73
Commodity Flow and National
Market Access: A Case Study
from Interior Alaska
William Hampton Adams
Peter M. Bowers
Robin Mills
ABSTRACT
This study re-examines the Commodity Flow Model presented
by Riordan and Adams (1985) in light of additional work
done by other archaeologists working in Illinois, Oregon, and
South Carolina. The Commodity Flow Model provides a
way for historical archaeologists to evaluate the interactions
between manufacturer and consumer, by categorizing the
consumer’s participation in the national market economy.
The model is then tested using early 20th century gold rush
sites in interior Alaska. Using both weighted and unweighted
samples, this study reaffirms the validity of the model and
suggests ways of improving it.
Introduction
Linking artifacts to their sources in the
national or international marketplace provides
useful information about how the people of interior Alaska interacted with the national market
in the early decades of the 20th century. This
study details how the merchants and consumers
were part of a national system of production
and distribution. The study examines sites from
several areas in the interior of Alaska from
two separate projects (Figure 1). First, the
Fairbanks assemblage located in central Alaska
comes from several sites excavated as part of
the Barnette Street Project (Bowers and Gannon
1998). Second, three smaller placer mining
settlements provide additional assemblages for
comparison: Coldfoot and Wiseman in northcentral Alaska, and Tofty in central Alaska (Mills
1998).
Fairbanks, Alaska
In 1992-1993, large scale urban excavations
were conducted in Fairbanks, at the heart of the
town’s commercial beginnings. Fairbanks was
founded in 1901, when trader, entrepreneur, and
Figure 1. Locations of sites.
con-man E. T. Barnette and tons of trade goods
were dumped on the banks of the Chena River,
hundreds of miles from the nearest Euroamerican
settlement, after the riverboat he had chartered
ran aground. Fortunately for Barnette, smoke
from the steamer was seen from distant hills by
prospector Felix Pedro, who became Barnette’s
first customer. A year later, Pedro struck gold
and a major rush was on to interior Alaska,
populated heavily by miners and business people
from Dawson, spurned on no doubt by Barnette’s
propaganda. Fairbanks became the core of the
Fairbanks mining district, where gold production
increased steadily until 1909-1910. Following
a decade of decreasing gold production and
declining population, the local economy saw a
major rebirth with the coming of the Alaska
Railroad in 1923, which helped foster large scale
dredge operations of the Fairbanks Exploration
Company until World War II.
The Barnette project excavations yielded more
than 100,000 artifacts, and investigated the
deeply-buried remains of a 1901-1904 cabin (perhaps built by the town’s founder), two saloons,
the foundation of the Northern Commercial
Company dock and warehouse, and a massive
riverbank trash deposit. One remarkable observation about the excavations is the division,
in terms of both stratigraphy and recovered
artifacts, into pre-1923 and post-1923 periods
(Steamboat Era, 1901-1922; Railroad Era,
1923-1941). The former accounts for artifacts,
Historical Archaeology, 2001, 35(2):73—107.
Permission to reprint required.
Main Body - 35(2)b
72-73
10/2/00, 9:32 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
74
brought in primarily by steamboat, found below
a distinctive yellowish coal ash layer, which
marks the coming of coal from the Healy coal
fields by the new government railroad. The
post-1923 period includes cultural deposits
found in or above the ash layer resulting from
train traffic. Historical records corroborate the
archaeological data, which show that significant
steamboat traffic had all but ended with the
inception of the railroad.
The coal ash
layer also served to demarcate pre-Prohibition
saloon deposits from Prohibition and later nonsaloon commercial deposits (Bowers and Gannon
1998).
The saloons excavated were the California
Saloon and the Miner’s Home Saloon located
on opposite sides of the Chena River. Excavations near the landing site of Barnette found
cut tree stumps possibly from the very first day
of Fairbanks’ existence. The riverbank trash
dump from the saloon across the street contained
an assortment of thousands of broken bottles,
Quaker Maid whiskey bottles with original contents, eyeglasses, a human tooth, poker chips, a
wooden bowling ball, beer taps, floral decorated
plates, and other saloon paraphernalia. Preservation was excellent and included a photograph,
animal remains, a leather gold poke, paper
steamboat shipping tags, and preserved contents
in bottles. As a result, we are able to identify
objects and manufacturers of things not normally
recognized in archaeological collections. The
majority of items come from the Steamboat Era
of 1901-1922 (Bowers and Gannon 1998).
Coldfoot, Wiseman, and Tofty , Alaska
Coldfoot and Wiseman are located in northcentral Alaska above the Arctic Circle in the
southern flank of the Brooks Range Mountains,
both along the Middle Fork of the Koyukuk
River at the mouths of tributary streams. Coldfoot was founded in 1899 following the discovery of payable placer gold in the vicinity. It
enjoyed its peak between 1902 and 1904, prior
to the exhaustion of the rich, shallow placer
grounds in surrounding streams and creeks.
Falling gold production in the Coldfoot area,
and newer strikes further upstream, especially in
1907, induced most of the commercial establishments and U.S. Federal representatives and posts
to relocate progressively between 1907 and
Main Body - 35(2)b
74-75
1912 to Wiseman, located only 12 miles further
upstream. Wiseman was initially founded only
as a roadhouse locale about 1905.
Whereas most of the population in the Upper
Koyukuk eventually became situated in and
around Wiseman, Coldfoot continued to be
inhabited by a few people until about 1927,
when it finally became abandoned. Although
the town site was reoccupied by a few people in
the 1950s, this latter occupation is clearly visible
both architecturally and archaeologically, and will
not be considered further here. Although declining drastically in population during World War
II, Wiseman never became totally abandoned,
and remains a viable community of about 30
persons to this day (Mills 1998:14-22).
Tofty is located in the Manley Mining District
in central Alaska, northwest of Fairbanks, and
was founded in 1907 on the discovery claim
of Sullivan Creek. Gold production for the surrounding district declined dramatically in the
early 1920s, and it is likely that Tofty declined
with this downward trend (Mills 1998:22-23).
Archaeological excavations were conducted at
Coldfoot, Wiseman, and Tofty in 1994 and 1995
(Mills 1998:12-48). In total, more than 19,000
artifacts were recovered from the excavation
and sampling of 15 features (Mills 1998:33-40;
391-440). Features with sufficient commodity
data to be included in the present discussion
include one structural foundation each at Tofty
and Wiseman (Tofty 1; Wiseman 1), five foundations at Coldfoot (Coldfoot 1, 4, 5, 7, 14), six
trash pits (Coldfoot 3, 6, 10, 16, 17, 25), and
one outhouse pit (Coldfoot 11).
Dates for features used in the analysis in
this paper are the more refined estimates of
the principal occupation layers in each feature.
When dealing with dates for a site’s excavated
artifacts, Coldfoot is given an age estimate
of 1905-1930, Wiseman 1920-1940, and Tofty
1925-1965 (Mills 1998:Figure 2.4). Tofty’s
later date range reflects its continued use as
a dump through time, and omits an earlier,
stratigraphically and occupationally discrete
minor assemblage found beneath the excavated
foundation (Tofty 1 L-3).
Commodity Flow to Alaska
The gold rush period in Alaska found men
and women in what was popularly considered
10/2/00, 9:32 PM
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
the “ends of the Earth,” struggling to overcome
hardships and achieve success. While distances
to the Continental United States were great
and physical obstacles such as mountains and
treacherous rivers were substantial, analysis of
recently excavated archaeological collections from
Alaska indicate that people living in interior
placer gold mining settlements experienced only
a few short years in the initial settlement when
they did not have access to virtually anything
someone in Seattle or San Francisco could buy.
A commodity took a few more weeks or months
to arrive in interior Alaska and cost a great deal
more, but if it could be found on the Pacific
West Coast, it was available almost anywhere
in Alaska. In a sense, the popular notion of
the “frontier” as a long term phenomenon, is
unproven. Indeed, the archaeological record
from Fairbanks shows rapid urbanization; within
just two to three years the town boasted such
urban trappings as central steam heating and
electricity, and a major shift from log cabin
architecture to multi-story frame construction of
commercial buildings (Bowers and Gannon 1998;
Gerlach et al. 1998; Weaver 1998).
In the following sections the Commodity
Flow Model proposed by Riordan and Adams
(1980, 1985) is re-examined in light of research
conducted in the decade that followed that
model’s introduction. The assemblages from
sites in South Carolina, Illinois, and Oregon will
be examined first and then from interior Alaska.
While the model should apply to Alaska, it was
not devised to include Alaska. How then would
the profile for Alaska differ from the rest of
the United States? Is the model valid? How
can it be improved? Let us first look at the
Commodity Flow Model as originally proposed
by a geographer, Allan Pred.
The Geographer’s Commodity Flow Model
Geographers have focused on the way the
national economy produces and distributes manufactured goods. They have viewed how these
goods travel from the manufacturer to the consumer, a process called commodity flow. In
1964, Allan Pred devised a typology for commodity flows using industry type and market
accessibility (Pred 1964:65-84, 1970).
Industry type was divided by Pred into three
groups. The Raw Material and Power Oriented
Main Body - 35(2)b
74-75
75
Industries focus on extracting raw materials
and refining them for transport elsewhere to be
made into finished products; hence, these tend
to be located away from population areas. The
second group is Market Oriented Industries;
these companies serve the regional and national
markets, and hence need to be located in areas
with good market accessibility. The third industry, Labor Related or Agglomeration Economies,
involve products with a high enough demand, or
low enough production cost, that transportation
costs are not a factor in the product’s sales.
Pred defined accessibility using New York
City as the baseline, and then ranking different
areas of the country in relation to New York
City in terms of access through a combined land
and sea transportation network. He arbitrarily
defined these areas as being High Access (0%
to 25% less than New York City), Intermediate
Access (25% to 40% less), and Low Access
(more than 40%) (Figure 2). Accessibility is
largely a function of the development of the
transportation web and the population being
served by that network. Clearly, the larger the
population, the greater the need for transporting
goods to those people, and hence the greater
access they have to manufactured goods. Put
another way, people in large cities have greater
access to material goods than people in rural
areas, and people in areas of the country with
numerous large cities have even more access.
This means they can get a greater variety of
material goods at cheaper prices. Small town
stores cannot afford to bring in a massive variety
of merchandise. This is economy of scale.
Pred found that Market Oriented manufacturers located in high market access areas distributed their goods the furthest, with the High
Access area getting the largest percentage, but
the Intermediate Access Area and Low Access
Area also receiving a share. The same kind
of manufacturers located in Intermediate Access
Areas had a smaller distribution network, mostly
sent short distances and within the Intermediate
Access Areas, for they could not compete in
the High Access or Low Access Areas (Pred
1970:280-282).
The Archaeologist’s Commodity Flow Model
The geographer’s model for commodity flow
traced the manufactured goods to the consumer
10/2/00, 9:32 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
76
and provided a view of the consumer’s accessibility to manufactured goods. The archaeological data look at this backwards. We see the
end result of consumerism–disposal–and interpret
from these discarded objects what their relationship was in terms of manufacture and distribution. These are mirrored images in a sense,
thus, they should reveal the same information.
The archaeological data are seen through the
filter of time and disposal practices, but the
broad patterns of commodity flows and consumer
choices should still be apparent.
A few historical archaeologists began the quest
for economic models of market access in the
mid-1970s. Joel Klein addressed the topic of
changing market economies theoretically, but
did not present any hypotheses or data. In
that study, Klein mentioned local, short range,
and long range classes, but did not define the
terms (Klein 1973). Robert Schuyler also examined the issue of trading networks in his study
of Sandy Ground, New York (Schuyler 1974,
1980).
The first extensive study of economic models
of market access was William H. Adams’ study
of Silcott, Washington (Adams 1973:335-346,
1975, 1976a, 1976b, 1977, 1991; Adams et al.
1975). This study of seven sites dating from
the 1900-1930 period laid the groundwork for
future studies by incorporating not only archival
data, but also oral history in an integrative
way. In the Silcott study, Adams identified
the manufacturing locations for 1,043 artifacts
recovered from the 7 sites and found that 87.8%
of the identified products came from more than
1,000 miles away. They were made in the
American Manufacturing Belt, the northeastern
quarter of the United States roughly speaking,
where 65% of the US manufacturing capacity
was located at the turn of the century (Pred
1964, 1970). Part of the explanation for this
is obvious; since most things were made in that
Manufacturing Belt, then most objects found in
an American site will come from that region.
The commodity flow thesis also posits, however,
that West Coast manufacturers should have
made their presence felt more clearly in the
Silcott archaeological assemblages, whereas those
western-made artifacts were relatively uncommon
in that assemblage.
Timothy B. Riordan and Adams used data
from two communities in Mississippi, Waverly
Main Body - 35(2)b
76-77
Figure 2. Market access areas in relation to New York City
(redrawn from Pred 1970).
Plantation and Bay Springs, to develop the model
further (summary below) (Riordan and Adams
1980; Adams et al. 1981:126-140). Their thesis
stated that “when located in different geographic
regions, sites having the same access to the
national market will show greater similarity
to each other than to sites having different
access, even when located in the same region”
as reflected in terms of commodity data (Riordan
and Adams 1985:8).
Study Summaries
This section provides summaries of four different commodity flow studies carried out in the
decade following the introduction of the model.
It illustrates the model’s utility and provides the
background for comparison with the analysis of
the assemblages presented here.
Waverly Plantation, Bay Springs, Silcott, and
Sandy Ground
In 1979, Adams and Riordan investigated
Waverly Plantation and Bay Springs, two communities about a hundred miles apart in Mississippi. The Waverly Plantation sites included
four tenant farmer houses occupied by AfricanAmericans in the 1880-1930 period; one site
was also used by white sharecroppers from
1930 to 1950 (Adams 1980; Riordan and Adams
1980; Adams and Smith 1985:309-334; Smith
1991). The Bay Springs sites date generally
from 1840 to 1890 and were associated with
white millworkers (Adams et al. 1981). These
10/2/00, 9:33 PM
77
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
two communities were located in the Intermediate Access Area defined by Allan Pred. For
comparison sake, two other communities were
selected: Sandy Ground and Silcott. Silcott
was a white farming community in the Low
Access Area of southeastern Washington with
sites dated primarily from 1900 to 1930. Sandy
Ground was near New York City, and so it
lay in the heart of the High Access Area.
The archaeological assemblage there dated
1890-1930 (Schuyler 1974, 1980). The Sandy
Ground assemblage presents a problem because
it includes only the glass containers from two
features, and not the fuller range of materials.
The total sample size of 330 compares well with
the Waverly sample, but only market oriented
industries were included. To compare these
assemblages, artifact percentages were used in
the analysis.
Analysis of the assemblages from these sites
strongly supported Pred’s thesis. The site found
in the High Access Area, Sandy Ground, derived
99.4% of its material from manufacturers also
located in the High Access Area while only
0.6% came from Low Access Area manufacturers
(Table 1). Silcott, located in a Low Access
Area, obtained 56.5% of its market oriented
manufactured goods from the High Access Area
manufacturers, while manufacturers located in
Low Access Area and Intermediate Access Areas
provided Silcott consumers with 23.0% and
20.5%, respectively, of their materials. Waverly
and Bay Springs, located in Intermediate Access
Area, received 32.5% and 28.6% of their goods
from manufacturers in the Intermediate Access
Area; and negligible quantities from Low Access
Area manufacturers. These data suggest that
the majority of manufactured goods came from
manufacturers located in the High Access Area,
which is also the area that produces 65% of the
manufactured goods for the United States. The
results ranged from 56.5% to 71.4% for Silcott,
Waverly, and Bay Springs and support Pred’s
model. Pred also postulated that companies
located in Intermediate Access Areas tended
to distribute and be competitive only in those
areas. This was supported by the data from
Waverly and Bay Springs, which had the highest
percentages for manufacturers located in the
Intermediate Access Area. The Silcott data
indicate that manufacturers located in Low
Access Areas also competed best in those areas.
These data show that each community purchased
the goods made close to home when these were
available.
Do the same observations hold true for the
Labor Related category of artifacts? These
kinds of goods are ones either produced inexpensively or had so much value added that
transportation was not a factor. Examples of
inexpensive goods would be some plastic toys
and tax tokens, while the valuable items would
be things like watches, ammunition, and silverware. Hence, we should expect that goods
manufactured in the High Access Area should
be able to out compete goods made anywhere
else. Based on this relatively small sample,
the expectation seems to be met (Table 2). All
these kinds of goods found at Silcott and Bay
Springs were made in the High Access Area,
while only at Waverly were goods manufactured
in Low and Intermediate Access Area found.
The ten artifacts from Waverly made in a Low
Access Area came from a single manufacturer
of tax tokens in Denver.
Ashley Plantation
Richard D. Brooks used the commodity flow
model at Ashley Plantation, located on the
TABLE 1
MARKET ORIENTED ARTIFACTS FROM THE ORIGINAL MODEL (RIORDAN AND ADAMS 1985)
Access Area
Silcott
N
Waverly
%
Bay Springs
N
Sandy Ground
%
N
%
Low
Intermediate
High
Total
222
198
546
966
23.0
20.5
56.5
100.0
3
67
136
206
1.5
32.5
66.0
100.0
–
6
15
21
–
28.6
71.4
100.0
Main Body - 35(2)b
76-77
N
2
–
328
330
10/2/00, 9:33 PM
%
0.6
–
99.4
100.0
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
78
TABLE 2
LABOR RELATED ARTIFACTS FROM THE ORIGINAL MODEL (RIORDAN AND ADAMS 1985)
Access Area
Silcott
N
Waverly
%
Low
Intermediate
High
Total
–
–
114
114
–
–
100.0
100.0
Bay Springs
N
Sandy Ground
%
N
%
N
%
10.9
1.1
88.0
100.0
–
–
12
12
–
–
100.0
100.0
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
10
1
81
92
Savannah River in South Carolina. The sites
dated from 1876 to 1950, and consisted of three
tenant farmer houses, two dwellings, and a mill
complex (Brooks n.d.). This plantation was
located virtually the same distance as Waverly
Plantation from New York City in terms of the
commodity flow model, roughly at the 37% cline
of market access. Hence, one would expect that
the figures should be comparable, and indeed
they are. Market Oriented goods from the High
Access Area at Ashley Plantation represented
73.8% (compared to 66.0% at Waverly), while
23.2% and 3.0% came from Intermediate and
Low Access Area manufacturers respectively,
compared to 32.5% and 1.5% for Waverly (Table
3).
Oregon
Lou Ann Speulda and Gary C. Bowyer (1996)
have tested the model on five sites in Oregon:
Homestead site JE-3 dated ca. 1906-1913, Homestead site JE-2 dated ca. 1910-1935, Homestead
site JE-1 dated ca. 1923-1938, a logging camp
ca. 1922-1931, and a railroad construction camp
ca. 1923-1926 (Table 4). These sites are located
in the 50%-55% cline within the Low Access
Area. Based upon the results from Silcott,
also located in the Pacific Northwest, we would
expect the High Access Area figures to be about
57%. The homesteads have frequencies very
similar to Silcott for High Access Area artifacts,
while the range for Intermediate Access Area
manufacturers is rather low. These data support
the contention that sites located in the Low
Access Area will have higher representation of
Low Access Area manufacturers than Intermediate Access Area ones. The logging camp and
the railroad construction camp data clearly show
that we must be careful to identify the kind of
sites being analyzed, and that we need to control
for biases introduced by the kind of population
occupying these sites. This railroad camp was
predominately male, while the logging camp
had families. This logging camp was moved
en masse every few years. Its occupants were
not limited to the company store for purchases.
Three root cellars, some disposal pits, and
habitation areas were examined there. The
railroad camp was a very short term occupation;
trash pits were excavated there. What this study
show is that site type can also affect market
access. Interpretation of specialized or industrial
sites may further be complicated if we fail to
consider additional variables in our models, such
as gender and site function.
TABLE 3
MARKET ORIENTED VS. LABOR RELATED ARTIFACTS FROM ASHLEY PLANTATION, SOUTH
CAROLINA (FROM BROOKS N.D.)
Access Area
Market Oriented Artifacts
N
Low
Intermediate
High
Total
12
93
295
400
Main Body - 35(2)b
78-79
Labor Related Artifacts
%
3.0
23.2
73.8
100.0
Total
N
–
6
43
49
%
–
12.2
87.8
100.0
N
12
99
338
449
10/2/00, 9:33 PM
%
2.7
22.0
75.3
100.0
79
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
TABLE 4
MARKET ORIENTED ARTIFACTS FROM OREGON SITES (FROM SPEULDA AND BOWYER 1996)
Access Area
Homestead
OR-JE-3
N
Low
Intermediate
High
Total
Homestead
OR-JE-2
%
7
10
9
26
23.0
20.5
56.5
100.0
Homestead
OR-JE-1
N
13
1
32
46
Logging
OR-DS-5
%
Camp Railroad
OR-KL-4
N
%
28.3
2.2
69.5
100.0
12
11
57
70
15.0
13.7
71.3
100.0
Camp
N
%
N
32
18
33
83
38.5
21.7
39.8
100.0
%
14
109*
11
134
10.5
81.3
8.2
100.0
* 103 of these were tobacco tins, eliminating these, the percentages become: low 45.2%, intermediate 19.3%, and high 35.5%.
Peoria, Illinois
In each of the studies presented so far, the
data have been lumped for all the sites in a
community and without consideration of chronology or site function. When the period represented by an artifact collection cross-cuts major
changes in the transportation network, a more
accurate picture would be obtained by separating the assemblage into chronological periods.
Certainly the access to the national, regional,
and even local market will differ as transportation improves, so dividing the assemblages into
periods based upon transportation history makes
sense.
Recognizing the value of using chronological
periods, Melanie A. Cabak and Mark D. Groover
analyzed an artifact assemblage from Peoria,
Illinois (Cabak and Groover 1993a:17-30, 1993b).
Peoria is located on the fringe of the High
Access Area in the 24% cline (Table 5). They
did not distinguish their artifacts based on
industry as had been done by earlier studies.
What they suggested, albeit with a relatively
small sample size, was that the High Access
Area manufacturers dominated early on, but
through time the manufacturers in the Intermediate Access Area steadily increased their market
share. Clearly, these data suggest that we should
control closely for time and that the closer we
get to the present, the more the Intermediate and
Low Access Area manufacturers will have had
a chance to develop their industries. Another
factor needing to be considered is the regional
history of industrial development. Different
areas of the country have developed at different
rates, as has the national transportation network
linking them together.
Analysis of the Assemblages from Interior
Alaska
Alaska was not included in Pred’s original
access area model, so it is proposed here that
Alaska is comparable to Low Access Areas in
the continental United States (Figure 2). While
TABLE 5
MARKET ACCESS THROUGH TIME: AN EXAMPLE FROM PEORIA, ILLINOIS (FROM CABAK AND
GROOVER 1993A)
1787-1834
1834-1880
1880-1910
1910+
Access Area
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Low
Intermediate
High
Total
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2
14
16
–
12.5
87.5
100.0
1
8
25
34
3.0
23.5
73.5
100.0
1
23
52
76
1.3
30.3
68.4
100.0
Main Body - 35(2)b
78-79
10/2/00, 9:33 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
80
Alaskan sites were in the Low Access Area and
would be expected to be most similar to each
other, we would also expect to see quantifiable
similarities with collections from non-Alaskan
sites in low market access areas.
What is the situation for sites in interior
Alaska? Did they draw, like most Low Access
Area sites elsewhere, upon the main industrial
region of the United States for their supplies,
or did West Coast manufacturers provide more
of the goods? Did Canadian manufacturers
provide a larger amount of the supplies due
to their proximity and to the extreme demand
the influx of thousands of Klondike Stampeders
had created? Did certain kinds of goods travel
further than other kinds? Was there a difference
in the supply of goods in Fairbanks between the
Steamboat Era (1901-1922) and the Railroad Era
(1923-1941)? Is that difference represented in
the archaeological assemblages?
The steamboat era began much earlier than
1901 for the Yukon as a whole. The first steamboat on the Yukon was in 1869, when Capt. C.
W. Raymond of the U.S. Army traveled to Fort
Yukon on the steamer Yukon. The steamer was
apparently put in service the year before, in
1868 (Mercier 1986:xiii, 1-9). The first steamers on the Tanana and Chena rivers were the
Tanana Chief and Potlatch in 1898. These were
sighted by USGS Geologist Alfred Brooks, and
U.S. Army Lt. J. C. Castner (Robe 1943:65-70;
Hedrick and Savage 1988:xi-xiv).
In direct competition with railroads, water
transportation has generally been much less
expensive per tonnage than rail transportation
across the United States. Water transportation
by steamboat and later barges is hampered in
much of the country, however, by winter freezing
of waterways. An additional problem in Alaska
is that for goods to come into the interior by
water, they must travel a considerable distance
along the Pacific Coast, into the Bering Sea, be
transferred to steamers at St. Michael, and then
transported all the way up the Yukon and its
tributaries to settlements located throughout the
interior. When the railroad was completed in
1923, connecting Fairbanks in the interior with
Seward on the coast of the Gulf of Alaska,
this distance was shortened considerably. As
a result, rail transport could not only compete
in price, but also offer a shorter delivery time.
Main Body - 35(2)b
80-81
Furthermore, the railroad could run year-round,
while the steamboat traffic was limited to about
four months a year of ice-free water. The
railroad was also government subsidized, which
kept costs artificially low. Unlike rail transport
in the rest of the United States, however, this
Alaskan system was not extensive and did not
link up directly with the Canadian or United
States systems. Hence, it was very much an
extension of the sea transport system.
The second consideration is that by the mid1920s, the West Coast manufacturers had an
additional two decades of growth, in part fueled
by the northern trade. Over time the West
Coast manufacturers were able to capture a
larger share of the Alaskan market, due both
to internal growth and improved transportation
systems. West Coast manufacturers also geared
their advertising and distribution networks very
heavily toward the northern gold rush market.
They even advertised and boomed the strikes
to encourage trade. The study done of Peoria,
Illinois (Table 5) showed a similar trend towards
development of the local access area. In part,
both the Peoria and the Fairbanks assemblages
show that, through time, American industry
developed further west to serve the local and
regional markets.
Weighted
Analysis
Assemblage
of
the
Fairbanks
In the analysis of the Fairbanks assemblage
from the Barnette Project, the collection is
divided into three time periods: Steamboat
Era, Railroad Era, and Other (Tables 6, 7; 8).
These sub-assemblages combine the materials
from different areas of the sites based upon
their association with deposits dating from the
Steamboat Era (1901-1922) or the Railroad
Era (1923-1941) (Adams et al. 1998). Those
artifacts that could not definitely be assigned
to one or the other were placed in the Other
category. Table 6 provides a summary of all
artifacts from the Barnette Project containing
trademarks or manufacturer marks (Williams and
Higgs 1998), are from a datable stratigraphic
context, and/or are assignable to a manufacture
date or date range. In the case of artifacts
serving as containers (e.g., bottles, cans), it
was attempted to distinguish between where
10/2/00, 9:33 PM
81
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
TABLE 6
COMPARISONS USING FREQUENCY OF ARTIFACTS BY ACCESS AREA FOR DIFFERENT TIME
PERIODS, FAIRBANKS ASSEMBLAGE
Steamboat
Railroad
Other
Total
Access Area
N
%
N
%
Low
Intermediate
High
Total
44
177
192
413
10.7
42.8
46.5
100.0
53
27
110
190
a container was manufactured as opposed to
where it was filled. In this analysis, the use the
product manufacturer was used when possible.
Table 6 is sorted by access area (H=high;
I=intermediate; L=low; X=foreign), and arranged
alphabetically by manufacturer within each access
area. Note that the “Mfg. Date” is derived from
historic literature on companies and products;
the “era” columns are based on the stratigraphic
dating of the artifacts to the Steamboat Era or
Railroad Era, as defined above. Some examples
of time lag are apparent, where “early” artifacts
appear in a strata deposited after the artifact
ceased to be manufactured. Twenty-four artifacts
(from 14 trademarks) were placed in “Other”
instead of their archaeologically-derived era
because they represented “late” artifacts in
“early” deposit–a temporal impossibility indicating mixed deposits, stratigraphic reversals, or
error in the field. The 24 artifacts so removed
represent only 2.7% of the total artifacts (N=895)
used in this analysis, a comfortably low degree
of error.
Comparing artifact frequency by access area
and time period, percentages of artifacts coming
from the West Coast manufacturers increased
from 10.7% in the Steamboat Era to 27.9%
in the Railroad Era (Table 6). Intermediate
Access Area suppliers dropped from 42.8% to
14.2% between the early and late time period,
and High Access Area manufacturers increased
from 46.5% to 57.9% over time in the Fairbanks
assemblage .
Because of the very large number (N=126) of
beer bottles coming from St. Louis, Missouri
breweries and because these bottles may have
been refilled locally at the Barthel Brewery,
it was decided to also look at the assemblage
Main Body - 35(2)b
80-81
27.9
14.2
57.9
100.0
N
79
63
150
292
%
27.0
21.6
51.4
100.0
N
176
267
452
895
%
19.7%
29.8%
50.5%
100.0%
without those two artifact types (Marks 339 and
340). The figures have been adjusted to remove
these bottles from the assemblage (Table 7). By
doing this, the contribution of the Intermediate
Access Area drops considerably, from 42.8% to
17.8%. This adjustment appears necessary to
avoid the skew from these potentially refilled
bottles, and so this adjusted total is used in
subsequent tables here. While refilling some
kinds bottles occurred elsewhere commonly, it
is believed that this occurred more frequently
in remote areas, where supplies were more
limited.
Table 9 summarizes the Coldfoot, Tofty, and
Wiseman data, and provides the numbers and
percentages of each site’s access area data (Table
10). The sites are arranged chronologically
from earliest on the left to latest on the right.
The Coldfoot data support the main tenet of the
commodity hypothesis, that is, American-made
commodities coming into interior Alaska (a Low
Access Area) in the early decades of the 20th
century were overwhelmingly coming from the
High Access Area (50.0%), with lesser amounts
coming from the Intermediate and Low Access
Areas (19.6% and 30.4%). As time progressed
into the mid-20th century, the amounts of goods
deriving from the High Access Area decreases
considerably, with a concomitant rise in Low
Access Area goods deriving from the West Coast
states. Interestingly, while the data from the
1905-1920, 1912-1930, and 1920-1930 blocks
are similar (Table 8), the percentage of goods
deriving from the High Access Area appears to
increase through time through these time blocks,
before decreasing dramatically in the mid-20th
century deposits. Similarly, the Low Access
Area goods slightly decrease in percentage, prior
10/2/00, 9:33 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
82
to their sudden upsurge. More data and deposits
dated to a finer resolution are required to assess
whether this trend is actually a reflection of past
commodity trading practices, or else is merely
the result of sampling and preservation bias.
In summary, using the adjusted figures from
Fairbanks, the trend is clear: the more local
manufactured items nearly double in frequency
from 15.3% to 28.2% from the Steamboat Era
to the Railroad Era (Table 7). This increase is
mostly at the expense of the High Access Area
manufacturers. The trend is even more obvious
when we examined the data from the Coldfoot,
Wiseman, and Tofty assemblages (Table 9).
Early features in Coldfoot (1905-1920), indicated
13.3% of the goods were coming from Low
Access Area manufacturers, while this figure
at later Coldfoot features dating 1925-1930 are
27.5%. Wiseman (1920-1940) is 40.0% and
Tofty is 53.6%. Again, most of the West Coast’s
gain came at the expense of the manufactures
in the High Access Area.
Unweighted Analysis of the Interior Alaskan
Assemblages
In each of the studies above, the samples were
weighted by the artifacts totals for each company as these were found at the archaeological
sites. In addition to doing that kind of analysis,
we have also tried a different approach here,
namely looking at the unweighted sample. In
this analysis, the totals are for each company
represented in the archaeological assemblage.
The artifact totals are, therefore, ignored here.
This unweighted analysis avoids such biases
introduced by artifact reuse (e.g., refilling bottles), artifact breakage during shipment, and
individual preferences. Does this method yield
interpretable results?
Looking at the data by time periods we find
only slight variation between the Steamboat
and Railroad Era samples in the Fairbanks
assemblages (Table 11). The only significant
change was that Intermediate Access Area companies represented in the Fairbanks assemblage
increased from 10 to 15 companies between
the Steamboat and Railroad Eras, while the
companies in the High and Low Access Areas
dropped one fewer each.
When we expand this analysis to include the
Coldfoot, Wiseman, and Tofty data we see the
value of a broader sample. Had only the Coldfoot, Wiseman, and Tofty data been examined,
we would have two strong trends, with the Low
Access Area yielding 30.4, 28.6, and 18.2%,
while the High Access Area went from 50.0%,
53.6%, and 63.6% respectively (Table 11). Combining those data with the Fairbanks data, we see
that the contributions from the High and Low
Access Areas are highly variable, although there
may still be an upward trend in the numbers
of companies located in the High Access Area
and a slight downward trend in the Low Access
Area companies. The Intermediate Access Area
provided nearly identical contributions (19.6%,
17.3%, 17.8%, and 18.2%) in the four later
assemblages.
Let us next compare the unweighted company
data from the Fairbanks assemblage with those
from Silcott, Waverly, and Ashley Plantation
(Table 12). Ordering these by the High Access
Area figures, we see that the further away from
the High Access Area, the frequency of manufacturers from the High Access Area decreases,
while the numbers of Low Access Area manu-
TABLE 7
COMPARISONS USING FREQUENCY OF ARTIFACTS BY ACCESS AREA, WITHOUT MARKS 339 AND
340, FAIRBANKS ASSEMBLAGE
Access Area
Steamboat
N
Railroad
%
Other
N
Total
%
N
Low
Intermediate
High
Total
44
51
192
287
15.3
17.8
66.9
100.0
53
25
110
188
28.2
13.3
58.5
100.0
79
47
150
276
Main Body - 35(2)b
82-83
%
28.6
17.0
54.3
100.0
N
176
123
452
751
10/2/00, 9:33 PM
%
23.4
16.4
60.2
100.0
83
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF FAIRBANKS ASSEMBLAGE ARTIFACTS (MNI) ASSOCIATED WITH IDENTIFIABLE TRADEMARKS, WITH
DISTRIBUTION BY TIME PERIOD
Mark
Manufacturer
Product
City
State/
Mfg.
Access Steam Rail
Country
Date
Area
Era
Era
Era
Other
Total
Manufacturers in High Access Areas
251
A.C. Spark Plug Co.
spark plug
Flint
MI
1915-
H
0
1
0
1
306
American Bottle Co.
bottle
Newark
OH
1928
H
0
1
0
1
316
American Bottle Co.
bottle
Newark
OH
1928
H
0
6
4
10
317
American Bottle Co.
bottle
Streator
IL
1926
H
0
1
3
4
35
American Tap Bush Co.
beer keg tap
Detroit
MI
1895-
H
1
0
0
1
1900
78
Anchor-Hocking .
Schlitz Beer
Glass Corp
Bottle
Lancaster
OH
1938-
H
0
1
4
5
388
Armstrong Cork Co.
434
Avon Sole Co.
bottle
Lancaster
PA
1938-69
H
0
0
1
1
rubber label
Avon
MA
—
H
0
0
1
1
69
260
Ball Bros. Co.
canning jar
Muncie
IN
ca. 1915
H
0
1
2
3
Ben Burke Distillers
bottle
Boston
MA
—
H
0
1
0
1
122
Boonton Plastic
bottle closure
Boonton
NJ
—
H
1
0
0
1
Sal Hepatica
New York
NY
1897-
H
0
1
0
1
Louisville
KY
1923-
H
0
1
0
1
Louisville
KY
—
H
0
0
1
1
Molding Co.
75
Bristol-Myers Co.
Effervescent
93
398
Brown and Williamson .
Sir Walter
Tobacco Corp
Raleigh tobacco tin
Brown & Williamson
Pall Mall
cigarettes
175
Bryant Electric Co.
insulator
Bridgeport
CT
1888-
H
0
0
1
1
182
Bryant Electric Co.
insulator
Bridgeport
CT
1903-
H
3
1
0
4
266
Bryant Electric Co.
Pyrotite fuse
Bridgeport
CT
1909-
H
3
0
0
3
428
Bryant Electric Co.
wiring fixture
Bridgeport
CT
1888-
H
6
0
2
8
430
Bryant Electric Co.
wiring fixture
Bridgeport
CT
1888-
H
1
0
0
1
40
Buck Glass Co.
grape juice
Baltimore
MD
1909-
H
2
5
1
8
485
C.W. Abbott
bottle
Baltimore
MD
1873-
H
1
0
0
1
55
Canada Dry Ginger Ale
bottle
—
—
1923-
H
0
0
7
7
50
Carr-Lowrey Glass Co.
medicine
Baltimore
MD
ca.
H
0
0
1
1
bottle
161
1956
bottle
1900-20
140
Charles H. Hires Co.
extract bottle
Philadelphia
PA
1914-
H
0
1
0
1
244
Chicago Lock Co.
key
Chicago
IL
—
H
0
0
1
1
167
Cleveland Faucet Co.
spigot
Cleveland
OH
—
H
1
0
0
1
10
Cliquot Club
Cliquot Club
Millis
MA
1913-
H
0
1
0
1
31
Cliquot Club
Cliquot Club
Millis
MA
1913-
H
1
0
0
1
Main Body - 35(2)b
82-83
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
84
83
194
Cliquot Club
bottle
Millis
MA
1913-
H
2
0
0
2
Consolidated Dougherty
Bee Squeezers
New York
NY
—
H
0
0
1
1
Card Co.
playing cards
119
Delco Remy
potentiometer
—
OH
—
H
0
0
1
1
39
Diamond Glass Co.
bottle
Royersford
PA
1924-
H
0
0
2
2
66
Diamond Glass Co.
bottle
Royersford
PA
1924-
H
0
0
1
1
142
Diamond Glass Co.
pharmacy
Royersford
PA
1888-pres.
H
0
3
0
3
209
Diamond Glass Co.
bottle
Royersford
PA
1924-
H
0
0
1
1
Duffy’s Malt .
measuring
Rochester
NY
—
H
1
0
0
1
Whiskey Co
spoon
bottle
33
415
Duracell Co
battery
Bethell
CT
—
H
0
0
1
1
57
E.R. Durkee & Co.
condiment
New York
NY
—
H
1
0
1
2
333
Edwin M. Knowles .
ceramics
Chester
WV
1900-48
H
0
3
0
3
bottle
China Co
269
Electrical Porcelain Co.
insulator
Liverpool
OH
—
H
10
1
3
14
202
Fairmont Bottle &
bottle
Fairmont
IN
—
H
27
1
1
29
Glass Co.
169
Federal Electric Co.
wire insulator
Chicago
IL
1906-
H
1
0
3
4
280
Florence Mfg. Co.
Pro-phy-lac-tic
Florence
MA
1886-1929
H
1
0
0
1
293
Frankford Arsenal
cartridge
Philadelphia
PA
1908
H
1
0
0
1
262
G. F. Brunt
insulator cleat
East Liverpool
OH
1884-1910
H
19
1
1
21
toothbrush
Porcelain Works
172
General Electric Co.
fuse
Fairfield
CT
1915-
H
0
0
2
2
174
General Electric Co.
Mazda light bulb
Fairfield
CT
1909-
H
0
1
4
5
261
General Electric Co.
insulator cleat
Fairfield
CT
1892-
H
14
0
0
14
265
General Electric Co.
insulator cleat
Fairfield
CT
1892-
H
8
0
0
8
427
General Electric Co.
insulator
Fairfield
CT
1892-
H
1
0
0
1
130
Goodyear Rubber Co.
rubber boot
Akron
OH
1872-98
H
1
0
0
1
12
Griswold Manufacturing
stove damper
Erie
PA
1910-
H
1
0
0
1
215
Grommes & Ullrich
bottle
Chicago
IL
—
H
1
0
0
1
283
Grommes & Ullrich
bottle
Chicago
IL
—
H
1
0
0
1
284
Grommes & Ullrich
bottle
Chicago
IL
—
H
0
0
6
6
285
Grommes & Ullrich
bottle
Chicago
IL
—
H
2
0
0
2
418
H. Clay Glover Co.
bottle
New York
NY
1876-
H
0
1
0
1
338a
H. J. Heinz
bottle
Sharpsburg
PA
1900-43
H
2
6
0
8
338b
H. J. Heinz
bottle
Sharpsburg
PA
1900-43
H
9
9
0
18
502
H.J. Heinz Co.
bottle closure
Pittsburgh
PA
—
H
1
0
0
1
70
Hazel Atlas Glass Co.
bottles
Wheeling
WV
1920-64
H
2
6
0
8
165
Heckler Products .
Shinola shoe
Indianapolis
IN
—
H
0
1
0
1
Corp
polish can
268
Hemingray Glass Co.
glass insulator
Muncie
IN
—
H
0
5
0
5
497
Henry Hubbell
plastic knob/key
Bridgeport
CT
—
H
0
0
1
1
Main Body - 35(2)b
84-85
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
85
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
107
321
Hoffman Specialty Co.
radiator trap
Waterbury
CT
—
H
0
0
1
1
Homer Laughlin .
ceramics
East Liverpool
OH
1908-28
H
0
1
0
1
ceramics
East Liverpool
OH
1901-15
H
0
0
1
1
ceramics
East Liverpool
OH
1900-60
H
0
1
0
1
food jar
Racine
WI
1883-
H
0
1
0
1
China Co
322
Homer Laughlin .
China Co
334
Homer Laughlin .
China Co
152
Horlick’s Malted .
Milk Co
226
Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Alton
IL
1900-16
H
0
2
0
2
245
Independent Lock Co.
Herculock key
Fitchburg
MA
—
H
0
0
1
1
34
Janeway & Carpender
paper fragment
New
PA, IL
—
H
1
0
0
1
Brunswick, Philadelphia, Chicago
498
Jenkins Bros
plumbing valve
New York
51
Johnson & Johnson
medicine bottle
New Brunswick NJ
NY
303
Joseph Peroneni
bitters bottle
New York
NY
—
H
1
0
0
1
1887-
H
1
0
0
1
1881-
H
2
0
0
2
1935+
320
Knowles, Taylor
ceramics
East Liverpool
OH
1905-29
H
11
1
6
18
& Knowles
79
Knox Glass Bottle Co.
bottle
Knox
PA
1924-68
H
0
0
2
2
278
Krementz & Co.
brass button
Newark
NJ
—
H
1
0
0
1
385
Kress & Owen
Glyco-Thym
New York
NY
1885-1912
H
1
0
0
1
Chicago
IL
1926-
H
0
0
1
1
oline bottle
95
Leggett & Myers
Velvet tobacco
tin
150
McCormick & Co.
jar
Baltimore
MD
1889-
H
0
1
1
2
270
McGraw Edison Co.
Macomb
Macomb
IL
—
H
1
0
0
1
372
McKesson & Robbins
Carbolic Salve
New York
NY
—
H
0
0
1
1
404
Mellin’s Food Co
baby food jar
Boston
MA
1898-1948
H
0
2
0
2
113
Mentholatum Co.
medicine tube
Buffalo
NY
1906-
H
0
0
1
1
133
Mentholatum Co.
medicine jar
Buffalo
NY
1906-
H
0
1
0
1
246
Mills Novelty Co.
Bell lock key
Chicago
IL
—
H
0
0
1
1
386
Millville Bottle Works
bottle
Millville
NJ
1903-30
H
0
1
0
1
185
Mobil Oil Co.
oil can
—
—
1931-
H
0
0
1
1
insulator
290
Moeller Mfg. Co.
boat plug
Racine
WI
—
H
0
1
0
1
76
Murray and Lanham
Florida Water
New York
NY
1850-
H
0
0
1
1
Druggists
bottle
332
New Castle Pottery
ceramics
New Castle
PA
1901-05
H
0
3
0
3
127
Nyal Co.
Figsen medicine
Detroit
MI
1906-
H
2
0
0
2
tin
1
O.F. Mossburg
skeet target?
New Haven
CT
—
H
0
0
9
9
96
Oscar Mayer Co.
Weiners can
Chicago
IL
—
H
0
0
1
1
313
Owens Bottle Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1911-29
H
1
3
1
5
376
Owens Bottle Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1911-29
H
1
2
0
3
Main Body - 35(2)b
84-85
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
86
342
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1929-54
H
0
4
5
9
343
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1929-54
H
0
0
18
18
344
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1940-63
H
0
1
2
3
345
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1929-54
H
0
0
1
1
349
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1929-
H
0
1
4
5
350
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1929-
H
0
1
0
1
351
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1934-
H
0
0
1
1
352
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1929-
H
0
1
0
1
353
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle, Duraglas
Toledo
OH
1940-
H
0
0
1
1
357
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1929-
H
0
0
1
1
358
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle closure
Toledo
OH
1929-
H
0
0
1
1
359
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1929-
H
0
0
2
2
360
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1929-
H
0
0
1
1
361
Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
bottle
Toledo
OH
1929-
H
0
0
1
1
43
Parke, Davis & Co.
medicine bottle
Detroit
MI
1875-
H
1
1
0
2
156
Pineoleum Co.
Pineoleum bottle
New York
NY
1913-42
H
0
0
1
1
157
Pluto
Pluto Water bottle
West Baden
IN
—
H
0
1
0
1
49
Pond’s Extract Co.
medicine bottle
New York
NY
1881-
H
1
1
0
2
177
R. Thomas & Sons
insulator
Lisbon
OH
1885-1957
H
1
0
0
1
178
R. Thomas & Sons
insulator
Lisbon
OH
1885-1957
H
1
0
0
1
264
R. Thomas & Sons
insulator cleat
Lisbon
OH
1885-1957
H
7
0
1
8
Remington–Union .
cartridge
Bridgeport
CT
1910-34
H
0
0
1
1
Bridgeport
CT
1910-60
H
0
2
0
2
188
Metallic Cartridge Co
294
513
Remington–Union .
Nitro Club
Metallic Cartridge Co
shotgun shell
Remington–Union .
cartridge
Bridgeport
CT
1910-34
H
0
1
0
1
Metallic Cartridge Co
305
Root Glass Co.
bottle
Terre Haute
IN
1901-32
H
0
1
0
1
436
Rowlett Desk Mnfg. Co.
metal label
Richmond
IN
—
H
1
0
0
1
NY
134
S.S. Stafford Inc.
ink bottle
—
77
Safe Glass Co.
bottles
Bowling Green OH
—
H
1
0
0
1
1880-1905
H
5
0
1
6
68
Sanford Ink Co.
ink bottle
Chicago
IL
—
H
1
0
0
1
135
Sanford Ink Co.
ink bottle
Chicago
IL
—
H
1
0
0
1
135b
Sanford Ink Co.
ink bottle
Chicago
IL
—
H
1
0
0
1
136
Sanford Ink Co.
ink bottle
Chicago
IL
—
H
1
0
0
1
507
Sanford Ink Co.
ink bottle
Chicago
IL
—
H
0
0
1
1
98
Sears & Roebuck
Shulife Shoe
Chicago
IL
—
H
0
0
1
1
366
Solon Palmer .
perfume bottle
Cincinnati
OH
—
H
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
Grease
Cosmetic Co
374
Standard Glass Co.
bottle
Miriam
IN
1906-32
H
143
T.A. Snider Preserve Co.
food jar
Cincinnati
OH
1879-1952
H
0
1
0
1
6
Thatcher Glass .
beer bottle
—
PA, OH, 1946-
H
0
0
1
1
37
The Bayer Co.
Bayer aspirin
New York
NY
H
0
0
2
2
Manufacturing Co
Main Body - 35(2)b
WV, IN, NY, IL
86-87
1915-
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
87
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
315
The Christian .
bottle
Cincinnati
OH
—
H
1
0
0
1
oil can nozzle
New York
NY
—
H
0
1
0
1
Moerlein Co
160
Tin Oil Co.
170
Trico
Color Top fuse
Pewaukee
WI
1917-
H
0
1
0
1
187
U.S. Cartridge Co.
cartridge
Lowell
MA
1918
H
0
0
1
1
279
U.S. Cartridge Co.
12 guage
Lowell
MA
1864-1929
H
0
1
0
1
insulator
Findlay
OH
—
H
1
0
2
3
Copenhagen
New York
NY
1919-38
H
1
1
0
2
Cleveland
OH
—
H
0
0
2
2
Brigeport
CT
—
H
1
0
3
4
shotgun shell
426
U.S. Electric
Porcelain Co.
94
U.S. Tobacco Co.
snuff can
504
Union Carbon Co
telephone
battery
291
Union Metallic
cartridge
Cartridge Co.
2
Vicks Chemical Co.
Vicks Vaporub
Wilton
CT
1931-
H
0
1
0
1
221
W.A. Gilbey Ltd.
bottle closure
New York
NY
—
H
0
0
1
1
329
W.S. George Co.
ceramics
Kittanning
PA
1880-1959
H
0
3
0
3
370
Warner
Warner’s Safe
Rochester
NY
1906-10
H
1
0
0
1
74
Whitall-Tatum Glass Co.
bottle
Millville
NJ
1935-38
H
0
2
0
2
Kidney & Liver Remedy
379
Whitall-Tatum Glass Co.
bottle
Millville
NJ
1935-38
H
0
1
0
1
381
Whitall-Tatum Glass Co.
bottle
Millville
NJ
1935-38
H
0
0
1
1
NJ
52
Whitehead & Hoag
bottle opener
Newark
81
Wightman Glass Co.
bottle
Parkers Landing PA
—
H
1
0
0
1
1900-30
H
0
0
1
1
300
William Franzen & Son
beer bottle
Milwaukee
171
William Rogers Jr.
nut pick?
Hartford
WI
1900-29
H
5
1
0
6
CT
—
H
1
0
0
1
102
William Wrigley Jr. Co.
Doublemint
Chicago
IL
1914-
H
0
0
1
1
Hartford
CT
1890s-
H
1
0
0
1
H
6
0
1
7
Chewing Gum
186
292
Winchester Repeating .
30-40 Krag
Arms Co
cartridge
Winchester Repeating
cartridge
1903
Hartford
CT
Arms Co.
512
Winchester Repeating
18901930
cartridge
Hartford
CT
1930-
H
0
0
1
1
Yale & Towne .
ignition key,
Stanford
CT
1902-
H
0
0
1
1
MFG Co
Studebaker
…& French
…zedrine
Philadelphia
PA
—
H
0
0
1
1
Laboratories
inhaler
Arms Co.
184
105
118
…Laboratories
label
Chicago
IL
—
H
0
0
1
1
235
—
bottle
Baltimore
MD
—
H
1
0
0
1
249
—
can
Cincinnati
OH
—
H
0
1
0
1
192
110
151
453
Subtotals High Access Area
Main Body - 35(2)b
86-87
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
88
Mark
Manufacturer
Product
City
State/
Mfg.
Access Steam Rail
Other
Total
Country
Date
Area
Era
Era
Era
bottles
St. Louis
MO
1904-07
I
76
2
6
84
bottles
St. Louis
MO
1886-1928
I
5
0
1
6
shampoo bottle
Memphis
TN
—
I
0
1
0
1
Manufacturers in Intermediate Access Areas
339
Adolphus Busch Glass
Manufacturing Co.
362
Adolphus Busch Glass
Manufacturing Co.
365
Allied Drug Co.
340
American Bottle Co.
bottle
—
—
1905-16
I
50
0
10
60
99
American Tobacco Co.
Lucky Strike
Richmond
VA
1916-
I
0
0
2
2
88
Anheuser Busch
Budweiser
St. Louis
MO
1935-50
I
0
0
4
4
500
Anheuser Busch
bottle closure
St. Louis
MO
1897-
I
0
0
1
1
450
Anheuser Busch Inc
Budweiser can
St. Louis
MO
1935-
I
0
2
2
4
207
Anheuser-Busch Brewery
beer bottle
St. Louis
MO
—
I
1
0
0
1
19
F.W. Fitch Co.
medicine bottle
Des Moines
IA
—
I
0
1
0
1
16
Illinois Glass Co.
various bottles
—
IL
1916-29
I
1
2
1
4
90
Jos Schlitz Brewing Co.
beer can
Milwaukee
WI
1935-65
I
0
4
1
5
277
L.L. Bean Co.
boot
Freeport
ME
1911-
I
0
2
0
2
17b
Lambert/Listerine
Listerine bottle
East St. Louis
IL
1894-1915
I
1
2
0
3
393
Larus & Bros.
Edgeworth
Richmond
VA
1902-
I
3
1
0
4
364
Lavoris Chemical Co.
mouthwash bottle
Minneapolis
MN
1902-
I
1
0
0
1
36
Lemp
beer bottle
St. Louis, MO MO
?-1920
I
3
0
1
4
451
Miller Brewing Co.
Miller can
Milwaukee
WI
1944-
I
0
1
0
1
17a
Obear-Nestor Glass Co.
Listerine bottle
East St. Louis
IL
1894-1915
I
1
1
0
2
72
Obear-Nestor Glass Co.
beer bottle
East St. Louis
IL
1894-1915
I
0
0
4
4
91
Pabst Brewing Co.
beer can
Milwaukee
WI
1950-65
I
0
3
1
4
394
R. J. Reynolds Co.
Prince Albert
Winston Salem NC
1910-
I
12
1
5
18
399
R. J. Reynolds Co.
Camel cigarettes
Winston Salem NC
1913-
I
0
0
2
2
395
R.A. Patterson
Tuxedo tobacco
Richmond
VA
1896-
I
0
0
1
1
Kansas City
MO
—
I
14
0
7
21
Cigarettes
beer can
tobacco tin
tobacco tin
tin
13
S. Hirsch & Co.
Quaker Maid
Whiskey
41
S. Hirsch & Co.
grape juice bottle
Kansas City
MO
—
I
2
0
0
2
213
S. Hirsch & Co.
bottle
Kansas City
MO
—
I
0
0
1
1
Streator Bottle & .
beer
Streator
IL
1881-1905
I
4
0
7
11
Hamms beer can
St. Paul
MN
—
I
0
1
0
1
medicine bottle
South
MO
1911-29
I
0
0
1
1
26
Glass Co
212
Theodore Hamms .
Brewing Co
42
United Drug Co.
St. Louis
Main Body - 35(2)b
88-89
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
89
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
97
United Drug Co.
Rexall Cold
St. Louis
MO
1903-
I
0
1
0
1
378
United Drug Co.
Rexall bottle
St. Louis
MO
1903-
I
0
1
0
1
Upland Flint Bottle Co. .
wine bottle
Upland or
IN or
—
I
1
0
0
1
New Orleans
LA
[Table]ts
44
or Underwood Glass Co
73
W.A. Sheaffer Pen Co.
ink bottle
Fort Madison
IA
1913-
I
0
0
1
1
9
X
beer bottle
Milwaukee
WI
1900-29
I
0
1
0
1
250
…ch Varnt…
label
St. Paul
MN
—
I
0
0
1
1
62
—
whiskey bottle
—
KY
—
I
0
0
1
1
391
—
tobacco tin
—
—
—
I
1
0
0
1
392
—
tobacco tin
—
—
—
I
1
0
0
1
483
—
bottle
—
MN
—
I
0
0
1
1
27
62
266
Other
Total
Subtotals Intermediate Access Area
Mark
177
Manufacturer
Product
City
State/
Mfg.
Access Steam Rail
Country
Date
Area
Era
Era
Era
Manufacturers in Low Access Areas
409
—
milk bottle
Fairbanks
AK
—
L
0
0
1
1
242
? Distilled Water Co.
bottle
—
AK
—
L
1
0
0
1
15
A. Schilling Co.
extracts
San Francisco
CA
1885-1918
L
1
0
0
1
89
American Can Co.
beer can
San Francisco
CA
1947-50s
L
0
0
3
3
248
American Can Co.
can
San Francisco
CA
1901-
L
0
0
1
1
240
Arrowhead and
bottle
Gardena
CA
—
L
0
6
0
6
San Francisco
CA
1901-14
L
0
1
0
1
Puritas Waters Inc
190
Bachrach & Co.
shipping tag
100
Bank of America
seal
San Francisco
CA
—
L
0
0
1
1
514
Barthel Brewing Co.
bottle label
Fairbanks
AK
1905-18
L
1
0
0
1
439
Beck’s
beer bottle
Seattle
WA
—
L
0
0
1
1
296
Brumbaugh, Hamilton
tag
Fairbanks
AK
1905-11
L
0
0
1
1
for NCCo
& Kellogg
229
Buzby’s Diary
bottle
Fairbanks
AK
—
L
0
1
0
1
139
California Conserve .
food bottle
San Francisco
CA
1925-30
L
0
1
0
1
Co./ Pacific Coast Glass Co
465
California [saloon]
trade token
Fairbanks
AK
1907-12
L
1
0
0
1
469
Canadian Customs
Customs seal
Skagway
AK
—
L
1
0
0
1
163
Clorox Chemical Co.
bleach bottle
Oakland
CA
1929-30
L
0
1
0
1
54
Crocker
clipboard clamp
San Francisco
CA
—
L
1
0
0
1
220
G Co
bottle closure
—
WA
—
L
0
0
2
2
7
Glass Containers, Inc.
beer bottle
—
CA
1945-
L
0
0
2
2
467
H.E. Rose Cigar Co.
trade token
Fairbanks
AK
1907-14
L
0
0
1
1
92
Heidelburg Brewing Co.
beer can
Tacoma
WA
1935-50
L
0
1
0
1
137
Hill’s Brothers
coffee can
San Francisco
CA
1927-35
L
0
1
0
1
Main Body - 35(2)b
88-89
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
90
138
Illinois Pacific Glass Co.
Boyd Mason jar
San Francisco
CA
1915-20
L
0
1
0
1
405
Illinois Pacific Glass Co.
bottle
San Francisco
CA
1902-25
L
0
1
0
1
154
Illinois Pacific Glass Co.
food jar
San Francisco
CA
1930-32
L
0
1
1
2
466
International Hotel
trade token
Fairbanks
AK
1923-41
L
0
0
1
1
18
J.A. Folger & Co.
extracts
San Francisco
CA
?-1929
L
1
0
0
1
141
J.A. Folger & Co.
bottle
San Francisco
CA
1900-29
L
0
1
0
1
14
J.G. Fox & Co.
oysters in bottle
Seattle,
WA
ca. 1910
L
0
0
1
1
380
Long Beach Glass Co.
bottle
Long Beach
CA
1920-33
L
0
1
0
1
515
Mallory Hat Co.
leather hat band
Seattle
WA
—
L
1
0
0
1
373
McIntosh & Kubon
bottle
Fairbanks
AK
1911
L
1
0
196
Mission Dry Corp.
sparkling bottle
Los Angeles
CA
—
L
0
1
0
1
197
Mission Dry Corp.
sparkling bottle
Los Angeles
CA
—
L
5
4
1
10
149
Nally Co.
mayonnaise
Tacoma
WA
1920s-?
L
0
1
0
1
319
Nome Brewing .
bottle
Nome
AK
1899-
L
1
0
0
1
1
& Bottling Co
463
Northern Cigar Store
trade token
Fairbanks
AK
1907-23
L
0
0
4
4
464
Northern Cigar Store
trade token
Fairbanks
AK
1907-23
L
0
0
1
1
4
Northwest Glass Co.
beer bottle
Seattle
WA
1931-
L
0
0
15
15
440
Olympia Brewing Co.
beer bottles
Tumwater
WA
—
L
0
0
13
13
Owens-Illinois .
bottle
San Francisco
CA
1932-
L
0
3
9
12
San Francisco
CA
1943
L
0
0
1
1
San Francisco
CA
—
L
0
0
1
1
San Francisco
CA
1942
L
0
0
1
1
San Francisco
CA
1932-
L
0
1
0
1
341
Pacific Coast Co
346
347
348
375
Owens-Illinois .
Jamaica Rum
Pacific Coast Co
bottle
Owens-Illinois .
Jamaica Rum
Pacific Coast Co
bottle
Owens-Illinois .
Cia Ron Carioca
Pacific Coast Co
bottle
Owens-Illinois .
medicine bottle
Pacific Coast Co
84
Pacific Coast Agents
bottle
—
CA
—
L
1
0
0
1
148b
Pacific Coast Glass Co.
food jar
San Francisco
CA
1925-30
L
0
3
0
3
227
Pacific Coast Glass Co.
bottle
San Francisco
CA
1925-30
L
0
1
0
1
236
Pacific Coast Glass Co.
bottle
San Francisco
CA
1925-30
L
0
7
0
7
48
Pacific Coast Glass
whiskey flask
San Francisco
CA
1902-24
L
5
0
0
5
Works
214
Pepsi-Cola Co.
bottle
Fairbanks
AK
—
L
0
0
1
1
377
Red Cross
bottle
Fairbanks
AK
—
L
0
1
0
1
60
Richard’s Packing Co.
tomato juice
Sacramento
CA
—
L
0
2
0
2
203
Roth & Co.
bottle
San Francisco
CA
1879-88
L
2
0
0
2
452
San Francisco
Bürgermeister
San Francisco
CA
1935-65
L
0
1
0
1
Brewing Co
beer can
Schwabacher .
extract bottle
Seattle
WA
0
L
8
0
0
8
Raineer beer
Seattle
WA
1892-1916
L
1
0
0
1
146
Bros. & Co
27
Seattle Brewing & .
Malting Co
Main Body - 35(2)b
90-91
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
91
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
191
Seattle Brewing & .
bottle opener
Seattle
WA
1892-1916
L
1
0
0
1
see No. 240
bottle
Gardena
CA
—
L
0
1
0
1
Sicks Seattle .
Rainier beer can
Seattle
WA
1938-50
L
0
1
6
7
Malting Co
241
87
Brewing & Malting Co
309
Southern Glass Co.
bottle
Vernon
CA
1917-31
L
0
4
0
4
354
Squirt Bottling Co.
bottle
Fairbanks
AK
0
L
0
0
1
1
295
Star Cab Co.
sign
Fairbanks
AK
1940s-50s
L
0
1
0
1
161
The Pathfinder
newspaper
—
WA
1930
L
0
0
1
1
297
Washington-Alaska Bank
leather tag
Fairbanks
AK
1905-14
L
1
0
0
1
21
West Coast Grocery Co.
bottle
Tacoma
WA
pre-1923
L
6
0
0
6
3
—
cloth
Fairbanks
AK
—
L
1
0
0
1
228
—
bottle
Fairbanks
AK
—
L
1
4
3
8
239
—
bottle
—
CA
—
L
0
0
1
1
356
—
bottle
El Entro
CA
—
L
0
0
1
1
382
—
bottle
Seattle
WA
—
L
1
0
0
1
431
—
license plate
Fairbanks
AK
1941
L
0
0
1
1
432
—
license plate
Fairbanks
AK
1930
L
0
0
1
1
461
—
pencil
—
WA
—
L
1
0
0
1
491
—
plastic object
—
WA
—
L
0
0
1
1
44
53
79
176
Other
Total
Subtotals Low Access Area
Mark
Manufacturer
Product
City
State/
Mfg.
Access Steam Rail
Country
Date
Area
Era
Era
Era
Foreign Manufacturers
441
—
bottle
—
Canada
—
X
1
0
0
1
335
Alfred Fenton & Sons
ceramics
Staffordshire
England
1887-1901
X
0
0
1
1
419
Derwnthaugh Fire
cinder block
Swalwell
England
1854-1935
X
2
0
0
2
Brick Works
111
E&J Burke
Bass Ale bottle
London
England
—
X
1
0
0
1
30
Ed Pinaud Parfumerie
toilet water bottle
Paris
France
—
X
2
0
0
2
25
F& S Ltd
beer
Lancaster
England
1900-
X
17
0
7
24
56
Fernando a de Terry
wine bottle
Puerto
Spain
—
X
0
0
1
1
22
Fratelli Bianca
bitters bottle
Milan
Italy
1867-
X
4
0
0
4
Santa Maria
206
Guiness
beer bottle
—
Ireland
—
X
3
0
4
7
29
H.C.Klotz
toilet water bottle
Paris
France
—
X
2
0
0
2
327
Haviland & Co.
ceramics
Limoges
France
1893-1926
X
0
1
0
1
324
J.H.R. & Co.
ceramics
—
Germany X
1
0
0
1
109
John Dewar & Sons
bottle
Perth
Scotland
—
X
0
0
1
1
61
John Kilner & Sons
bottle
Yorkshire
UK
1844-57
X
1
0
0
1
323
Johnson Bros.
ceramics
Staffordshire
England
1913-
X
1
0
2
3
325
Johnson Bros.
ceramics
Staffordshire
England
1883-1913
X
8
0
1
9
Main Body - 35(2)b
90-91
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
92
336
Johnson Bros.
ceramics
Staffordshire
England
1913-
X
1
0
0
1
413
Keller & Guérin
cup
Luneville
France
1890-
X
1
0
0
1
276
McDougall & Co.
tobacco pipe stem
Glasgow
Scotland
1846-1967
X
0
1
0
1
326
Meito
ceramics
—
Japan
1892-
X
0
13
0
13
86
North British Bottle
bottle
Glasgow
Scotland
1903-37
X
0
0
1
1
cognac/cordial
—
France
—
X
1
0
0
1
ceramics
Bavaria
Germany 1901-56
X
0
1
0
1
Manufacturing Co.
80
Pernod/Fils
331
Philip Rosenthal & Co
bottle
85
Swain & Co
lead foil seal
London
England
—
X
0
0
1
1
63c
Tanquery Gordon & Co.
gin bottle
London
UK
—
X
1
0
1
2
64
Tanquery Gordon & Co.
gin bottle
London
UK
—
X
0
0
1
1
328
Villeroy & Boch
ceramics
Saar
Germany1890-
X
0
2
0
2
330
Villeroy & Boch
ceramics
Dresden, Saar
Germany1874-
X
0
0
2
2
71
William Whitley & Co.
whiskey
Leigh
Scotland
—
X
0
0
1
1
112
—
bottle closure
—
Canada or UK
X
0
0
1
1
120
—
bottle foil seal
—
England
1892-
X
1
0
0
1
158
—
enamelware bowl
—
Sweden
—
X
0
1
0
1
200
—
Vino Cermout
—
—
—
X
0
0
1
1
211
—
bottle
—
Great Britain
X
0
0
1
1
231
—
Benedictine bottle
—
France
X
1
0
0
1
282
—
teapot
—
Czechoslo-1918-
X
0
1
0
1
Subtotals Foreign Access Area
49
20
27
96
TOTALS BY ACCESS AREA
462
210
319
991
bottle
—
vakia
Main Body - 35(2)b
92-93
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
93
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
TABLE 9
WEIGHTED FREQUENCIES OF ARTIFACTS BY ACCESS AREA FOR COLDFOOT FEATURES, WISEMAN,
AND TOFTY ASSEMBLAGES
CF4,6,10,11
1905-20
CF5&7
1912-30
CF14
1920-30
CF1&3
1925-30
Coldfoot
1905-30
All
N
Wiseman
1920-40
N
N
18
7
20
45
15
2
11
28
%
40.0
15.6
44.4
100.0
%
53.6
7.1
39.3
100.0
N
N
N
N
Low
Intermed.
High
Total
38
34
213
285
6
9
66
81
6
12
73
91
64
41
128
233
125
112
491
748
Low
Intermed.
High
%
13.3
11.9
74.8
100.0
%
7.4
11.1
81.5
100.0
%
6.6
13.2
80.2
100.0
%
27.5
17.6
54.9
100.0
%
16.5
14.8
64.7
100.0
facturers increase. This was what the model
predicted. If the approach is valid, companies
located in the Low Access Area compete best
in the Low Access Area. Companies located
in the Intermediate Access Area represented
11.1% of the Fairbanks assemblage, 7.3% for
Silcott–both located in the Low Access Area–and
between 26.6% and 17.8% for Waverly and
Ashley Plantation respectively. Companies from
the High Access Area represented 60.1% of the
Fairbanks assemblage companies, compared to
a range of 69.7% to 77.2%% for the two other
assemblages in the Intermediate Access Area,
Waverly and Ashley.
Clearly, using this approach, the Fairbanks
artifact assemblage is distinctly different from
the other sites located in the Intermediate Access
Area. This may be due in part to a bias in the
archaeological record attributable to functional
variation and artifact preservation at each of
the saloon sites in Fairbanks. The record indicates, however, that merchants in Fairbanks were
able to obtain more of their merchandise from
Low Access Area and Intermediate Access Area
manufacturers than we might have expected.
All other things being equal, this suggests that
the shipping costs of getting goods from an East
Coast manufacturer to Fairbanks were so significant that manufacturers from the High Access
Areas could not always compete head-to-head
with manufacturers located on the West Coast
making the same products. A more detailed
Main Body - 35(2)b
92-93
Tofty
1925-65
historical analysis of product histories would
probably reveal that many products from High
Access Areas manufacturers were not made
by any West Coast companies, which is why
high access goods appeared in the Fairbanks
assemblage at all.
Using the weighted analysis it was found
that Low Access Area manufacturers increased
their share of the Alaskan market through time,
although the numbers of companies stayed essentially the same or dropped slightly. Conversely,
while the interior Alaskan consumers appear to
have had greater variety through time, at least
for items coming from the High Access Area
for the numbers of companies increased, yet
most of the quantity of goods came from the
Low Access Area.
Evaluation of Methods
The next step in our analysis is to evaluate the
two methods. The original model proposed by
Riordan and Adams required that one establish
the weighted object count for every artifact. The
other method is much simpler, for it uses an
unweighted count of the number of companies.
Are the results similar? Only roughly so. Our
analysis shows that if a researcher uses only the
one method, different results will be achieved
than if both methods are used. While the Fairbanks percentages coming from the High Access
Area manufacturers are nearly identical, with
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
Main Body - 35(2)b
Maker, Distributor,
or Parts Manufacturer
94-95
W D C (in an
inverted triangle)\
WELLINGTON
Copenhagen
SUPER X
ONEIDA V
Three in One Oil
Vaseline Petroleum
Jelly
“New York, New York”
Egyptian Arab
Mentholatum
Ribbon Dental Cream
Colgate’s Violet
Talc Powder
Cashmere Bouquet
White Vaseline
6 [Owens-Illinois
Symbol] #
Hormel;
[H with A within it]
10/2/00, 9:34 PM
U.S. Tobacco Co.
Winchester
(unknown)
(S.?) A. Khedive &
The (..)urbrue(..)
Manufactur(ing Co.?)
William Demuth Co.
Victor Trap Co.
Three in One Oil Co.
Chesebrough Mng. Co.
Colgate & Co.
Chesebrough .
Manufacturing Co
Mentholatum Co.
New York
Cairo; &
New York
New York
NY
oil
vaseline
smoking
New York NY
New Haven
NY
New York NY
Egypt; & tobacco
New York NY
Oneida
NY
NY
Buffalo NY
NY
New York NY
NY
NY
WV
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.
Colgate & Co.
Colgate & Co.
Wheeling
food
MN
food
beverage
Geo. A. Hormel & Co.; & Austin &
WV
WV
State/
Product
Country
beer
Wheeling
Wheeling
City
Owens-Illinois Glass Co. Charleston WV
High Access Area Manufacturers
[H with A]
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.
[H with A within]
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.
Maker’s Mark or
Brand Name
—
—
—
—
CF
1
tobacco
CT
1
pipe
tobacco
—
—
mentho
latum
fur trap
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CF
3
1
1
cartridge —
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
talc
vaseline —
toothpaste —
talc
—
CF
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CF
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CF
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CF
6
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CF
7
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CF
10
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CF
11
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
—
—
—
—
—
CF
14
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
CF
16
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CF
17
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
T1
25
TABLE 10
MANUFACTURERS, BRAND NAMES, AND MAKERS’ MARKS FROM COLDFOOT, TOFTY, AND WISEMAN ARTIFACTS.
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
W1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
—
— 1
1
1 1
— 1
1
1
— —
— 1
— 1
— —
1
2
2
— 1
TOTAL
1
1
1
94
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
Main Body - 35(2)b
94-95
CT
CT
CT
shell
Winchester
New Haven CT
shell
Bridgeport
CT
shell
Bridgeport
CT
shell
New Haven
New Haven
New Haven
New Haven
CT
No.28 \ REPEATER
shell
WINCHESTER \
Winchester
New Haven
CT
No. 12 \ LEADER
shell
U
Remington - UMC
Bridgeport
CT
H
Winchester
New Haven
CT
W.R.A. CO.
Winchester
New Haven
CT
U.M.C.
United Metallic Cartridge Co.
Bridgeport
CT
REM - UMC
Remington - UMC
Bridgeport
CT
P
Peters Cartridge Co.
Kings Point OH
cartridge 1
SAVAGE
Savage
(?)
CT
cartridge
EP
Montgomery Ward
Chicago IL
cartridge
ROGERS NICKEL
William Rogers Mfg. Co. Hartford
CT
ceramic
—
SILVER
Banner
Plume & Atwood Mfg. Co. Waterbury CT
gas lantern —
Colebrookdale Iron Co Colebrookdale Iron Co. Pottstown PA
laundry iron —
(“American”)
American (?)
Erie
PA
stove
(“CHI”)
(unknown)
Chicago (?)
IL (?)
I. G. CO.
Illinois Glass Co.
Alton
IL
beer
M. B. & G. Co.
Massillon Bottle & Glass Co.
Massillon OH
beer
S B & G Co
Streator Bottle & Glass Co. Streator
IL
beer
Black Label Beer (label)
Carling Brewing Co. Baltimore MD
Ball Perfect Mason Jar Ball Bros. Co.
Muncie IN
food
Borden’s Eagle Brand Borden’s Condensed Milk Co.
NY
milk
REM - UMC \ No. 16 Remington - UMC
\ ARROW
REMINGTON \ UMC Remington - UMC
\ No \ 28 \ NITRO CLUB
WINCHESTER \
Winchester
1901 \ No 12 \ LEADER
W [No. 5 primer]
Winchester
W.R.A. Co. \
Winchester
NEW No 4
WINCHESTER \ No 28 Winchester
—
—
1
—
—
—
beer
10/2/00, 9:35 PM
—
3
—
—
—
1
1
5
—
—
1
—
—
—
37
32
14
6
1
—
—
—
—
cartridge
cartridge
cartridge
cartridge
cartridge
—
—
—
—
stove
—
shotgun —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6
—
—
shotgun —
shotgun —
—
—
—
2
—
shotgun —
shotgun —
shotgun —
primer cap
primer cap
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6
25
4
12
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
1
1
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15
1
7
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
4
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
31
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
52
5
2
—
1
—
—
—
—
2
—
1
—
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
2
—
—
—
4
—
1
1
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
—
1
1
2
1
—
—
—
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
105
80
27
18
2
2
1
2
1
1
4
—
—
1
1
4
2
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
95
Main Body - 35(2)b
96-97
Owens-Illinois
7 [Owens-Illinois
NY
Chicago IL
Royersford
Baltimore MD
Parker PA
Terre Haute
IN
beer
NY
condiment
Chicago, or
Albion NY
Alton
IL
491
11
20
[stylized “A” with
eagle]
AB [monogram];
Anheuser
Anheuser Busch
Brewing Association
Adolphus Busch
Glass Mnfg. Co
.
Intermediate Access Area Manufacturers
LaMont’s .
Fred LaMont
Crystallized EggC
National
National Bakers’ Egg Co. St. Louis
High SUB-TOTAL:
Coldfoot subtotal:
Tofty subtotal:
Wiseman subtotal:
powdered
10/2/00, 9:35 PM
Belleville IL
St. Louis, or
St. Louis MO
MO
St. Louis MO
Symbol] #
Ball 4
Ball Bro’s Co.
Muncie IN
Cats-Eye or “Banana”(?)
Peltier Glass Co.
(?)
A B Co
American Bottling Co.
(various)
IL & OH beer
VITREOUS
Edwin M. Knowles China Co.
Chester or
[in a basket] \
Edwin M. Knowles \ China Co.
Newell
(Monopoly?)
Parker Bros.
Salem MA
Borden’s Condensed Milk Co.
Pepsodent Co.
Diamond Glass Co.
Buck Glass Co.
Wightman glass co
Root Glass Co.
(poss.) Safe Glass Co.
Upland
Curtice Bros. Preservers Rochester
T.A. Snider
Eagle Brand
Pepsodent
Nuxated Iron
B
[...] W. [in script]
ROOT
S. G. CO.
Curtice Bros.
Snider’s Catsup
MO, or
beer
powdered —
egg
—
—
egg
beer
—
—
—
—
106
—
1
—
—
—
22
—
5
—
1
—
5
—
WV
gaming
piece?
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
OH (?) marble —
2
1
—
ceramic —
—
—
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
beer
beer
milk
—
toothpaste 2
—
PA
medicinal1
bottle
—
bottle/jar 1
—
IN
likely beer
—
1
—
1
—
IL, or
condiment
—
—
—
2
56
—
—
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
49
—
—
—
—
—
—
20
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
3
10
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
160
—
—
1
—
—
—
122
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
3
—
—
—
—
73
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
—
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
8
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
1
—
1
3
1
5
—
—
— 5
11 20
— 1
— —
1 14
1 —
— 1
— 1
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
1
—
2
1
522
1
—
1
1
—
—
1
1
146
15
1
3
4
96
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
Main Body - 35(2)b
96-97
R. A. Patterson’s Tobacco Co.
American Tobacco Co.
Battle Ax
VA
—
—
VA
VA
—
10/2/00, 9:35 PM
Low Access Area Manufacturers
William Franzen & Son Milwaukee WI
W F & S MILW,
(prob. Pabst Blue Ribbon)
Hormel;
Geo. A. Hormel & Co.; & Austin; & MN; & food
[H with A within it]
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.
Wheeling WV
[2 hands clasping]
(unknown)
Frankfort or
KY
Louisville
DUBUQUE .
Dubuque Malting Co.
Dubuque
IA
malt liquor —
MALTING CO
Schlitz
Joseph Slitz Brewing Co. Milwaukee WI
bottle opener
Intermediate SUB-TOTAL:
Coldfoot subtotal:
112
Tofty subtotal:
2
Wiseman subtotal:
7
(?)
1
—
1
1
—
2
3
1
—
4
—
15
—
—
26
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
1
3
1
—
4
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
unknown —
—
—
1
—
tobacco 2
tobacco —
—
—
tobacco —
tobacco 3
—
7
1
2
1
tobacco
tobacco
—
VA
beer
MO, or
VA
stamp
tobacco
—
stamp
likely beer —
Richmond
Richmond
Richmond
VA
tobacco
R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co.
J. G. Dill Company
J. G. Dill Tobacco Co.
Richmond
Richmond
Larus & Bros. Co.
Edgeworth Extra
Cut Plug
Lucky Strike Cut Plug
J. G. Dill’s Best
J. G. Dill’s Best
Cube Cut Plug
Westover Trademark
Adolphus Busch
St. Louis, or
Glass Mnfg. Co.
Belleville IL
Fresh Tuxedo Tobacco American Tobacco Co.
(?)
VA
tobacco
Velvet Tobacco
Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
Durham NC
Prince Albert Crimp Cut R. J. Reynolds
Winston-Salem
NC
Lucky Strike
R. A. Patterson Tob Co, . Richmond VA
tobacco
American Tob Co
Patternson’s Tuxedo R. A. Patterson Tob Co,. Richmond VA
tobacco
American Tob Co
Old English Curve Cut American Tobacco Co.
(?)
VA
tobacco
A. B. G. M. Co.
—
7
—
—
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
12
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
4
—
1
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
10
—
—
—
—
18
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
—
—
8
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
12
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
1
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
2
1
1
7
— 1
1
9
1
— —
— —
1
— —
1
— —
11
1
— 19
— 5
4
2
121
1
15
8
4
9
—
3
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
97
BISHOP & COMPANY;Bishop & Co.
Los Angeles
image of man blowing a trumpet on a horse
L. S. & CO.
Levi Strauss & Co.
San Francisco
Boss of the Road
Heynemann & Co.
San Francisco
L. S. CO.
Levi Strauss & Co.
San Francisco
Hirsc...kahn\ Optic.. Hirsc(h?) Kahn Optic(s?) San Francisco
CA
... ..io Su
(Stud)io
Yankee Shaving Soap American Can Co
.
San Francisco
(“Manufactured by..”) Z. C. Miles & Piper Co. Seattle
WA
sign/label
20 [OwensOwens Illinois Pacific .
Oakland
CA
beer
Illinois Symbol] #
Coast Co. or Div
20 [Owens-Illinois
Owens Illinois Pacific
Oakland; & CA; & beer
Symbol] #; &
Coast Co. or Div.; &
Olympia label
Olympia Brewing Co.
Tumwater WA
beer
I. P. G. CO.
Illinois Pacific Glass .
San Francisco
CA
Co. or Corp
R & Co.
Roth & Co.
San Francisco
NW[connected]
Northwestern Glass Co. Seattle
WA
beer
G. H. Moore Old
Jesse Moore-Hunt Co.
San Francisco
CA
Bourbon & Rye
A. B.
C. A. Klinkher & Co.
San Francisco
CA
# [oval & diamond
Owen’s Illinois Pacific . (various)
CA
distilled
& I] #
Coast Co. or Div
Hills Bros (Java &
Hills Bros
San Francisco
Mocha, &Red Can brand)
M.J.B.
...[Ber?]nstein & Co.
San Francisco
CA
Gold Shield
Schwabacher’s Bros. & Co. Inc.
Seattle WA
(“California Fruits”) (unknown)
(?)
CA
D. Ghirardelli’s Cocoa D. Ghirardelli Co
.
San Francisco
(“California Home Brand”)(unknown)
(?)
CA
Fancy Creamery Butter Hills Bros.
San Francisco
Golden State
California Central Creameries
CA
Pasteurized Butter
Coldbrook Creamery C. E. Whitney & Co.
San Francisco
CA
Bradner’s Jersey
The Bradner Company
Seattle
WA
butter
Main Body - 35(2)b
98-99
10/2/00, 9:35 PM
butter
coffee
coffee
fruit
CA
food
CA
butter
distilled
liquor
token
—
liquor
CA
CA
beer
CA
—
CA
can lid
CA
CA
CA
pendant
5
—
5
—
button
button
rivet
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
15
butter
cocoa
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
21
—
—
2
—
—
coffee
—
—
—
—
—
beer
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
shaving tin
1
—
—
—
—
—
unknown tin
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
1
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
1
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
7
—
1
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
10
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
1
—
1
—
—
9
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
1
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
11
1
2
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
— —
— 18
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
— —
3
2 —
2 2
— 1
—
— —
2
— —
1
2 3
—
—
—
—
— —
2
2
1
11
—
1
—
8
3
2
—
1
—
1
2
1
—
37
4
1
16
2
19
1
98
17
1
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
98-99
10/2/00, 9:35 PM
The Telephone
(unknown)
Creme de Luxe
S. P. & M. (?)
Olive Oil
(“NORVEGE”)
[?], Norway
(“C. Lave(…?), France”)
(“URURGUAY”)
(unknown)
Colman’s No.1 Starch Colman
Colman’s British
Colman
Corn Flour
Lea & Perrins
Lea & Perrins
(Canadian coin)
Canadian Government
Seagram’s
Seagram Ltd.
1(“Choslovakia”)
(unknown)
Italy
(?)
Worcester England
Canada coin
Waterloo, Ont.
(?)
Czechoslavakia
Richter Germany
Norway
(?)
C. Lave(...?) (?)
France
(?)
Uruguay
Norwich England
Norwich England
Pari
Shefield England
(“[...]ear Steel”)
[...]ear Steel
cooking —
pot/pan
kitchen —
knife
olive oil 1
(?)
Germany
England ceramic —
harmonica —
condiment 2
—
Canada
liquor
—
—
—
—
liquor
—
meat/fish —
3
meat/fish —
meat/fish —
1
starch
—
corn flour —
1
—
—
—
—
Staffordshire
Shefield
—
J. B. & SONS.
John Baker & Sons,
HOTEL SILVER
Monmouth Works
Royal Ironstone
Johnson Bros. Ltd.
Chi(na) \ Johnso(n Bros) Eng(land)
[“T” overlapping “S”] (unknown)
Conisbrough,
church key
52
Scotland unknown —
bottle
CA
unknown —
bottle
—
—
Kilner Brothers Ltd.
Kinghorn,
Fifeshire
San Francisco
England
Yorkshire
England ceramic
KCB
Foreign Manufacturers
K
Kinghorn Btl Co
Main Body - 35(2)b
125
15
18
American Can Co.
Creamery Butter
American Can U.S.A.
Low SUB-TOTAL:
Coldfoot subtotal:
Tofty subtotal:
Wiseman subtotal:
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
12
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
6
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
14
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
23
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
1
2
2
1
1
3
—
1
—
1
— 1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
— 1
— 1
1
— —
1
— 1
— —
— —
15 18
—
6
3
1
1
1
158
1
1
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
99
Main Body - 35(2)b
100-101
cola
unknown
tea
lard
lard
poker chip
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Unknown Marks & Unknown Manufacturers
Shirley President
??
Washburne (?)
Washburne, [?]
Dr Scholl’s Foot-easer ??, U.S.A.
Dabrooks Perfumes
Dabrook, [?]
Eno’s
[various], U.S.A.
(..)B & H N.Y.
[?], NY
I
??
A
??
L
??
A [underlined]
??
Schenley Brandy
??
No.2
H. S. Crockett Co., [?]
pencil
Indian
??
[clock face]
Waterbury Lock Co., [?]
clock
BREAKFAST COCOA Walter Baker Co., [?]
cocoa
Coca-Cola
Coca-Cola Corp., [?]; & Owens Illinois, [?]
Presto
Boyd’s, [?]
Lipton
Lipton Co., [?]
Rex
??
CAR(...) Pure Lard
??
1A1e
clothing clasp
metal insole
perfume
1E1b
unknown
beer
beer
likely beer
beer
distilled liquor
178
—
—
—
—
GRAND TOTAL:
(?)
Germany marble 2
(?)
Germany marble —
Hong Kong
coin/pendant
Collingwood, Ont Canada liquor —
Egypt; & tobacco —
—
New York NY
5
(unknown)
(unknown)
(unknown)
Canadian Mist Distillers Ltd.
(S.?) A. Khedive, Cairo; & Cairo &
The (..)urbrue(..)
Manufactur(ing Co.?)
Foreign SUB-TOTAL:
Coldfoot subtotal:
31
Tofty subtotal:
1
Wiseman subtotal:
4
Latticinio Core
Bennington
(“Hong Kong”)
Canadian Mist
Egyptian Arab
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
69
9
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
10
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
1
71
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
80
5
—
2
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
15
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
205
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
11
0
—
1
—
—
—
2
1
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
94
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
0
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
18
0
—
—
—
—
—
4
2
3
—
1
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
—
1
— —
— —
— —
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
29 49
1
—
—
—
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
837
36
—
100
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
10/2/00, 9:35 PM
1
Main Body - 35(2)b
100-101
Low
125
15
18
High
491
11
20
Coldfoot
Tofty
Wiseman
Intermediate
112
2
7
beverage
Kool-Aid
Standard Oil Co., [?], U.S.A.
Coleman, [?], U.S.A.
United States of America Government
Royal Baking Powder Co., [?];
or Standard Brands Inc., [?] >=1929
General Foods Corp., [?], U.S.A.
Pearl
Quick-Lite
[coinage]
Royal
Foreign
31
1
4
fuel
gas lantern
coin
baking powder
??
baking powder
??
baking powder
Armour & (Co.?), [?]
lard
Sargent & Co., [?]
strike plate
[?], U.S.A.
toy?
??
corn syrup
N. & W. Tobacco Co., [?], U.S.A.
tobacco stamp
Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., [?], U.S.A.
battery
The Most Perfect Made
Calumet
Shield Pure Lard
Sargent & Co
Willson Made in USA
Karo
Arrowhead
EVEREADY
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
2
—
4
1
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
3
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
2
—
—
—
—
—
1
11
1
—
1
2
2
— —
— 1
— 3
1
— 1
— 1
— 2
51
10
2
1
1
1
1
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
10/2/00, 9:35 PM
101
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
102
TABLE 11
UNWEIGHTED COMPARISON USING FREQUENCY OF COMPANIES BY ACCESS AREA FOR INTERIOR
ALASKAN SITES
Fairbanks
1901-22
Low
Intermediate
High
Total
Coldfoot
1905-30
Fairbanks
1923-41
Wiseman Tofty
1920-40 1925-65
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
22
10
52
84
26.2
11.9
61.9
100.0
17
11
28
56
30.4
19.6
50.0
100.0
21
15
51
87
24.1
17.3
58.6
100.0
8
5
15
28
28.6
17.8
53.6
100.0
2
2
7
11
18.2
18.2
63.6
100.0
60.4% of the company data and 60.2% of the
artifact data, the figures for the Intermediate
Access Area and the Low Access Area are less
comparable (Table 13). Still though the overall
picture each yields is similar.
It is hoped these results would be close
enough that in collections with a large sample
size like that from the Barnette Project in Fairbanks, it would be possible to use either alternative method, weighted or unweighted. It
is believed that the unweighted method bears
further investigation and suggest researchers
present both analyses to provide different kinds
of viewpoints on their data.
Despite the differences, however, the methods
produce comparable results: with time, the
companies and their products coming from the
Low Access Area (i.e., the West Coast) gained
more importance, in terms of relative numbers,
than those coming from the Intermediate Access
Area (Table 13).
One problem, of course, is that comparable
data are lacking from other sites to test its
validity and refine the commodity flow model’s
usefulness. Far too few site reports provide the
necessary descriptions to conduct comparable
study using them. However, the National Park
Service projects in Skagway and research by
Parks Canada archaeologists in the Klondike have
amassed superb data that should be used for
comparison with the interior Alaskan material.
Such an immense undertaking is well beyond
the scope of this work, however.
Let us now examine how the interior Alaskan
assemblages compare with those sites discussed
earlier (Tables 14, 15). Numbers for market
oriented and labor related goods have been
combined as necessary. It is assumed that the
Fairbanks assemblage, although partially from
commercial contexts, is still comparable to the
residential sites used. The three groupings by
access areas strongly support the original model
proposed by Riordan and Adams (1985). The
sites found in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon,
in the Low Access Area, have remarkably similar
profiles for their access to goods. They fall
TABLE 12
UNWEIGHTED COMPARISONS USING FREQUENCY OF COMPANIES BY ACCESS AREA
Fairbanks*
Access Area
Silcott
N
Low
Intermediate
High
Total
60
23
125
208
Waverly
%
28.8
11.1
60.1
100.0
Ashley
N
%
31
9
84
124
25.0
7.3
67.7
100.0
N
4
29
76
109
%
3.7
26.6
69.7
100.0
N
5
18
78
101
* Includes entire assemblage.
Main Body - 35(2)b
102-103
10/2/00, 9:35 PM
%
5.0
17.8
77.2
100.0
103
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
TABLE 13
COMPARISON OF THE FAIRBANKS ASSEMBLAGE USING THE UNWEIGHTED TOTAL FOR COMPANIES
AND THE WEIGHTED TOTAL FOR ARTIFACTS*
Access Area
By Company
N
By Artifact
%
Low
Intermediate
High
Total
60
22
125
207
29.0
10.6
60.4
100.0
N
%
176
123
452
751
23.4
16.4
60.2
100.0
* Using Table 7, adjusted for Marks 339, 340.
into two clear groups. One group has a High
Access Area range of 56.5% to 71.3% and a
Low Access Area range of 15.0% to 28.3%
(Table 14). While the upper part of the range
for High Access Area artifacts overlaps slightly
with those sites found in Intermediate Access
Area, the latter sites have a distinctly different
percentage of Low Access Area artifacts, ranging
from only 1.3% to 4.4%. The second group
located in the Low Access Area have an exceedingly low range for High Access Area artifacts,
35.5% to 44.4%, and an exceptionally high range
of Low Access Area artifacts, 38.5% to 53.6%.
This group consists of the two later sites in
interior Alaska, Wiseman and Tofty, together
with a logging camp and a railroad camp in
Oregon. Time appears to be one variable here,
but the two industrial camps obviously have
some other variables at work, perhaps gender
ratios being unbalanced.
The sites located in the Intermediate Access
Area in Mississippi and South Carolina range
from 0% to 4.4% for Low, 18.1% to 22.8%
for Intermediate, and 72.8% to 81.9% for High
Access Area manufacturers. The data from
Peoria, located on the very fringe of the High
Access Area, indicate it is most comparable
to the sites located in the Intermediate Access
Area. Based upon its similarity to those other
Intermediate Access Area sites, Peoria has been
reassigned to that group. The one site purely
in the High Access Area, Sandy Ground, shows
a drastically different profile than the other site
assemblages, with nearly all goods coming from
TABLE 14
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT ASSEMBLAGES BY ACCESS AREA (ARTIFACT TOTALS).
Access Area
Place
Sub-assem.
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
High
Railroad Camp KL4, OR
Tofty
Logging Camp DS5, OR
Wiseman, AK
Homestead JE3, OR
Fairbanks, AK
Fairbanks, AK
Silcott, WA
JE1, 2, 3, OR
Fairbanks, AK
Coldfoot, AK
Homestead JE2, OR
Homestead JE1, OR
Peoria, IL
Peoria, IL
Peoria, IL
Waverly, MS
Ashley, SC
Bay Springs, MS
Sandy Ground, NY
1923-26
1925-65
1922-31
1920-40
1906-13
1922-41
all
all
all
1901-22
1905-30
1910-35
1923-38
1910+
all
1880-1910
all
all
all
all
32
15
14
18
7
53
176
222
32
44
125
13
12
1
2
1
13
12
–
2
Main Body - 35(2)b
102-103
Intermed.
18
2
6
7
10
25
123
198
22
51
112
1
11
23
33
8
68
99
6
–
High
33
11
11
20
9
110
452
660
98
192
491
32
57
52
91
25
217
338
27
328
10/2/00, 9:35 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
104
TABLE 15
RANKING OF DIFFERENT ASSEMBLAGES AND SUBASSEMBLAGES BY ACCESS AREA
(PERCENTAGES)
Access Area
Place
Sub-assem.
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
High
Railroad Camp KL4, OR
Tofty
Logging Camp DS5, OR
Wiseman, AK
Homestead JE3, OR
Fairbanks, AK
Fairbanks, AK
Silcott, WA
JE1, 2, 3, OR
Fairbanks, AK
Coldfoot, AK
Homestead JE2, OR
Homestead JE1, OR
Peoria, IL
Peoria, IL
Peoria, IL
Waverly, MS
Ashley, SC
Bay Springs, MS
Sandy Ground, NY
1923-26
1925-65
1922-31
1920-40
1906-13
1922-41
all
all
all
1901-22
1905-30
1910-35
1923-38
1910+
all
1880-1910
all
all
all
all
Low
Intermed.
45.2
53.6
38.5
40.0
23.0
28.2
23.4
20.6
21.1
15.3
17.2
28.3
15.0
1.3
1.6
3.0
4.4
2.7
–
0.6
that area. Clearly we need more assemblages
from different areas of the country to refine the
model further.
Pred’s economic geography model (Pred 1964),
thus appears to be valid when projected into the
archaeological record. These data and observations reveal that consumers in the Low Access
Area used manufactured goods made in that
same area much more commonly than those
made in the Intermediate Access Area. People
living in the Intermediate Access Area chose
products made in that area, more than those
made in the Low Access Area. In both cases
the respective regional manufacturers accounted
for about 20% of the overall assemblages. In
addition, the further the site is from New York
High
19.3
7.1
21.7
15.6
20.5
13.3
16.4
18.3
14.5
17.8
15.4
2.2
13.7
30.3
26.2
23.5
22.8
22.0
18.2
–
35.5
39.3
39.8
44.4
56.5
58.5
60.2
61.1
64.4
66.9
67.4
69.5
71.3
68.4
72.2
73.5
72.8
75.3
81.8
99.4
City, the less common are goods made in the
High Access Area.
Foreign Goods
Another useful comparison in the interior
Alaskan data is the percentage of foreign-manufactured goods through time. These are summarized in Table 16. Products from foreign
sources stay relatively consistent in percentage
as the railroad replaced the steamboats, ranging
in each sample from roughly 4% to 11% of the
goods. Why this relationship stays the same
is unclear, although it appears that domestic
transportation networks had little affect on use
of imported goods. The likely explanation is
TABLE 16
COMPARISON OF FREQUENCY OF FOREIGN-MADE GOODS BY ASSEMBLAGE
Foreign
US
Total
Fairbanks
1901-1922
N
Coldfoot
1905-30
%
Fairbanks
1923-41
N
49
413
462
10.6
89.4
100.0
31
728
759
Main Body - 35(2)b
104-105
Wiseman
1920-40
%
4.1
95.9
100.0
Tofty
1925-65
N
%
N
%
N
%
20
190
210
9.5
90.5
100.0
4
45
49
8.2
91.8
100.0
4
45
49
8.2
91.8
100.0
10/2/00, 9:35 PM
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
that even though the railroad may have brought
the commodities the last leg of their journey,
most of their trip was by ship. These figures
are substantially greater than the 2.9% foreignmade goods in the Silcott assemblage (Adams
1976b:102). Some factors affecting this in Fairbanks would be the greater number of foreign
born people working in the interior Alaskan
goldfields, compared to the folks in Silcott.
Silcott had few foreign-born people and was a
poor farming community. Silcott was linked
to Portland via steamboat and railroad, thus it
is thought that it would not have had higher
transportation costs for most goods.
Conclusions
In this study, using the Commodity Flow
Model proposed by Riordan and Adams (1985),
we have compared the data from several projects in the continental United States with four
assemblages from the interior of Alaska. We
have found that the original model is a valid
approach to understanding some aspects of
the relationship between consumer and manufacturer, as revealed in the archaeological data.
Archaeological assemblages in different areas
of the country were found to have predictable
relationships. More studies of this type will
help clarify biases introduced by time, site function, and artifact preservation, as well as allow
refinement of the clinal access areas (Figure 2)
to further increase the model’s utility. By using
this model in conjunction with other studies we
will attain a fuller view of consumer choices
within a market economy. The model provides
a very useful means of comparing different site
assemblages in a given region.
Deviation from the original model was through
lumping market oriented and labor related artifacts. The reason for this is that much published
archaeological data cannot be split this way,
so have chosen to simplify the model. We
also tried a new approach, namely using an
unweighted sample by totaling the numbers of
companies from each area instead of totaling
the numbers of artifacts by company. The
results from using the weighted and unweighted
methods did not provide wholly comparable
results, thus it is recommended that future studies use both approaches in tandem instead of
merely one.
Main Body - 35(2)b
104-105
105
As more archaeologists choose to investigate
how communities interacted with the national
market through time, we will be able to refine
the model further. Given the large artifact collections from excavations conducted in Skagway,
Alaska by the National Park Service and in the
Yukon Territory by Parks Canada, a tremendous
database awaits those who are willing to do
the analysis. Comparison between the various
gold rush sites would be fascinating to see,
especially if we could one day include key boom
towns like Knik, Sunrise, Iditarod, or Nome.
Researchers elsewhere in the United States would
also benefit from using the Commodity Flow
Model as refined here.
The basic concept of the model should be
applicable for any interaction sphere in which
consumer goods are manufactured in one area
and transported some distance into a hinterland.
We can envision its application throughout much
of the New World and beyond. Places like
Australia would be especially interesting to
model because each state probably would require
a separate model. New Zealand might also
provide a further case study someday. Could
the model be adapted to the Roman Empire or
other Classical cultures?
Future work may well benefit by developing
models using other cities as the reference point
instead of New York City. As the nation’s
transportation network and industry developed
during the 20th century it becomes increasingly
problematical for whether or not New York City
should remain the reference point. Perhaps
places like Chicago would be more useful.
Nevertheless, the study here illustrates archaeological data’s potential for examining continentwide national markets and economic trends.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article was abstracted in part from a large report
on the excavations of 20th century gold rush sites
in Fairbanks, Alaska, using CD-ROM (Bowers and
Gannon 1998; Adams et al. 1998). This research was
funded by a contract with the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities as part of their
responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation
Act. Brian Gannon served as the Project Manager for
ADOT&PF. The prime contract was made with Hart
Crowser, Inc. of Seattle, Washington, with subcontracts
to Northern Land Use Research, Inc. of Fairbanks,
Alaska, and to Adams & Associates of Philomath,
Oregon. The principal investigators were Robert
Weaver, Peter M. Bowers, and William H. Adams.
10/2/00, 9:35 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
106
We would like to thank everyone involved in this
massive excavation in the fall and early winters of 1992
and 1993. Catherine M. Williams and Andrew Higgs
assembled much of the Fairbanks data for our analysis
and we are grateful for their assistance (Williams
and Higgs 1998; Adams et al. 1998). The 1994
and 1995 Coldfoot, Tofty, and Wiseman excavations
were undertaken and directed by Robin Mills for
his dissertation research at the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks. Monetary and logistical support for these
efforts were supplied by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management; the University of Alaska’s Museum,
Anthropology Department, and Graduate School; and
the Tanana Chiefs Conference, all in Fairbanks. We
are indebted to Tim Riordan for the original research
on this topic he prepared with Bill Adams. We also
thank Richard Brooks and Mark Groover for sending
us their studies on commodity flows. We also thank
Dave Huelsbeck and the anonymous reviewers for their
comments. We wish to thank Ronn Michael and Rick
Sprague for their editorial work on this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Adams, William Hampton
1973 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of a Rural American
Community: Silcott, Washington, 1900-1930.
Ethnohistory, 20(4):335-346.
1975 Archaeology of the Recent Past: Silcott, Washington,
1900-1930. Northwest Anthropological Research
Notes, 9(1):156-165.
1976a Silcott, Washington: Ethnoarchaeology of a Rural
American Community. PhD dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman. University Microfilms International, Ann
Arbor, MI.
1976b Trade Networks and Interaction Spheres–A View from
Silcott. Historical Archaeology, 10:99-112.
1977 Silcott, Washington: Ethnoarchaeology of a Rural
American Community. Washington State University,
Laboratory of Anthropology, Reports of Investigations,
No. 54. Pullman.
1991 Trade Networks and Interaction Spheres–A View
from Silcott. In Approaches to Material Culture
Research for Historical Archaeologists, Lester A.
Ross George L. Miller, Olive R. Jones, and Teresita
Majewski, editors, pp. 385-398. Society for Historical
Archaeology, California, PA.
ADAMS, WILLIAM HAMPTON (EDITOR)
1980 Waverly Plantation: Ethnoarchaeology of a Tenant
Farming Community. National Technical Information
Service, Washington, DC.
ADAMS, WILLIAM HAMPTON, PETER M. BOWERS, CATHERINE
M. WILLIAMS
1998 Commodity Flow and Access to the Market. In
Historical Development of the Chena River Waterfront,
Fairbanks, Alaska: An Archaeological Perspective,
Main Body - 35(2)b
106-107
Peter M. Bowers and Brian L. Gannon, editors
and compilers, CD-ROM. Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, Fairbanks.
ADAMS, WILLIAM H., LINDA P. GAW, AND FRANK C.
LEONHARDY
1975 Archaeological Excavations at Silcott, Washington:
The Data Inventory. Washington State University,
Laboratory of Anthropology, Reports of Investigations,
No. 53. Pullman.
ADAMS, WILLIAM HAMPTON, AND STEVEN D. SMITH
1985 Historical Perspectives on Black Tenant Farmer
Material Culture: The Henry C. Long General Store
Ledger at Waverly Plantation, Mississippi. In The
Archeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Theresa
Singleton, editor pp. 309-334. Academic Press,
New York, NY.
ADAMS, WILLIAM HAMPTON, STEVEN D. SMITH, DAVID F.
BARTON, TIMOTHY B. RIORDAN, AND STEPHEN POYSER
1981 Bay Springs Mill: Historical Archaeology of a Rural
Mississippi Cotton Milling Community. National
Technical Information Service, Washington, DC.
BOWERS, PETER M., AND BRIAN L. GANNON (EDITORS AND
COMPILERS)
1998 Historical Development of the Chena River Waterfront,
Fairbanks, Alaska: An Archaeological Perspective,
CD-ROM. Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities, Fairbanks.
BROOKS, RICHARD D.
n.d.
Economic Networks and Ashley Plantation.
Manuscript.
CABAK, MELANIE A., AND MARK D. GROOVER
1993a An Archaeological Analysis of Urban Economic
History and Industrial Networks in Peoria, Illinois.
Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology, 10:17-30.
1993b The Archaeology of Urban Economic History and
Industrial Networks: An Example from Peoria,
Illinois. Midwest Archaeological Research Center,
Illinois State University, Normal.
GERLACH, S. CRAIG, PETER M. BOWERS, AND WILLIAM H.
ADAMS
1998 Fairbanks and the American Frontier: From the Gold
Rush to The Golden Heart. In: Historical Development
of the Chena River Waterfront, Fairbanks, Alaska:
An Archaeological Perspective. Peter M. Bowers and
Brian L. Gannon, editors and compilers, CD-ROM.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, Fairbanks.
HEDRICK, BASIL, AND SUSAN SAVAGE
1988 Steamboats on the Chena: The Founding and
Development of Fairbanks, Alaska. Epicenter Press,
Fairbanks, AK
10/2/00, 9:36 PM
Adams, Bowers and Mills – COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS
KLEIN, JOEL
1973 Models and Hypothesis Testing in Historical
Archaeology. Historical Archaeology, 7:68-77.
MERCIER, FRANCOIS XAVIER
1986 Recollections of the Youkon: Memoirs from the
Years 1868-1885. Linda Finn Yarborough, translator,
editor, and annotator. Alaska Historical Commission,
Studies in History, 188. Anchorage.
MILLS, ROBIN O.
1998 Historic Archaeology of Alaskan Placer Mining
Settlements:
Evaluating
Process-Pattern
Relationships. PhD dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor,
MI.
PRED, ALLAN
1964 Toward a Typology of Manufacturing Flows. The
Geographical Review, 54:65-84.
1970 Toward a Typology of Manufacturing Flows. In
Economic Geography: Selected Readings Fred
E. Dohrs and Lawrence M. Sommers, editors, pp.
267-286. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York, NY.
RIORDAN, TIMOTHY B., AND WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMS
1980 Economic Interaction. In Waverly Plantation:
Ethnoarchaeology of a Tenant Farming Community,
William Hampton Adams, editor, pp. 315-336.
National Technical Information Service, Washington,
DC.
1985 Commodity Flows and National Market Access.
Historical Archaeology, 19(2):5-18.
ROBE, CECIL F.
1943 The Penetration of the Alaskan Frontier, The Tanana
Valley and Fairbanks. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Yale University, New Haven CN.
SCHUYLER, ROBERT L.
1974 Sandy Ground: Archaeological Sampling in a Black
Community in Metropolitan New York. Conference
on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 10(2):99-120.
Columbia, SC.
1980 Sandy Ground: Archaeology of a 19th Century
Oystering Village. In Archaeological Perspectives on
Ethnicity in America, Robert L. Schuyler, editor, pp.
48-59. Baywood, Farmingdale, NY.
Main Body - 35(2)b
106-107
107
SMITH, STEVEN D.
1991 A Comparison of the Documentary Evidence of
Material Culture and the Archaeological Record:
Store Ledgers and Two Black Tenant Sites, Waverly
Plantation, Mississippi. South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South
Carolina, Columbia.
SPEULDA, LOU ANN, AND GARY C. BOWYER
1996 Out in the Country: Archaeological Correlates of Rural
Consumer Strategies. Paper presented at the Northwest
Anthropological Conference, Moscow, ID.
WEAVER, ROBERT M.
1998 Potential For Future Research. In Historical
Development of the Chena River Waterfront, Fairbanks,
Alaska: An Archaeological Perspective. Peter M.
Bowers and Brian L. Gannon, editors and compilers,
CD-ROM. Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities, Fairbanks.
WILLIAMS, CATHERINE M., AND ANDREW S. HIGGS
1998 Appendix 2. Barnette Project Trademark/Maker
Mark Catalog. In Historical Development of the
Chena River Waterfront, Fairbanks, Alaska: An
Archaeological Perspective. Peter M. Bowers and
Brian L. Gannon, editors and compilers, CD-ROM.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, Fairbanks.
WILLIAM HAMPTON ADAMS
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
FLINDERS UNIVERSITY
GPO 2100
ADELAIDE, SA 5001
AUSTRALIA
PETER M. BOWERS
NORTHERN LAND USE RESEARCH
P O BOX 83990
FAIRBANKS, AK 99708
ROBIN O. MILLS
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
NORTHERN FIELD OFFICE
1150 UNIVERSITY AVE.
FAIRBANKS, AK 99709
10/2/00, 9:36 PM
108
Provenience of EighteenthCentury British Porcelain Sherds
from Sites 3B and 4E, Fortress
of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia:
Constraints from Mineralogy,
Bulk Paste and Glaze
Compositions
J. Victor Owen
ABSTRACT
Twenty-six British porcelain sherds excavated from two
properties at the Fortress of Louisbourg were analysed by
electron microprobe with the objective of identifying the
factories from which they originated (that is, their provenience).
Nineteen of the samples are phosphatic; seven are magnesian.
Sixteen of the phosphatic sherds have paste and glaze
compositions consistent with Bow porcelain (ca. 1747 to 1776).
This attribution is supported by underglaze blue patterns
(Dragon, Cannonball, and Desirable Residence patterns) and
famille rose overglaze polychrome designs that match the
decoration used on Bow porcelain. A calcic plagioclasebearing sherd has a composition suggesting derivation from
the Gilbody works (Liverpool, ca. 1755 to 1761). Another
unassigned sherd has a paste composition that resembles
products of the Lowestoft factory (ca. 1757 to 1799), but
contains plagioclase, a mineral not known to occur in Lowestoft
porcelain, and its glaze contains small amounts of tin, a
component unknown in analysed Lowestoft glazes. One
highly porous sample has an anomalous composition (a lower
phosphate content than any known bone-ash porcelain), and
appears to have been chemically modified in the ground. It,
too, remains unattributed. The magnesian sherds contain
diopside and enstatite, and thus are mineralogically similar to
another type of Liverpool porcelain (late Chaffers [ca. 1756 to
1765]) and its successor, the Christian/Seth Pennington works;
ca. 1765 to 1799). Compositionally, the body and glaze of
these samples resemble Chaffers/Christian/Seth Pennington
porcelain. This attribution is further supported by their
underglaze blue patterns, which match some of those (Liver
Bird pattern) known to have been used at the Liverpool works.
Contemporary documents record the fact that the Bow works
exported significant amounts of its wares to North America.
The discovery of Chaffers/Christian/Seth Pennington porcelain
at Louisbourg and other archaeological sites in Atlantic Canada
(Fort Beauséjour) indicates that some Liverpool factories also
supplied colonial markets with porcelain.
Introduction
The significance of ceramic artifacts recovered
from historical archaeological sites cannot fully
be appreciated until the factory from which
they originated has been identified. In many
instances, however, potsherds are small–perhaps
only a few centimeters (or less) in diameter–and
it is the rare case indeed that more than a
few can be pieced together to provide a more
complete indication of the overall form of the
object from which they are derived. Although
with experience, the general type and country
of origin of some wares can be determined
visually, specific information concerning the
particular factory at which individual objects
were made is difficult to determine because
many manufacturers copied each others designs.
Consequently, compositional criteria have proved
to be invaluable in constraining the likely
provenience of potsherds, notably 18th century
British porcelain artifacts recovered from colonial
sites (Owen and Hansen 1996;
Owen and
Sandon 1998).
This study reports on the compositions of
26 artificial (soft-paste) porcelain sherds from
two sites at the Fortress of Louisbourg, one
of the largest and most important historical
archaeological sites in North America. The
data show that two types of ware are present:
(1) phosphatic (bone ash) porcelain with either
moderate (17 samples) or low (2 samples, but
one is altered) sulphate contents; and (2) magnesian (soapstone) porcelain with variable lead
contents (7 samples). The provenience of these
artifacts was determined using updated majorelement discrimination diagrams (Owen and
Sandon 1998) coupled with further constraints
provided by (1) the mineralogy of the samples,
(2) the composition of their glazes, and (3)
aesthetic criteria (underglaze-blue painted decoration). This project was undertaken as part of
a larger research initiative dealing with the
geochemistry of early British porcelains that has,
as its main objectives, the mineralogical and
compositional characterization of these wares,
Historical Archaeology, 2001, 35(2):108—121.
Permission to reprint required.
Main Body - 35(2)b
108-109
10/2/00, 9:36 PM
J. Victor Owen – PROVENIENCE OF EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY BRITISH PORCELAIN SHERDS
their petrological interpretation using appropriate
phase diagrams and the controlled kiln-firing
of pastes that simulate them, and, finally, their
identification (that is, determination of the factory from which they originate) where sherds of
these objects have been recovered from colonial
archaeological sites. The present study focuses
on the latter objective.
Historical Background
The Louisbourg area was settled in 1713 by
the French after they had ceded Acadia (that is,
much of present-day New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia) and Newfoundland to Britain under the
terms of the Treaty of Utrecht. They used Cape
Breton and Prince Edward Island, all that then
remained of their holdings of Atlantic Canada
as centers for their cod fishing operations on
the Grand Banks. Construction of the Fortress
began in 1719. It was not completed until
shortly before it was successfully seiged by
the British in 1745, during King George’s War
(1744 to 1748). The Fortress was returned to
the French under the terms of the treaty of Aixla-Chapelle, which ended this war. It was again
successfully sieged by the British during the
French and Indian War (1755 to 1760), but this
time the Fortress was demolished. Fishermen,
merchants, and those involved in other occupations nonetheless continued to reside there long
afterward, accounting for the presence of artifacts
dating well past the mid-18th century.
Reconstruction by the Government of Canada
began in 1961. Using contemporary maps and
plans, and archaeological data, roughly 25%
of the original town and its fortifications were
rebuilt, recreating the facility as it would have
appeared in the mid-1740s. To date, some
6-million artifacts have been recovered from
the ruins.
109
analysis. In order to screen the collection as
efficiently as possible, emphasis was placed on
identifying sites for which occupancy records
are fairly thorough, and from which a wide
range of British wares of known archaeological
context is available. Two properties (Block 3,
lot B [henceforth site 3B]; Block 4, lot E [4E])
matching these criteria were chosen. Details
of the excavation and a summary of historical
documents pertaining to these properties are
provided by Harris (1982). Briefly, site 3B–the
Cressonet property–was occupied by a building
erected (1713 to 1723) with royal funds to
house the Recollet fathers and parish church.
Over the next 50 years, this and other buildings constructed on the lot were used for various purposes, including commercial storage,
tavern keeping, as well as for domestic activities. Twenty-nine sherds of British porcelain
were recovered from this site. All but one are
decorated with underglaze blue, painted designs.
One sample has overglaze polychrome enamel
decoration. Eleven sherds (Figure 1) spanning
Archaeological Context of Sites 3b and 4e
A large number (–1900) of what are interpreted on aesthetic grounds as British porcelain
sherds has been excavated at Fortress Louisbourg.
Only five (0.26%) of these samples have factory
marks (J. Campbell, pers. comm. 1999), so the
determination of their provenience relies on
aesthetic and analytical criteria. A small subset
of this collection was selected for microchemical
Main Body - 35(2)b
108-109
Figure 1. Scanned image of analysed porcelain sherds
excavated from the Cressonet property (site 3B), Fortress
of Louisbourg: a, Sample 3B-1; b, 3B-3; c, 3B-4; d, 3B-5;
e, 3B-6; f, 3B-7; g, 3B-8; h, 3B-9; i, 3B-10; j, 3B-11; k, 3B-12.
Gaps in the numbering sequence result from the exclusion
of creamware samples that originally were included among
the samples to be analysed. Parks Canada accession
numbers are given in the Table 4.
10/2/00, 9:36 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
110
each variant from this property were selected for
microchemical analysis.
Site 4E–the Milly-Laborde property–was occupied by members of the Milly and Laborde families between 1716 and 1774, although unknown
English occupants resided there between 1745
and 1768. The property was used exclusively
for domestic purposes. More than 100 British
porcelain sherds were recovered from this site.
In addition to diverse types of ware displaying
various underglaze-blue patterns (most commonly
showing a dragon motif), single specimens
decorated with green polychrome overglaze
enamel, and underglaze sepia-tone designs are
also present. Fifteen sherds (Figure 2) representing each principal variant from this property
were selected for microchemical analysis.
Compositions of Early British Porcelains
Published geochemical data are available for
many early British porcelains. Given production
rates in the order of at least 100,000 objects
per year (Owen and Sandon 1998), however,
even the most thoroughly investigated factory
is presently represented by few analytical data,
a dozen or so samples of each type of ware
having been analyzed. With this caveat in mind,
it is worthwhile to briefly review the composition of the porcelains produced by the major
factories.
There are three major types of early British
porcelains: (1) “artificial” (soft-paste) wares that
included synthetic materials (notably glass) in
their pastes, (2) “true” (hard-paste) porcelains
derived from naturally-occurring ingredients,
and (3) hybrid wares (bone china) derived from
ingredients common to both artificial and true
porcelains. Compositionally, artificial porcelains
fall into one of three main categories–boneash-, soapstone-, and frit porcelains. Bone-ash
porcelains are phosphatic owing to the presence
of calcined bone-ash in their pastes. Examples
include the Bow (ca. 1747 to 1776), goldanchor period Chelsea (ca. 1758 to 1770), Derby
(post-1770 period [“Chelsea/Derby”]), Lowestoft
(ca. 1757 to 1799) and various Liverpool (Gilbody [ca. 1755 t0 1761] and John Pennington
[ca. 1770 to 1779]) factories. Phosphatic porcelains became the norm during the third quarter
of the 18th century, but continued to be made
well into the 19th century (for example, at Coal-
Main Body - 35(2)b
110-111
Figure 2. Scanned image of analysed porcelain sherds
excavated from the Milly-Laborde property (site 4E),
Fortress of Louisbourg: a, Sample 4E-1; b, 4E-2; c, 4E-4; d,
4E-5; e, 4E-6; f, 4E-7; g, 4E-8; h, 4E-9; i, 4E-10; j, 4E-11; k,
4E-12; l, 4E-13; m, 4E-14; n, 4E-15; o, 4E-16.
port (John Rose’s factory, ca. 1795 to 1837)) and
Nantgarw (ca. 1813 to 1820), several decades
after Josiah Spode first (in 1796) combined the
ingredients of bone-ash and true porcelains to
produce bone china.
Soapstone-porcelains have magnesium-rich
compositions due to the use of steatite (“soapstone”), a talc-rich rock, in their manufacture.
They are also typically lead-rich owing to the
frequent use of flint glass in their pastes. Examples include the Bristol/early Worcester (ca.
1749 to 1752); later Worcester (typical Dr. Wall
period–ca. 1752 to 1774; Davis/Flight periods–ca.
1774 to 1793), Caughley (ca. 1772 to 1799),
Vauxhall (ca. 1751 to 1764), Bovey Tracey (ca.
1768 to 1774), and various Liverpool factories
(for example, late Chaffers (ca. 1756 to 1765),
and its successor, the Christian/Seth Pennington
(ca. 1765 to 1799) works.
So-called frit (glassy) porcelains also made
use of glass (lead-rich flint glass) or other fritted (melted and ground) paste ingredients in
their recipes. This latter category is somewhat
of a misnomer because both magnesian and
phosphatic porcelains commonly incorporated
a glass frit in their recipes. For example,
Worcester porcelains typically have magnesianplombian compositions owing to the use of both
10/2/00, 9:36 PM
J. Victor Owen – PROVENIENCE OF EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY BRITISH PORCELAIN SHERDS
soapstone and flint glass in their pastes (Owen
1997, 1998). The same holds true with some
phosphatic wares. For example, Nantgarw’s
proprietor fritted bone ash and other ingredients,
and, after grinding, mixed the ground frit with
clay and water, in preparation for slip casting.
In Britain, true porcelain was first produced
in the late 1760s by William Cookworthy, who,
in collaboration with Nicholas Crisp of Bovey
Tracey (a former proprietor of Vauxhall), manufactured these wares at Plymouth. The Plymouth
works was later (1770) moved to Bristol, where
true porcelain continued to be manufactured by
Richard Champion until 1782. It was later (mid1790s) manufactured at the Caughley works,
which was annexed in 1799 by John Rose of
Coalport, who continued making Caughley-like
wares until introducing novel types of ware in
the 19th century.
Analytical Methods
A cross-section of each sherd was removed
using a thin-bladed diamond saw, mounted on
glass, and ground to a high polish using a
lead lap. Although providing a superior polish
(compared to cloth-like laps, which provide an
inferior polish, and tend to lift the sample from
the glass slide), the lead lap left small amounts
(generally <2% of surface area) of residual
metallic lead on the thin sections. Consequently,
bulk PbO data for magnesian samples were corrected by subtracting the amount of PbO represented by the metallic Pb on the analysed surface
of each sherd, as determined by backscatteredelectron image analysis using the Oxford Link
eXL analytical system. Images were generated
over a 256 x 256 pixel area at a magnification
of X100-X200.
Phase and bulk compositions were determined
using a JEOL Superprobe 733 equipped with
four wavelength–dispersive spectrometers and
an Oxford Link eXL energy–dispersive system.
Resolution of the energy dispersive detector was
137 eV at 5.9 keV. The beam current was 15
nA; the accelerating voltage was 15 kV. Count
time was 40 s. Geological standards included
jadeite (Al, Si, Na), hornblende (Ca, Ti, Fe,
Mg), sanidine (K), Cr metal (Cr), pyrolusite
(Mn), and galena (Pb). Data were reduced using
Link’s ZAF matrix correction program. Based
on replicate analysis (n = 10) of Co metal,
Main Body - 35(2)b
110-111
111
instrument precision was +0.5% at 1. Accuracy
for major elements was +1.5-2.0 rel.%. Using
the EDS system, detection limits for the major
and minor elements reported here are in the
order of 0.1%.
Phase compositions were using a focussed
(–1-2 µm) electron beam. Bulk compositions
were determined by raster analysis; 8 to 20
fields were covered at a magnification of X400,
for a total scanned area of up to 1.6 mm2. The
results of this approach have been shown to
closely match the average of in excess of 100,
defocussed-beam, electron-probe data for bone
china (De Jong and Owen 1999).
Results
Bulk Compositions
Nineteen of the sherds from sites 3B and
4E have phosphatic compositions; seven are
magnesian (Table 2). Most of the phosphatic
sherds (n = 17) contain significant amounts of
sulphate (1.8-3.6 wt.% SO4), indicating the use
of a sulphate mineral (probably gypsum) in the
paste. Only two have low sulphate contents
(SO 4 <1 wt.%), and one of these (3B-4) is
highly porous and likely has been chemically
altered during burial (Owen and Day 1998a).
Figure 3. Major-element discrimination diagram (Owen and
Sandon, 1998) showing the compositions of phosphatic
sherds from Louisbourg sites 3B and 4E relative to the
compositional fields of various British bone-ash porcelains.
Only sherds with compositions plotting outside of the Bow
field are individually labelled. Note that P2O5 and Al2O3
reflect the amounts of bone ash and clay, respectively,
used in the porcelain paste.
10/2/00, 9:37 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
112
TABLE 1
PARKS CANADA ACCESSION NUMBERS FOR
THE ANALYSED LOUISBOURG SHERDS.
3B-1 (3L22A6.9); 3B-3 (3L17H2.8); 3B-4 (3L17G2.13);
3B-5 (3L22J1.2); 3B-6 (3L22G5.2); 3B-7 (3L22D4.10); 3B-8
(3L22G4.4); 3B-9 (3L18R3.1); 3B-10 (3L11G4.8); 3B-11
(3L20J3.1); 3B-12 (3L19A4.2)
4E-1 (4L53M3.5); 4E-2 (4L53M3.1); 4E-4 (4L50J2.14); 4E-5
(4L53L2.59); 4E-6 (4L53N2.28); 4E-7 (4L53N2.27); 4E-8
(4L55K2.11); 4E-9 (4L54L2.17); 4E-10 (4L52M13.1); 4E-11
(4L54L5.11); 4E-12 (4L51J4.3); 4E-13 (4L55K2.1); 4E-14
(4L5392.17); 4E-15 (4L50J3.14); 4E-16 (4L55l4.8)
With two exceptions (4E-7, 4E-12), the relatively
sulphate-rich sherds appear to constitute a coherent compositional grouping (Figure 3): their
alumina (4.0%-5.9% Al2O3), lime (20.5%-23.8%
CaO), and phosphate (14.3%-17.4% P2O5) contents vary within a fairly narrow range, although
the concentrations of silica are somewhat variable (–47.7 wt.%-55.3 wt.%SiO2). Sample 4E-7,
however, is enriched in silica and alumina,
and depleted in bone-ash components (Ca, P)
compared to the other sherds in this grouping
(Table 2). In contrast, 4E-12 is unusually poor
in silica and enriched in lime. Its phosphate
content, however, is comparable to the unweathered samples, indicating that it was derived from
a paste that included a significant source of
Ca (probably calcite [whiting]) in addition to
bone ash.
Compared to the other phosphatic sherds,
low-sulphate sample 4E-16 is enriched in boneash components and depleted in silica. This
indicates that its paste had a comparatively high
bone-ash/quartz (or flint) ratio. In contrast,
porous sample 3B-4 is depleted in bone-ash
components, and enriched in silica and alumina.
These data indicate that Ca and P were preferentially leached from this sample by subsurface
water during over two centuries of burial.
The magnesian sherds have variable PbO
contents (Table 2). Three of these sherds (3B-5,
3B-7, 3B-9) have bulk PbO contents in the
range 9.0%-10.3 wt.%. The most lead-poor
sample (4E-9) contains only 1.5 wt.% PbO,
whereas the three other magnesian sherds have
Main Body - 35(2)b
112-113
intermediate PbO contents (4.6%-6.8%). The
suite contains fairly uniform concentrations
of magnesia (8.6%-10.2% MgO) and alumina
(3.0 wt.%-3.4 wt.% Al 2O 3), but silica varies
significantly, particularly between the lead-poor
sample 4E-9 (77.5% SiO2) and its more leadrich counterparts (69.7%-74.2% SiO2). Potash
concentrations are also quite variable (2.2%-3.7
wt.% K 2 O), and lime varies by a factor of
2.5 (1.3 wt.%-3.3 wt.% CaO). In terms of
molecular proportions, the MgO/CaO ratio of
each sherd, once corrected for the lime content
of the phosphate, varies between 4.5 and 20.3
(Table 2), indicating the use of steatite (and an
unspecified source of Ca, presumably calcite)
rather than dolomite (which would yield bulk
compositions with an MgO/CaO ratio of 1, barring other sources of Mg and Ca in the paste).
The mineralogy of these sherds is consistent
with this interpretation (Owen et al. 2000).
These samples are therefore interpreted to be
“soapstone” porcelains that differ principally in
the amount (or composition) of the flint glass
used in their manufacture. As will be seen,
mineralogical characteristics of these wares are
as useful for attribution purposes as the bulk
compositional data.
Phase Compositions
Phosphatic porcelains generally contain silica
polymorphs, a tricalcium phosphate phase (a
whitlockite-like mineral), a melt phase, and, if
sufficiently aluminous (Owen and Day 1998b)
and not overfired (Owen and Morrison 1999),
calcic plagioclase (generally anorthite or bytownite). In the present instance, plagioclase was
detected by microchemical analysis in only two
of the most aluminous phosphatic sherds (4E-7,
4E-16). Given evidence for leaching of boneash components in 3B-4, the elevated alumina
content of this sample is not considered to reflect
its original composition, so the apparent absence
of plagioclase in this sherd is not considered
to be particularly significant. Compositionally,
phases in phosphatic wares produced at different
factories tend to show considerable overlap, so
such analytical data are not reported here. The
main compositional features of these phases are
nonetheless worth reviewing.
10/2/00, 9:37 PM
113
J. Victor Owen – PROVENIENCE OF EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY BRITISH PORCELAIN SHERDS
TABLE 2
BULK COMPOSITION OF PORCELAIN SHERDS FROM FORTRESS OF LOUISBOURG SITES 3B AND 4E
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
Phosphatic(moderate sulphate)
3B-1
51.3
0.2
3B-3
52.8
0.3
3B-6
53.0
0.2
3B-10
50.0
0.2
3B-11
55.3
0.2
3B-12
55.3
0.2
4E-1
51.1
0.2
4E-2
47.7
0.2
4E-5
52.4
0.3
4E-6
49.9
0.0
4E-7
56.6
0.2
4E-8
53.4
0.2
4E-10
52.0
0.2
4E-11
50.7
0.2
4E-12
44.8
0.0
4E-14
54.5
0.2
4E-15
52.5
0.2
Phosphatic(low sulphate)
3B-4
66.1
0.5
4E-16
40.8
0.4
Magnesian
3B-5
3B-7
3B-8
3B-9
4E-4
4E-9
4E-13
72.2
70.0
72.7
69.7
72.5
77.5
74.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
FeO
MgO
CaO
PbO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
SO4
Total
4.5
4.6
4.0
4.6
5.1
4.2
4.8
4.4
5.9
5.1
6.9
4.8
5.3
5.5
3.7
5.2
4.6
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
23.8
22.7
21.4
23.6
20.5
20.6
22.7
25.0
21.0
22.7
16.7
21.3
21.9
22.4
29.7
21.2
22.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
15.5
15.0
16.3
17.1
14.6
14.3
16.1
17.4
15.7
17.1
15.1
15.2
15.4
16.1
16.7
15.4
15.7
3.2
3.0
3.3
3.1
2.4
3.2
3.3
3.6
2.8
3.4
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.4
1.8
3.1
100.0
100.1
100.2
100.1
99.8
99.9
100.0
99.9
100.0
99.9
100.0
99.8
100.2
99.8
99.8
99.9
100.2
11.4
7.3
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.7
11.4
25.6
1.8
1.2
1.1
1.2
6.2
22.2
0.7
0.2
99.9
99.9
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.1
3.1
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
8.6
9.8
9.7
9.5
9.7
10.2
9.2
1.3
2.0
3.0
2.4
2.5
2.8
3.3
0.7
1.3
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
3.5
3.7
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
100.2
100.0
99.9
99.9
100.0
99.9
100.0
9.6
9.0
5.6
10.3
6.8
1.5
4.6
Notes: data are in wt%, and have been normalized to 100. MnO concentrations are <0.1 wt.% except in sample 3B-8 (0.2%
MnO)
MgO/CaO ratios (molecular proportions) in the magnesian sherds are as follows: 3B-5 (20.3), 3B-7 (8.9), 3B-8 (5.3), 3B-9 (6.5),
4E-4 (6.6), 4E-9 (6.1), 4E-13 (4.5).
The phosphate in the sulphate-bearing sherds
has partitioned sulphur, a tendency that has previously been described by Owen and Day (1994).
This phase commonly displays a “stippled”
appearance due to the presence of micron-scale
blebs of the former melt phase.
The matrix melt phase has a wide range of
compositions, particularly with respect to its
SiO2 , Al2O3, and P2O5 contents. This likely
reflects (1) the presence of submicron-scale
crystallites of silica polymorphs within the melt
phase (Owen et al. 1998; Owen and Morrison
1999), or (2) variable degrees of dissolution
Main Body - 35(2)b
112-113
of the phosphate (which reflects firing conditions and duration), and/or liquid immiscibility
(Owen et al. 2000). The melt has preferentially
partitioned minor concentrations of incompatible
elements such as Fe and Ti, a tendency that is
expected of the melt phase in petrologic media.
The calcic feldspar in the aluminous phosphatic
sherds has a composition of sodic andesine to
bytownite (An71-80). The fact that corroded grains
of the feldspar are preserved, and have not been
completely dissolved in the melt phase, shows
that firing occurred at the thermal minimum (the
eutectic) (Owen and Morrison 1999).
10/2/00, 9:37 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
114
The magnesian sherds contain silica polymorphs, a melt phase, diopside and enstatite
(Table 3). The enstatite occurs as micron-scale
crystallites entrained by the melt phase which,
where the enstatite occupies a significant proportion of this phase, can have a MgO content
exceeding 20 wt.%. Similarly, diopside-adulterated melt has a magnesian and calcic composition (Table 3). In some samples, the diopside
is sufficiently large to analyze separately by
microprobe. For example, in 3B-9, it has a
composition of Ca 0.97(Mg 1.00Fe 0.01)Si 2.00O 6 with
extremely minor amounts of non-quadrilateral
components (for example, 0.022 Na ions per
formula unit). This closely matches the ideal
composition of pure diopside.
Glaze Compositions
All but one of the analyzed samples (4E-7)
is glazed. Analysis of these glazes (Table 4)
shows that all are lead-rich, as is typical of
the glazes on early artificial porcelains. The
glaze on the phosphatic sherds shows a remarkably limited range of compositions, regardless
of their bulk sulphate content. Most contain
between approximately 39.0 wt.%-41.6 wt.%
SiO2, 49.6%-54.1% PbO, and 2.2%-4.3% K2O,
with smaller amounts of CaO (<2.4%), Na2O
(<0.7%),
SO4 (<1.3%), Al2O3 (<0.7), FeO
(<0.8%), and MgO (<0.3%). All but one contain 0.8 wt.%-3.1 wt.% SnO 2 , a component
sometimes added to whiten glazes (or pastes, for
that matter) which otherwise might have a yellowish tint. The tin-free glaze on sample 4E-2,
however, is enriched in lead (55.1 wt.% PbO)
compared with its tin-bearing counterparts.
The glaze on the magnesian sherds shows a
relatively large range of compositions. The glaze
on the high lead (9.0-10.3 wt.% bulk PbO; Table
2) magnesian samples mirrors this divergence.
The glaze on two of these samples (3B-5, 3B-9)
has a much higher lead content (45.2, 40.3 wt.%
PbO, respectively) than the third (3B-7; 27.5%
PbO), and they have correspondingly lower silica
contents (Table 4). This difference suggests that
these two groupings of lead-rich sherds either
originate from different factories, or from one
that varied the lead content of its glazes. The
glaze on the moderate-lead magnesian sherds
Main Body - 35(2)b
114-115
also shows a wide range of lead contents, two
(3B-8, 4E-13) being comparatively lead-poor
(29.1, 31.9% PbO, respectively), the other (4E-4)
being relatively lead-rich (39.3% PbO). The
glaze on the low-lead magnesian sherd (4E-9)
contains a moderate amount of lead (38.1%
PbO) and has a higher alumina content (5.4%
Al 2 O 3 ) than the other glazes. All of these
glazes, however, are enriched in Al 2O 3, SiO 2,
Na2O, and MgO compared with those used on
the phosphatic sherds, and none contain tin.
Provenience of the Louisbourg Sherds
As shown by Owen and Hansen (1996), perhaps the best method of determining the origin
of artificial porcelain sherds from colonial
archaeological sites is by comparison with welldocumented samples from factory sites. The
products of each factory are “fingerprinted”
by particular compositional and mineralogical
signatures, which characterize particular wares
much more effectively than stylistic or aesthetic
features alone, which commonly were copied by
competing manufacturers. These data can be
compiled in the form of discrimination diagrams,
a graphical tool useful in distinguishing the
wares produced by various manufactories. This
approach was adopted by Owen and Sandon
(1998), who were able to determine the provenience of what proved to be a Christian/Seth
Pennington sherd that had previously (Owen and
Hansen 1996) eluded identification owing to a
lack of analytical and mineralogical data at the
time for Liverpool porcelains.
The bulk compositions of the phosphatic sherds
from Louisbourg are plotted on the P2O5 versus
Al2O3 discrimination diagram (Figure 3) reported
by Owen and Sandon (1998), modified here by
the incorporation of additional samples to the
Christian/Seth Pennington field, which now also
includes phosphatic sherds from its predecessor
(the Chaffers works), as well as the addition of
a Coalport field derived from data reported by
Owen (2000a).
All but five of the phosphatic Louisbourg
samples plot in the Bow field. Two samples
(3B-6; 4E-12) plot slightly on the low-alumina
side of this field, but both, like most Bow
porcelain, contain sulphate, and these sherds
10/2/00, 9:37 PM
115
J. Victor Owen – PROVENIENCE OF EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY BRITISH PORCELAIN SHERDS
TABLE 3
COMPOSITION OF SELECTED PHASES IN MAGNESIAN PORCELAIN SHERDS FROM FORTRESS OF
LOUISBOURG SITES 3B AND 4E
Phase
3B-5
Melt
Melt/En
Melt/Di
3B-7
Melt
Melt/En
Melt/Di
3B-8
Melt
Melt/En
3B-9
Melt
Melt/En
Di
4E-4
Melt
Melt/En
Di
4E-9
Melt
Melt/En
Di
4E-13
Melt
Melt/En
Melt/Di
SiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MnO
MgO
CaO
PbO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
SO4
Total
63.38
60.75
58.28
5.54
2.56
2.30
0.60
0.40
0.48
0.00
0.11
0.06
1.57
22.41
12.84
0.26
1.21
12.83
18.75
7.79
8.25
0.64
0.54
0.72
5.60
2.72
2.54
0.29
0.27
0.29
0.26
0.28
0.35
96.89
99.04
98.93
67.83
61.67
62.38
3.96
5.21
3.04
0.54
0.21
0.57
0.14
0.10
0.00
4.87
23.29
12.06
2.44
0.87
10.57
11.12
2.78
4.81
1.19
1.09
1.02
4.23
3.50
2.87
0.66
0.42
0.70
0.15
0.08
0.24
97.12
99.23
98.27
73.16
64.82
6.96
2.66
0.82
0.39
0.01
0.41
2.45
24.70
1.13
2.19
3.71
1.38
1.45
0.86
4.51
1.84
0.61
0.29
0.01
0.03
94.82
99.59
69.89
61.44
55.48
6.80
4.19
0.20
0.76
0.08
0.72
0.14
0.32
0.08
3.89
23.32
18.16
0.46
1.20
23.26
7.38
2.58
0.15
1.21
1.24
1.14
4.01
2.41
0.23
0.43
0.26
0.02
0.07
0.10
0.01
95.02
97.13
99.45
71.08
65.11
55.16
6.60
2.04
0.06
0.71
0.22
0.78
0.00
0.18
0.24
4.16
27.87
18.75
0.58
1.71
24.61
7.55
2.07
0.00
1.36
0.79
0.56
3.95
1.30
0.03
0.48
0.34
0.37
0.06 96.52
0.07 101.71
0.00 100.54
70.63
65.57
54.16
6.83
3.19
0.10
0.77
0.46
0.72
0.27
0.30
0.17
4.76
21.23
18.74
1.04
1.24
23.94
6.71
3.18
0.25
1.51
1.09
0.70
4.04
2.28
0.06
0.38
0.40
0.94
0.10
0.08
0.00
83.34
66.81
64.24
1.88
3.47
3.03
0.28
0.45
0.98
0.00
0.43
0.30
4.60
20.53
15.20
0.42
1.96
11.18
2.13
1.11
0.88
0.63
1.38
1.38
0.92
2.65
2.12
0.38
0.42
0.75
0.07 94.64
0.00 99.21
0.25 100.32
are likewise attributed to Bow, although it is
acknowledged that the high CaO/SiO 2 ratio
(0.66) of sample 4E-12 may indicate a different
provenience. As will be seen, however, a Bow
attribution is supported by the composition of
its glaze.
Although most of the analyzed sherds from
the Bow site are unglazed (biscuit wasters)
(Owen and Day 1994, 1998b), four Bow samples
reported by Tite and Bimson (1991) are glazed.
All but one of these glazes contain tin (2.3
wt.%-2.7 wt.% SnO2). The tin-bearing glazes
contain 46.1%-48.7% wt. PbO, 42.2%-43.3%
SiO2, 4.1%-5.0% K2O, and minor amounts (<1%)
of alumina, soda, iron oxide, and lime. They
thus closely match those on most of the phosphatic Louisbourg sherds (Table 4). The tin-free
Main Body - 35(2)b
114-115
97.04
99.02
99.78
Bow glaze is relatively lead-rich (55.8 wt.%
PbO), but very similar to the tin-free glaze on
sample 4E-2 (Table 4). This further supports a
Bow provenience for these sherds.
Sample 4E-16 plots in the Lowestoft field.
This sample, like all analyzed Lowestoft samples,
is virtually sulphate-free, but contains calcic
plagioclase, a mineral yet to be identified in
Lowestoft porcelain. Furthermore, unlike the
glaze on 4E-16, which contains 1.37 wt.% SnO2,
the glaze on two Lowestoft sherds reported by
Tite and Bimson (1991) is tin-free, but otherwise
compositionally similar to the three tin-bearing
Bow sherds reported in the same paper. Sample
4E-16 is therefore attributed to an unidentified
factory that produced a phosphatic paste similar
to that of Lowestoft, but one which is character-
10/2/00, 9:38 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
116
ized both by the presence of plagioclase and by
the use of small amounts of tin in its lead-rich
glaze.
Sample 4E-7 plots between the Bow and Gilbody (Liverpool) fields. Like analyzed samples
of the latter works (Owen and Sandon 1998), it
contains calcic plagioclase feldspar, a mineral
that has not been identified in Bow. This sherd
is therefore interpreted as a product of the
Gilbody factory. Unfortunately, no glaze was
preserved on the fragment of this sample that
was prepared for analysis, so at present it cannot
be compared with the composition of the Gilbody glaze as reported by Owen and Sandon
(1998).The porous, phosphate-depleted sherd
(3B-4) appears to have been chemically modified,
and thus remains unattributed.
The provenience of the magnesian sherds
can also be determined by the analytical data.
Their paste compositions are plotted on the
MgO versus SiO2 and Na2O+K2O versus Al2O3
diagrams (Figs. 4a,b) reported by Owen and
Sandon (1998), modified here by the addition
of new data (Owen et al. 2000) to the Vauxhall
field. Collectively, the magnesian Louisbourg
sherds have a narrow range of MgO, but show
considerable variation in their bulk silica contents. They define an elongate field that overlaps
the field of Christian/Seth Pennington porcelains.
Two samples (3B-7, 3B-9) with relatively low
silica contents, however, are enriched in MgO
compared with analyzed Liverpool porcelain; they
plot mid-way between the Chaffers/Christian/Seth
Pennington and Dr. Wall (Worcester) fields on
this plot (Figure 4a). Another sherd (4E-9) is
more silicious than any other analyzed British
soapstone porcelain having a comparable MgO
content. This is attributed to the small analytical
database (n = 11 samples) available for the
Chaffers/Christian/Seth Pennington works. It
is noteworthy that, with the addition here of
seven additional sherds from the factory site, the
compositional field for these wares is greatly
expanded from that originally shown by Owen
and Sandon (1998). These new samples, which
include some of the magnesian wares produced
by Richard Chaffers, the original proprietor
of the Christian/Seth Pennington works, have
a much greater range of silica contents than
Main Body - 35(2)b
116-117
the four sherds reported by Owen and Sandon
(1998). It therefore seems that the soapstone
pastes used at this Liverpool factory contained
variable amounts of quartz. The analysis of
additional samples from this site could well
expand the compositional field for these wares
to embrace the outlying sherds from Louisbourg.
As it stands, only one of the sherds (3B-7) plots
as an outlier on the alkalis versus alumina plot
(Figure 4b). This further supports a Liverpool
origin for most, if not all, of these samples.
Although the formation and preservation of
diopside in porcelain is governed by the firing
history (Owen et al. 2000) as well as the mineralogy and composition of the ceramic paste,
this pyroxene is nonetheless a signature mineral
of Chaffers/Christian/Seth Pennington and some
Vauxhall porcelains. The glaze on the diopsidebearing Louisbourg sherds differs markedly from
their known Vauxhall counterparts: they are
depleted in silica (44.7 wt.%-54.9 wt.% versus
57.9 wt.%-63.9 wt.% SiO2), and enriched in lead
(27.5%-45.2% versus 14.0%-20.0% PbO) and
alumina (3.1%-4.5% versus 0.7%-1.6% Al2O3).
They more closely match the glazes used on
some Christian/Seth Pennington wares; Owen
and Sandon (1998) reported that the glaze on
two such porcelains contained approximately 50
wt.% SiO2, 3%-4% 36%-42% PbO, and 2%-4%
Al2O3. These samples are therefore assigned to
the Liverpool works.
Consistency with archaeological context
Properties 3B and 4E were occupied until
the mid-1770s. Assuming that no later wares
found their way onto these sites, this places
an important constraint on the assignment of
provenience to the excavated porcelain sherds.
The compelling attribution of most of the
phosphatic samples to the Bow factory is further
supported by archaeological context. The same
applies to 4E-7, the suspected Gilbody sherd.
Archaeological context does little to aid in
the attribution of the magnesian sherds. The
Worcester and Vauxhall factory both commenced
production in 1751; as such, both are plausible
sources of at least some of these sherds. Likewise, the Christian/Seth Pennington factory
10/2/00, 9:38 PM
J. Victor Owen – PROVENIENCE OF EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY BRITISH PORCELAIN SHERDS
started in 1765 but, as already noted, this operation had previously produced magnesian porcelains under the stewardship of Richard Chaffers. Chaffers gained access to magnesian
porcelain recipes via Robert Podmore, a former
Worcester employee who moved to Liverpool
in the mid-1750s. Previously, Chaffers had
produced phosphatic porcelain. It is concluded
that, on the basis of the age constraints placed
on these artifacts by their archaeological contexts,
the diopside-bearing magnesian sherds could
have originated either in London (Vauxhall) or
Liverpool (Chaffers/Christian/Seth Pennington).
The latter alternative is supported by the analytical data.
117
Discussion
The identification on compositional and aesthetic grounds of porcelain sherds from archaeological sites underscores the importance of
colonial markets during the 18th century. Commercially, the nascent British porcelain industry
was in a precarious state. Few factories survived
more than a decade after their inception. It
is not surprising that the wares of the more
successful factories are found abroad–these
enterprises owed their success as much to
their marketing skills as to their proficiency
in producing fine ceramic wares. Most of the
analyzed phosphatic sherds from Louisbourg
Consistency with decoration
Most of the analyzed sherds from Fortress
of Louisbourg sites 3B and 4E have compositions consistent with Bow and Chaffers/Christian/
Seth Pennington wares. These attributions are
supported by the decoration on many of the
sherds.
Most of the sherds are decorated with painted
designs in underglaze blue (Figs 1, 2). These
include patterns known to have been used in
the 18th century at various British porcelain
factories. Typical Bow designs identified on
the phosphatic sherds include the Dragon (for
example, sample 4E-1; clouds found on the
verso side of the Dragon pattern are seen on
4E-12), Cannonball (4E-7; 4E-10), and Desirable
Residence (4E-13) patterns (Gabszewicz and
Freeman 1982; Watney 1979). Some of the
magnesian sherds (for example, 3B-8) have a
diaper border typical of Christian/Seth Pennington
porcelain. Highly diagnostic of Liverpool wares
is the Liver Bird pattern, as is seen on sample
3B-5.
Although popular patterns such as the “Cannonball” were copied by competing factories (for
example, Worcester), the fact that patterns known
to have been used at the Bow and Christian/Seth
Pennington works can be recognized on the
Louisbourg sherds lends credence to the attribution of the samples on compositional grounds.
Main Body - 35(2)b
116-117
Figure 4. Major-element discrimination diagrams showing
the compositions of magnesian sherds from Louisbourg
sites 3B and 4E relative to the compositional fields of
various British soapstone porcelains. Note that MgO,
SiO2, alkalis and Al2O3 reflect the amounts of soapstone,
flint (or quartz), potash/soda ash, and clay, respectively,
used in the porcelain paste. BT12 is a Mg-poor, Ba-free
variant of the Mg-Pb wares from Bovey Tracey (Owen
et al. 2000).
10/2/00, 9:38 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
118
TABLE 4
COMPOSITION OF GLAZES ON PORCELAIN SHERDS FROM FORTRESS OF LOUISBOURG SITES
3B AND 4E
SiO2
Al2O3
FeO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
SO4
PbO
SnO2
Total
Phosphatic
3B-1
3B-3
3B-4
3B-6
3B-10
3B-11
3B-12
4E-1
4E-2
4E-5
4E-6
4E-8
4E-10
4E-11
4E-12
4E-14
4E-15
4E-16
39.52
39.94
40.50
39.12
39.53
40.48
41.61
39.30
39.27
41.07
39.82
40.67
39.85
40.97
39.89
40.29
41.56
38.97
0.30
0.51
0.38
0.56
0.27
0.70
0.38
0.45
0.07
0.53
0.43
0.60
0.55
0.38
0.38
0.65
0.67
0.52
0.31
0.00
0.07
0.33
0.00
0.14
0.14
0.05
0.03
0.24
0.73
0.20
0.10
0.22
0.15
0.01
0.10
0.19
0.09
0.00
0.08
0.14
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.20
0.13
0.13
0.17
0.01
0.13
0.05
0.24
0.39
0.92
0.62
0.70
1.66
1.22
1.46
0.05
1.00
1.75
1.99
0.56
1.29
2.37
0.65
0.39
1.51
1.07
0.21
0.32
0.44
0.24
0.21
0.23
0.42
0.24
0.25
0.36
0.32
0.22
0.46
0.34
0.41
0.66
0.40
0.62
3.57
3.25
3.28
4.09
3.24
2.99
2.20
4.34
3.62
2.94
3.31
3.39
4.06
2.61
3.75
4.34
3.53
3.29
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.13
0.07
0.06
0.13
0.00
0.22
0.17
0.26
0.08
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.08
0.23
1.05
0.88
0.93
0.69
0.88
0.61
0.60
0.66
0.84
0.79
0.75
0.92
0.90
1.05
0.85
1.29
0.58
0.84
53.31
54.20
51.11
52.51
52.25
52.41
51.79
49.63
55.10
50.30
51.22
52.35
51.67
51.07
53.56
51.23
50.60
53.35
1.43
1.37
1.72
1.36
1.81
1.33
1.46
3.10
0.00
1.83
1.09
1.39
1.34
1.15
1.37
0.76
1.46
1.37
100.22
101.39
99.13
99.87
99.98
100.27
100.29
97.82
100.42
100.11
100.12
100.50
100.40
100.34
101.03
99.80
100.54
100.70
Magnesian
3B-5
3B-7
3B-8
3B-9
4E-4
4E-9
4E-13
44.66
57.15
55.27
47.71
49.07
49.22
54.95
3.08
3.31
3.87
4.46
3.45
5.37
4.44
0.31
0.39
0.69
0.32
0.41
0.32
0.33
0.60
3.62
2.03
1.65
1.68
1.14
1.81
0.56
1.28
0.97
0.87
0.71
0.58
0.68
0.72
0.95
1.19
1.06
1.12
1.26
1.18
3.61
3.76
3.29
2.21
2.37
2.46
2.87
0.03
0.19
0.10
0.00
0.21
0.12
0.17
0.53
0.80
0.54
0.65
0.31
0.71
0.46
45.20
27.49
29.06
40.30
39.33
38.13
31.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
99.31
98.94
97.01
99.23
98.67
99.31
98.78
Note: the glazes contain <0.15 wt.% Cr2O3, As2O3, TiO2 and MnO, and <0.3% Co2O, BaO and ZrO2.
can confidently be assigned to the Bow factory.
Bow porcelains have also been identified from
archaeological sites elsewhere in Atlantic Canada;
their widespread occurrence is consistent with
historical documents that record the fact that
these wares were exported to North American
colonies, as well as the European continent
(Gabszewicz and Freeman 1982). For example,
they have been recovered from Fort Beauséjour,
New Brunswick (Owen and Hansen 1996) and
from a shipwreck (the “Machault”) in Chaleur
Bay, near the mouth of the Restigouche River, in
the same province (Sullivan 1986). Likewise,
magnesian Liverpool and Worcester porcelains
have been excavated from Fort Beauséjour; a
single Worcester sherd was also recovered from
Main Body - 35(2)b
118-119
Grassy Island, Nova Scotia. Recently, analysis
of a suite of phosphatic sherds from the Bonnin
and Morris factory (1770-1772) site, the first
known manufacturer of porcelain in what is
now the United States, revealed the presence
of a diopside-bearing magnesian sherd that has
been attributed to the Christian/Seth Pennington
works (Owen 2000b). It may be derived from
a damaged object that was discarded by one
of the factory workers. Alternatively, its presence may be much more significant. Although
closely resembling Bow porcelain, Bonnin and
Morris wares also have some design features in
common with some Liverpool porcelains (Hood
1972). Perhaps the magnesian sherd found there
was derived from an object copied by Bonnin
10/2/00, 9:38 PM
J. Victor Owen – PROVENIENCE OF EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY BRITISH PORCELAIN SHERDS
and Morris personnel. Regardless of the reason
that this artifact found its way to Philadelphia,
it was only through the chemical analysis of
this sherd, and those reported here from the
Louisbourg site, that the likely provenience of
these samples could reliably be determined.
The analytical database for early British porcelains has greatly expanded in recent years, but
the number of analyzed samples from individual
factories is still exceedingly small. Clearly,
this can lead to the misattribution of sherds
from archaeological sites, which may be compositionally-dissimilar to the restricted range
of wares from factory sites that have thus-far
been analyzed. By the same token, the mere
compositional similarity of a sherd to a type of
ware produced by a particular factory does not
prove correlation between the two. Archaeological context and design characteristics must also
be taken into consideration. With regard to the
Louisbourg sherds, these three important criteria
support the attribution of most of the phosphatic
sherds to the Bow factory, and all of the magnesian sherds to the Chaffers/Christian/Seth
Pennington works.
It is not surprising that Bow porcelain is found
in colonial sites. It was one of the largest
early British porcelain factories, employing over
100 workers in its heyday. It also remained in
production for nearly 30 years. It is remarkable,
however, that magnesian Liverpool porcelains are
found alongside (for example, at Fort Beauséjour)
their better known counterparts from Worcester.
There is nonetheless circumstantial evidence that
the Chaffers/Christian/Seth Pennington works
produced very large quantities of porcelain.
Using paste recipes calculated from analytical
data and historical data concerning the provision of soapstone (a mean of 9.71 tonnes/year,
expressed on an anhydrous basis) to the manufactory, Owen and Sandon (1998) demonstrated
that up to 135,000 250g-objects were produced
annually at the Chaffers/Christian/Seth Pennington
factory. Upwards of 185,000 objects were
produced annually at Worcester. It is possible
that the Liverpool works actually had a higher
output than Worcester, however, because Watney
(1997) reports that, in addition to the roughly
10 tonnes of soapstone provided by one Cornish
quarry (Predannack Wollas), an additional
Main Body - 35(2)b
118-119
119
45 tonnes of soapstone was supplied to the
Liverpool works by another source (Predannack
Wartha). If so, then the Liverpool factory may
have produced upwards of 800,000 250g-objects
per year.
This would certainly place the
Chaffers/Christian/Seth Pennington factory in
the same league as Bow, thereby accounting
for the prevalence of these wares among the
British soapstone sherds recovered from colonial
archaeological sites such as the Fortress of
Louisbourg.
The presence of porcelain artifacts at these
sites points to the social status of their original
owners: only affluent or influential people could
afford such objects at the time. The amount
of historical and archaeological information
for sites 3B and 4E, however, is insufficient to
allow the identity of the original owners of the
porcelain wares found on these properties to be
determined.
This study has demonstrated the capability
of Owen and Sandon’s (1998) major-element
discrimination diagrams to source archaeological
British porcelain artifacts to the factories where
they were made over two hundred years ago.
Expansion of the analytical database on which
these diagrams were compiled will only broaden
their utility in this regard, as the products of
increasing numbers of factories are represented
on these plots. The prospect of being able to
identify the origins of virtually any early British porcelain artifact has obvious implications
for the study of trade routes, as well as other
aspects of historical archaeological studies. The
same methodology can, of course, be applied to
other types of ceramic artifacts, once suitable
compositional data for documentary samples
(for example, sherds from pottery sites) are
available.
Conclusions
Analysis of 26 18th-century British porcelain
sherds from Fortress of Louisbourg properties
3B and 4E shows that most samples (n = 19)
are phosphatic. With three exceptions, they
have paste and glaze compositions that closely
match products of the Bow factory, and this
attribution is consistent both with archaeological
context and design characteristics. One sherd,
10/2/00, 9:38 PM
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 35(2)
120
however, contains plagioclase, and compositionally resembles products of the Gilbody factory.
Another sample resembles Lowestoft porcelain,
but it also contains plagioclase, a mineral not
known to occur in Lowestoft porcelain, and its
glaze contains small amounts of tin, a component
not found in analyzed Lowestoft wares. This
sample, together with a porous, chemicallyaltered phosphatic sherd, remains unattributed.
Seven sherds have magnesian compositions,
indicating derivation from “soapstone” porcelain.
In terms of their mineralogy and the composition
of their body and glaze, they resemble Liverpool
(for example, the Christian/Seth Pennington or
late Chaffers works) wares, and this attribution
is supported by archaeological context and the
underglaze blue patterns on the sherds.
Ongoing analysis of British porcelain sherds
from colonial archaeological sites demonstrates
the importance of the colonial market to the
nascent producers of these wares. Clearly, large
amounts of porcelain from London and Liverpool
were used in North America during the last half
of the 18th century.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The analysed sherds were made available through the
courtesy of Andrée Crépeau and Jim Campbell (Parks
Canada), who also made the final selection of sherds
to be analysed from sites 3B and 4E. Analytical work
was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada operating
grants. Gordon Brown (Dalhousie University) made
the polished thin sections. Bob MacKay (Dalhousie
University) kept the microprobe humming. Andrée
Crépeau, Denise Hansen, Lyle M. Stone, and two
anonymous journal referees reviewed the manuscript.
Finally, I am indebted to John Sandon for identifying
the patterns on the sherds.
REFERENCES
HARRIS, DONALD A.
1982 A Summary of the Archaeology of the Town Site
of Louisbourg. Manuscript, Louisbourg National
Historic Park, Louisbourg, N.S.
HOOD, GRAHAM
1972 Bonnin and Morris of Philadelphia. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
OWEN, J. VICTOR
1997 Quantification of Early Worcester Porcelain Recipes
and the Distinction between Dr. Wall- and FlightPeriod Wares. Journal of Archaeological Science,
24:301-310.
1998 On the Earliest Products (ca. 1751-1752) of the
Worcester Porcelain Manufactory: Evidence from
Sherds from the Warmstry House Site, England.
Historical Archaeology, 32(4):63-75.
2000a The Geochemistry of some Phosphatic- and Silicious/
Aluminous-Porcelain Sherds from the Coalport Factory
Site. Post-Medieval Archaeology, 33:82-87.
2000b Mineralogical and Compositional Characteristics
of Bonnin and Morris Porcelain (Philadelphia, c.
1770-72) and its Distinction from Contemporary
British Phosphatic Wares. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology.
OWEN, J. VICTOR, AND TERENCE E. DAY
1994 Estimation of the Bulk Composition of Fine-Grained
Media from Microchemical and Backscatter-Image
Analysis: Application to Biscuit Wasters from
the Bow Factory Site, London. Archaeometry,
26:217-226.
1998a Assessing and Correcting the Effects of the Chemical
Weathering of Potsherds: A Case Study using
Soft-Paste Porcelain Wasters from the Longton
Hall (Staffordshire) Factory Site. Geoarchaeology,
13:265-286.
1998b Eighteenth Century Phosphatic Porcelains: Bow
& Lowestoft: Further Confirmation of their
Compositional Distinction. Transactions of the
English Ceramic Circle, 16(3):342-344.
OWEN, J. VICTOR, AND DENISE HANSEN
1996 Compositional Constraints on the Identification of 18th
Century Porcelain Sherds from Fort Beauséjour (New
Brunswick) and Grassy Island (Nova Scotia), Canada.
Historical Archaeology, 30(4):88-100.
DE JONG, L. M., AND J. VICTOR OWEN
OWEN, J. VICTOR, AND M. L. MORRISON
GABSZEWICZ, ANTON, AND GEOFFREY FREEMAN
OWEN, J. VICTOR, AND JOHN SANDON
1999 Reproducibility of Bulk Microprobe Analyses of FineGrained Media: A Case Study Using Modern Bone
China. Canadian Mineralogist, 37:239-246.
1982
Bow Porcelain.
England.
Main Body - 35(2)b
Lund Humphries, London,
120-121
1999 Sagged Nantgarw Porcelain (ca. 1813-1820): Casualty
of Overfiring or a Fertile Paste? Geoarchaeology,
14:313-332.
1998 Petrology of Gilbody, Pennington and Christian/
Pennington (18th century Liverpool) Porcelains and
their Distinction from some Contemporary Phosphatic
and Magnesian/Plombian British Wares. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 25:1131-1147.
10/2/00, 9:39 PM
J. Victor Owen – PROVENIENCE OF EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY BRITISH PORCELAIN SHERDS
OWEN, J. VICTOR, JOHN WILSTEAD, RHEINALLT WILLIAMS,
AND TERENCE E. DAY
1998 A Tale of Two Cities: Compositional Characteristics
of Some Nantgarw and Swansea Porcelains and
their Implications for Kiln Wastage. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 25:359-375.
OWEN, J. VICTOR, BRIAN ADAMS, AND ROY STEPHENSON
2000 Nicholas Crisp’s “porcellien”: A Petrological
Comparison of Sherds from the
Vauxhall
(London, ca. 1751-1764) and Indeo Pottery (Bovey
Tracey, Devonshire, ca. 1767-1774) Factory Sites.
Geoarchaeology, 15(1):43-78.
SULLIVAN, CATHERINE
1986 Legacy of the Machault. A Collection of Eighteenthcentury Artifacts.
Parks Canada, Studies in
Archaeology, Architecture and History. Ottawa,
Ontario.
Main Body - 35(2)b
120-121
121
TITE, M. S., AND M. BIMSON
1991 A Technological Study of English Porcelains.
Archaeometry, 33:3-27.
WATNEY, BERNARD M.
1979 English Blue and White Porcelain of the 18th Century.
Faber and Faber, London.
1997 Liverpool Porcelain of the Eighteenth Century.
Richard Dennis, Shepton Beauchamp, Somerset,
England.
J. VICTOR OWEN
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
SAINT MARY’S UNIVERSITY
HALIFAX, N. S. B3H 3C3
CANADA
10/2/00, 9:39 PM