house. Excavated by James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., directed by Nicholas M. Luccketti and David Hazzard, summer-fall 1987.
Excavation Rpt:Preliminary Report on Archaeological Excavation at Jordan's Point: Sites 44PG151, 44PG300, 44PG302, 44PG303, 44PG315, 44PG333, by Tim Morgan, Nicholas M. Luccketti, and Beverly Straube. Prepared for the Virginia Division of Historic Resources by Christopher Newport University and the Virginia Company Foundation. May 1995.
No. of Bones:5181 (1303 identifiable, 3878 unidentifiable). 25.1% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle1462.8%44.4%1600.041.1%92.8642.0%
Swine62212.08/413.31000.025.751.6923.4
Caprines170.333.3105.02.74.301.9
Fish121723.51921.1133.23.41.910.9
Turtles260.533.313.60.30.920.4
Wild Birds701.41820.071.81.81.670.8
Wild Mammals591.1910.0145.03.73.711.7
Domestic Birds871.77/412.221.50.61.630.7
Commensals531.07/18.90.00.00.360.2
Totals5181100.0%81/9100.0%3890.1100.0%221.08100.0%
239
Clifts Plantation (Phases III and IV)
Rural Sites, 1700-1740
44WN33
Analyzed by:Joanne Bowen, 1977, for Robert E. Lee Memorial Association.
Household:Middling tenants on land owned by wealthy planter Thomas Pope.
Faunal Rpt:The Analysis of Faunal Remains from Clifts Plantation, by Joanne Bowen. Prepared by American Indian Archaeological Institute. September 1979.
Description:Several cellars, borrow pits, a privy, possible storage pits. Phase III dated by artifacts to ca. 1705-1720; Phase IV to ca. 1720-1730. Excavated by Robert E. Lee Memorial Association, directed by Fraser D. Neiman, 1976-1978.
Excavation Rpt:An Archaeological Survey of Stratford Plantation, Westmoreland County, Virginia, by Fraser D. Neiman.
No. of Bones:14,559 (2156 identifiable, 12,403 unidentifiable). 14.8% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle9146.3%1720.0%6800.063.0%--
Swine7915.42529.42500.023.2--
Caprines370.344.7140.01.3--
Fish4953.4910.6155.51.4--
Turtles10.011.20.30.0--
Wild Birds260.21011.826.60.2--
Wild Mammals1190.8910.6340.83.2--
Domestic Birds360.244.710.00.1--
Commensals250.222.40.00.0--
Totals14559100.0%85100.0%10787.2100.0%--
240
Rural Sites, 1750-1775
Rich Neck Slave Quarter
44WB52
Analyzed by:Stephen Atkins, 1995, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Slaves belonging to Philip Ludwell III (1716-1767).
Faunal Rpt:The Zooarchaeological Remains from a Rich Neck Plantation Site, by Susan T. Andrews, Stephen C. Atkins, Joanne Bowen, and Jeremiah R. Dandoy. Paper presented at 1997 annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Corpus Christi.
Description:Slave quarter on plantation complex, consisting of one duplex containing several root cellars on each side of the dwelling. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Maria Franklin, 1994.
Excavation Rpt:Rich Neck Slave Quarter Report, by Maria Franklin. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Department of Archaeological Research. 1997.
"Out of Site, Out of Mind": The Archaeology of an Early Black Virginian Household, by Maria Franklin. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1997.
No. of Bones:24,959 (3573 identifiable, 21,386 unidentifiable). 14.3% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle350.1%----4.9614.8%
Swine1840.7----5.9917.8
Caprines290.1----1.213.6
Fish2068682.9----4.5513.6
Turtles490.2----0.772.3
Wild Birds60.0----0.180.5
Wild Mammals1010.4----1.093.2
Domestic Birds180.1----0.180.5
Commensals500.2----0.070.2
Totals24959100.0%----33.58100.0%
241
Rural Sites, 1750-1775
Curles Neck
44HE388
Analyzed by:Susan Trevarthen [Andrews], 1993, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and Virginia Commonwealth University.
Household:Richard Randolph II (died 1786). Wealthy planter.
Faunal Rpt:Who Went to Market?: An Urban and Rural Late Eighteenth-Century Perspective Based on Faunal Assemblages from Curles Neck Plantation and the Everard Site, by Susan Trevarthen. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary. 1993.
Description:Structure excavated in 1988, from which the analyzed bones were taken, is believed to have been constructed around 1700 and to have been converted into a kitchen between 1720 and 1740. Bones were taken from two deposits, a well and what was either an ice house or a meat house. Both were filled in the third to fourth quarter of the eighteenth century. Excavated by Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, directed by Dan Mouer, 1984-1990s.
Excavation Rpt:An Ancient Seat Called "Curles," The Archaeology of a James River Plantation: 1984-1989, by Dan Mouer. Paper presented at 1989 meeting of Society for Historical Archaeology, Tucson.
No. of Bones:2244 (925 identifiable, 1319 unidentifiable). 41.2% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle33014.7%9/117.9%3650.065.5%134.4254.1%
Swine39817.79/321.41050.018.836.2114.6
Caprines462.05/110.7190.03.47.543.0
Fish612.735.4107.01.91.880.8
Turtles100.435.410.30.20.950.4
Wild Birds160.7814.335.60.60.500.2
Wild Mammals261.247.1117.02.16.662.7
Domestic Birds80.435.411.00.20.120.0
Commensals30.123.60.00.00.070.0
Totals2244100.0%51/5100.0%5575.0100.0%248.56100.0%
242
Rural Sites, 1750-1775
Mount Vernon
44FX762
Analyzed by:Stephen Atkins and Gregory Brown, 1995, for Mount Vernon Ladies Association.
Household:George Washington, wife Martha Washington, children Martha Parke Custis and John Parke Custis; possibly African American slaves working in mansion and a small number living above the kitchen.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description:Kitchen midden associated with 18th-century plantation house owned by George Washington. Midden dates circa 1760-1775. Excavated by Mount Vernon Ladies Association, directed by Dennis J. Pogue, 1990-1994.
Excavation Rpt:None.
No. of Bones:33,691 (5778 identifiable, 27,913 unidentifiable). 17.2% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle6592.0%----175.5133.8%
Swine14474.3----92.2617.8
Caprines5491.6----44.348.5
Fish885026.3----10.522.0
Turtles1220.4----2.990.6
Wild Birds530.2----1.120.2
Wild Mammals900.3----10.482.0
Domestic Birds2540.8----1.730.3
Commensals160.0----1.280.2
Totals33691100.0%----518.65100.0%
243
Rural Sites, 1750-1775
Kingsmill Plantation
44JC37
Analyzed by:Henry Miller, early 1980s, for Virginia Research Center for Archaeology.
Household:Colonel Lewis Burwell IV (1744-1775); Lewis Burwell V (1775-1781). Wealthy planters.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description:Mansion complex 61 x 40 feet, office, kitchen, storehouse, dairy, garden, well. Excavated by Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, directed by William M. Kelso, 1975.
Excavation Rpt:Kingsmill Plantation, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia, by William M. Kelso. Academic Press, San Diego. 1984.
Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1975 Season, Interim Report, by William M. Kelso, with contributions by Fraser D. Neiman, A. Camille Wells, and Merry Abbitt Outlaw. 1976.
No. of Bones:1447 (1447 identifiable, 0 unidentifiable). 100.0% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle70248.5%1516.0%6000.064.8%--
Swine30621.11819.11800.019.5--
Caprines18312.61718.1595.06.4--
Fish1107.699.6135.51.5--
Turtles191.344.313.30.1--
Wild Birds241.777.434.50.4--
Wild Mammals211.51212.8666.07.2--
Domestic Birds372.644.310.00.1--
Commensals372.688.50.00.0--
Totals1447100.0%94100.0%9254.3100.0%--
244
Rural Sites, 1775-1800
Ferry Farm
44VB138
Analyzed by:Stephen Atkins, Gwenyth Duncan, and Jeremiah Dandoy, 1996, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Anthony Walke (1728-1776); William Walke (1776-). Planters.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description:17 x 23 foot cellar. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Robert Hunter, 1987.
Excavation Rpt:Analysis of Ceramics Recovered from Ferry Farm, Site 44VB138, Virginia Beach, Virginia, by Susan E. Pharr. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg. June 1992.
No. of Bones:7062 (2191 identifiable, 4871 unidentifiable). 31.0% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle3204.5%7/17.1%2850.056.1%98.2447.0%
Swine6749.59/714.31250.024.638.4418.4
Caprines851.23/24.5135.02.77.783.7
Fish100214.23329.5252.85.02.471.2
Turtles2333.354.543.00.82.751.3
Wild Birds390.64/14.523.00.51.250.6
Wild Mammals991.412/111.683.01.62.511.2
Domestic Birds1121.65/69.818.50.41.200.6
Commensals360.587.10.00.00.430.2
Totals7062100.0%94/18100.0%5082.3100.0%209.09100.0%
245
Rural Sites, 1775-1800
Kingsmill Slave Quarter
44JC39
Analyzed by:Larry McKee, early 1980s, for Virginia Research Center for Archaeology; Stephen Atkins, Gwenyth Duncan, and Jeremiah Dandoy, 1995, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:African American slaves.
Faunal Rpt:Delineating Ethnicity from the Garbage of Early Virginians: Faunal Remains from the Kingsmill Plantation Slave Quarter, by Larry W. McKee. American Archaeology 6(1):31-39. 1987.
The Kingsmill Quarter: A Discussion of Cultural Patterns and Criteria in the Zooarchaeological Record, by Rebecca J. Ferrell. Research paper on file, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary. April 1996.
Description:18th-century slave quarter, kitchen, outbuilding, and associated trash pit. Excavated by Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, directed by William M. Kelso, 1974.
Excavation Rpt:Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1974 Season, Interim Report, by William M. Kelso. March 1976.
No. of Bones:14324 (5611 identifiable, 8713 unidentifiable). 39.2% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle240916.8%34/222.1%13700.072.2%561.7855.4%
Swine11748.228/721.53150.016.6109.9210.8
Caprines9956.926/317.8955.05.098.409.7
Fish1681.253.1134.00.72.870.3
Turtles2431.774.336.30.24.260.4
Wild Birds270.231.822.50.10.840.1
Wild Mammals2111.53119.0552.02.913.021.3
Domestic Birds430.353.112.50.10.950.1
Commensals430.35/24.30.00.01.340.1
Totals14324100.0%149/15100.0%18963.5100.0%1014.33100.0%
246
Rural Sites, Mid- to Late 18th Century
Gloucester (VIMS III)
44GL357, 44GL177
Analyzed by:Gregory J. Brown, 1995, for William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research.
Household:GL 357: Captain Thomas Whiting Sr and Thomas Whiting Jr (ca. 1751-ca. 1796). Captain Whiting was a merchant and mariner. GL177: Unknown until Edward P. Dobson acquired it in 1844, possibly from the Thruston family.
Faunal Rpt:Faunal Analysis of Sites 44GL357 and 44GL177, Gloucester County, Virginia, by Gregory J. Brown. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, College of William and Mary. January 1995.
Description:HRSD Sewer Connection-VIMS Campus Project. Most of bones were from Feature 53 on 44GL357, a mid to late eighteenth-century cellar. Feature 68 on 44GL177 is an early nineteenth-century warehouse cellar. Excavated by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, directed by Thomas F. Higgins III, March-April 1993.
Excavation Rpt:Reclaiming a Tidewater Town: Archaeological Survey, Evaluation, and Data Recovery at Sites on the Campus of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia, by Kenneth E. Stuck, Thomas F. Higgins III, Charles M. Downing, Don W. Linebaugh, Martha McCartney, Gregory J. Brown, and Susannah Dean. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. August 1996.
No. of Bones:7587 (1392 identifiable, 6195 unidentifiable). 18.3% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle5657.4%11/122.6%4450.066.8%182.6649.1%
Swine5377.111/224.51200.018.034.499.3
Caprines1261.76/113.2225.03.413.623.7
Fish550.747.5150.52.31.070.3
Turtles60.123.83.00.00.160.0
Wild Birds120.235.710.00.20.280.1
Wild Mammals80.135.7202.03.02.680.7
Domestic Birds330.45/111.320.50.30.450.1
Commensals580.823.80.00.03.000.8
Totals7587100.0%48/5100.0%6661.0100.0%372.11100.0%
247
Rural Sites, Mid- to Late 18th Century
Boothe Site
44IW111
Analyzed by:Stephen Atkins, Gwenyth Duncan, and Jeremiah Dandoy, 1995, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Edward Goodrich (1746-1759); Lewis Hatton and Elizabeth Goodrich Hatton (1759-ca. 1777); Joseph Cutchin (1777-1778); Matthew Cutchin (1778-1792). All were apparently planters. Goodrich was a fairly well-off planter with 22 slaves, Hatton was once description as a "captain" (probably of the militia), J. Cutchin was member of Isle of Wight Committee of Safety in 1775.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description: Mid-18th century large 16 by 30 foot post structure with two small brick outbuildings. Excavated by Kicotan Chapter of the Archaeological Society of Virginia, 1989-1992.
Excavation Rpt:None.
No. of Bones:7784 (3318 identifiable, 4466 unidentifiable). 42.6% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle105913.6%20/116.5%8050.065.1%278.4857.0%
Swine151819.529/224.43000.024.387.8018.0
Caprines1682.213/413.4515.04.216.213.3
Fish5216.71713.4200.91.66.411.3
Turtles290.432.410.30.10.420.1
Wild Birds70.132.416.00.10.240.0
Wild Mammals460.6107.9138.01.12.120.4
Domestic Birds1211.610/612.631.00.31.060.2
Commensals60.132.40.00.00.090.0
Totals7784100.0%114/13100.0%12370.2100.0%488.36100.0%
248
Rural Sites, Mid- to Late 18th Century
Gloucester Point
44GL197
Analyzed by:Stephen Atkins, Gwenyth Duncan, and Jeremiah Dandoy, 1996, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Merchant James Terry owned land circa 1707-1734; no record of later owners.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description:Building XIV, a 30 x 20 foot foundation dated to circa 1760. Excavated by Virginia Department of Historic Resources, directed by David K. Hazzard, 1982.
Excavation Rpt:Archaeological Survey and Data Recovery at the College of William and Mary's Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia, by David K. Hazzard and Martha W. McCartney. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. 1993.
No. of Bones:13,356 (3057 identifiable, 10299 unidentifiable). 22.9% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle9577.2%13/415.6%5400.063.5%328.4350.8%
Swine10768.117/419.31900.022.373.3211.3
Caprines2181.610/513.8425.05.018.902.9
Fish11288.42422.0301.53.56.231.0
Turtles550.432.86.60.11.600.2
Wild Birds380.34/25.545.00.51.200.2
Wild Mammals80.100.00.00.00.100.0
Domestic Birds870.79/210.124.50.31.710.3
Commensals1260.95/48.30.00.011.301.7
Totals13356100.0%88/21100.0%8502.6100.0%646.08100.0%
249
Rural Sites, Mid- to Late 18th Century
Hopewell (Route 10 Bridge)
44PG381
Analyzed by:Gregory J. Brown and Susan Andrews, 1996, for William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research.
Household:Theodorick Bland Sr (early 1760s-1782); Theodorick Bland Jr and Martha Bland (1785-1798). Planters.
Faunal Rpt:Faunal Analysis of 44PG381, Hopewell, Virginia, by Gregory J. Brown and Susan Andrews. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, College of William and Mary. May 1996.
Description:Bones were from Feature 104, a mid to late eighteenth-century trash-filled ravine. Full analysis was undertaken of Section 7, the northwestern quadrant of the feature, while all the other bones were sorted and analyzed for aging information. Excavated by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, directed by Kenneth Stuck, July-December 1995.
Excavation Rpt:Five Thousand Years on the Appomattox: Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 44PG381 Associated with the Route 10 Bridge Widening, Prince George County, Virginia, by Kenneth E. Stuck, Dennis B. Blanton, Charles M. Downing, Veronica L. Deitrick, Gregory J. Brown, Susan T. Andrews, and Joanne Bowen. Prepared for Virginia Department of Transportation by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. December 1996.
No. of Bones:Over 10,000 total; 3934 fully analyzed (1695 identifiable, 2239 unidentifiable). 43.1 % identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle3148.0%6/313.4%2550.050.2%110.3841.3%
Swine78920.118/635.82100.041.361.3022.9
Caprines561.446.0140.02.88.853.3
Fish2606.634.5107.02.14.101.5
Turtles1654.269.022.30.41.990.7
Wild Birds180.57/416.434.50.70.570.2
Wild Mammals60.23/16.0105.02.10.810.3
Domestic Birds190.53/16.08.50.20.290.1
Commensals00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Totals3934100.0%52/15100.0%5081.3100.0%267.15100.0%
250
Rural Sites, Late 18th to Early 19th C.
Settlers Landing Road
44HT68
Analyzed by:Gregory J. Brown, 1987, for Virginia Department of Transportation.
Household:Unknown.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description:Late eighteenth-century site consisting of one major dwelling. Fish bones identified by Elizabeth J. Reitz. Excavated by Virginia Department of Transportation, directed by Lyle Browning, mid-1980s.
Excavation Rpt:None.
No. of Bones:2148 (1058 identifiable, 1090 unidentifiable). 49.3% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle26812.5%5/210.9%2100.054.6%88.1648.1%
Swine38317.88/215.6900.023.437.3320.4
Caprines432.046.3140.03.65.102.8
Fish1728.01523.4152.54.03.171.7
Turtles231.111.61.00.00.790.4
Wild Birds422.0914.118.50.51.931.1
Wild Mammals20.123.1101.02.60.230.1
Domestic Birds512.4914.133.00.92.511.4
Commensals200.946.30.00.01.090.6
Totals2148100.0%60/4100.0%3846.2100.0%183.26100.0%
251
Rural Sites, Late 18th to Early 19th C.
Thomas Brown Site
44FX1965
Analyzed by:Joanne Bowen, Gregory J. Brown, and Susan Andrews, 1996, for William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research.
Household:James Hardage Lane and Mary Lane (1778-1810). Planter.
Faunal Rpt:Faunal Analysis of 44FX1965, Fairfax County, Virginia, by Joanne Bowen, Gregory J. Brown, and Susan Andrews. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, College of William and Mary. October 1996.
Description:Mid to late eighteenth-century farmstead consisting of a kitchen, several trash pits, root cellars, and midden deposits. The east side of the site is the location of possible slave quarters. Earlier analysis done for a prior investigation of the site is in Faunal Analysis of Site 44FX1965, by Gregory J. Brown, William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research (November 1993). Excavated by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, directed by Thomas F. Higgins III and Kenneth Stuck, May-July 1996.
Excavation Rpt:A Post-Revolutionary Farmstead in Northern Virginia: Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 44FX1965 Associated with the Proposed Interstate 66 Widening and Route 28 Interchange Project, Fairfax and Prince William Counties, Virginia, by Thomas F. Higgins III, Charles M. Downing, Kenneth E. Stuck, Deborah L. Davenport, Joanne Bowen, Gregory J. Brown, and Susan T. Andrews. Prepared for Dewberry & Davis by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. February 1997.
No. of Bones:2380 (823 identifiable, 1557 unidentifiable). 34.6% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle1355.7%4/17.4%1650.052.0%40.5430.1%
Swine33414.06/313.2750.023.622.6716.8
Caprines331.44/17.4155.04.95.003.7
Fish923.9913.223.50.70.860.6
Turtles70.334.43.90.10.260.2
Wild Birds331.41014.736.51.21.371.0
Wild Mammals231.068.8113.03.60.930.7
Domestic Birds863.61014.735.51.11.981.5
Commensals251.15/18.80.00.00.300.2
Totals2380100.0%60/8100.0%3173.4100.0%134.86100.0%
252
Rural Sites, Early 19th Century
Massie Farm
44JC240
Analyzed by:Gregory J. Brown, 1990, for William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research.
Household:Allen Marston (1805-1832); John Marston (1832-1866). High-status planters owning 430 acres of land.
Faunal Rpt:Faunal Analysis of Site 44JC240, Lightfoot, Virginia, by Gregory J. Brown. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, College of William and Mary. December 1990.
Description:Early nineteenth-century plantation complex, including slave quarter, two possible kitchen/laundries, enclosed livestock area, several outbuildings with cellars (including remains of an icehouse and dairy). Excavated by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, directed by Joe B. Jones, October 1990.
Excavation Rpt:Phase III Data Recovery at Site 44JC240, Massie Farm Property, James City County, Virginia, by Joe B. Jones and Charles M. Downing. Prepared for Crown American Corporation by William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. WMCAR Technical Report Series No. 4. June 1991.
No. of Bones:3384 (950 identifiable, 2434 unidentifiable). 28.1% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle1223.6%3/16.9%1250.056.2%23.4835.4%
Swine34710.35/110.3550.024.715.0622.7
Caprines290.923.470.03.11.942.9
Fish2126.31525.9177.58.03.034.6
Turtles100.335.213.30.60.520.8
Wild Birds300.9813.822.01.00.731.1
Wild Mammals1053.11017.2125.05.61.642.5
Domestic Birds411.246.910.00.40.510.8
Commensals110.335.20.00.00.130.2
Totals3384100.0%56/2100.0%2225.0100.0%66.40100.0%
253
Rural Sites, Early 19th Century
Hewick Plantation
44MX28
Analyzed by:Elaine S. Davis, 1995, for College of William and Mary.
Household:William and Elizabeth Robinson Steptoe (1782-1804); Elizabeth Robinson Steptoe (1804-1832). Planters.
Faunal Rpt:A Faunal Analysis of Site 44MX28, Hewick Plantation, Middlesex County, Virginia, by Elaine S. Davis. Senior B.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary. May 1995.
Description:Analysis of Layer 2 of early nineteenth-century cellar fill on site. Layer dates to the refurbishment of the house circa 1811. Excavated by the College of William and Mary, directed by Theodore Reinhart, 1989-1990s.
Excavation Rpt:Archaeology of a Female Landowner 1768-1832, by Marie Blake. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary. 1994.
No. of Bones:2731 (786 identifiable, 1945 unidentifiable). 28.8% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle1033.8%6/110.8%2450.065.8%46.6351.9%
Swine2659.75/413.8700.018.811.3812.7
Caprines361.32/14.685.02.33.293.7
Fish89032.62233.8320.08.64.495.0
Turtles391.469.217.10.50.871.0
Wild Birds100.457.713.50.40.240.3
Wild Mammals30.123.1115.03.10.270.3
Domestic Birds562.15/210.814.50.40.430.5
Commensals110.434.60.00.00.200.2
Totals2731100.0%57/8100.0%3722.1100.0%89.89100.0%
254
Frontier Sites, 1750s
Fort Chiswell
44WY19
Analyzed by:Jeffrey Watts-Roy, 1995, for Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Household:Alexander Sayers, Scots-Irish immigrant planter (ca. 1754-1758). Middling, captain in local militia.
Faunal Rpt:The Frontier, Food Remains, and Archaeological Meaning, by Jeffrey Watts-Roy. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary. 1995.
Description:Site is in Wythe County, west of Blue Ridge. Analysis of bones from occupation of Alexander Sayers, Scots-Irish immigrant, in 1750s. Excavated by Virginia Department of Historic Resources, 1970s.
Excavation Rpt:Excavations at Fort Chiswell: An Archaeological Perspective of Virginia's Western Frontier, by Thomas C. Funk, with contributions by Michael A. Hoffman, Ann Marie Holup, John Reuwer, and Candace M.P. Smith. University of Virginia Laboratory of Archaeology. June 1976.
No. of Bones:5144 (1310 identifiable, 3434 unidentifiable). 25.5% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle3987.7%4/18.8%1650.038.9%102.4828.4%
Swine1222.43/17.0350.08.211.923.3
Caprines400.823.570.01.66.751.9
Fish30.111.82.00.00.100.0
Turtles20.023.510.30.20.090.0
Wild Birds1022.0712.345.51.14.111.1
Wild Mammals5039.825/450.92095.049.386.5224.0
Domestic Birds40.123.55.00.10.100.0
Commensals00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Totals5144100.0%51/6100.0%4245.8100.0%360.75100.0%
255
Williamsburg Sites, 1700-1740
Public Hospital
Block 4, Area C
Analyzed by:Joanne Bowen, 1984, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Francis Nicholson (1699-1706). Governor.
Faunal Rpt:Faunal Analysis of the Jones and Nicholson Cellar, the Public Hospital Site, by Stanley J. Olsen.
Description:Wood-lined pit associated with Nicholson cellar (ca. 1675-1725). Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Ivor Noël Hume, 1973.
Excavation Rpt:None.
No. of Bones:697 (290 identifiable, 407 unidentifiable). 41.6% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle12217.5%720.0%2800.073.4%--
Swine7210.3720.0700.018.3--
Caprines223.2514.3175.04.6--
Fish426.038.67.80.2--
Turtles10.112.93.00.1--
Wild Birds40.625.77.50.2--
Wild Mammals20.325.7101.02.6--
Domestic Birds324.6617.118.50.5--
Commensals00.000.00.00.0--
Totals697100.0%35100.0%3814.8100.0%--
256
Williamsburg Sites, 1700-1740
Firehouse
Block 15, Area C
Analyzed by:Joanne Bowen, 1984, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Probably Benjamin Hanson (1710-1754). Butcher and glazier.
Faunal Rpt:Salvage Excavations at the Old Firehouse Site, Block 15, Area C, by Patricia Samford with contributions by Joanne Bowen. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. June 1990.
Description:Features, including possible privy pit, found during construction of buildings on Merchant Square and salvaged. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Patricia M. Samford, April 1983.
Excavation Rpt:Salvage Excavations at the Old Firehouse Site, Block 15, Area C, by Patricia Samford with contributions by Joanne Bowen. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. June 1990.
No. of Bones:4486 (1929 identifiable, 2657 unidentifiable). 42.1% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle52311.4%1718.3%6800.071.6%--
Swine3768.288.6800.08.4--
Caprines88019.24649.51610.017.0--
Fish611.355.4114.51.2--
Turtles20.011.13.00.0--
Wild Birds90.244.321.50.2--
Wild Mammals30.122.2115.01.2--
Domestic Birds90.277.524.50.3--
Commensals20.011.10.00.0--
Totals4586100.0%93100.0%9492.5100.0%--
257
Williamsburg Sites, 1700-1740
Peyton Randolph (Planting Beds)
Block 28, Area G
Analyzed by:Joanne Bowen, 1984-1986, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Sir John Randolph (1724-1737). Wealthy planter. Had plantation and land adjoining town.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description:Four large planting beds, ranging in size from 8 x 20 feet to 12 x 32 feet, lined with a variety of material, including oyster shell, wine bottle glass, and animal bone. The beds appear to have been in use between 1718 and circa 1740. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Andrew Edwards, 1982-1985.
Excavation Rpt:A View from the Top: Archaeological Investigations of Peyton Randolph's Urban Plantation, by Andrew C. Edwards, Linda K. Derry, and Roy A. Jackson. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. February 1988.
No. of Bones:1845 (1260 identifiable; 585 unidentifiable). 68.3% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle69037.4%------
Swine40822.1------
Caprines261.4------
Fish70.4------
Turtles00.0------
Wild Birds00.0------
Wild Mammals00.0------
Domestic Birds20.1------
Commensals00.0------
Totals1845100.0%------
258
Williamsburg Sites, 1700-1740
Grissell Hay (Blair Root Cellar)
Block 29, Area C
Analyzed by:Stephen Atkins, 1995, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Dr. Archibald Blair (1716-1733); John Blair (1733-1740s). A. Blair was a immigrant from Scotland, a physician, tradesman, apothecary, and planter. Son John Blair was member of gentry. A. Blair's brother Reverend James Blair was Commissary of the Bishop of London and rector of Bruton Parish Church.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description:Root cellar, 5 x 5 feet, under kitchen. Bottle seal reading "John Blair 1731" was found in the fill. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Meredith M. Poole, 1992.
Excavation Rpt:None.
No. of Bones:1547 (527 identifiable, 1020 unidentifiable). 34.1% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle644.1%2/16.3%850.056.6%13.6628.3%
Swine785.036.3300.020.06.5513.6
Caprines583.748.3140.09.37.5815.7
Fish1056.8714.6131.58.70.400.8
Turtles80.512.11.00.10.120.2
Wild Birds301.95/112.532.02.10.681.4
Wild Mammals10.112.10.00.00.010.0
Domestic Birds1036.75/520.817.51.20.962.0
Commensals120.84/110.40.00.00.140.3
Totals1547100.0%40/8100.0%1503.0100.0%48.27100.0%
259
Williamsburg Sites, 1700-1740
Brush-Everard (John Brush Ravine)
Block 29, Area F
Analyzed by:Stephen Atkins, Susan T. Andrews, and Elise Manning-Sterling, 1990-1992, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:John Brush (1717-1727). Gunsmith. Born in England, brought to Virginia by Governor Spotswood.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description:Ravine filled in first quarter of 18th century with household refuse of gunsmith John Brush. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Patricia M. Samford, 1987-1989.
Excavation Rpt:Archaeological Investigations at the Brush-Everard Site, by Patricia M. Samford. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. October 1997.
No. of Bones:1555 (420 identifiable; 1135 unidentifiable). 27.0% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle18712.0%5/325.8%2150.062.7%61.7055.4%
Swine1348.6722.6700.020.416.7015.0
Caprines291.9412.9140.04.15.224.7
Fish30.213.218.00.50.200.2
Turtles60.413.23.00.10.490.4
Wild Birds10.113.22.00.10.020.0
Wild Mammals40.326.51.00.00.180.2
Domestic Birds312.02/212.97.00.20.460.4
Commensals80.513.20.00.00.390.4
Totals1555100.0%26/5100.0%3428.0100.0%111.28100.0%
260
Williamsburg Sites, 1700-1740
Brush-Everard (John Brush Privy)
Block 29, Area G
Analyzed by:Stephen C. Atkins, 1990, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:John Brush (1717-1727). Gunsmith. Born in England, brought to Virginia by Governor Spotswood.
Faunal Rpt:Archaeological Investigations at the Brush-Everard Site, by Patricia M. Samford. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. October 1997.
Description:Privy containing household refuse of gunsmith John Brush. Composed of two levels of fill (Macro-Features 002 and 020). Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Patricia M. Samford, 1987-1989.
Excavation Rpt:Archaeological Investigations at the Brush-Everard Site, by Patricia M. Samford. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. October 1997.
No. of Bones:2337 (863 identifiable, 1474 unidentifiable). 36.9% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle31213.4%8/117.0%3250.064.7%155.2969.6%
Swine35215.18/320.8950.018.925.8211.6
Caprines251.13/17.5120.02.43.651.6
Fish401.7611.3156.53.10.410.2
Turtles10.011.93.00.10.110.0
Wild Birds40.223.89.50.20.150.1
Wild Mammals60.335.7103.02.00.710.3
Domestic Birds381.67/318.924.00.50.710.3
Commensals612.62/15.70.00.01.390.6
Totals2337100.0%44/9100.0%5025.0100.0%223.06100.0%
261
Williamsburg Sites, 1735-1757
Shields Tavern (Late Tavern)
Block 9, Area L
Analyzed by:Roni H. Polk, 1989, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:James and Anne Shields (1745-1751). Middling tavernkeepers. Owned plantations at Skimino and Mill Swamp.
Faunal Rpt:Archaeological Investigations of the Shields Tavern Site, Williamsburg, Virginia, by Gregory J. Brown, Thomas F. Higgins III, David F. Muraca, S. Kathleen Pepper, and Roni H. Polk. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. April 1990.
Description:Faunal remains came from several sheet refuse layers and a number of features, including an outbuilding, walkway, and brick paving. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Thomas F. Higgins III and David F. Muraca, August 1985-July 1986.
Excavation Rpt:Archaeological Investigations of the Shields Tavern Site, Williamsburg, Virginia, by Gregory J. Brown, Thomas F. Higgins III, David F. Muraca, S. Kathleen Pepper, and Roni H. Polk. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. April 1990.
No. of Bones:677 (677 identifiable, 0 unidentifiable). 100.0% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle17125.3%5/17.9%2050.047.4%11.7349.2%
Swine17726.18/213.2900.020.86.8928.9
Caprines12418.310/114.5365.08.44.7620.0
Fish416.11519.7335.57.70.000.0
Turtles00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Wild Birds213.11215.839.80.90.000.0
Wild Mammals111.633.9202.04.70.080.3
Domestic Birds446.511/217.136.50.80.140.6
Commensals81.233.90.00.00.000.0
Totals677100.0%70/6100.0%4329.1100.0%23.84100.0%
262
Williamsburg Sites, 1735-1757
Brush-Everard (Gilmer Trash Pit)
Block 29, Area G
Analyzed by:Stephen Atkins and Joanne Bowen, 1992, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:George Gilmer (1735-1757). Immigrant from Scotland, an apothecary. Brother-in-law Thomas Walker had large estate.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description:Trash pit filled by apothecary George Gilmer in second quarter of 18th century. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Patricia M. Samford, 1987-1989.
Excavation Rpt:Archaeological Investigations at the Brush-Everard Site, by Patricia M. Samford. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. October 1997.
No. of Bones:1818 (756 identifiable, 1062 unidentifiable). 41.6% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle40722.4%11/325.0%4550.061.6%163.9961.5%
Swine20411.21832.11800.024.435.1213.2
Caprines553.0916.1315.04.39.643.6
Fish211.211.8100.01.40.530.2
Turtles00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Wild Birds140.858.917.00.20.420.2
Wild Mammals60.323.6200.02.72.911.1
Domestic Birds170.923.65.00.10.350.1
Commensals170.935.40.00.00.670.3
Totals1818100.0%53/3100.0%7388.5100.0%266.77100.0%
263
Williamsburg Sites, 1750-1775
Custis Site (Pre-1780)
Block 4, Area B
Analyzed by:Stephen C. Atkins, Gwenyth A. Duncan, and Jeremiah R. Dandoy, 1996, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
.Household:John Custis (died 1749); Daniel Parke Custis (1749-1757); slave caretakers (1757); lawyer Bartholomew Dandridge (1760); upholsterer Joseph Kidd (1770); coach builder and brass worker P. Hardy (1772); Dr. McClurg (1778). J. Custis was wealthy planter, owning land in Jamestown, 13,000-acre plantation in King William County, 1000-acre Bridge Quarter and Ship Landing plantations in York County.
Faunal Rpt:Vertebrate Remains from the John Custis Well, by Stanley J. Olsen.
Description:Small part of 49 x 23 foot main dwelling, 28.5 x 24 foot kitchen, trash pit, 10 x 10 foot dairy, two wells. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Ivor Noël Hume, March-November 1964 and May-July 1968.
Excavation Rpt:The Archaeological Evidence Uncovered on the Custis Site, by Ivor Noël Hume. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. 1968?.
No. of Bones:3091 (1225 identifiable, 4866 unidentifiable). 39.6 % identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle47015.2%11/521.9%4650.062.4%174.8249.5%
Swine40313.012/320.51350.018.143.4712.3
Caprines993.27/111.0260.03.514.224.0
Fish842.722.7101.01.42.590.7
Turtles60.211.40.30.00.190.1
Wild Birds230.72/14.122.50.30.910.3
Wild Mammals190.668.2225.03.03.170.9
Domestic Birds461.53/49.611.50.20.800.2
Commensals30.122.70.00.00.530.1
Totals3091100.0%56/17100.0%7456.5100.0%353.17100.0%
264
Williamsburg Sites, 1750-1775
Geddy Kitchen (Pre-1762)
Block 19, Area B
Analyzed by:Stephen C. Atkins, Gwenyth A. Duncan, and Jeremiah R. Dandoy, 1996, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:James Geddy I (1738-1744); David and William Geddy (1744-ca. 1760); James Geddy II (ca. 1760-1777). J. Geddy I was a gunsmith and brass founder, sons David and William were smiths, son J. Geddy II was a silversmith.
Faunal Rpt:Animal Remains from the James Geddy House Site, by Stanley J. Olsen.
Description: 12 x 16 foot kitchen (Str. E1) expanded with addition (Str. E2). Rebuilt circa 1770 as Str. F. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Ivor Noël Hume and R. Neil Frank, 1966-1967.
Excavation Rpt:James Geddy and Sons, Colonial Craftsmen, by Ivor Noël Hume. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 5. 1970.
The James Geddy Site, Block 19, Area B, Colonial Lot 161: Report on 1966 and 1967 Archaeological Excavations, by R. Neil Frank, Jr. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. December 1969.
No. of Bones:2040 (957 identifiable, 1083 unidentifiable). 46.9% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle48823.9%10/630.8%4300.066.7%161.5859.6%
Swine32816.115/232.71600.024.839.7414.7
Caprines964.7815.4280.04.313.785.1
Fish90.435.8143.02.20.830.3
Turtles00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Wild Birds30.111.97.50.10.150.1
Wild Mammals10.011.9100.01.60.630.2
Domestic Birds90.435.87.50.10.280.1
Commensals00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Totals2040100.0%44/8100.0%6447.0100.0%271.11100.0%
265
Williamsburg Sites, 1750-1775
Anthony Hay (Pre-1770)
Block 28, Area D
Analyzed by:Stephen C. Atkins, Gwenyth A. Duncan, and Jeremiah R. Dandoy, 1996, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Anthony Hay (1756-1767); Benjamin Bucktrout (1769-1771); Edmund Dickinson (1771-1776). All were cabinetmakers. A. Hay was once owner of the Raleigh Tavern as well.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description:Early 18th-century dwelling; shop probably built 1745-1756, with addition added in 1760s; kitchen built by 1780s. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Ivor Noël Hume, 1960.
Excavation Rpt:Williamsburg Cabinetmakers: The Archaeological Evidence, by Ivor Noël Hume. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 6. 1971.
The Anthony Hay Site, Block 28, Area D, Colonial Lots 263 and 264: Report on Archaeological Excavations of 1959-1960, by Ivor Noël Hume. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. April 1961.
No. of Bones:2052 (814 identifiable, 1238 unidentifiable). 39.7% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle33516.3%11/420.5%4600.052.9%197.4149.0%
Swine26913.121/332.92250.025.946.4411.5
Caprines1035.014/120.5505.05.821.215.3
Fish180.911.4100.01.10.680.2
Turtles10.011.41.00.00.030.0
Wild Birds50.222.77.50.12.400.6
Wild Mammals20.122.710.00.10.070.0
Domestic Birds160.83/26.89.50.10.490.1
Commensals10.011.40.00.00.960.2
Totals2052100.0%63/10100.0%8699.2100.0%403.29100.0%
266
Williamsburg Sites, 1750-1775
Brush-Everard
(Thomas Everard Period)
Block 29, Area F
Analyzed by:Stephen Atkins and Susan T. Andrews, 1992, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Thomas Everard (1752-1781). Wealthy landowner, one-time mayor of Williamsburg.
Faunal Rpt:Who Went to Market?: An Urban and Rural Late Eighteenth-Century Perspective Based on Faunal Assemblages from Curles Neck Plantation and the Everard Site, by Susan Trevarthen. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary. 1993.
Description:Post-1770 ravine deposits near the Brush-Everard house. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Patricia M. Samford,1987-1989.
Excavation Rpt:Archaeological Investigations at the Brush-Everard Site, by Patricia M. Samford. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. October 1997.
No. of Bones:6386 (1952 identifiable, 4434 unidentifiable). 30.6% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle5208.1%9/513.0%3850.057.0%169.2749.3%
Swine6309.920/321.32150.031.862.2218.1
Caprines2053.210/110.2365.05.420.235.9
Fish1392.21312.0178.92.62.120.6
Turtles20.010.93.00.00.130.0
Wild Birds1071.71312.040.50.61.950.6
Wild Mammals90.132.8109.01.61.040.3
Domestic Birds1712.713/1324.149.00.72.080.6
Commensals210.321.90.00.00.840.2
Totals6386100.0%86/22100.0%6759.4100.0%343.37100.0%
267
Williamsburg Sites, 1750-1775
Brush-Everard
(Late Thomas Everard Period)
Block 29, Area F
Analyzed by:Stephen Atkins, Susan T. Andrews, and Elise Manning-Sterling, 1990, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Thomas Everard (1752-1781). Wealthy landowner, one-time mayor of Williamsburg.
Faunal Rpt:Who Went to Market?: An Urban and Rural Late Eighteenth-Century Perspective Based on Faunal Assemblages from Curles Neck Plantation and the Everard Site, by Susan Trevarthen. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary. 1993.
Description:Post-1770 ravine deposits near the Brush-Everard house. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Patricia M. Samford,1987-1989.
Excavation Rpt:Archaeological Investigations at the Brush-Everard Site, by Patricia M. Samford. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. October 1997.
No. of Bones:1874 (747 identifiable, 1127 unidentifiable). 39.9% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle884.7%3/310.9%1350.052.3%20.1325.3%
Swine22712.17/114.5750.029.118.9023.7
Caprines854.56/112.7225.08.78.0410.1
Fish1166.2610.9148.55.82.102.6
Turtles10.111.81.00.00.030.0
Wild Birds542.91018.243.01.71.451.8
Wild Mammals30.223.69.00.30.090.1
Domestic Birds904.81425.552.52.01.211.5
Commensals00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Totals1874100.0%50/5100.0%2579.0100.0%79.71100.0%
268
Williamsburg Sites, 1775-1800
Custis Site (Post-1780)
Block 4, Area B
Analyzed by:Stephen C. Atkins, Gwenyth A. Duncan, and Jeremiah R. Dandoy, 1996, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Land owned by John Parke Custis (1750-ca. 1781). Occupied by tenants (1778-1811). Custis owned land in Hanover, York, Northhampton, and New Kent Counties.
Faunal Rpt:Vertebrate Remains from the John Custis Well, by Stanley J. Olsen.
Description:Small part of 49 x 23 foot main dwelling, 28.5 x 24 foot kitchen, trash pit, 10 x 10 foot dairy, two wells. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Ivor Noël Hume, March-November 1964 and May-July 1968.
Excavation Rpt:The Archaeological Evidence Uncovered on the Custis Site, by Ivor Noël Hume. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. 1968?.
No. of Bones:3092 (1513 identifiable, 1579 unidentifiable). 48.9% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle35411.4%9/29.2%3700.054.7%128.2344.5%
Swine55217.917/619.22000.029.654.0218.8
Caprines1324.39/511.7390.05.817.696.1
Fish2468.01210.0139.92.13.031.1
Turtles70.243.36.60.12.060.7
Wild Birds431.412/110.838.90.61.310.5
Wild Mammals70.254.228.00.40.250.1
Domestic Birds993.29/915.031.50.51.880.7
Commensals210.72/23.30.00.00.230.1
Totals3092100.0%93/27100.0%6759.9100.0%288.10100.0%
269
Williamsburg Sites, 1775-1800
Shields Tavern (John Draper Period)
Block 9, Area L
Analyzed by:Gregory J. Brown, 1989, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:John Draper (1768-1780). Blacksmith.
Faunal Rpt:The Faunal Remains from the John Draper Well: An Investigation in Historic-Period Zooarchaeology, by Gregory J. Brown. M.A. thesis, San Francisco State University, San Francisco. 1989.
Description:Blacksmith assemblage, circa 1768-1780. Faunal remains came from a well, forge features, and sheet refuse. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Thomas F. Higgins III and David F. Muraca, August 1985-July 1986.
Excavation Rpt:Archaeological Investigations of the Shields Tavern Site, Williamsburg, Virginia, by Gregory J. Brown, Thomas F. Higgins III, David F. Muraca, S. Kathleen Pepper, and Roni H. Polk. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. April 1990.
No. of Bones: 6171 (1382 identifiable, 4789 unidentifiable). 22.4% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle2824.6%6/312.3%2550.049.6%91.7444.8%
Swine4827.813/423.31500.029.234.1416.7
Caprines911.510/115.1365.07.19.874.8
Fish79712.979.6157.53.13.781.8
Turtles00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Wild Birds330.58/213.731.50.60.570.3
Wild Mammals70.145.5110.02.11.190.6
Domestic Birds1622.69/113.730.50.61.180.6
Commensals621.034.10.00.01.400.7
Totals6171100.0%62/11100.0%5144.5100.0%204.71100.0%
270
Williamsburg Sites, 1775-1800
Geddy Kitchen (Post-1762)
Block 19, Area B
Analyzed by:Stephen C. Atkins, Gwenyth A. Duncan, and Jeremiah R. Dandoy, 1996, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household: James Geddy I (1738-1744); David and William Geddy (1744-ca. 1760); James Geddy II (ca. 1760-1777). J. Geddy I was a gunsmith and brass founder, sons David and William were smiths, son J. Geddy II was a silversmith.
Faunal Rpt:Animal Remains from the James Geddy House Site, by Stanley J. Olsen.
Description: 12 x 16 foot kitchen (Str. E1) expanded with addition (Str. E2). Rebuilt circa 1770 as Str. F. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Ivor Noël Hume and R. Neil Frank, 1966-1967.
Excavation Rpt:James Geddy and Sons, Colonial Craftsmen, by Ivor Noël Hume. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 5. 1970.
The James Geddy Site, Block 19, Area B, Colonial Lot 161: Report on 1966 and 1967 Archaeological Excavations, by R. Neil Frank, Jr. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. December 1969.
No. of Bones:4500 (1817 identifiable, 2683 unidentifiable). 40.4% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle53311.8%12/316.5%4950.062.8%241.3058.8%
Swine73116.218/222.01900.024.158.3914.2
Caprines1373.07/29.9275.03.516.223.9
Fish481.188.8159.52.01.350.3
Turtles80.222.213.00.20.460.1
Wild Birds250.633.38.50.10.510.1
Wild Mammals200.46/17.7126.81.61.340.3
Domestic Birds601.33/812.115.50.21.020.2
Commensals2044.555.50.00.011.622.8
Totals4500100.0%74/17100.0%7886.5100.0%410.64100.0%
271
Williamsburg Sites, 1775-1800
Anthony Hay (Post-1770)
Block 28, Area D
Analyzed by:Stephen C. Atkins, Gwenyth A. Duncan, and Jeremiah R. Dandoy, 1996, for Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Household:Anthony Hay (1756-1767); Benjamin Bucktrout (1769-1771); Edmund Dickinson (1771-1776). All were cabinetmakers. A. Hay was once owner of the Raleigh Tavern as well.
Faunal Rpt:None.
Description:Early 18th-century dwelling; shop probably built 1745-1756, with addition added in 1760s; kitchen built by 1780s. Excavated by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, directed by Ivor Noël Hume, 1960.
Excavation Rpt:Williamsburg Cabinetmakers: The Archaeological Evidence, by Ivor Noël Hume. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 6. 1971.
The Anthony Hay Site, Block 28, Area D, Colonial Lots 263 and 264: Report on Archaeological Excavations of 1959-1960, by Ivor Noël Hume. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. April 1961.
No. of Bones:1391 (675 identifiable, 716 unidentifiable). 48.5% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle34925.1%16/332.2%6550.066.9%241.4255.5%
Swine19113.713/327.11450.014.851.0711.7
Caprines715.11016.9350.03.613.843.2
Fish40.311.7100.01.00.190.0
Turtles10.111.71.00.00.050.0
Wild Birds40.323.415.00.20.360.1
Wild Mammals20.123.4115.01.20.550.1
Domestic Birds80.623.45.00.10.380.1
Commensals60.423.40.00.00.740.2
Totals1391100.0%53/6100.0%9788.0100.0%435.16100.0%
272
Annapolis Sites, 1700-1750
Calvert House (Early Period)
18AP28
Analyzed by:Elizabeth J. Reitz, 1987, for Historic Annapolis, Inc.
Household:Charles Calvert (1728-1734); Rebecca and Elizabeth Calvert (1734-1748). C. Calvert was governor of Maryland.
Faunal Rpt:Preliminary Analysis of Vertebrate Remains the Calvert Site in Annapolis, Maryland, and a Comparison with Vertebrate Remains from Sites in South Carolina, Georgia, and Jamaica, by Elizabeth J. Reitz. Calvert Interim Report No. 6. Prepared for Historic Annapolis, Inc. by Elizabeth J. Reitz, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia. December 1987.
Description:Postholes (Features 34 and 40) and planting hole (Feature 101). Excavated by Historic Annapolis, directed by Anne Yentsch, 1985. Entered from hand written notes.
Excavation Rpt:A Chesapeake Family and Their Slaves: A Study in Historical Archaeology, by Anne E. Yentsch. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1994.
No. of Bones:4022 (808 identifiable; 3214 unidentifiable). 20.1% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle962.4%713.7%2800.068.7%32.9729.4%
Swine1383.4917.6900.022.118.6416.6
Caprines1233.159.8175.04.315.8314.1
Fish48512.1917.6152.53.71.941.7
Turtles00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Wild Birds701.7917.627.50.71.401.2
Wild Mammals10.012.00.90.00.000.0
Domestic Birds631.6917.620.00.50.990.9
Commensals210.512.00.00.00.120.1
Totals4022100.0%51100.0%4077.9100.0%112.21100.0%
273
Annapolis Sites, 1750-1775
Reynolds Tavern
18AP23
Analyzed by:Elizabeth J. Reitz, 1989, for Historic Annapolis, Inc.
Household:William Reynolds (1755-1769). Hat maker and tavernkeeper.
Faunal Rpt:Vertebrate Fauna from Reynolds Tavern, Annapolis, by Elizabeth J. Reitz. Prepared for Historic Annapolis, Inc. by Elizabeth J. Reitz, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia. May 1989.
Description:Two trash pits (Features 103/130 and 107) associated with Reynolds occupation. Entered from hand written notes. Excavated by Historic Annapolis, Inc., directed by Anne Yentsch and Richard J. Dent, 1982-1984.
Excavation Rpt:None.
No. of Bones:5024 (789 identifiable; 4235 unidentifiable). 15.7% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle1563.1%820.0%3200.081.9%66.2433.1%
Swine1092.2410.0400.010.213.546.8
Caprines390.8615.0210.05.46.693.3
Fish1232.437.533.50.91.670.8
Turtles80.212.50.60.00.170.1
Wild Birds210.4410.022.50.60.840.4
Wild Mammals470.9512.521.00.50.590.3
Domestic Birds921.8717.517.50.41.770.9
Commensals00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Totals5024100.0%40100.0%3908.6100.0%199.83100.0%
274
Annapolis Sites, Mid- to Late 18th C.
Calvert House (Late Period)
18AP28
Analyzed by:Elizabeth J. Reitz, 1987, for Historic Annapolis, Inc.
Household:Benedict Calvert (1748-1784). Gentry.
Faunal Rpt:Preliminary Analysis of Vertebrate Remains the Calvert Site in Annapolis, Maryland, and a Comparison with Vertebrate Remains from Sites in South Carolina, Georgia, and Jamaica, by Elizabeth J. Reitz. Calvert Interim Report No. 6. Prepared for Historic Annapolis, Inc. by Elizabeth J. Reitz, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia. December 1987.
Description:Hypocaust (Feature 5) and brick-lined well (Feature 121). Excavated by Historic Annapolis, directed by Anne Yentsch, 1985. Entered from hand written notes.
Excavation Rpt:A Chesapeake Family and Their Slaves: A Study in Historical Archaeology, by Anne E. Yentsch. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1994.
No. of Bones:17516 (5799 identifiable, 11717 unidentifiable). 33.1% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle4762.7%106.3%4000.065.4%122.3829.6%
Swine5383.1106.31000.016.437.079.0
Caprines4712.774.4245.04.039.759.6
Fish303417.34427.8118.31.96.651.6
Turtles110.121.310.00.20.330.1
Wild Birds4892.82918.4153.02.511.572.8
Wild Mammals1050.6117.0149.02.41.300.3
Domestic Birds1660.9159.537.50.63.220.8
Commensals7264.12717.10.00.011.482.8
Totals17516100.0%158100.0%6114.8100.0%412.92100.0%
275
Annapolis Sites, Late 18th to Early 19th C.
Jonas Green
18AP29
Analyzed by:Justin Lev-Tov, 1990, for Historic Annapolis, Inc.
Household:Jonas Green (1738-1767); Anne Catherine Green and son William (1767-1770); Anne Catherine Green and son Frederick (1770-1775); Frederick and Samuel Green (1775-1811). All were printers.
Faunal Rpt:The Faunal Analysis of Jonas Green's Printshop Cellar in Annapolis, Maryland, by Justin Lev-Tov. Honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park. May 1990.
Description:Cellar associated with Green print shop. Faunal remains come from Feature 77, cellar fill dated to destruction of house on February 11, 1780. Excavated by Archaeology in Annapolis and Historic Annapolis, 1983-1986.
Excavation Rpt:A Summary of Archaeological Excavations from 1983-1986 at the Green Family Print Shop, 18AP29, Annapolis, Maryland, by C. Jane Cox and John J. Buckler. Prepared by Archaeology in Annapolis. 1995.
No. of Bones:8260 (990 identifiable, 7270 unidentifiable). 12.0% identifiable.
Faunal Distribution
Meat WgtBiomass
TaxonNISPPct.MNIPct.LbsPct.KgPct.
Cattle1792.2%5/210.1%2100.062.0%56.7235.9%
Swine3414.17/415.9900.026.619.7112.5
Caprines740.95/18.7190.05.67.965.0
Fish139616.91217.443.51.32.221.4
Turtles10.011.41.00.00.020.0
Wild Birds1632.01420.3105.03.14.292.7
Wild Mammals00.000.00.00.00.000.0
Domestic Birds690.87/314.520.50.60.880.6
Commensals60.122.90.00.00.060.0
Totals8260100.0%59/10100.0%3385.2100.0%157.92100.0%
276
277

APPENDIX 2.
ACCOUNT BOOKS ANALYZED

The documents described in this appendix are the account books that make up the three aggregate files-store, household, and plantation-described in Appendix 4. Details of each account book are given: the citation, the date of the source, the sample the aggregate account book was used in, the location of the household, store, or plantation, and the Number of Records Entered used in analysis. In addition, a table showing the count and total value of all food transactions is displayed. The number of records in the database is not necessarily the total number of food-related items. In some cases, data was collected on services or other household goods unrelated to food. These items were excluded in the tables on the following pages.

278

ANDERSON AND LOW
1784-1788

Full Citation:Anderson and Low Account Book, 1784-1788. College of William and Mary.
Aggregate Sample:Stores
Location of Store:Williamsburg, Virginia
Document Owned by:College of William and Mary
Number of Records Entered:1,426
Dates of Recorded Data:1784-1786
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
SWEETENERS30033.11%£172.5433.80%
ALCOHOL15316.89131.7825.82
TEA/COFFEE18820.7584.4916.55
MEAT70.7744.048.63
SPICES/CONDIMENTS859.3824.134.73
DAIRY232.5417.983.52
FRUITS/NUTS586.4011.582.27
FOOD GRAINS272.9811.252.21
LEGUMES424.648.211.61
FOODSTUFFS151.663.230.63
BAKERY/BREAD70.771.180.23
VEGETABLES10.110.040.01
279

JAMES BRAY LEDGER
1736-1746

Full Citation:Bray, James. Ledger, 1736-1746. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Aggregate Sample:Plantation
Location of Plantation:James City County, Virginia
Document Owned by:Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Number of Records Entered:1,592
Dates of Records Entered:1736-1746
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
FOOD GRAINS28533.81%£357.5155.61%
MEAT27532.62155.8824.24
ALCOHOL18622.06103.2316.06
TEA/COFFEE182.1411.611.81
FRUITS/NUTS60.715.240.82
SWEETENERS414.863.790.59
POULTRY60.711.940.30
DAIRY70.831.770.28
VEGETABLES50.590.630.10
FOODSTUFFS20.240.560.09
SPICES/CONDIMENTS91.070.510.08
LEGUMES30.360.280.04
280

JAMES BRICE LEDGER
1767-1799

Full Citation:Brice, James. Ledger, 1767-1799. Maryland State Archives.
Aggregate Sample:Stores
Location of Store:Annapolis, Maryland
Document Owned by:Maryland State Archives
Number of Records Entered:548
Dates of Records Entered:1784-1785
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
MEAT13239.88%£1432.5257.21%
FOOD GRAINS6920.85892.4035.64
DAIRY319.3767.532.70
ALCOHOL298.7640.871.63
POULTRY226.6528.271.13
FISHING EQUIPMENT30.9113.540.54
SWEETENERS113.3212.540.50
FISH92.724.440.18
FRUITS/NUTS82.423.060.12
FOODSTUFFS72.112.550.10
VEGETABLES41.212.420.10
SPICES/CONDIMENTS30.911.830.07
LEGUMES20.601.200.05
TEA/COFFEE10.300.780.03
281

NATHANIEL BURWELL MILL DAY BOOK
1775-1777

Full Citation:Burwell, Nathaniel. Mill Day Book, 1774-1778. George H. Burwell Collection. Clarke County Historical Society, Berryville, Virginia.
Aggregate Sample:Plantation
Location of Plantation:James City County, Virginia
Document Owned by:Clarke County Historical Society
Number of Records Entered:1809
Dates of Records Entered:1774-1778
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
FOOD GRAINS173195.69%£2105.0858.43%
MONEY482.65662.9218.40
ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE150.83336.389.34
WAGES50.28313.918.71
MEAT20.11122.783.41
MISC. SERVICES30.1746.041.28
LIVESTOCK10.0611.000.31
FUEL20.112.400.07
ALCOHOL10.061.500.04
SPICES/CONDIMENTS10.061.000.03
282

NATHANIEL BURWELL DAYBOOKS
1773-1786

Full Citation:Burwell, Nathaniel. Daybook, 1773-1779; Daybook, 1779-1786. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Aggregate Sample:Plantation
Location of Plantation:James City County, Virginia
Document Owned by:Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Number of Records Entered:1988
Dates of Records Entered:1771-1786
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
FOOD GRAINS66549.33%£27543.4860.12%
ALCOHOL14911.056884.8115.03
MEAT28320.996592.7914.39
DAIRY836.161819.133.97
TEA/COFFEE342.521289.282.81
SWEETENERS544.011152.132.52
SPICES/CONDIMENTS392.89465.751.02
LEGUMES60.4532.100.07
SEAFOOD120.8922.220.05
POULTRY110.8211.240.03
FOODSTUFFS10.070.750.00
FRUITS/NUTS30.220.490.00
BAKERY/BREAD40.300.380.00
FISH30.220.210.00
VEGETABLES10.070.000.00
283

NATHANIEL BURWELL LEDGER
1785-1808

Full Citation:Burwell, Nathaniel. Ledger, 1785-1808. George H. Burwell Collection. Clarke County Historical Society, Berryville, Virginia.
Aggregate Sample:Plantation
Location of Household:James City County, Virginia
Document Owned by:Clarke County Historical Society
Number of Records Entered:628
Dates of Records Entered:1785-1808
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
FOOD GRAINS29565.56%£1152.6971.20%
ALCOHOL357.78204.9512.66
MEAT6314.00157.459.73
SPICES/CONDIMENTS132.8973.914.57
SWEETENERS296.4417.621.09
DAIRY40.895.170.32
TEA/COFFEE81.783.910.24
POULTRY10.222.500.15
LEGUMES10.220.500.03
VEGETABLES10.220.200.01
284

NATHANIEL BURWELL JR ACCOUNTS
1801-1806

Full Citation:Burwell, Nathaniel. Philologic Exercise Book, 1801-1806. Clarke County Historical Society, Berryville, Virginia.
Aggregate Sample:Plantation
Location of Plantation:James City County, Virginia
Document Owned by:Clarke County Historical Society
Number of Records Entered:1601
Dates of Records Entered:1801-1806
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
FOOD GRAINS189.00%£389.7474.12%
MEAT3618.0055.4810.55
ALCOHOL73.5027.065.15
SWEETENERS2110.5022.704.32
TEA/COFFEE115.507.921.51
POULTRY3618.007.301.39
SPICES/CONDIMENTS147.003.840.73
FRUITS/NUTS157.503.740.71
SEAFOOD2110.503.350.64
FISH94.501.810.34
VEGETABLES52.501.440.28
DAIRY10.500.890.17
LEGUMES10.500.430.08
BAKERY/BREAD52.500.130.02
285

CHARLES CARROLL
1720-1812

Full Citation:Carroll, Charles. Account Book, 1720-1812. Library of Congress.
Aggregate Sample:Household
Location of Household:Annapolis, Maryland
Document Owned by:Library of Congress
Number of Records Entered:177
Dates of Records Entered:1721-1739
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
FOOD GRAINS3117.51%£482.7636.84%
ALCOHOL2614.69440.9733.66
MEAT3922.03270.2020.62
DAIRY137.3448.203.68
SWEETENERS42.2620.031.53
TEA/COFFEE31.6918.391.40
FISH137.348.990.69
SPICES/CONDIMENTS42.266.750.52
SEAFOOD137.344.420.34
FRUITS/NUTS52.823.070.23
POULTRY1810.172.950.23
BAKERY/BREAD42.262.630.20
LEGUMES31.690.830.06
VEGETABLES10.560.100.01
286

WILLIAM COFFING ACCOUNT BOOK
1770-1771

Full Citation:Coffing, William. Account book, 1770-1771. Maryland Historical Society.
Aggregate Sample:Stores
Location of Store:Annapolis, Maryland
Document Owned by:Maryland Historical Society
Number of Records Entered:1,430
Dates of Records Entered:1770-1771
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
ALCOHOL54243.64%£279.7946.11%
SWEETENERS38330.84149.0724.57
MEAT252.0173.4312.10
TEA/COFFEE14511.6752.428.64
FOOD GRAINS161.2925.384.18
SPICES/CONDIMENTS564.519.501.57
FOODSTUFFS655.237.881.30
FISH20.164.000.66
BAKERY/BREAD20.162.980.49
DAIRY30.241.720.28
LEGUMES10.080.360.06
FRUITS/NUTS20.160.290.05
287

JOHN DAVIDSON ACCOUNT BOOKS
1780-1794

Full Citation:Davidson, John. Account Book, 1780-1783; Account Book, 1787-1794; Ledger, 1780-1794. Maryland State Archives.
Aggregate Sample:Store
Location of Store:Annapolis, Maryland
Document Owned by:Maryland Historical Society
Number of Records Entered:321
Dates of Records Entered:1780-1787
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
ALCOHOL4034.78%£1271.1167.74%
MEAT76.09340.2018.13
DAIRY76.09119.106.35
FOOD GRAINS86.9678.204.17
TEA/COFFEE1714.7843.402.31
FOODSTUFFS21.7412.240.65
SWEETENERS76.095.700.30
SPICES/CONDIMENTS2118.264.870.26
FRUITS/NUTS32.611.390.07
BAKERY/BREAD21.740.200.01
VEGETABLES10.870.000.00
288

CARTER BURWELL ACCOUNT BOOK
1738-1755

Full Citation:Burwell, Carter. Account book, 1738-1755. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Aggregate Sample:Plantation
Location of Plantation:James City County, Virginia
Document Owned by:Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Number of Records Entered:450
Dates of Records Entered:1738-1756
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
FOOD GRAINS5517.46%£933.2162.12%
MEAT22772.06503.3533.51
SWEETENERS51.5933.112.20
POULTRY103.1716.641.11
DAIRY30.957.700.51
ALCOHOL10.322.730.18
FRUITS/NUTS20.632.500.17
FOODSTUFFS10.321.380.09
LEGUMES10.321.070.07
SPICES/CONDIMENTS72.220.580.04
TEA/COFFEE30.950.000.00
289

JOHN DAVIDSON ACCOUNT BOOKS
1780-1794

Full Citation:Davidson, John. Account Book, 1780-1783; Account Book, 1787-1794; Ledger, 1780-1794. Maryland State Archives.
Aggregate Sample:Household
Location of Household:Annapolis, Maryland
Document Owned by:Maryland Historical Society
Number of Records Entered:216
Dates of Records Entered:1784-1785
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
MEAT73.24%£358.3173.23%
ALCOHOL6429.6337.557.67
FOOD GRAINS62.7821.234.34
TEA/COFFEE2612.0420.084.11
DAIRY136.0219.634.01
SWEETENERS2913.4318.313.74
FRUITS/NUTS167.414.120.84
POULTRY188.334.030.82
BAKERY/BREAD2210.192.430.50
SEAFOOD41.851.600.33
FISH41.851.190.24
SPICES/CONDIMENTS41.850.620.13
DAIRYING10.460.150.03
VEGETABLES20.930.070.01
290

WILLIAM FARRIS ACCOUNT BOOKS
1770-1800

Full Citation:Farris, William. Household Accounts, 1770-1800, and Day Book, 1773-1780. Maryland Historical Society.
Aggregate Sample:Store.
Location of Store:Annapolis, Maryland
Document Owned by:Maryland Historical Society
Number of Records Entered:1,242
Dates of Records Entered:1795-1800
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
MEAT26121.12%£131.6530.60%
FOOD GRAINS967.77103.7624.12
SWEETENERS25820.8783.1919.34
ALCOHOL14511.7355.5712.92
DAIRY1149.2214.273.32
POULTRY483.888.481.97
TEA/COFFEE514.138.021.87
SPICES/CONDIMENTS342.756.081.41
VEGETABLES433.484.831.12
SEAFOOD312.513.900.91
BAKERY/BREAD856.883.670.85
FRUITS/NUTS221.782.350.55
FOODSTUFFS191.542.320.54
FISH231.861.790.42
LEGUMES40.320.320.07
WILD ANIMAL20.160.030.01
291

GLASSFORD & COMPANY ACCOUNTS: COLCHESTER STORE
1766-1768

Full Citation:Glassford, John. Account book, 1786-68. Library of Congress.
Aggregate Sample:Household
Location of Household:Colchester, Virginia
Document Owned by:Library of Congress
Number of Records Entered:428
Dates of Records Entered:1766-1768
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
MEAT6414.95%£63.6235.29%
FOODSTUFFS30.7027.5015.25
FOOD GRAINS5212.1519.8311.00
LIVESTOCK112.5717.659.79
ALCOHOL153.5015.198.43
FUEL51.1714.137.83
DAIRY71.645.633.12
FISH255.843.782.10
POULTRY7918.462.471.37
BAKERY/BREAD30.702.341.30
SWEETENERS6815.892.141.19
TEA/COFFEE173.971.390.77
SPICES/CONDIMENTS235.371.260.70
FRUITS/NUTS133.041.140.63
SEAFOOD102.340.790.44
WILD MEAT40.930.590.33
STORAGE30.700.340.19
LEGUMES51.170.190.10
VEGETABLES92.100.180.10
WILD BIRD51.170.120.07
UNKNOWN40.930.030.02
DRINKING20.470.000.00
FOOD SERVING10.230.000.00
292

THOMAS JEFFERSON WILLIAMSBURG ACCOUNTS
1768-1784

Full Citation:Jefferson, Thomas. Extracts of Williamsburg Trips, Typescript, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. (Jefferson Papers of the University of Virginia: Special Series 2 and "Memorandum Book, 1767-1770," Series 4, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress. Microfilm, CWF.
Aggregate Sample:Household
Location of Household:Williamsburg, Virginia
Document Owned by:Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (typescript and microfilm); Library of Congress (Jefferson papers)
Number of Records Entered:36
Dates of Records Entered:1768-1784
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
FOOD GRAINS1336.11%£10.8575.50%
TEA/COFFEE12.781.258.70
ALCOHOL616.670.755.23
FRUITS/NUTS616.670.745.12
BAKERY/BREAD822.220.412.84
DAIRY25.560.382.61
293

THOMAS JEFFERSON ANNAPOLIS ACCOUNTS
1783-1784

Full Citation:Jefferson, Thomas. Memorandum Book, Annapolis Accounts (with James Monroe. 1783-1784) in James A. Bear Jr. and Lucia C. Stanton, eds. Jefferson's Memorandum Books: Accounts, with Legal Records and Miscellany, 1767-1826. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (Forthcoming).
Aggregate Sample:Household
Location of Household:Annapolis, Maryland
Original Owned by:Photocopy of document provided by Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation
Number of Records Entered:63
Dates of Records Entered:1783-1784
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
FOOD GRAINS1422.22%£13.6029.30%
ALCOHOL46.3512.1326.13
BAKERY/BREAD34.767.6816.54
SWEETENERS46.353.186.85
POULTRY1015.872.545.48
MEAT34.761.853.99
FRUITS/NUTS711.111.453.12
DAIRY711.111.082.33
VEGETABLES46.350.982.12
FISH23.170.811.75
TEA/COFFEE23.170.801.72
SEAFOOD11.590.130.27
FOODSTUFFS11.590.100.22
SPICES/CONDIMENTS11.590.090.20
294

ETIENNE LEMAIRE: THOMAS JEFFERSON WHITE HOUSE ACCOUNTS
1807

Full Citation:Jefferson, Thomas. Memorandum Book, (Market Accounts 1806, probably kept by Etienne Lemaire), Huntington Library. In James A. Bear Jr. and Lucia C. Stanton, eds. Jefferson's Memorandum Books: Accounts, with Legal Records and Miscellany, 1767-1826. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (Forthcoming).
Aggregate Sample:Household
Location of Household:Washington, D.C.
Original Owned by:Huntington Library
Number of Records Entered:2256
Dates of Records Entered:1807
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
MEAT59126.20%£415.0631.71%
DAIRY22910.15253.0119.33
BAKERY/BREAD421.86195.6714.95
POULTRY33614.89167.7912.82
VEGETABLES51422.7898.327.51
FRUITS/NUTS1285.6752.554.01
FISH753.3226.302.01
ALCOHOL50.2220.161.54
FOOD GRAINS632.7917.421.33
SEAFOOD220.9814.431.10
SPICES/CONDIMENTS281.2414.361.10
WILD BIRD532.3512.930.99
LEGUMES472.089.070.69
WILD MEAT40.186.500.50
WILD ANIMAL210.933.210.25
HERBS964.261.800.14
FOODSTUFFS20.090.560.04
295

FRANCIS JERDONE CARGO WASTE BOOK
1751-1753

Full Citation:Jerdone, Francis. Cargo Waste Book, 1751-1753. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Location of Store:Yorktown, Virginia
Document Owned by:Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Number of Records Entered:513
Dates of Records Entered:1751-1753
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
ALCOHOL14740.38%£4756.9865.36%
SWEETENERS8723.90978.2913.44
MEAT5715.66748.2510.28
FOOD GRAINS154.12404.245.55
SPICES/CONDIMENTS246.59277.743.82
DAIRY174.6764.570.89
TEA/COFFEE123.3033.270.46
FOODSTUFFS41.1012.780.18
BAKERY/BREAD10.272.500.03
296

WILLIAM LIGHTFOOT ACCOUNT BOOK
1747-1787

Full Citation:Lightfoot, William. Store Accounts, 1747-1787. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Aggregate Store:Store
Location of Household:Williamsburg, Virginia
Document Owned by:Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Number of Records Entered:1,159
Dates of Records Entered:1747-1787
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
FOOD GRAINS11011.42%£989.1735.76%
ALCOHOL35837.18775.2728.02
MEAT18218.90642.9923.24
SWEETENERS15015.58274.189.91
FOODSTUFFS141.4521.410.77
SPICES/CONDIMENTS282.9118.980.69
POULTRY565.8215.730.57
DAIRY232.3914.290.52
FRUITS/NUTS90.936.190.22
LEGUMES30.313.190.12
WILD BIRD161.662.100.08
TEA/COFFEE60.621.500.05
BAKERY/BREAD20.210.650.02
BEVERAGES10.100.500.02
FISH20.210.160.01
VEGETABLES10.100.150.01
SEAFOOD20.210.100.00
297

MOSES MYERS MARKET BOOK
1824-1827

Full Citation:Myers, Moses. Account Book, 1824-1827. Chrysler Museum, Norfolk.
Aggregate Sample:Household
Location of Household:Norfolk, Virginia
Document Owned by:Chrysler Museum, Norfolk
Number of Records Entered:1601
Dates of Records Entered:1824-1827
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
POULTRY39624.73%£60.2630.87%
MEAT23114.4359.1530.30
FISH22814.2415.407.89
SEAFOOD905.6214.357.35
VEGETABLES32120.0513.086.70
FRUITS/NUTS16110.0611.125.70
FOOD GRAINS664.1210.325.29
DAIRY251.564.022.06
SPICES/CONDIMENTS231.442.961.52
LEGUMES392.442.871.47
WILD BIRD60.370.620.32
TEA/COFFEE10.060.260.14
FOODSTUFFS20.120.260.13
BAKERY/BREAD60.370.190.10
ALCOHOL10.060.190.10
HERBS30.190.090.05
BY-PRODUCT10.060.060.03
SWEETENERS10.060.000.00
298

GOVERNER'S PALACE KITCHEN ACCOUNTS
1769-1770

Full Citation:Botetourt Manuscripts from Badminton. "An Account of Cash Paid by William Sparrow for his Excellency Lord Botetourt. [Kept] by William Marshman" (Governor's Palace kitchen accounts). Duke of Beaufort and the Gloucestershire Records Office.
Aggregate Sample:Household
Location of Household:Williamsburg, Virginia
Document Owned by:Duke of Beaufort and the Gloucestershire Records Office
Number of Records Entered:962
Dates of Records Entered:1769-1770
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
MEAT13714.24%£123.8433.31%
POULTRY25025.9961.2416.47
DAIRY16316.9455.2714.87
FRUITS/NUTS15015.5928.567.68
BAKERY/BREAD222.2925.636.89
SPICES/CONDIMENTS101.0419.895.35
FISH656.7613.973.76
WILD ANIMAL101.0413.653.67
FOODSTUFFS151.569.972.68
WILD MEAT60.627.502.02
SEAFOOD535.513.450.93
WILD BIRD272.813.040.82
VEGETABLES343.532.860.77
FOOD GRAINS131.351.710.46
LEGUMES50.520.580.16
SWEETENERS10.100.500.13
BEVERAGES10.100.140.04
299

ACCOUNTS OF THE ANONYMOUS WILLIAMSBURG WIGMAKER
1749

Full Citation:Anonymous [French wigmaker in Williamsburg]. Household Expenses for 1749 recorded in The Virginia Almanack for the Year of our Lord…1749. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Aggregate Sample:Household
Location of Household:Williamsburg, Virginia
Document Owned by:Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Number of Records Entered:153
Dates of Records Entered:1749
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
ALCOHOL5334.64%£5.5435.13%
DAIRY1912.423.4021.57
SWEETENERS159.802.6917.04
BAKERY/BREAD1811.761.9212.14
POULTRY1811.760.825.19
TEA/COFFEE21.310.503.17
SPICES/CONDIMENTS53.270.251.61
LEGUMES21.310.221.41
FOODSTUFFS10.650.191.19
FRUITS/NUTS42.610.120.74
SEAFOOD31.960.070.42
FISH10.650.060.40
GRAINS42.610.000.00
VEGETABLES85.230.000.00
300

WILLIAM NELSON (IN BURWELL LEDGER)
1764-1779

Full Citation:Burwell, Nathaniel. Daybook, 1773-1779. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Aggregate Sample:Plantation
Location of Plantation:James City County, Virginia
Document Owned by:Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Number of Records Entered:1309
Dates of Records Entered:1764-1779
CATEGORYCOUNTPERCENTTOTAL VALUEPERCENT
FOOD GRAINS30047.02%£2863.3275.89%
ALCOHOL15924.92388.8610.31
DAIRY6410.03316.738.39
MEAT7611.91150.874.00
SPICES/CONDIMENTS71.1015.180.40
LEGUMES111.7213.840.37
SWEETENERS91.4112.750.34
POULTRY111.729.840.26
FISH10.161.800.05
301

APPENDIX 3.
DESCRIPTION OF ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES AND COMPLETE DATA SETS

Theoretical Basis: Introduction to the Study of Provisioning Systems

The study of archaeological faunal remains (zooarchaeology) has the potential for addressing the full range of foodways-related questions, but historical zooarchaeologists have been far too pre-occupied with interpreting household subsistence patterns, defining variability primarily in terms of environmental differences, and the social and economic status or ethnic affiliation of the household. In assessing a household's diet, faunal analysts focus on determining the meat diet and preference for certain cuts of meat, interpreting these consumption patterns as the result of environmental constraints, cultural values, or the household's social and economic status.1 However, all phases of foodways, including the production, distribution, preparation, and consumption, play an integral role in determining the availability of foods.

To limit our interpretations to adaptation, social and economic status, and ethnicity is to limit our ability to see how the full range of food-related activities can affect faunal remains. We need to look at the much broader context of the subsistence system and how it shapes the household's selection of foods. Subsistence studies should also show how the household relates to its community and how the community and regional system of food production and distribution influences any household's consumption patterns.2

Often analyses of urban faunal assemblages have assumed that the provisioning systems in early American urban centers were like today's highly commercialized system, where the prices of different meats are determined by market forces, and individual choices are governed mostly by the economic status of the household under investigation, not availability. For studies focusing on the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, this may be true, since by this time rapid transit systems had increased the availability of many foods, and residents living in every U.S. city, as well as many small towns, had come to depend on, and expect, commercially-produced meats. But many zooarchaeologists have gone beyond simplistic studies of status and ethnicity.3 Lyman 302 for example, questioned the narrow criteria used to rank cuts of meat, pointing out that the amount of available flesh per cut of meat was an important factor to be considered.4 Henn pointed out that the assumption that all households participated in the market economy on a full-time basis is invalid. She wrote: "...even in rural areas it was common practice for working class households to keep livestock, such as goats, pigs, and poultry, and to grow vegetables for domestic use. Butcher shop purchases or preparation of household livestock could have been considered luxuries for this segment of the population."5

Henn spoke of poorer families living in small communities that were fully integrated in highly commercialized economies, but her statement is equally appropriate for households of all wealth groups living in towns and small cities in developing economies. Today in Third World countries, and historically throughout most of our country's past, there were several alternatives to commercially-produced foods.

Notably the zooarchaeologists working with European and Near Eastern faunal assemblages have made important contributions to the study of complex societies by demonstrating how faunal remains contain evidence on the scale of the urban market system.6 First, age profiles from domesticated cattle, pigs, and sheep show the mark of specialized forms of animal husbandry through the increased presence of younger livestock, hallmarks of a market economy. Second, the variety and relative importance of different animals show whether markets and the decreasing availability of habitats suitable for wildlife constrained the availability of wild animals. Third, element distributions of the major domestic mammals demonstrate the restriction of certain portions of the carcass such as the heads and feet. Taken as a whole, these pieces of evidence provide a measure of the extent to which the provisioning system has become specialized.

To help refine archaeological questions on specialized economies and to provide historical evidence that could help to refine archaeological interpretations, a research design was developed to capture appropriate information from documentary research on animal husbandry, specialized husbandry practices, market regulations, commercial vehicles for distributing rural produce, and personal exchange networks. Together with the team of historians on the project, Bowen and her staff transcribed evidence on animal husbandry and plantation herds from many sources, including probate inventory records from Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and York County, Virginia, and personal property tax records from counties where archaeological sites were located. Information on regulations concerning livestock and markets was pulled from legal records from Maryland and Virginia, and information needed on the early years when the herd system was established was taken from the early Virginia Company records. Lastly, information specifically related to livestock, pasturage systems and feeding practices was taken from diaries and plantation records. 303 Information on urban provisioning strategies was available in the York County Project data base, a large collection of biographical information collected by Colonial Williamsburg historians for each individual who lived in the county. In addition information on personal networks and information on the commercial sources of meats was drawn from plantation, household, and merchant accounts.

Together these sources have formed a critical data base not only for this study, but also for the archaeological community in general, since they contain unparalleled information on the economic, social, and cultural context that is needed to evaluate faunal data and their interpretations. With these contemporary independent sources of information at hand, it is now possible to explore animal husbandry and the many intricate relationships that existed between the landscape, livestock, and colonists. Likewise with biographical information on urban residents and economic information on the commercial distribution system through which livestock was procured, processed, and sold to urban residents, it is now possible to see how faunal data reflects the complex and varied provisioning strategies that evolved along with the development of the Chesapeake market system.

Those analyses of historical data that were specifically focused on zooarchaeological questions were designed with the goal of making the separate data bases as comparable as possible. Since each documentary source has its own internal biases, just like faunal remains have their unique and complex biases, each separate source was carefully considered, then the analysis was structured in a way that the two independent data bases worked with each other. Computer programs were developed to capture information on species, age, sex, herd size, and specifics on animal husbandry in a manner similar to Roger Cribb's and Kent Flannery's live herd analyses.7 Probate inventory lists of livestock owned at the time of the owner's death provided information on the number of herds owned by any individual, their size, and age and sex composition. Personal property taxes taken during the 1780s provided information on the numbers of slaves, cattle, and horses owned by male heads of households.

Since kill-off patterns reflect the slaughtered population-not the live herd-and the goal is to interpret live behavior involving humans and their herds, zooarchaeologists are forced to "read backwards," as it were, and infer from the age of death the intended use of live herds. But many have been critical of these attempts, since the age of death varies according to numerous biological and environmental factors that are not completely understood. Consequently methods used to estimate the age of death have undergone the scrutiny of both critics and supporters alike for decades. Some have been sufficiently critical that the long bone data base is dismissed entirely.8 Those who have accepted the internal biases of their data have been faced with the 304 difficulty of interpreting the result of economic goals and intended uses, and all too often have found the data base inexplicable. Others have taken the approach of creating simulated "live herds" using biological and ethnographic evidence.

During the course of the provisioning project several attempts were made to create simulated live herds. But the probate data was inconsistent in recording ages, and attempts to reconstruct relative ages using terms, such as cow, steer, and bull, was no more successful, since an analysis of the probate data indicated these terms covered many age groups. Further, computer simulated herds required assumptions concerning death and birth rates. But since most demographic data dates to the eighteenth century and refers to the husbandry of the wealthy and commercially-focused planters, applying these rates to all time periods was deemed too problematical.

The approach used to interpret slaughter ages has been to marshal all independent sources of evidence together and synthesize data from each in order to assess the human/animal relationships as they changed from the time of initial settlement on through the emergence of commercially-focused husbandry. Where sample size was large enough, tooth wear data could be compared and contrasted with epiphyseal fusion data. Vice versa, on sites with good preservation, epiphyseal fusion data could be compared and contrasted with the tooth wear data. Unlike virtually any other zooarchaeological study, contemporary age data has been extracted from probate inventories to provide the essential contextual information needed to interpret the complex human/animal relationships.

Thus the decision was made to create from the probate data age groups that would be comparable to the archaeological slaughter data. Ages for cattle, sheep, and swine were grouped by the same time periods used for the archaeological data and sorted into groups that were as close as possible to age groups seen in the epiphyseal and tooth wear data. The results speak for themselves, as they mirror the archaeological data.

Last, but certainly not least, over a hundred primary sources dating from the early seventeenth on through the early nineteenth centuries were combed for specific information on pasture systems, herd structures, and the care and feeding of livestock. Most zooarchaeologists have looked towards seventeenth- and eighteenth-century agricultural texts to inform their archaeological data, but this evidence is prescriptive. The texts written by progressive English breeders were intended to instruct on ways that would improve production, not tell what people actually did. Since the goal was to define significant shifts in husbandry patterns, diaries, laws, family and Virginia Company-related correspondence papers, and plantation records became the primary source of information on what people actually did-not what British agriculturalists thought should be done.

To be able to systematically retrieve data from over 6,000 records that often contained information on multiple topics, a key word search system was developed to recover information on the health, care, and feeding of livestock. As information was transcribed from primary sources, the researcher entered the appropriate key words along with the text into Notebook II, a computer database designed to sort complex bibliographic citations. Once this was completed, printouts corresponding to various topics, such as open woodlands feeding, fences, or supplemental foods, were made.

305

This evidence proved critical in interpreting the slaughter data. With the contemporary evidence on herding, feeding, and economic orientation, it became possible to distinguish between environmental, biological, and economic factors that underlie the biological maturation process and economic decision of when to slaughter an animal. It also became possible to identify the broad outlines of the husbandry system, then correlate changes in slaughter ages with major changes that occurred as planters shifted from a subsistence-based husbandry system towards a commercially based system. Future analyses will build on this beginning work. Additional refinements to the probate data base will be made, as will further work with the large husbandry data base. When fully integrated, these two sources should allow more finely detailed and analytically powerful live herd models.

Zooarchaeological Methods

Over the past two years the Colonial Williamsburg Zooarchaeological Laboratory has processed, identified, and/or extracted data from 53 faunal assemblages from Williamsburg, Annapolis, and throughout the Chesapeake. Together with faunal analyses that have already been completed by Bowen, her students, and her associates at Colonial Williamsburg, this collection of analyses form an unprecedented regional data base of rural and urban assemblages dating from the early seventeenth century through the early nineteenth century. From these assemblages, which range in size sample and analytical strengths, we have selected those best able to address the questions concerning the emergence of specialized provisioning in the Chesapeake region.

While gaps still exist, in the sense that certain time periods are less well represented than others, and most of the assemblages represent the literate and wealthy, this data base provides an remarkable sample of rural and urban assemblages that have enabled us to identify when the specialized production and distribution of animals and animal products developed, and to identify when Williamsburg's urban residents came to rely upon the regional provisioning system and commercially produced foods, rather than their own personal resources. Ultimately, this data base has allowed certain observations about when and how the diets of urban dwellers began to diverge from the diets of rural dwellers.

The assemblages that were selected from this data base for more specialized analysis come from several sources. First is a group of assemblages that were excavated by Colonial Williamsburg in the 1960s and 1970s. Second is a group that were excavated during the 1970s and 1980s by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, and the Kicotan Chapter of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Third is a group that had been analyzed by Henry Miller, Bowen, and Elizabeth Reitz, but had never been computerized. Fourth is group of assemblages that fortuitously came our way from local archaeologists during the past two years. And fifth is group is of assemblages that have been analyzed over the past decade by Colonial Williamsburg zooarchaeologists. Each of these assemblages have been now encoded into a custom-designed computer program developed for the Department of Archaeological Research by Bowen and Brown, and since elegantly refined by Brown in numerous ways.

306
Analytical Procedures

Research questions concerning provisioning systems in complex societies defined which of the many zooarchaeological methods and procedures would be used to analyze these materials. Since the specialization of producing and distributing foods in developing economies have been identified through diversity estimates, slaughter ages of the large domesticates, and the presence/absence of waste portions of cattle, swine, and caprine carcasses, analyses of these assemblages focused on capturing these three sets of data.9

Previously Analyzed Faunal Assemblages

One major goal of the zooarchaeological portion of the project was to incorporate previously-analyzed assemblages into a large computer data base of faunal assemblages from throughout the Chesapeake and East Coast. In order to do this, it was necessary to encode the information consistently. Bowen's work on Clifts Plantation in the 1970s, for example, had to be transferred from cards into the computer database. Likewise, with the kind permission of Historic Annapolis and other institutions, raw data created by Henry Miller, Elizabeth Reitz, and Justin Lev-Tov was transcribed as completely and accurately as possible.

Because every analyst has developed a slightly different set of tools, a careful assessment of the methods and procedures used by these talented analysts was a necessary step in integrating their work. Recording Bowen's early work into Colonial Williamsburg's computer data base was relatively straightforward, since the program evolved out of methods Bowen has used for years. Encoding identifications furnished by Lev-Tov, Miller, and Reitz, however, required some translation. We worked closely with each to verify how the material should be translated, then encoded the data using our faunal program. Since MNI determinations are possibly one of the more idiosyncratic steps used to analyze assemblages, and since one important measure of diversity depends upon MNIs, we focused on insuring MNI data sets would be compatible with each other.

For the most part we have succeeded in integrating the work of these analysts and through this effort have made available analyses that were completed before microcomputers became generally available. Justin Lev-Tov, who analyzed the Jonas Green materials for Historic Annapolis, kindly provided his data in hard-copy form. In working with him, however, it was apparent that certain sets of data could not be obtained from his data sheets, and we opted to re-enter the materials ourselves. In every other case, however, we found ways to integrate the data collected by other specialists into the data base. Translating Elizabeth Reitz's work with the Calvert House and Reynolds Tavern faunal assemblages was made relatively easy by the fact that one of her former students and employees, Gwenyth Duncan, was a member of our team.

Since the early 1970s, when both Miller and Bowen began analyzing historic faunal assemblages, each independently developed virtually identical approaches to determining MNIs. Integrating Miller's data bases into our system was therefore relatively straightforward.

As in any field, the development of new analytical techniques will require new evidence and new or revised procedures. When Miller and Bowen completed much of the early work on Chesapeake faunal assemblages, there was no consensus on what dietary estimate was thought to 307 be the most accurate. The biomass technique, described later, was only widely applied after the early 1980s, particularly through the work of Elizabeth Reitz and her students and colleagues. Neither Miller and Bowen, therefore, systematically weighed each bone fragment, or set of fragments, a requirement for the application of biomass. It was simply not then part of the standard tool kit. Short of re-identifying the original bones, it was impossible to compute biomass estimates for these assemblages.

By the same token, there is considerable variation in the way that MNIs are determined, from those who calculate MNIs directly from data sheets to those who carefully attempt to physically match each bone fragment. Fortunately, both Miller and Bowen independently developed similar approaches to MNI determinations. Each chose the painstaking route of visual comparisons, where size and age differences for each element were taken into consideration.

Since 1985 Bowen and her colleagues have relied largely on biomass estimates, but to retain comparability with the older analyses, we have continued to compute usable meat weight estimates from the MNIs. With few exceptions, for example when fish are the predominant taxa, the two measures demonstrate the same ranked importance for the identified taxa. It appears that both estimates provide more or less accurate dietary estimates for those assemblages which are composed of predominantly large domesticates. Throughout the report references to both estimates are made.

Recovery Techniques

Recovery techniques always have a great effect on zooarchaeological analysis, and this work is no exception. Studies have repeatedly shown that, if soil is not screened during excavation, most of the small mammal, birds, fish, and amphibian remains will be lost. If soil is sieved through one-quarter inch mesh screen, some of the larger elements from these smaller animals will be recovered. By using other methods, such as flotation and screening soil through window screen or one-eight inch hardware mesh, it becomes possible to recover bones from most of the smaller animals as well.10

Since screening became a common recovery practice on local historic-period sites only in the 1980s, it has long been assumed that diversity estimates using assemblages excavated in the 1960s and 1970s are suspect. While the "hand-picked" assemblages, excavated by skilled archaeologists, have revealed a remarkable range of small artifactual evidence, there can be no doubt the range of smaller wildlife found in these assemblages are less than those that were carefully recovered with one-quarter and one-eighth inch mesh screens. Since the early 1980s, Colonial Williamsburg's archaeologists have consistently used one-quarter inch screen, and have begun to recover microfauna using fine-screen recovery methods and flotation. Other excavators (including those from Virginia Commonwealth University, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, James River Institute for Archaeology, the William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, and others) have independently adopted similar methods, although like all archaeological methods their application depends heavily on time and financial constraints and the research questions being addressed.

308

Hand-picking, fortunately, had less of an impact on the recovery of the remains of the large domesticated mammals that form the basis of the diet, including cattle, swine, sheep, and goats. Analyses of aging and element distributions based on these remains, therefore, are far more reliable than assessments of relative dietary contribution. Hand-troweling has not prevented the determination of age estimates and element distributions. By looking at the consistency of data within the time period, it appears that the element distribution estimates are to a large extent related to time and household variability.

Assemblage Formation

An important step was to select the assemblages having the most research potential. Over the years, Bowen worked closely with curators and archaeologists in the region who had faunal assemblages that had never been fully analyzed. Over time large numbers of assemblages of potential importance surfaced. In each case the archaeologist involved was asked to provide information on the site, date of occupation, and whatever was known about the occupants. He or she was asked to help break the site down into specific occupational periods that were both historically correct and analytically useful (for example, isolating the bones associated with the occupation of a particular household). These "sub-assemblages" are described in our computer recording system as "macro-features" and "phases."

Visits to the institution were made to assess each group of bones for fragmentation, sample size, and potential to answer our research questions. Several listed in our proposal, along with others that were recently excavated, were eliminated from consideration on the basis of fragmentation, poor preservation, assemblage size, poor to non-existent documentation, or in the case of salvage sites an insufficient degree of archaeological analysis that would permit a reliable assemblage formation. Working with old archaeological collections proved a much greater challenge than anticipated. When it seemed as though the potential number was sinking below the desired number, others that did contain sufficiently large numbers of bone in a good or excellent state of preservation surfaced.

Date ranges for most assemblages were narrowed to at least a half-century, but those that could be narrowed down to a quarter-century proved most useful in the end. For a few assemblages, it was necessary to create sub-assemblages based on a careful re-consideration of the artifact assemblage. Dr. Fraser Neiman, now of Monticello, kindly helped us develop an algorithm that allowed contexts from several Williamsburg sites to be divided into early and late components.

Bone Identification Procedures

Since an extremely large number of bone fragments had to be processed, identified, and analyzed in a very short period of time, the staff worked to streamline procedures for basic processing. Briefly, all bone fragments submitted for analysis were first sorted into "identifiable" and "unidentifiable" categories. The unidentifiable bone, fragments which cannot be taken to at least the taxonomic level of Order, were sorted by class (mammal, fish, bird, etc.), and element type (long bone, rib, tooth, etc.). Each grouping (for example, large mammal long bone from a particular context) was then given a "unique bone (UB) number," which is used for computer-aided tracking. The number of bone fragments in the group was tabulated, and the bone was 309 weighed on a digital scale for the purpose of estimating fragmentation and biomass calculations (described later). Any burned bone fragments in the unidentified category were noted and recorded separately. Once recorded, this data was entered into the computer.

Each identifiable bone fragment was also given a UB number, which was affixed to the element itself along with the site and context or feature number. Given the numbers of bone that had to be processed, speed was imperative. Fortunately, a technique developed by our curatorial staff helped to speed this time-consuming process. Numbers were generated on the computer on acid-free paper, which was then affixed to the bone itself with a glue made from acetone and B-72. The number was placed in the most inconspicuous place possible on the bone itself, atop a layer of seal coat. When dry, another coat of glue that prevented the label from rubbing off was applied. If the bone was too small to number, the UB number was placed along with the bone into a plastic bag.

Working with a comparative collection housed and maintained in Colonial Williamsburg's Zooarchaeology Lab, the identifiable bone fragments were carefully studied. Initial sorts by taxon and element were made. By working with morphological characteristics, each bone was identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level. The taxon, bone element, side, portion of the element, tooth wear, state of epiphyseal fusion and butchery evidence was carefully recorded. Since evidence of the state of fusion, butchery, and cut of meat each depend upon the taphonomic processes that might have modified bone after it had been deposited, any and all evidence of alterations resulting from natural processes were recorded. Processes include temperature variation that can dry out, split, or otherwise degrade bone, carnivores and rodents that chew bone, and human feet that can further fragment bone. Identifying modifications resulting from cultural activities such as butchering were also noted, since particularly for bone which has been butchered with a cleaver or ax, modifications resulting from percussion tools look to the unschooled and unwary much like stress fractures resulting from temperature variation.11

Quantification Methods

There are four recognized measures of taxonomic abundance-NISP, MNI, usable meat weights, and biomass. Each is