Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Indiana University of PennsylvaniaKnowledge Repository @ IUP
Theses and Dissertations (All)
5-2015
Brook Farm: A Ceramic Analysis of a Short LivedUtopiaSamantha A. SavoryIndiana University of Pennsylvania
Follow this and additional works at: http://knowledge.library.iup.edu/etd
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Knowledge Repository @ IUP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations(All) by an authorized administrator of Knowledge Repository @ IUP. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].
Recommended CitationSavory, Samantha A., "Brook Farm: A Ceramic Analysis of a Short Lived Utopia" (2015). Theses and Dissertations (All). 1241.http://knowledge.library.iup.edu/etd/1241
BROOK FARM: A CERAMIC ANALYSIS OF A SHORT LIVED UTOPIA
A Thesis
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
Samantha A. Savory
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
May 2015
ii
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Anthropology
We hereby approve the thesis of
Samantha A. Savory
Candidate for the degree of Master of Arts
Benjamin L. Ford, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology, Advisor
Phillip Neusius, Ph.D.
Professor of Anthropology
Ellen Berkland, M.A.
Archaeologist
Massachusetts Department of Recreation and
Conservation
Joseph Bagley, M.A.
City of Boston , Archaeologist
ACCEPTED
Randy L. Martin, Ph.D.
Dean
School of Graduate Studies and Research
iii
Title: Brook Farm: A Ceramic Analysis of a Short Lived Utopia
Author: Samantha A. Savory
Thesis Chair: Dr. Benjamin L. Ford
Thesis Committee Members: Dr. Phillip Neusius
Ms. Ellen Berkland
Mr. Joseph Bagely
This research focuses on the ceramics from the Brook Farm site to determine if the
assemblage of a utopian communal site is different from a non-utopian site. Brook Farm was a
community in Massachusetts established in 1841 and ending in 1847. Brook Farm was an
experiment in social reconstruction designed to reunite man and nature in a communal and
agricultural community inspired by transcendentalism. In 1844 Brook Farm officially adopted a
new social reform theory, Fourierism, which incorporated the industrialization occurring in New
England at the time. Consumer choice theory helped to guide the research to determine if the
ceramic assemblage is unique, based on what ceramics were chosen by members to be at the site.
There was an intra-site comparison between two areas in Brook Farm, the Eyrie and the Cottage,
as well as a comparison to an urban site in the Tremont Street Housing site.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Ford, Dr. Phil, Ellen Berkland and Joe
Bagely without them I would not have been able to complete this research. Thank you to Dr.
Ford for continuously keeping me on track when it was so easy to stay in my room and only
think about writing my thesis.
Thank you to Joe for being there when I needed a topic for this thesis he definitely gave
me options. It was nice to have someone continuously be as excited as I was that the Brook
Farm site was being worked on.
Thank you to Ellen for agree to be part of this project with me before even meeting me!
I would like to thank my wonderful boyfriend Randy Marcotte for being with me every
step of the way. Graduate school kept us separated for the better part of two years and he was
constantly helping me through. He constantly listened to my stresses and helped me with my
day. I also want to send my apologies for all my awful moods while at home and stressing over
all the problems with my collections and my thesis. He had no idea what I was talking about but
always made me laugh and allowed my stress to float away. THANK YOU!!
Finally I need to say the deepest thanks to my Mom and Dad, without them I would have
never made it this far. From a young age I had thought of archaeology as a career, without even
knowing where it would lead. Many parents want their children to be doctors or businessmen, or
just people who are guaranteed to make a lot of money, they are probably kicking themselves but
they supported my choice to become an archaeologist; hardly guaranteed employment!. They
have done nothing but support me and allow me to follow my dreams. I love you guys! Thank
you!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
ONE INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1
TWO SOCIAL BACKGROUND .........................................................................5
THREE BROOK FARM HISTORY ........................................................................19
FOUR ARCHAEOLOGY OF UTOPIA ................................................................31
FIVE THEORY AND METHOD.........................................................................37
SIX ANALYSIS .................................................................................................48
SEVEN DISCUSSION .............................................................................................64
REFERENCES CITED ..........................................................................................................73
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................76
Appendix A: Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue .................................76
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Table of Mean Ceramic Dates for Each Unit and Level in the Cottage Used for
Analysis......................................................................................................................49
2 Table of Mean Ceramic Dates for Each Unit and Level in the Eyrie Used for
Analysis......................................................................................................................50
3 Obtained Vessel Count for Eyrie and Cottage ...........................................................56
4 Expected Vessel Count for Eyrie and Cottage ...........................................................56
5 Observed Sherd Count for the Eyrie and Cottage ......................................................57
6 Expected Sherd Count for the Eyrie and Cottage ......................................................67
7 Obtained Whiteware Sherd Count for Eyrie and Cottage ..........................................58
8 Expected Whiteware Sherd Count for Eyrie and Cottage .........................................58
9 Observed Whiteware Vessel Count for Eyrie and Cottage ........................................58
10 Expected Whiteware Vessel Count for Eyrie and Cottage ........................................58
11 Observed Vessel Count for Brook Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site ........61
12 Expected Vessel Count for Brook Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site.........62
13 Observed sherd count for Brook Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site ...........62
14 Expected Sherd Count for Brook Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site ..........62
15 Observed Whiteware Sherd Count for Brook Farm and the Tremont Street
Housing Site ..............................................................................................................63
16 Expected Whiteware Sherd Count for Brook Farm and the Tremont Street
Housing Site ..............................................................................................................63
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Charles Fourier.............................................................................................................13
2 Albert Brisbane ............................................................................................................16
3 George Ripley ..............................................................................................................19
4 Historic map of Brook Farm .......................................................................................20
5 Painting depicting the Layout of the Brook Farm Institute of Agriculture and
Education. ....................................................................................................................22
6 Map of the Brook Farm site .........................................................................................26
7 Excavation transects for Eyrie .....................................................................................41
8 USGS map showing location of Brook Farm and Tremont Street Housing site .........43
9 Graph showing percentages of ceramics in the Cottage assemblage ...........................51
10 Percentages of ceramic ware type in Eyrie assemblage ...............................................52
11 Percentages of whiteware decoration in Eyrie .............................................................53
12 Percentages of Cottage whiteware decoration .............................................................54
13 Percentages of ceramic ware type in Tremont Street Housing assemblage .................60
14 Percentages of ceramic ware type in combined Brook Farm assemblage ...................60
15 Colander from Cottage, interior (Left) and exterior (Right) ........................................65
16 Whiteware jug rim from Eyrie .....................................................................................66
17 Re-fit handpainted floral rim .......................................................................................67
18 Blue transferprint whiteware from Cottage .................................................................67
19 Sample of undecorated whiteware, majority of Brook Farm assemblage ...................68
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
This research is a ceramic analysis of the utopian community of Brook Farm to determine
if there is a difference between the utopian community and the non-utopian Tremont Street
Housing site. This site was a transcendental and Fourierist utopian community that began in
1841 and ended shortly after in 1847. This research discusses the social and economic factors
that lead the New England people to embrace a utopian ideal beginning in the mid-1800s. The
Cottage and Eyrie from Brook Farm were both houses that were used as boarding residences for
members as well as guests and classrooms for the school at Brook Farm. These two buildings
were compared as part of an intra-site comparison and then were combined to create one Brook
Farm assemblage to compare with the Tremont Street Housing Site.
Three questions guided this research.
What ceramics were the people of Brook Farm using?
There hasn’t been an analysis of the ceramics from Brook Farm and the only catalogues
in the Boston City Archaeology laboratory are incomplete. Determining which ceramic types
were recovered from Brook Farm made it possible to compare the Eyrie and the Cottage. This
also provided a larger assemblage, by combining the Eyrie and the Cottage to create one larger
Brook Farm site assemblage that could be compared to the Tremont Street Housing site.
How does the Cottage assemblage compare to the Eyrie assemblage?
These two buildings within Brook Farm were occupied and used for similar purposes,
education and boarding. The uses were similar but the people living at the residences were
different. Do the different residents produce a different assemblage?
2
How does the Brook Farm site assemblage compare to a non-utopian Tremont Street Housing
site assemblage?
The utopian society of Brook Farm was set apart from the rest of the Boston area. Are the
simple ideals set forth by the community reflected in the ceramic assemblage? Comparing the
Brook Farm assemblage to the Tremont Street Housing site will determine if the assemblages are
significantly different based on the people living at these sites.
Outline of the Thesis
Chapter Two will discuss the social and economic problems that were affecting New
England in the 1800s. The economic Panic of 1837 caused a sudden joblessness throughout
America (Delano 2004; McGrane 1965; Rouseau 2002). Educated men and women of New
England were increasingly reading European philosopher’s work just as the Panic of 1837
happened. The Transcendental Club, as it was known, was a large group of men and women that
discussed any and all topics that came to mind (Delano 2004). Largely open minded there were
many paths that were eventually taken by the members of this Transcendental Club. One of
which was the creation of Brook Farm by George Ripley. Fourierism was brought to America by
Albert Brisbane, a disciple of the French philosopher Charles Fourier, in the 1840s. This brought
a new utopian alternative to society allowing people a way out of the common economic
problems by moving into communal societies. Fourierism became part of Brook Farm and part
of America.
Chapter Three discusses the history of Brook Farm, from beginning to end. Brook Farm
was founded by George Ripley in 1841. The community began as a transcendental experiment
that focused on education and agriculture. Brook Farm became a haven for educated men and
women interested in living with nature. The community established the Brook Farm School for
3
Education and Agriculture and became a popular boarding school in New England (Burton 1939,
Curtis1961, Delano 2004, Preucel and Pendery 2006). They strived to educate and bring man
closer to nature, philosophy taught in the fields. The history of Brook Farm is unique because it
was the only transcendental community created in history (Delano 2006). The community soon
changed to Fourierism, which made the community focus on the changes to society. Fourierism
brought new members to the community; these were different members than joined under the
transcendental community. These new members were more working class and artisan types
(Delano 2004). The end of Brook Farm came by financial crisis and loss of faith in the
community. By 1847, all the members, even the Ripley’s, had left the community (Burton 1939;
Curtis 1961; Delano 2004; Preucel and Pendery 2006).
Chapter Four will discuss the previous and current archaeology of utopian sites. These
communities have been studied by archaeologists for the unique histories and artifacts. The
majority of questions originally focused on the end of the communities, what happened to make
them fail. But the questions have evolved to trying to understand the communities as they
thrived. Archaeologists compare the assemblages to non-utopian sites, both urban and rural, and
study what makes them different. The ceramic analysis on Brook Farm is similar to analysis of
the Theosophical Society Dump site in California (Van Wormer and Gross 2006).
Chapter Five discusses the theory and methods used to answer the guiding questions of
this research. The theory of consumer choice was chosen to provide insight into creating and
answering the question about the Brook Farm ceramic assemblage. The methods will discuss
how the ceramic inventory was created and how the analysis was conducted.
Chapter Six contains the charts, tables and figures that show how the analysis was
conducted. The chi square analysis, minimum vessel count, and mean ceramic date were used in
4
the analysis. This chapter discusses the tests, how they were conducted and what the results from
the tests were.
Chapter Seven will discuss the results of the analysis and the interpretations for what the
results mean for Brook Farm. The chapter will be structured to answer the three research
questions posed in chapters one and five. This chapter will address each question and provide an
interpretation from the analysis conducted. This chapter will also provide insights into further
research that can be conducted with the Brook Farm assemblage.
5
CHAPTER TWO
SOCIAL BACKGROUND
Introduction
This chapter will discuss the social and economic changes that occurred during the mid-
1800s that readied society for an establishment like the Brook Farm community. There will be a
focus on transcendentalism and Fourierism the two ideological movements that were the major
influences for the creation of and life at Brook Farm. As well as the major economic crisis that
opened the minds of citizens to embrace such movements.
The economic crisis known as the Panic of 1837 was a major precursor to the idea of
Brook Farm (Delano 2004; Haraszti 1937; Preucel and Pendery 2006). This event combined with
the social unrest of the time, the Abolition and labor movements, created a desire for change in
society. The change to society came in the mid-1800s, when utopian communities began to
emerge around the country. There were two leading theoretical movements that emphasized the
creation of alternative communities; transcendentalism and Fourierism. Transcendentalism
emphasized uniting nature and man, living simply and thinking critically about life (Delano
2004; Preucel and Pendery 2006). Fourierism was a true utopian movement that strove to change
all of society with these new communities. Fourierism came out of France, focusing on creating
a society that was self-sustaining, with the least amount of interaction with the mainstream
society as possible. Fourierism strove to create a society that would embrace some parts of the
emerging industrialization, as well as combating the economic strife that faced the working man
(Delano 2004; Guarneri 1991; Preucel and Pendery 2006). These movements combined with the
growing social unrest to create numerous different societies; Brook Farm was one of these
societies.
6
The Panic of 1837
The economic disaster known as the Panic of 1837 was a six year long depression. The
Panic of 1837 was caused by domestic and international factors, although the majority of the
blame goes to President Andrew Jackson (McGrane 1965; Rouseau 2002). There were two
domestic factors that set the stage for the Panic of 1837, first was the closure of the Bank of the
United States. The closure of the Bank of the United States dispersed the nation’s funds to
several larger banks, mainly in New York, and allowed many smaller banks to open (McGrane
1965; Rouseau 2002). The opening of numerous banks was beneficial at first, allowing many
people to take out loans and start businesses, although the benefits were soon forgotten when the
people could not afford to pay their loans back.
The second domestic cause of The Panic of 1837 occurred on July 11, 1836; President
Jackson passed the Specie Circular, which forced land purchases to be made in coinage rather
than the popular bank note (Haraszti 1937; McGrane 1965; Rouseau 2002). President Jackson
wanted to preserve the West as a frontier, but the lands were being bought quickly and the
frontier was becoming smaller. The land speculators would use bank notes to purchase the land
and the bank would not always be able to back bank notes with its coinage (McGrane 1965;
Rouseau 2002). The Specie Circular was meant to slow the purchase of the land in the West, but
it failed and caused larger banks to be depleted of their coinage (Rouseau 2002). Land
speculation peaked to a historic high in 1836 and swiftly dropped by 1837, causing the
depression (McGrane 1965; Rouseau 2002). When Van Buren took over the presidency many
called for the repeal of the Specie Circular, though the laissez-fair politics of the time prompted
Van Buren to keep the Specie Circular and left the banks to fend for themselves, there would be
no bail-out for them (McGrane 1965).
7
These domestic problems became even graver when the international community began
to call in their loan payments. In 1837 international powers such as Great Britain- that had
loaned the United States money called in their loans, but the depleted banks could not pay
(McGrane 1965; Rouseau 2002). Between 1837 and 1844, 194of the 729 banks in the United
States were forced to close due to lack of money; many other banks had to suspend payment in
order to stay in business. (McGrane 1965; Rouseau 2002).
The Panic of 1837 hit hard in New England because of the large population of merchants
and industries that relied on banks for loans (McGrane 1965). The eastern states had $62,000,000
in capitol, $98,000,000 in loans, only $2,000,000 in specie, and $22,000,000 in circulation
(McGrane 1965). The banks began to close and suspend payment of loans; many small
businesses closed, including industrial endeavors (McGrane 1965; Rouseau 2002). Soon citizens
were losing their jobs and homes, and began living on the streets. The homelessness caught the
attention of many prominent educated men and women. By 1840 Unitarian Minister George
Ripley was unable to remain at his pulpit while the masses suffered (Delano 2004; Haraszti
1937). He began to plan his new community of Brook Farm. With the Panic of 1837 the
discussion of social movements that embraced the formation of alternative communities became
prominent in Boston as well as the North East in general.
Transcendentalism
The road to transcendentalism in America begins with the New Age of Enlightenment
and the two major religious views, Trinitarian and Unitarians. Trinitarians believed that the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost were equally holy figures while Unitarians believed in one God and
that Jesus was sent to be an example for humans (Gura 2007). Unitarians were known as
“Liberal Christians”, they believed in a critical history of the Bible and that reason and critical
8
thought were necessary in religion (Delano 2004; Gura 2007). The biggest difference between
the two factions was Trinitarians believed the Bible was the literal word of God, while Unitarians
believed the Bible was not the literal word of God because man wrote the Bible (Gura 2007).
This emergence of Unitarianism promoted a discussion of religion, God, philosophy and
treatment of the Bible as a literary artifact (Gura 2007). The birth of Unitarianism as a religious
group by the early 1800s allowed discussion of religion to blossom and opened the door for
discussion of new ideas, such as the emerging transcendental philosophies. It was the Unitarian
community that began to embrace the new transcendental philosophies that were emerging out of
Europe.
Transcendentalism in America grew out of a New England movement, but it was not an
original American idea, it came from over-seas, mainly Germany and France. The German
philosopher Immanuel Kant, along with others, was a philosophical idol for Americans and his
works were the foundation of American transcendentalism (Delano 2004; Frothingham 1959;
Gura 2007; Haraszti 1937). The origins of transcendentalism were solely philosophical;
“Transcendental philosophy [was] taught in schools, and professed by many thoughtful and
earnest people, but it never affected society in its organized institutions or practical interests.”
(Frothingham 1959:105). American transcendentalism took it beyond discussion and turned it
into a social reform movement (Gura 2007; Rose 1981). Beginning in the 1830s the American
people were craving change and began accepting change.
The first meeting to spark the rise of transcendentalism in New England, and America as
a whole, was held in 1836. This meeting was held in Boston and consisted of only four men,
Frederic Henry Hedge, Ralph Waldo Emerson, George Putnam, and George Ripley, all were
Unitarian ministers except for Emerson (Delano 2004; Frothingham 1959; Gura 2007; Rose
9
1981). The men met in September of 1836 at the graduation of their Alma-Mater, Harvard
Divinity School to “confer together on the state of current opinion in theology and philosophy”
(Gura 2007:70). This type of meeting soon became a common event for many with an open mind
and the desire to discuss religion and philosophy; this forum became known as the
Transcendental Club (Delano 2004; Francis 1994; Gura 2007).
Each person from the original meeting began to serve different roles in the new
transcendental movement. George Ripley and George Putnam were known as a foot soldiers for
the cause, spreading the word through their work in Boston. Ripley preached at his Purchase
Street pulpit and also held many of the Transcendental Club’s meetings in his home
(Frothingham 1959; Gura 2007). Emerson became a prominent figure in the discussion circuit,
he spent the majority of his life travelling and speaking at public forums about
transcendentalism, among other topics (Gura 2007). Hedge was living in Bangor, Maine and
contributed to transcendental journals and sometimes came to meetings but largely kept to
himself. He especially stayed away when transcendentalism became more than just discussion
and members began speaking against Unitarianism (Gura 2007). The transcendental movement
quickly grew both in popularity and membership. Bronson Alcott and Margaret Fuller and
Elizabeth Peabody and Orestus Brownson, became well known advocates (Delano 2004; Francis
1994; Frothingham 1959; Gura 2007; Rose 1981). Each of these members brought with them a
different version of transcendentalism.
Transcendentalism was a philosophy that encouraged discussion of many topics including
religion, nature, and social issues such as labor, slavery and the state of society in general
(Delano 2004, Frothingham1959; Gura 2007). Transcendentalism in Europe was discussion
based and stayed within the University systems, while New Englanders took to the streets. The
10
philosophy of transcendentalism was used to bring the labor movement and Abolition movement
into the public eye. (Frothingham 1959; Gura 2007). It became a way to bring about change, it
was an open forum that lead to many ideas, and many different actions were taken by different
people. By 1840, four years after the first meeting, the Transcendental Club was the home of
many different ideas about transcendentalism
There were several journals that contributed to the spread of ideas about
transcendentalism. The Boston Quarterly Review, established in 1837 by Orestus Brownson was
the first journal to come out of the movement. (Delano 2004; Frothingham 1959; Gura 2007;
Rose 1981). Contributors to the journal included the most prominent members in the
transcendental circle, such as Ripley, Emerson, and Fuller; although Brownson was the largest
contributor sometimes writing all the essays for one issue (Gura 2007). The Boston Quarterly
Review was not only a forum for transcendentalism; Brownson’s hope was that the journal would
provide “a reform in the church giving us a purer and more rational theology; in philosophy
seeking something profounder and more inspiring that the heartless sensualism of the last
century; [and] in society demanding the elevation of labor with the loco-foco, or freedom of the
slave with the abolitionist.”(Gura 2007: 128). The journal began to stray from transcendentalism
and there was a push for transcendentalism focused journal. The Dial was created by Margaret
Fuller and Ralph Waldo Emerson in July of 1840 and was fully committed to transcendentalism
(Delano 2004; Gura 2007). This journal was well received but was never as popular as The
Boston Quarterly Review and by 1844 it was out of publication.
Transcendentalism had many flavors and all the members tried to support each other
although they disagreed on many things. The two extremes of transcendentalism are evident in
the different endeavors of George Ripley and Ralph Waldo Emerson (Delano 2004; Gura 2007).
11
George Ripley by 1840 had begun thinking about creating the communal society of Brook Farm.
Emerson refused the idea of communal transcendentalism and began seeing it as an individual
endeavor. Although their paths were different both men had the same goal, a greater connection
between nature and man (Gura 2007). Ripley’s experimental society was the largest endeavor
that the transcendental community had seen, but most of the prominent names in
transcendentalism did not join the community even though he urged and consulted all his fellow
transcendentalists often about the project. Bronson Alcott eventually started his own society,
Margaret Fuller became a prominent feminist, along with Elizabeth Peabody, and Orestus
Brownson became a labor activist (Delano 2004).
The variety of transcendental thought and the ability for this group to continue discussion
even though they disagreed about vital principals was a hallmark of its open-mindedness. There
was much to debate with all the changes occurring in the nation. As transcendentalism went on
through the years the member’s interests grew further apart. The emerging labor and Abolition
movements were becoming the main focus of some of the members. For some transcendentalists
the industrial revolution brought an urge to return to a more natural state. This was what George
Ripley was concerned with, and was one goal of his experiment at Brook Farm.
Transcendentalism explored vaguely all these themes and tried to remain open minded about all
view-points.
The Civil War began in 1861 and the educated debate created by transcendentalism was
overshadowed by the war. (Delano 2004). The one transcendental societal experiment, Brook
Farm was even turned into a Civil War training camp, Camp Andrew.
12
Fourierism
Fourierism was a true utopian movement that occurred in America. Fourierism promoted
the idea of creating a completely new society within the old one (Delano 2004; Guarneri 1985;
1991). It was brought to America in the 1840s and soon there were Fourierist communities all
over the country (Guarneri 1991, Haraszti 1937). This utopian movement, like
transcendentalism, came from Europe, specifically from France.
Fourierism began in France with a French philosopher named Charles Fourier (Figure 1).
After witnessing the French Revolution he became increasingly frustrated with poverty
(Guarneri 1997). The misery of the French people, combined with his own misery after the war,
led him to believe, “an entire economic system based on the anarchy of free competition was
wrong.” (Guarneri 1991:1). Fourier began to immerse himself in creating a new society that
would allow the working man to be the center of the society. Fourier had many different jobs
throughout his life and every new experience increased his desire to reform society. Fourier
wanted to “recapture the abundance and innocence of Eden” that was lost in the capitalist
economy (Guarneri 1991: 16). Fourierism and the societies it produced, called Phalanxes, did not
dismiss the growing industrialization, unlike many utopian societies emerging at the time.
(Guarneri 1991).
13
Fourier believed that there were 32 phases of human evolution spanning 80,000 years that
started with the biblical Eden. There was Edenism, Savagery, Patriarchate, Barbarianism, and
Civilization followed by the Harmony stage, to name a few, after which society would begin to
deteriorate (Guarneri 1991). Fourier focused on the current stage Civilization and the later
Harmony stage. There is not much discussion about what occurs after the Harmony stage.
Fourier only proclaimed that after the Harmony stage the world would be brought into chaos
(Delano 2004; Guarneri 1991). These stages were based on the position of women; the current
Civilization Stage had women in monogamy based servitude. The Harmony stage was the best
stage of evolution and it would last 60,000 years. This stage was defined by women free of
servitude and free love would reign (Guarneri 1991 and Delano 2004).
Figure 1. Charles Fourier.
14
The other aspect of Fourier’s theory that pushed the evolution of society were his
passions. All the passions would be fully expressed in the Harmony stage of the evolution. There
are twelve passions put into three passion groups: the luxurious passions, the five senses: sight,
taste, smell, touch, and hearing; the affective passions, social needs: friendship, love, ambition,
and familism.; and the distributive passions, which regulate the other passions, the cabalist
(intrigue) passion, the butterfly (variety), and the composite passion: “the pure enthusiasm that
came from a mixture of physical and spiritual pleasures” (Preucel and Pendery 2006). All the
passions would reign in the Harmony stage in Fourier’s evolution of the world (Guarneri 1985,
1991). Fourier believed that in the Civilization stage the distributive passions were being
neglected. His Phalanxes would allow the world to develop these passions and allow a quick
transition to the Harmony stage.
All Phalanxes were situated no more than one days travel from a major city, The
proximity to a city was to ensure a place to sell their products and thus have a profitable
community (Guarneri 1985, 1991). This community is where the Harmony stage would develop.
Fourier’s phalanx would have one large building in the society called the Phalanstery and the
entire community would live in the building, divided by their passions. Each society would
ideally be made of 1,620 people, twice the number of passional personality types (810) (Francis
1997; Guarneri 1991; Preucel and Pendery 2006). The work in the community would also be
assigned based on one’s passion. The passions would allow each member of the Phalanx to be
able to pursue work they enjoyed. Each member of the Phalanx would be paid based on the job
they performed, jobs requiring more labor had a higher pay (Delano 2004; Guarneri 1991). Each
member would be participating in the community, with room and board provided. Fourier had
very strict numbers for his phalanx and theory, a certain number of members and passions, and
15
distance from cities, he tried to solve human issues using mathematics and envisioned himself as
the Newton of philosophy (Guarneri 1991).
In his most extreme theories Fourier foresaw over two million communities around the
world. He “predicted that diseased would no longer ravage the population, humans would live
144 years, and Siberians would enjoy an Italian climate, new species of docile animals such as
‘anti-lions’ would help Harmonians cultivate the globe and humans would develop long and
“infinitely useful tails” (Guarneri- 1991: 19). The idea of global harmony and peaceful animals is
intriguing though these ideas were not emphasized to the public, Fourier’s followers decided to
focus on stronger issues, such as the social reformation and rehabilitation that the Phalanx
provided the people (Guarneri 1991).
Charles Fourier spent his life advocating his ideal society but not until late in his life did
his philosophy begin to circulate and gain attention. Two events allowed Fourierism to become
known, first the publication of journals and essays became a prominent way to disseminate
information in France. The new French constitutional monarchy began to allow more freedom in
the press (Delano 2004; Guarneri 1985, 1991). The second event was the dissolution of the
Saint-Simonians church that was based on a rival philosopher (Delano 2004; Guarneri 1985,
1991; Preucel and Pendery 2006).
Fourier’s rival was count Henri de Saint-Simon, who created the Saint-Simonians with
the following of young liberal university students. In 1829 an official Saint-Simonians church
that preached selflessness and romantic ideal was created in France (Guarneri 1991). The Saint-
Simonians' religion soon spread throughout France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, and even to
America (Guarneri 1991). The principles of the Saint-Simonians went along with current
dissatisfactions with industrialization and class separation that were increasing throughout
16
Europe and America. The Saint-Simonians' church did not last long and by 1831 the sect in
France crumbled, which was very good for Fourier (Guarneri 1991). Fourier had always
condemned the Saint-Simonians for stealing his philosophical ideas and after its disintegration
some of those former Saint-Simonians started to read and then follow Fourier (Guarneri 1991).
The young ambitious followers of Fourier began to disseminate his philosophies to a
wide range of publics. Although Fourier planned and described a perfect society he was not able
to create an experimental Phalanx for himself. He had one chance but the construction was
stopped due to lack of funds. After this episode Fourier began to dismiss the idea of starting a
Phalanx of his own (Guarneri 1991).
The American disciple of Fourier was Albert Brisbane (Figure 2), a young New Yorker
that spent his early adult life travelling through Europe. Brisbane studied at many universities
Figure 2. Albert Brisbane.
17
and under many philosophers both religious and not, trying to find himself and something he
could bring himself to follow (Guarneri 1991). Brisbane heard about Fourierism through the
Saint-Simonians channels and tracked down Fourier in order to learn everything he could. He
began to take lessons one on one with Fourier for five francs an hour in 1832 (Guarneri 1985;
1991). By 1834 Brisbane believed he had learned everything he could learn from Fourier and
decided to bring Fourierism to America (Delano 2004; Guarneri 1991).
Once in America Brisbane began to work on a book called The Social Destinies of Man a
compilation of his translations of Fourier and his own ideas on Fourierism. In order to fit with
American life some aspects were emphasized more than others (Guarneri 1985). For example,
the composite passion, “the pure enthusiasm that came from a mixture of physical and spiritual
pleasure” basically free love, would not have sat well with the religious Americans (Guarneri
1991: 18). American’s embraced Fourierism and. numerous Phalanxes began to arise in
American but not one of them was what Fourier himself would have considered ideal (Guarneri
1991; Haraszti 1937). American’s took the ideas they liked about Fourierism and left out the
parts they did not, making a distinctly American Fourierism. (Delano 2004; Guarneri 1991).
These communities lasted anywhere from a few years to as long as 20 years, but eventually they
all failed.
Conclusion
The time leading up to the creation of Brook Farm was a hectic period, opened the minds
of the American people to social change. The Panic of 1837 was an economic crisis that put
many people into the streets. These economic issues combined with the Abolition movement and
labor movements of time left the public open to social change (Delano 2004). These issues
affected the everyday man, and educated men began reading the philosophy from Europe in
18
order to find inspiration as to how to change the troubled society. The more educated began to
discuss these troubles among themselves and with the affected public.
Transcendentalism and Fourierism were brought to the United States and welcomed by
the distressed public. There were many societies established throughout America during the
1830s to 1840s. These societies were functioning for a short while and provided relief to the
people that joined. These newly formed societies did little to stop the impending war, and in
1861 the Civil War broke out. This war brought focus to other issues and after the war, for the
majority of the nation, transcendentalism and Fourierism were forgotten.
19
CHAPTER THREE
BROOK FARM HISTORY
Introduction
This chapter will discuss the history of the Brook Farm community from its beginning in
1841 to its ending in 1847. This discussion will focus on how the ideologies of Brook Farm were
constantly evolving, changing from transcendentalism to Fourierism. The troubles that faced
Brook Farm were always being overshadowed by the happiness that was a constant aspect of
every member’s life. There are many memoirs and histories that have been written, beginning
almost immediately after it’s disbanding that aid this discussion. These numerous memoirs have
been written by those who lived at Brook Farm and those accounts allow for a unique insight
into the day to day life of the farm. Brook Farm is a unique case study that expressed the changes
and social reform experiments that were occurring throughout the nation during the 1840s.
Figure 3. George Ripley.
20
The Beginning of a Utopia
The founder of Brook Farm was a man named George Ripley (Figure 3), a Unitarian
minister from Boston Massachusetts. George Ripley and his wife Sophia first thought of the
Brook Farm community while they were on their yearly vacation (Delano 2004). In 1840 the
Ripley’s happened to take their yearly vacation at the Ellis Dairy Farm in West Roxbury. While
at the Ellis Dairy Farm George Ripley found his own Eden among the babbling brook, the
singing birds and the peaceful fields (Burton 1939; Delano 2004). After their vacation the
Ripley’s went to their friends at a meeting of the Transcendental Club with a plan, hoping to gain
support for their experiment. The plan was to build a community based on the philosophies of
transcendentalism that would reconnect man with nature (Burton 1939, Delano 2004).
.
Figure 4. Historic Map of Brook Farm.
21
There was a mix of emotions from fellow transcendentalists, they were excited about the
idea of bringing transcendentalism one step further, but there were many questions and concerns
(Burton 1939; Delano 2004). There were concerns, largely from Elizabeth Peabody and Ralph
Waldo Emerson that the community would be communist because Brook Farm would be
communal eating, living, and learning (Burton 1939). The fear of communism was soon abated
by Ripley explaining his plans for the community, it was focused on nature, education, and living
simply, not changing the capitalist economy of New England. The focus of the community was
not a governmental coupe but rather bringing the members closer to nature, and to provide an
education of both literature and land. Ripley was looking for a certain audience, “[w]e may look
for an audience among the educated and refined- but also among the sweaty artisans. Our aim
shall be the elevation of the whole human race in mind, morals and manners. And the means
shall be orderly and progressive reform” (Burton 1939:35). Brook Farm was not based on
communism but rather it was a fully experimental transcendental community. Although there
was excitement by fellow transcendentalists they were not excited enough to join his community.
As discussed in the previous chapter there was a divide between what transcendentalism meant
to different people and how their goals were to be achieved. Ripley pursued the help of Ralph
Waldo Emerson and continually was given a negative response (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961;
Delano 2004). Emerson saw transcendentalism as an individual endeavor and he would not even
visit the community during its six years of establishment (Burton 1939; Delano 2004).
Transcendentalists were publically supportive but privately there were still concerns
about Ripley’s ability to create a social change. Margaret Fuller, a prominent figure of
transcendentalism and women’s rights, was publically supportive, but privately did not believe
he would be suited to lead a whole social reform movement, she stated that “His [Ripley’s] mind
22
though that of a captain, is not that of a conquer.” (Curtis 1961:46). As a respected minister his
guidance was not questioned, but rather his ability to lead a radical new movement focused on
changing society.
The Experiment Begins
Ripley bought the 179 acre Ellis Farm in the winter of 1840, left his pulpit at Purchase
Street and began his experiment with his wife and a small group of members. The members
moved into the Ellis Farm house that was quickly renamed the Hive. The Hive was where the
members lived, ate, and taught. In 1841 the Brook Farm Institute of Agriculture and Education
was incorporated; often called many different names, The Community, Ripley’s Farm, Ripley’s
Experiment, and The Farm (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961; Delano 2004). It was an exciting
endeavor to those involved, but outsiders in Boston saw it as a strange community, ‘the farmers’,
as they were called, were essentially the hippies of their time (Burtons 1973; Delano 2004).
Figure 5. Painting depicting the layout of the Brook Farm Institute of Agriculture and
Education.
23
Charles Dana, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Sophia Ripley were the only members of the
Transcendental Club that joined Brook Farm. There were several other members that joined the
farm immediately including a farmer from New Hampshire named William Brockway Allen.
Allen was formerly a farm hand for Theodore Parker, who heard of “Mr. Ripley’s social plan”
and decided to join (Curtis 1961:54). He was the only member with real farming experience and
immediately began to teach the other members how to farm. The members were enthusiastic to
learn their new tasks on the farm, working in the barns, and planting in the fields. Allen stayed at
Brook Farm for a year he enjoyed the work but did not understand the focus on philosophy and
teaching that the other members emphasized (Burton 1939,; Curtis 1961).
It took time and hard work but the members mastered how to work on the farm as they
got better at their tasks they became happier at the farm. Nathaniel Hawthorne was one such
farmer, he enjoyed using his hand and working the land, but only in the beginning (Burton 1939;
Delano 2004; Haraszti 1937). After a year he was miserable, he felt too tired to write after
finishing his chores for the day and grew continually frustrated with being part of Brook Farm
(Burton 1939; Delano 2004). Ripley and the other board members did not want Hawthorne to
leave and soon gave him the position of trustee in the Brook Farm corporation. This move kept
Hawthorn from suing Brook Farm for his $1000.00 worth of shares for a short time (Burton
1939; Curtis 1961,; Delano 2004). Hawthorne eventually left the community completely to live
happily with Sophia Peabody and write, his famous book The Blithedale Romance was based on
his time at Brook Farm (Burton 1 939; Curtis 1961; Delano 2004).
The beginning of Brook Farm was an optimistic venture, and all the members were ready
to take control of their new home. The member’s excitement for farm work and optimism for
their new transcendental experience was good for morale, but could not make the crops grow.
24
Soon enough the harsh New England winter begin at Brook Farm, causing alarm throughout the
farm. The members worked hard throughout the summer but the first fall crop at Brook Farm
yielded little (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961; Delano 2004). There was just enough food for the
members to make it through, and in the spring there was a new optimism, and sense of urgency
to produce crops for the year. They had learned from their previous mistakes and they worked
harder. A new set of young eager members would be joining them in 1842 to provide much
needed help with the farm. The Brook Farm Institute for Agriculture and Education would
officially begin accepting students in the beginning of 1842 (Burton 1939).
The Brook Farm Institute for Agriculture and Education was a prominent boarding school
in New England and all around the US during its six years (Burton 1939; Codman 1894; Curtis
1961; Preucel and Pendery 2006). Ripley’s connection with Harvard made it easy for students to
go from Brook Farm to the university. This boarding school was both for members and for those
families who wanted their children to have a unique and well-rounded education. From the
opening in 1842 the school was the pride of the community and there was a full staff of
professors with strict regulations for all students. “The infant school was for children under six;
the primary school, for children under ten; the preparatory school for pupils over ten years of
age” (Codman 1894:11). There were also two tracks for students to take, “[a] six years’ course
prepared a young man to enter college. A three years’ course in theoretical and practical
agriculture was also laid out.” and prepared the student for a productive life as a farmer (Codman
1894:11). No matter which track was taken by the student they were all required to “spend from
one to two hours daily in manual labor” (Codman 1894:11).
The labor requirement was for all student, but they could also perform extra duties to help
pay for room and board; much like the current work study programs. Students could perform
25
extra labor duties, help in the kitchen, essentially anything that was needed around the farm
could be done and allow the less affluent students to remain at the prestigious school. The infant
school was essentially the first kindergarten in the United States, creating a unique learning
environment from a very young and impressionable age (Burton 1939, Delano 2004). The school
was the most profitable portion of the Brook Farm community. Although they did produce some
excess food, without the money from boarders the community may not have made it as long as it
did, as short a time as that was.
The original instructors were “George Ripley, Instructor in Intellectual and Natural
Philosophy and Mathematics; George P. Bradford Instructor in Belles Lettres; John S. Dwight
Instructor in Latin and Music; Charles A. Dana, Instructor in Greek and German; John S. Brown,
Instructor in Theosophical and Practical Agriculture; Sophia W. Ripley, Instructor in History and
Modern Languages; Marianne Ripley, Teacher of Primary School; Abigail Morton, Teacher of
Infant School; Georgiana Bruce, Teacher if Infant School; Hannah B. Ripley, Instructor in
Drawing” (Codman 1894:10). There was constant education from the classes being taught and
guest lecturers as visitors would come to Brook Farm. The guest that came and talked to Brook
Farmers were mostly those involved in the current social movements, Margaret Fuller would
come and discuss the current women’s rights issues and Orestus Brownson would come and
discuss the current labor issues and unionization that was occurring in the industrializing nation
(Burton 1939; Curtis 1961; Delano 2004).
Within the first year there was a flood of members that made it necessary to build
additional housing. First a building named the Eyrie was erected, and then there was the
affectionately named the Fuller Cottage, after Margaret Fuller (Burton 1939; Delano 2004;
Preucel and Pendery 2006). Both these buildings served dual purposes, boarding and teaching.
26
These new buildings were essential to the growing Brook Farm. The Ripley’s moved up to the
Eyrie, with George Ripley’s extensive library. The Eyrie was located at the top of a highest hill
at Brook Farm, looking over the entire property (Delano 2004). The Cottage housed its
namesake, Margaret Fuller when she visited and was largely used for classroom purposes with
Charles Dana and older boarders residing there at the residence (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961;
Codman 1894; Delano 2006).
Fourierism
In 1840 Albert Brisbane returned to America from France and brought Fourierism with
him. He immediately began writing his book The Social Destinies of Man, which would become
the guide to Fourierism for America. He soon published the book and in 1841 Brisbane met with
Horace Greely the editor of the New York Times and the propaganda for Fourierism began
(Burton 1939; Curtis 1961; Delano 2004). Greely became a supporter of the movement and
allowed Brisbane to write editorials in the paper on the subject of Fourierism, and soon the
movement began to spread (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961; Delano 2004). By 1843 George Ripley
Figure 6. Map of Brook Farm Site.
27
could not ignore Fourierism any longer and began to contemplate a change to the structure and
philosophy of Brook Farm (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961; Delano 2004).
George Ripley was not ignorant to the Fourierist movement before Brisbane reached
America, he was constantly reading about the philosophies and movements that were occurring
in Europe (Burton 1939). Ripley did not initially favor Fourierism when he began his
community, but Brisbane and Greely’s Americanization of Fourierism had Ripley becoming
more interested (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961; Delano 2004; Guarneri 1993; Preucel and Pendery
2006). As Ripley was becoming interested in Fourierism, Albert Brisbane was looking to start a
Phalanx in America that he could personally oversee and he set his sights on Brook Farm
(Burton 1939; Delano 2004).
The community was taking off in morale, all members were enthusiastic about their
education and the farming, although they were not producing any profits as of yet. By 1843 they
were looking for new ways to increase profit and keep from having to continually borrow credit
to keep their endeavor going (Burton 1939,; Delano 2006). Ripley began going to meetings
throughout New England to learn more about Fourierism. It was in 1843 that Ripley considered
Fourierism for the community and began to go to meetings and discussing the community with
Albert Brisbane ( Delano 2004). Brisbane became a frequent visitor to the farm in the summer of
1843 trying to convince Ripley and the board members to switch to Fourierism and make Brook
Farm a phalanx (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961; Delano 2004).
On December 26 and 27, 1843. The Convention of the Friends of Social Reform in New
England and elsewhere was held in Boston, Massachusetts (Curtis 1961). The convention was
held to spread awareness about the current communities that were beginning around New
England. It focused on Fourierism and the community plan that was part of Fourierism (Curtis
28
1961). Fourierism was the only utopian theory and community that came with a solid plan of
how the community should be run, unlike many new societies that started with the people and
then developed a plan (Curtis 1961; Delano 2004; Guarneri 1991). Like Brook Farm, many
societies had some idea of how to begin the community, but largely let the community form and
deal with the changes and troubles as they came, and they did. The conference was the last step
in convincing his board members and the other members to make Brook Farm a Fourierist
community (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961; Delano 2004; Preucel and Pendery 2006).
In January of 1844 the board members of Brook Farm drafted articles of incorporation to
become the Brook Farm Phalanx, and in February the change was official (Burton 1939; Curtis
1961; Delano 2004; Preucel and Pendery 2006). Their new name came with a new building; in
the spring of 1844 the members began to build the Phalanstery (Burton 1939; Delano 2004). This
building would house all the members, some classrooms, and the kitchen. This building would
replace the Hive and all the other buildings used for dwelling, and thus free the buildings for
other uses, such as larger libraries or more classrooms.
The Decline of Brook Farm
The members had almost finished the Phalanstery in October of 1844 when catastrophe
struck at Brook Farm. The members were having supper in the Hive and celebrating because the
Phalanstery was just about finished, when one lone member came running up, saying that there
was a huge fire at the Phalanstery (Burton 1939; Curtis 1971; Delano 2004; Preucel and Pendery
2006). As the members rushed to see and try to stop the fire, they realized there was nothing they
could do. The fire had engulfed the Phalanstery, soon the building that had been the focus of
Brook Farm for months was no longer there (Codman 1894; Delano 2004). The fire bankrupted
29
Brook Farm and there was no money left to rebuild the Phalanstery (Burton 1939; Curtis 1971;
Delano 2004). This was the first sign that the end of Brook Farm was nearing.
With this catastrophe, Albert Brisbane, formerly its greatest supporter and financier lost
interest in Brook Farm (Burton 1939). There was a new community for Brisbane to attend to,
The American Phalanx in New Jersey was his new project and Brisbane seemed to forget all
about Brook Farm. Brisbane had full control over all aspects of the the North American Phalanx
in New Jersey, although he had great influence at Brook Farm he did not have full control from
the beginning (Burton 1939). Brisbane seemed to have known that Brook Farm was declining
fast and needed to make sure Fourierism was seen as a success rather than a failure. Brisbane and
the funders he had that supported Fourierism were the only thing left keeping Brook Farm from
succumbing to their financial burdens (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961). With Brisbane gone there was
no money and Brook Farm already has so many loans taken out that no banks would provide
anymore credit (Burton 1939). The construction of the Phalanstery used the rest of Brook
Farm’s available funds.
In 1845 there was a small pox out break at Brook Farm, there were only two deaths, but
most of the members got sick (Burton 1939; Codman 1894; Delano 2004). There was a
quarantine enacted to protect the uninfected members, but it was continuously broken by
member wanting to help the sick (Burton 1939). After the small pox outbreak members began to
leave Brook Farm and by fall of 1846 Brook Farm would no longer exist.
Conclusion
When members began leaving Brook Farm most of them went on The North American
Phalanx in New Jersey (1843-1855) (Burton 1939). This phalanx was the pride and joy of Albert
Brisbane, and was his new focus, he had long since forgotten about Brook Farm and the new
30
membership at the thriving Phalanx was welcomed. The Ripley’s moved away to New York
where Sophia taught and George remained on the speaking circuit (Burton 1939).
The land that was once Brook Farm was used for many different purposes once the
members left. The city of Roxbury bought the property and turned the buildings into an
Almshouse for poor children (1848-1855). It was then used as a Civil War Camp renamed Camp
Andrew in 1861.This camp was used for the duration of the war, but was again abandoned when
the war was over (Pendery and Preucel 2006). The Martin Luther King Jr. Orphanage was then
built and used “to provided a home and religious education for orphans” (1871-1943) (Pendery
and Preucel 2006: 7). Then in 1944 it became used for the Brook Farm Home for “the care and
treatment of disturbed youths” until 1948 (Pendery and Preucel 2006:7). Today it has become
what George Ripley originally saw it as, a serene place to become in tune with nature. It has
become a peaceful city park, with the babbling brook and trees throughout the property.
31
CHAPTER FOUR
ARCHAEOLOGY OF UTOPIAN COMMUNITIES
Introduction
This chapter will discuss the archaeological approach to utopian societies. The goal of
this chapter is to provide a clear definition of utopia and provide a background into what the
current archaeological research focuses on. An extended discussion of the Theosophical Society
Dump site provides insight into the archaeological research and provides an example of similar
research that is being conducted in this thesis. The chapter will end with a discussion of where
Brook Farm falls into the utopian spectrum based on archaeological definitions.
What are Utopias and Why Do Archaeologists Study Them?
The word utopia was first used in the 1500s by Thomas More, and there are two words
with two meanings “either ‘good place’ (eu-topia) or ‘no-place’(u-topia)” (Tarlow 2002:299).
There is a division between how the term utopia is utilized by scholars, “theoretical utopistis”
(utopian literature and political philosophy) and “applied utopistics” (the foundation of
community and other experiments aimed at producing an ideal society.” (Tarlow 2002:300).
These experimental societies had “at least two fundamental precepts… first was a fundamental
dissatisfaction with some aspect of the dominant culture. The second ingredient was an idealistic
faith that a better way of life was possible.” (Van Bueren and Tarlow 2006:2). The numerous
communities created in the mid-1800s in America, including Brook Farm, wanted to create a
better life within the growing capitalist and industrializing society in America. Industrialization
and capitalism matched with the economic troubles of the time made the communities blossom,
and utopian was the word on everyone’s mouth. Emerson said “Not a man of us that did not have
a plan for some new Utopia in his pocket.” (Curtis 1961:41)
32
None of the utopias that were created in the mid-nineteenth century survived the test of
time; all the utopian experiments failed. This failure was the first aspect of archaeological
inquiry. Why these communities ended and how the end came to be was the focus of much
research (Van Bueren and Tarlow 2006). The current research “can, and should focus more on
what they [utopian societies] can teach about ideological adaption, rather than why they fell
apart.” (Van Buren and Tarlow 2006:4).
There was an entire Historical Archaeology edition dedicated to utopian societies in
2006. The main theme of the journal was how the ideology of these communities is continually
being constructed and maintained. Ideology of these utopian cultures is reflected in their material
culture, their architecture, their burial, and their practices. All the articles discuss some aspect of
how utopian societies tried to keep their ideologies alive within the community; including
historical research based on memoirs and written histories of the communities. The material
culture studies included ceramics, glass, hardware, etc, along with studies of building
foundations (Preucel and Pendery 2006; Tarlow 2006;Van Wormer 2006). The interpretations
focus on how these communities formed, thrived and kept their members interest in their
societies. Spencer-Wood and Van Bueren contribute an article that discuss the interpretation
biases of the archaeologist and how the current political and personal biases affect the
interpretations of utopian communities. Archaeologists are studying utopian communities from
many different angles to answer as many questions as the utopian communities can answer.
Another article in Historical Archaeology discussed the Theosophical Society Dump site
in San Diego, California The Theosophical Society Dump site was excavated as part of a cultural
resource management project for the City of San Diego Water Utilities Department (Van
Wormer and Gross 2006). The dump, containing 4, 284 artifacts, was exclusively from the
33
Theosophical Institute thus providing a great source of information about the Theosophical
Society. The artifacts found included all types, from ceramics, to household items, to bottles, to
children’s toys. The Theosophical Institute was an agricultural commune, a boarding school, and
an art colony (Van Wormer and Gross, 2006). This research is similar to the analysis that was
conducted on the ceramics of the Brook Farm site.
The Theosophical Society was founded in 1875 by a Russian Seeress Madame Helena
Petrivna Blavatsky and American attorney Henry Olcott. “Theosophy was defined as speculative
thought about God and the universe that arises through the study of the universal truths of
various religious schools including Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism (Van
Wormer and Gross, 2006:101). The Theosophical Society strove to “achieve a universal
brotherhood of man established through an ever-increasing awareness of the relationship
between the spirit of man and the universe.” (Van Wormer and Gross 2006:101). The society
soon gained traction and many smaller groups were formed throughout the world in the United
States, England, India, and other Asian Counties. When Madame Blavatsky died in 1891a power
struggle ensued, the result was the creation of a new group called the Theosophical Society of
America (Van Wormer and Gross 2006). Katherine Tingley was named head of the new society
in 1896 and soon purchased land on Point Loma to build a school.
The Theosophical Society Institute was located in Point Loma San Diego, California
and was the headquarters of the American Theosophical Society from 1897 to 1942 (Van
Wormer and Gross, 2006). The school started by Tingley was called the Theosophical School for
Revival of the Lost Mysteries of Antiquity, also known as the Raja Yoga School housed both
children and their parents, although there was little contact between the two groups (Van
Wormer and Gross 2006). “Tingley believed that children should be taught self-reliance, love
34
for all people, altruism, mutual clarity , and, more than anything else, to think and reason for
themselves. In addition they should reject love of money, worldly position, social advancement,
success, personal stature, selfish aggrandizement, and worldly pleasures.” (Van Wormer and
Gross 2006:101). The school ages ranged from grade school to university and taught everything
from philosophy to agriculture. By 1913 the school was well established and had more than 500
members living and learning at the Theosophical School (Van Wormer and Gross, 2006).
In an effort to teach the children, parents were kept away from their children, Tingley
believed that “adults were incapable of raising their own offspring” (Van Wormer and Gross
2006:102). Parents were allowed one or two visits a month with their children, the rest of the
time children followed a heavily supervised schedule. The nutrition of the students and everyone
was also part of the school, there was little red meat, milk, eggs, and butter, instead the focus was
on cereals, fruits, vegetable, bread fish, and soup (Van Wormer and Gross 2006).
The school and commune thrived until the death of Katherine Tingley in 1929. The death
of the leader, with the financial disaster of the Great Depression in the 1930s proved too much
for the institute. The Raja Yoga School closed in 1940 and the property was sold in 1942 (Van
Wormer and Gross, 2006).
The analysis of the artifacts included a comparison of the assemblage with urban sites
and rural sites from California. The research objective and artifact analysis were based on a
consumer behavior theory (Van Wormer and Gross 2006). Consumption is one of the important
ways of signifying membership in a group, particularity in class, status, and ethnic groups, and is
therefore an important reflection of lifestyle. The study compared the Theosophical Society
Dump artifacts with rural sites and urban sites from San Diego from the same time period. The
35
results were “the Theosophical Society dump exhibit[ed] a unique pattern indicative of the
lifestyle and callused of [its] inhabitants.” (Van Wormer and Gross 2006: 115). The study
showed that the artifacts found at the dump did not reflect the consumer choices of the urban
sites used for comparison, it was similar to the rural sites (Van Wormer and Gross 2006).
The study of the Theosophical Institute provides one case of how utopian societies are
being studied by archaeologists. The study reflects the need to understand what role these
communities played in society based on their artifacts. Comparing these sites to rural and urban
sites will show how they relate as well as separate themselves from all levels of society.
Is Brook Farm a Utopia?
Brook Farm was different from most of the communities that began in the1800s. In
America there were religious reasons for the majority of the communities, such as Fruitland and
Oneida (Holloway 1966). The goal of Brook Farm was to create a community where one’s
religion was not a factor in membership (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961). The goal in the beginning
was purely transcendental, knowledge combined with nature and connection to the earth. It was
not until Fourierism was accepted that the community developed to a more utopian goal (Burton
1939). Social change and spreading the word of a better society became part of the community’s
goals. The Harbinger was created and published by Brook Farm to spread Fourierist propaganda.
Brook Farm is a unique case because transcendentalism is not always considered a
utopian movement, although the creation of a community brings it to a new level. Van Buren and
Tarlow provide a definition, dissatisfaction with society and belief of a creating a better place
within society. When these two factors are considered Brook Farm is a utopian settlement from
the beginning when George Ripley started his transcendentalist community. Ripley created
36
Brook Farm from a severe disappointment with the society and the belief that he could create a
better community with Brook Farm (Burtons 1939, Delano 2004). Brook Farm is clearly an
“applied utopistic” community (Tarlow 2002).
37
CHAPTER FIVE
THOERY AND METHODS
Introduction
This chapter begin with a discussion of the theory that guided this research and the
methods used to answer the questions. The theory of consumer choice in archaeology focuses on
material culture, in the case of this project, ceramics. The consumer choice model focuses on
which ceramics were chosen by a person or group of people and then tries to explain why they
were chosen (Spencer-Woods1987). The consumer choice model focuses on what ceramics
where available, economic status, and how the ideologies influenced the ceramic choices of the
Brook Farm members. There were two areas from Brook Farm, Cottage and the Eyrie, the
Tremont Street Housing Site, a non- utopian settlement. The methods section will discuss the
database created to collect the data needed for analysis and the statistical measures used to
analyze the data.
Theory of Consumer Choice
Consumer choice was the theory used to guide the methods used to answer the questions
and interpret the results. The people of Brook Farm had a certain set of ideals, such as social
equality and intellectual freedom. Although the members wished to remain separate from society
they were not self sufficient and needed to be part of the market for good such as ceramics.
Ceramics were not produced by the members of Brook Farm so they were an item that was
purchased from the outside society. The ideals that Brook Farm represented, according to
consumer choice, should be reflected in their purchases (Mullins 2011, Spencer-Woods 1987).
Consumer choices is a “continuous process through which people simultaneously impose
meaning on and read meaning from material culture, and by extension the rest of their
38
surrounding material and social world” (Purser 1992: 105). It is hypothesized that the ideals
supported by Brook Farm, such as equality, simplicity, and a focus on the community, would
affect the consumer behavior of the group (Spencer-Wood 1987).
The consumer choice theory focuses on units, such as households. Since Brook Farmers
ideally had the same beliefs the Cottage and Eyrie can be analyzed as units. These units can later
be combined to create on Brook Farm assemblage because the beliefs of the residences are the
same (Spencer-Wood 1987). The Brook Farm ideals also may have affected their choice of
ceramic; they may have decided to purchase undecorated ceramics or ceramics with simple
decorations to support their ideals through their consumer choice. This research will focus on
table wares, such as plates, cups and bowls because items used to produce food were largely
utilitarian and were similar across society. The comparison between Brook Farm and the
Tremont Street Housing Site will determine if the consumer choice of Brook Farm as a large
community with utopian ideals was different than those of the urban working class Tremont
Street Housing site.
Consumer choice will also help provide a theoretical foundation to understand the intra-
site comparison of Brook Farm. The Cottage and the Eyrie had similar uses but housed different
people. The Eyrie was the home of Sophia and George Ripley and, their guests, as well as the
Brook Farm library and piano lessons. The Cottage was the home of older school boarders and
regular guests that did not permanently live at Brook Farm (Burton 1939; Codman 1961; Curtis
1961; Delano 2004). These slightly different uses may be visible in the archaeological record.
Consumer choice can help explain why the ceramics may be different between the two buildings,
the different ceramics brought in from the members.
39
Consumer choice studies often include a price-scaling analysis to determine economic
differences (Spencer Wood 1987). The large fragmentation of the Brook Farm site makes this
nearly impossible. Unfortunately there is no way to determine the vessel type, such as saucer,
plate, teacup etc, because of the high fragmentation of the ceramic assemblage. The consumer
choice theory provides a great starting point for this research because the questions are basic and
open ended. There has been little analysis of the artifacts of the Brook Farm site, and this
research is just a starting point for further analysis. This analysis answers some questions, while
likely creating many more questions for future research.
Questions
The following section will discuss the questions guiding this research. There are three
main questions that are the focus of this research.
What ceramics were the people of Brook Farm using?
What was there at Brook Farm, what is left? The ceramics at Brook Farm can provide
information about the types of people that were becoming members. Did they bring their own
ceramics or were they supplied by the community? These are residential areas, will it reflect a
unique assemblage that may be formed by multiple individuals bringing their own ceramics.
How does the Cottage assemblage compare to the Eyrie assemblage?
These are two building occupied and used for similar purposes, education and boarding.
Were there different ceramics at each building? Did the people who were using these buildings
bringing in their own ceramics thus reflecting the different background of the members?
How does this assemblage compare to non-utopian assemblages? Is the Brook Farm
assemblage different from a non-utopian site of the same time period?
40
The utopian society of Brook Farm was set apart from the rest of the Boston area. Will
the comparison of the Brook Farm site assemblage with the Tremont Street Housing site reveal a
difference? Does the utopian site reflect simple ideals while the non-utopian site reveal a more
divers assemblage?
Research Sites
Brook Farm
The first step was to read the report approved by the Massachusetts Historical
Commission and written by Steven Pendery in 1991 for a field school, conducted at Brook Farm.
There were three more field schools at Brook Farm but there have been no reports published.
This report provided references to begin researching more in depth the Brook Farm history.
Every available memoir and book about Brook Farm, transcendentalism, and Fourierism was
collected to gain full knowledge as to what was happening in Boston in 1840 as well as in the
United States in general. This research proved to be most interesting, as memoirs revealed stories
from many different viewpoints. One thing was missing from all the memoirs and histories and
letter, a material culture analysis of Brook Farm. The letters and memoirs are full of information
about the people, and provide a great social background but no information as to what ceramics
or other material culture was being used by the Brook Farmers.
The assemblage used for the analysis of the Brook Farm site was collected between 1990
and 1994 by Robert Preucel and Steven Pendery. From 1990 to 1994 the two professors held a
field school at the Brook Farm site with the support of the University of Massachusetts Amherst
and Harvard University (Preucel and Pendery 2006). These field schools focused on locating the
numerous buildings that had been built for Brook Farm as well as the buildings built after Brook
Farm ended (Pendery 1991; Preucel and Pendery 2006).
41
The focus of their research was different from the focus of this research. Preucel and
Pendery focused on the landscape and how it had changed, thus foundations were the primary
focus of their excavation units (Pendery 1991; Preucel and Pendery 2006). Preucel and Pendery
collected everything that was found and there were many ceramics collected throughout the five
years of testing at Brook Farm. There was even a privy feature as part of the Eyrie excavations
(Pendery 1991). The ceramics were numerous and provide a large assemblage for analysis. There
is no excavation map that remains of the Brook Farm excavations outside of the Hive/Martin
Luther King Jr. Orphanage building. Figure 7 shows the first transects excavated for the Eyrie.
The fragmentation of the site could be caused by the continued use of the site through the
years. The fragmented ceramic sherds could also indicate that the ceramics were coming in and
Figure 7. The only map of transects for the Eyrie.
42
out with members, whole vessels would have been taken out when members left. The broken
ceramics would have stayed and been further fragmented by the continued use of the site
throughout the century.
After reviewing the units, maps and artifact concentrations it was necessary to determine
what areas and unit would be used for analysis. It was at first thought that the Hive building
would be the perfect way to determine the material culture. The Hive was the main building,
where the kitchen was and everyone ate. After contacting Robert Preucel it was determined that
the Hive was not viable because that portion of the site was mostly fill; and disturbed from the
construction of the Martin Luther king Jr. Building, an orphanage built by adding onto the Hive
(Personal Correspondence 2012).After excluding the Hive two more buildings were chosen that
best represented Brook Farm, the Eyrie and the Cottage. These two buildings had the most
ceramics collected from the excavation and were also residences for members and guests (Burton
1939; Delano 2004; Preucel and Pendery 2006).
The Eyrie was built on the spring of 1842 to add boarding room for new members
(Burton 1939; Delano 2004; Preucel and Pendery 2006). The Eyrie assemblage is ideal from an
archaeological research stand point, because it was only used during the Brook Farm time period
(1841-1847) (Pendery 1991). This meant, all the artifacts would be coming from the Brook Farm
period. Thus this area would provide information twofold, one it would provide a diachronic
look at Brook Farm and it could set norm for analysis such as Mean Ceramic Dating (MCD).
The Cottage was chosen because it contained the most ceramics in the inventory. The
Cottage was built in the first year of Brook Farm to accommodate new members and used after
the Brook Farm utopian period, until the 1985 when it burned down (Burtons 1939; Delano
43
2004; Pendery 1991; Preucel and Pendery2006). The collection from this area has been mixed
but the earliest artifacts, ideally, must be from the Brook Farm utopian period.
Tremont Street Housing Site
For the comparison from a non-utopian site the Tremont Street Housing site in West
Roxbury Massachusetts was used. The Tremont Street Housing Site was excavated a Phase II
and Phase III archaeological recovery (Charles and Openo 1987). There was a Massachusetts
Transit Facility being put in where the site was and there was no way to adjust the route to avoid
the site. (Charles and Openo 1987). The ceramic analysis was conducted by the Afro American
Museum and supervised by Sheila Charles. This site was chosen for comparison because the
time periods were similar to Brook Farm, Tremont Street dates from 1840 to 1880 (Charles and
Brook Farm Site
Tremont Street
Housing site
Figure 8. USGS topographic map showing location of Brook Farm site and Tremont Housing
Street site.
44
Openo 1987). It is located in the Boston area, and though there are several families providing
deposits in the features, there is nothing utopian about them.
The Tremont Street Housing site is actually composed of several homes on Tremont
Street in Roxbury Massachusetts. The original landowner was John Heath who owned a fifty
four acre farm, known as the Heath farm (Charles and Openo 1987). The Heath farm was
subdivided and sold and resold beginning in 1844. An array of new land owners moved into the
lots. This Tremont Street development was filled with working class, carpenter, painters, and
builders. These residences had no part in the utopian movement and provide a look at the
working class of Boston in the mid to late 1800s.
Database
For this research only ceramics were used for analysis. For the two areas that were
chosen ceramics made the majority of the collection. The glass was not a reliable artifact for this
analysis. There was a lot of it, but there is little that could be found from it because the pieces
were so small color would have been the only category for analysis. There needs to be more than
one factor of analysis for a reliable result. The architectural artifacts would not have answered
any of the questions about consumer choice. The majority of the building materials are not in any
condition to be analyzed. Unfortunately, like with many collections, there has been nothing done
to curate the artifacts since the field schools in the early 1990s. The metal was rusted and
disintegrating and it was difficult to tell what the artifacts used to be. The ceramics were the only
artifacts that were left that were intact enough for analysis.
There was already an inventory created for the Brook Farm site, but it was incomplete.
The information was not as detailed as needed for this research, and it did not contain all the
areas, or all the field school data, there were large gaps. As part of this research it was
45
determined that going through the assemblage and creating a new database would be essential.
This would also help the Boston Archaeology Lab because it was needed to be put into a new
database for their purposes of creating an electronic catalogue of every artifact in the lab. The
Massachusetts Artifact Tracking System (MATS) was used to create my own database. The
MATS is a Microsoft Access database format. The MATS database format was used to create a
database for each for Brook Farm area. These databases were easily merged for comparative
analysis. The information collected was:
Provenience: location of the items. North and West designations were used for units with
stratigraphic placement and levels of each of ceramic recorded.
Ware Type: The ceramic were divided into ware type categories whiteware, pearl ware,
yellowware, cream ware, ironstone, stoneware, red ware, and porcelain.
Part of Vessel and Vessel Type: The ceramics were further divided by rim, base, or body. They
were divided more specifically when possible into categories such as spout, foot ring etc. There
was an option for vessel type, this category was not used often because vessel type was often
unknown due to sherd fragmentation. The majority of the ceramics were undecorated body
sherds.
Decoration: The ceramics where then divided by decoration type, plain, transfer print, sponge,
hand painted, decal, molded, mocha, stenciled, slipped, flow blue, luster, and annular. The colors
on each decoration and what design was used on the sherd were also collected. The type of
decoration was determined to the best of the researchers’ ability, to best date the assemblage.
The small size of the majority of the sherds made it difficult to designate a specific design for
identification.
46
Dates of Manufacture: For dating purposes the dates of each sherd were found in order to best
calculate mean ceramic dates for each level and the assemblage as a whole. The dates were
manufacturing dates, based in the ware type, colors and designs.
Comments: The comments section was used to add to the data collections that may have not been
available on the database format. The comments allowed the researcher to add specifics such as
names of ceramics and most importantly the crossmends of the ceramics. This section provided
the ability to further understand how levels and units were connected based on which ceramics
where refit later in the lab.
Analysis
A comparative intra and inter-site analysis was conducted. The Eyrie and Cottage, both
from Brook Farm, were compared then Brook Farm as a whole (combining the Eyrie and
Cottage assemblages) was compared to the Tremont Street Housing site. The analysis of Brook
Farm with the non-utopian Boston site was based on the database created by the researcher and
the database in the reports created the Tremont Street housing site. The vessel counts and sherd
counts were compared using the chi- square test to determine if there was a significant difference
between the sites.
A qualitative method was used to determine Minimum Number of Vessels (MNV), to
gain the most accurate count (Voss and Allen 2010). The minimum vessel count for each site
was found using ware type, decoration and rim and base sherds (Voss and Allen 2010). Ware
type was used before rim and base because if there is one body sherd of a ware type there was at
least one vessel. For example although there were only body sherds for the Rockingham ware
type, Rockingham was determined to have at least one vessel present. The rims and bases were
used to develop a vessel count, plain rims and bases were match, with the idea that they may
47
have come from the same vessel. Distinct designs and patterns on rims and/or bases were
designated as its own vessel. This maintained the most accurate vessel count possible.
The Microsoft Access database provided a way to filter the sherds by rim and bases then
by ware type, then decoration. The database was built understanding that there would likely be
cross mending and splitting the ceramics into the most specific groups possible. The decoration,
shape, ware type, then it is assumed that the utopian ideals of Brook Farm would cause the
ceramics to be simple, as part of the simple life that was the focus of Brook Farm everyday life.
The people at the Tremont Street Housing site likely had different ideals than those at Brook
Farm, thus is may be reflected in the ceramics assemblage.
The chi-square test was used determines if the factors being compared are independent or
dependent on each other. The chi-square will test if the ceramics found at each site are
independent of where they came from or if there is a significant dependence on where they came
from. The chi-square test will determine if the differences seen in the initial comparison of
percentages of ceramics at each site is significant. The significance of these differences will help
to determine if the ideals of Brook farm can be interpreted through the ceramics as well as their
historic documents.
Conclusion
These methods and theory guided the ceramic analysis of the Brook Farm site and the
Tremont Street Housing site. This analysis is preliminary, necessarily so because the lack of
previous analysis. The Consumer Choice models allow for interpretations based on the different
ideals that are reflected in the Brook Farm community compared the urban Tremont Street
Housing site.
48
CHAPTER SIX
ANALYSIS
Introduction
The ceramic analysis compares two areas from Brook Farm, the Cottage and the Eyrie,
and the Tremont Street Housing site. The Cottage and Eyrie were the most intact areas and
provided the best source of information for understanding the ceramic use at Brook Farm. This
analysis focuses on ware types of ceramics, decoration of the ceramics, and amounts of each
ceramic type at Brook Farm compared to the Tremont Street Housing Site. This analysis uses
Mean Ceramic Dating (Miller 2000) in order establish whether the areas are associated with the
Brook Farm. A comparison of ceramic vessel and sherd based on ceramic ware type conducted
and significance is tested using the chi-square test.
Mean Ceramic Date
The Cottage was built in 1842 to accommodate the growing membership and stood until
1985 when it burned down (Burton 1939; Curtis 1961; Delano 2004). The ceramic assemblage
contained a total of 790 ceramics, the majority of which were whiteware. In order to date each
level mean ceramic dating methods were used along with other datable artifacts.
All the units and levels shown in Table 1 were used for analysis. These units and levels fit
into a reasonable date for when the Cottage was being used by the Brook Farmers. Redware was
not considered in the MCD because it has such a long manufacturing date range that it would
have skewed the mean ceramic dates (Miller 2000). In this table there are a majority of post-
1847 dates, yet given the time range of whiteware this is normal. Whiteware becomes popular in
1820s and begins to replace pearlware as the most common ceramic used (Miller 200). The
49
mean date for whiteware is 1860, and this date was acceptable to this research as being part of
the Brook Farm time frame.
Cottage Mean Ceramic Date by Unit and Level
Unit Level Mean Ceramic Date
N0 W0 Str. 1 Lev. 4 1807
N0W5 Str. 2 Lev. 1 1855
N0W5 Str. 3 Lev. 1 1854
N0W10 Str. 3 Lev. 1 1859
N0 W15 Str. 2 Lev 1 1825
N0 W15 Str. 3 Lev. 1 1857
N0 W15 Str. 3 Lev. 2 1860
S10 W15 1805
S10 W15 Str. 1 Lev. 1 1860
S10 W15 Str. 4 lev. 1 1860
S10 W15 Str.4. Lev. 2 1811
S10 W15 Str.5 Lev. 1 1859
S15 W0 Str. 2 Lev. 1 1860
S20 W5 Str. 1 Lev. 3 1847
S20 W5 Str. 2 Lev. 2 1860
S20 W5 1813
S5 W0 Str. 1 Lev. 2 1860
S5 W0 Str. 1 Lev. 3 1846
S5 W0 Str. 2 Lev. 2 1818
S5 W10 Str. 2 Lev. 2 1838
Test Pit 1 Str. 1 Lev. 2 1793
Test Pit 1 Str. 2 Lev. 1 1860
Test Pit 2 Str. 1 Lev. 1 1793
Test Pit 2 Str. 1 Lev 2 1861
Test Pit 2 Str. 1 Lev. 3 1860
MEAN CERAMIC DATE 1847
The Eyrie was only used during the Brook Farm period (1841-1847). The Eyrie, like the
Cottage was built in 1842 to accommodate the growing membership (Burton 1939, Curtis 1961,
Delano 2004, Pendery 1991). The Ripley’s resided in the Eyrie along with the Brook Farm
library and some boarders (Burton 1939; Curtis 19611; Delano 2004; Pendery 1991). Table 2
shows the mean ceramic dates for each unit and level for the Eyrie. There were two units not
used for analysis, these units were excluded because they contained ironstone, a ceramic whose
Table 1. Mean Ceramic Dates for each unit and level in the Cottage.
50
manufacturing dates that make it unrealistic to be part of the Brook Farm assemblage. One
ironstone dish had a makers mark from the J and G Meakin Hanley Co. which was not founded
until 1851 (Pendery1991). This contamination of the Eyrie is most likely part of the later usage
of the Brook Farm grounds.
The mean ceramic date for the Eyrie is 1857, which does not fall into the Brook Farm
time period. This likely is because the large amount of undecorated whiteware and yellowware
make the dates later because they have long manufacturing spans (Miller 200).
Eyrie Mean Ceramic Date By Unit and Level
Unit Level Mean Ceramic Date
N0 W10 Str.1 Lev 1 1860
N0 W20 Str. 1 Lev. 1 1860
N0 W20 Str. 1 Lev. 2 1860
N0 W20 Str. 1 Lev. 3 1858
N0 W25 Str. 2 Lev. 2 1860
N0 W25 Str. 3 Lev. 1 1860
N0 W30 Str. 2 Lev. 1 1853
N1 W14 Lev. 1 1823
N1 W14 Lev. 2 1805
N1 W14 Str. 1 Lev. 1 1805
N1 W14 Str. 1 Lev. 2 1805
N1 W14 Str. 1 Lev. 3 1813
S1 W11 Str. 2 Lev. 1 1865
S1 W17 Str. 1 Lev. 4 1860
S1 W 17 Str. 1 Lev. 15 1860
S1 W17 Str. 1 Lev. 4/5 1860
S1 W17 Str. 2 Lev. 1 1860
S1 W17 Str. 2 Lev. 2 1863
S1 W17 Str. 2 Lev 3 1863
MEAN CERAMIC DATE 1857
Table 2. Mean Ceramic Date if the Eyrie.
51
Ceramic Analysis
The Cottage had a total of 790 ceramics. The majority (76%) of ceramic sherds were
whiteware (Figure 9). This is consistent with the popularity of whiteware in the mid-1800s. It
began taking over pearlware in the 1820s and would have been the most available ceramics for
the Brook Farmers to purchase because it was abundant and inexpensive (Miller 2000).
Unidentifiable ceramic sherds consisted of 36 sherds or 5% of the total ceramics assemblage.
The unidentifiable sherds were excluded from analysis because there is no way to know their
ware type beyond refined earthenware. The total of analyzed artifacts from the Cottage was 754.
Figure 9 shows the ceramic percentages of analyzed sherds (754) by ceramic ware type for the
Cottage assemblage.
Redware3%
Creamware10%
Yellowware1%
Pearlware9%
Whiteware76%
Porcelain1%
Cottage Ceramics by Ware Type
Figure 9. Graph showing percentages of ceramics in the Cottage assemblage.
52
The Eyrie had a total 471 ceramics in the assemblage. The majority of the ceramics were
whiteware (62%) followed by yellowware (31%). (Figure 10) These two ceramics show the
popularity of both these wares in the 1840s as Brook Farm was existing. Both whiteware and
yellowware began in the 1820s. There were 21 sherds that were not able to be used within
analysis beyond this point.
Whiteware was the most abundant artifact in the Eyrie(62%) and in the Cottage (76%) .
This amount of whiteware provided an opportunity for further analysis of decoration. The
decoration of whiteware was then assessed using the same methods as above, creating a
percentage of each. The Eyrie had 96% undecorated whiteware, with annular decoration, flow
Redware1%
Yellowware31%
Pearlware5%
Whiteware62%
Stoneware1%
Unidentified2%
EYRIE: Ceramics By Ware Type
Figure 10. Percentages of ceramic ware type in Eyrie assemblage.
53
Annular
1%
Undecorated
96%
Transfer Print
2%
Sponge
Decoration
1%
Eyrie: Whiteware Decoration
blue decoration, hand-painted decoration, sponge decoration, and transfer printed decoration
making the other 4% (Figure 11).
The Cottage showed similar traits, 87% undecorated whiteware, with annular decoration,
sponge decoration, transferprint decoration, hand-painted, and luster decoration make up the
other 13% of the assemblage (Figure 12).
Figure 11. Eyrie whiteware decoration by percentage.
54
Undecorated
87%
Sponge
Painted
5%
Hand-
Painted
1%
Transfer
6%
Luster
1%
Cottage: Whiteware Decoration
The undecorated whiteware suggests that the people of Brook Farm were choosing to
obtain plain whiteware instead of decorated ware. To determine significance for the analysis and
the comparison between Eyrie and Cottage, chi-square was used.
The chi-square is a test of statistical significance that helps determine whether there is an
actual relationship between the factors being compared. The chi-square provides a test of
independence, and there is a built in hypothesis that is either proven or disproven, the null
hypothesis (Healey 2009). The null hypothesis assumes that all factors are independent of each
other. There are several factors that determine whether the null hypothesis is proven or
disproven; the first is the degree of freedom of each test. The degree of freedom is found with a
Figure 12. Percentages of Cottage whiteware decoration.
55
simple equations, (r-1)(c-1). There must be at least two columns and two rows, there is always at
least 1 degree of freedom (Healey 2009). The second factor is the percent of confidence for this
analysis the minimum level of confidence is 95%. There are totals that are compared, the X2
(obtained) and the X2 (critical). The X2 (critical) is found on the chi-square chart, look at the
degree of freedom and the percent of confidence that is desired and a value is given. The X2
(obtained) is the value after calculating all the factors that are being compared. If the X2
(obtained) is lower than, in this analysis, 95% confidence X2 (critical) the null hypothesis is
proven (Healey 2009). If the X2 (obtained) is higher than the X2 (critical) then the null
hypothesis is disproven and the rows are dependent on the columns (Healey 2009). The chi-
square used the obtained values, the actual values of the assemblage, and the expected, this is
used by multiplying the total of the column by the total of the row, then dividing it by the total of
both. ((sumr*sumc)/totalsum).
Both vessel counts and sherd counts were compared for dependence in the chi square.
The use of both sherd count and vessel count provided a double comparison. There were a low
number of vessels found at Brook Farm, 19 from the Eyrie, and 38 from the Cottage. Using sherd
counts provides an extra level of analysis and discussion between the findings of sherd counts
versus vessel count analysis.
The first chi-square test analyzed the Brook Farm vessel count, comparing the Eyrie and
the Cottage. Table 3 and Table 4 show the observed and expected vessel counts, by ceramic ware
type for the Eyrie and the Cottage. The null hypothesis is the ceramic ware-type of the vessel is
independent of where the vessel came from, either the Eyrie of the Cottage. The degree of
freedom is (5-1)(2-1)=4 and the X2 (obtained)=13.495. The X2 (critical) at 95% confidence is
9.488, the null hypothesis is disproven. It is beyond the 99% confidence level at 13.277. The
56
ceramic ware type of the vessel is dependent on where the vessel came from, either the Eyrie or
the Cottage. The test confirms at a 98% confidence that there is a relationship between vessel
ware type and location of the vessel.
Obtained Vessel Count: Brook Farm
Ware Type Eyrie Cottage TOTAL
Creamware 4 1 5
Yellowware 1 3 4
Pearlware 7 2 9 Whiteware 23 7 30 Porcelain 0 4 4 TOTAL 35 17 52
The next analysis was similar but it used the sherd counts instead of vessel counts. Table
5 and Table 6 show the observed and expected sherd counts, by ceramic ware types for the Eyrie
and the Cottage. The null hypothesis was the ceramic ware type of the sherd is independent on
where they came from, the Eyrie or Cottage. The sherd counts are much higher, of course, than
the vessel counts and the X^2 (obtained) are much larger, with the same comparative X2
(critical). The degree of freedom is 7 with and X2critical of 14.057 for 95%. The X2 (obtained) is
281.397, this is well beyond the X2 (critical) 24.322 of a 99.99% confidence level. The null
hypothesis was disproved; the sherd type is dependent at a 99.99% confidence level on whether
they came from the Eyrie or Cottage.
Expected Vessel Count: Brook Farm
Ware Type Eyrie Cottage TOTAL
Creamware 3.37 1.63 5
Yellowware 2.69 1.31 4
Pearlware 6.06 2.94 9 Whiteware 20.19 9.81 30 Porcelain 2.69 1.31 4 TOTAL 35 17 52
Table 4. Expected Vessel Count for Eyrie
and Fuller Cottage.
Table 3. Obtained vessel count for Eyrie
and Brook Farm.
57
Whiteware was the most abundant of the ceramics and thus further analysis was
conducted on this ceramic type. The whiteware vessels and sherds were compared by decorated
or plain. The first chi-square was performed on the sherd count of whiteware from the Eyrie and
the Cottage.
The null hypothesis is the appearance of decorated or plain whiteware is independent of
which area they came from, Eyrie or Cottage. Table 7 and Table 8 show the observed and
expected counts for the whiteware sherd count for the Eyrie and the Cottage. The degree of
freedom was one, the X^2 (obtained) was 17.74, this is beyond the X^2 (critical) of 10.827 for a
99.99% confidence. The null hypothesis was disproved, these calculation show that there is over
a 99.99% confidence level that these decoration of whiteware is dependent on which area it
comes from.
Observed Sherd Count: Brook Farm
Ware Type Eyrie Cottage Total
Redware 4 25 29
Creamware 1 76 77
Yellowware 140 6 146
Pearlware 24 66 90
Whiteware 279 567 846
Stoneware 2 2 4 Porcelain 0 10 10 TOTAL 450 752 1202
Expected Sherd Count: Brook Farm
Ware Type Eyrie Cottage Total
Redware 10.86 18.14 29
Creamware 28.83 48.17 77
Yellowware 54.66 91.34 146
Pearlware 33.69 56.31 90 Whiteware 316.72 529.28 846
Stoneware 1.5 2.5 4 Porcelain 3.74 6.26 10 TOTAL 450 752 1202
Table 5. Observed sherd count for the
Eyrie and Fuller Cottage.
Table 5: Observed sherd count for the
Eyrie and Fuller Cottage
Table 6. Expected sherd count for the
Eyrie and Fuller Cottage.
Table 6: Expected sherd count for the
Eyrie and Fuller Cottage
58
The whiteware vessel counts are much lower than the sherd counts. The Eyrie had a total
of 7 whiteware vessels, 5 plain and 2 decorated (Table 9). The Cottage had a total of 23 vessels,
10 plain, 13 decorated (Table 9). Table 10 shows the expected values of whiteware vessels for
the Eyrie and the Cottage. The null hypothesis is that the decoration of the vessel is independent
of the area it came from, Eyrie or the Cottage. The X^2 (obtained) is 1.678 and for a 95%
confidence with a degree of freedom of 1 the X^2 (critical) is 3.841. The X^2 (obtained) for the
whiteware vessel test is 1.678. The null hypothesis was not disproven and there is no dependence
between whiteware vessel decoration and the area it came from.
The Brook Farm comparison showed that there was a difference between the Eyrie and
the Cottage based on the decoration and ware type.. The decoration of whiteware sherds, and the
ware types of ceramics, both sherds and vessels are dependent on which building they came
Expected Sherd Count: Whiteware
Whiteware
Decoration Eyrie Cottage TOTAL
Plain 251.96 512.04 764
Decorated 27.-4 54.96 82
TOTAL 279 567 846
Observed Sherd Count: Whiteware
Whiteware
Decoration Eyrie Cottage TOTAL
Plain 269 495 764
Decorated 10 72 82
TOTAL 279 567 846
Expected Whiteware Vessel Count
Whiteware
Decoration Eyrie Cottage TOTAL
Plain 3.5 11.5 15
Decorated 3.5 11.5 15
TOTAL 7 23 30
Observed Whiteware Vessel Counts
Whiteware
Decoration Eyrie Cottage TOTAL
Plain 5 10 15
Decorated 2 13 15
TOTAL 7 23 30
Table 7. Obtained whiteware sherd
count, plain and decorated.
Table 7: Obtained whiteware sherd
count, plain and decorated.
Table 8. Expected sherd count for
whiteware, plain and decorated.
Table 8: Expected sherd count for
whiteware, plain and decorated.
Table 9. Observed whiteware vessel
count, plain and decorated.
Table 9: Observed whiteware vessel
count, plain and decorated.
Table 10. Expected whiteware vessel
count, plain and decorated.
Table 10: Expected whiteware vessel
count, plain and decorated
59
originated. The difference in the buildings can be correlated to the different residents who lived
at each building.
Tremont Street Housing Site and Brook Farm
The Tremont Street housing site, like Brook Farm, is mostly whiteware (63%). Figure 13
shows the Tremont Street Housing site assemblage by ware type. The chi-square tests compared
the combined Brook Farm assemblage with the Tremont Street Housing site. The Tremont Street
Housing site report did not identify the whiteware vessels by decoration type. There is no way to
compare the Brook Farm whiteware vessels decoration with the Tremont Street Housing Site.
The Tremont Street Housing site report does not classify vessels by decoration, just by ware
type, but sherd counts available and a sherd analysis was conducted using the chi square.
Redware
6%Yellowware
4%
Rockingham
7%
Pearlware
7%
Whiteware
63%
Stoneware
5%
Porcelain
8%
Tremont Street Housing: Ceramic Ware
Types
Figure 13. Tremont Street Housing ceramic percentages by ware
type.
Figure 13: Tremont Street Housing ceramic percentages by ware
type.
60
The Tremont Street Housing site and the Brook Farm sherd counts are shown in Table 11
(observed) and Table 12 (expected). The null hypothesis is the ceramic ware type is independent
of the site they came from. The X^2 (obtained) is 24.182, that is above the X^2 (critical) of
20.090 of a 99% confidence level that the factors are dependent. The null hypothesis is rejected
the ceramic type found at the site is dependent on which site it came from.
The sherd count X^2 (obtained) is 365.754, well beyond the 99.99% confidence level of
X^2 (critical) 26.125. The null hypothesis was rejected. The ceramic ware types are dependent
on the site which they came from.
Redware
2%
Creamware
6%
Yellowware
12%
Pearlware
8%
Whiteware
71%
Porcelain
1%
Brook Farm: Combined Ceramic by
Ware Type
Figure 14. Brook Farm combined ceramic percentages by ware type.
61
OBSERVED: VESSEL COUNT BY WARE TYPE
Ware Type Brook Farm (Eyrie and Cottage
Combined) Tremont Street
Housing TOTAL
Redware 2 22 24
Tin Enameled 0 2 2
Creamware 5 1 6
Yellowware 4 6 10
Rockingham 1 11 12
Pearlware 9 26 35
Whiteware 30 62 92
Stoneware 2 22 24
Porcelain 4 14 18
TOTAL 57 166 223
EXPECTED: VESSEL COUNT BY WARE TYPE
Ware Type Brook Farm (Eyrie and Cottage
Combined) Tremont Street
Housing TOTAL
Redware 6.13 17.87 24
Tin Enameled 0.51 1.49 2
Creamware 1.53 4.47 6
Yellowware 2.56 7.44 10
Rockingham 3.07 8.93 12
Pearlware 8.95 26.05 35
Whiteware 23.52 68.48 92
Stoneware 6.13 17.87 24
Porcelain 4.6 13.4 18
TOTAL 57 166 223
Table 12. Expected vessel count Brook Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site.
Table 12: Expected vessel count Brook Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site.
Table 11. Observed vessel count Brook Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site.
Table 11: Observed vessel count Brook Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site.
62
Whiteware was the most prominent ceramic in the assemblage and was used to compare
decoration. Table 15 and Table 16 show the observed and expected whiteware sherd counts for
the Tremont Street Housing site and Brook Farm. The decoration of whiteware vessels was not
able to be conducted because the Tremont Street housing report does not identify the vessels by
Observed Sherd Count by Ware Type:
Tremont St Housing and Brook Farm
Ware Type
Brook
Farm:
Eyrie
and
Cottage
Tremont
Street
Housing
TOTAL
Redware 29 90 119
Tin
Enameled 0 7 7
Creamware 77 5 82
Yellowware 146 49 195
Rockingham 2 100 102
Pearlware 90 91 181
Whiteware 846 875 1721
Stoneware 4 63 67
Porcelain 10 109 119
TOTAL 1204 1389 2593
Expected Sherd Count by Ware Type:
Tremont St Housing and Brook Farm
Ware Type
Brook
Farm:
Eyrie
and
Cottage
Tremont
Street
Housing
TOTAL
Redware 55.25 63.75 119
Tin
Enameled 3.25 3.75 7
Creamware 38.07 43.93 82
Yellowware 90.54 104.46 195
Rockingham 47.36 54.64 102
Pearlware 84.04 96.96 181
Whiteware 798.64 921.89 1721
Stoneware 31.11 35.89 67
Porcelain 55.25 63.75 119
TOTAL 1204 1389 2593
Observed Sherd Count: Whiteware
Decoration
Tremont
Street
Housing
Brook
Farm:
Eyrie and
Cottage
Combined
TOTAL
Plain 230 764 994
Decorated 100 82 182
TOTAL 330 846 1176
Expected Sherd Count: Whiteware
Decoration
Tremont
Street
Housing
Brook
Farm:
Eyrie and
Cottage
Combined
TOTAL
Plain 278.93 715.07 994
Decorated 51.07 130.93 182
Total 330 846 1176
Table 13. Observed sherd count Brook
Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site.
Table 13: Observed sherd count Brook
Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site
Table 14. Expected sherd count Brook
Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site.
Table 14: Expected sherd count Brook
Farm and the Tremont Street Housing Site
Table 15. Observed sherd count for
whiteware, the Tremont Street Housing site
and Brook Farm.
Table 16. Expected sherd count for
whiteware, the Tremont Street Housing site
and Brook Farm.
Table 16: Expected sherd count for
whiteware, the Tremont Street Housing site
and Brook Farm
63
decoration. The null hypothesis is the decoration of the whiteware sherd is independent of the
site they came from. The X^2 (obtained) is 77.098, and the X^2 (critical) for a 99.99%
confidence level is 10.827. The null hypothesis is rejected, the decoration of whiteware is
dependent on the site that it came from.
Conclusion
The analysis conducted has shown that there is a statistically significant difference
between the utopian and non-utopian site. Also there is a difference between the Eyrie and
Cottage assemblages. These differences are shown in both sherd and vessel counts, which
support the differences. The following chapter will discuss the interpretations and further
research that can be conducted with the Brook Farm data.
64
CHAPTER SEVEN
DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter will discuss the results of the analysis and the interpretations for what the results
mean for Brook Farm. The chapter will be structured to answer the three research questions
posed in chapters one and five. This chapter will address each question and provide an
interpretation from the analysis conducted. This chapter will also provide insights into further
research that can be conducted with the Brook Farm assemblage.
Results
This section will use the questions asked of the ceramics to guide the discussion.
What ceramics were the people of Brook Farm using?
There was a total of 1,204 ceramics were analyzed from the Brook Farm areas, 754 from
Cottage and 450 from the Eyrie. These ceramics were mostly whiteware (71%) when the Eyrie
and Cottage are combined. There was also yellowware (12%), pearlware (8%), creamware (6%),
redware (2%), and porcelain (1%) (Figure 14).
The results will be discussed as the analysis was conducted starting with the intra-site
comparison between the Eyrie and Cottage. The first aspect of the analysis was a Mean Ceramic
Date, for the Cottage it was 1851 and for the Eyrie it was 1857. The ideal mean ceramic date
should be 1843 or 1844, but with such a short time span it would be hard to achieve an ideal
mean date. The mean ceramic date for undecorated whiteware is 1860 and that is the majority of
the Brook Farm sample, from both the Eyrie and the Cottage, thus it is not surprising that the
mean date is so late for both of the areas. . The mean date is made earlier with the creamware and
pearlware mixed in. The mean date provides an estimate of what the dates could be for Brook
65
Farm, with the documents of Brook Farm and the known dates of occupation provides a constant
for which to compare the MCDs.
Unfortunately there were only 2 vessels that could be identified in the entire assemblage,
a colander and a jug, both from the Eyrie. The other ceramics were small sherds that could not be
identified past flatware or hollowware. Thus the answer to this question can only go as far as
ware type.
The majority of the ceramics were undecorated whiteware. This goes along with the
simple ideal that was part of Brook Farm. The assemblage was mostly whiteware (71%) and
yellow ware (12%), these two ceramic types were fairly new compared to the pearlware that was
readily available. The whiteware was further divided into decorated and undecorated, 90% was
undecorated and 10% was decorated. The Brook Farmers were using an overwhelming amount
of undecorated whiteware. The Brook Farmers stressed simplicity in their community, the
undecorated ceramics are part of that. It is likely that since these two buildings were residences
Figure 15. Colander from Eyrie Interior (Left) and Exterior (Right).
Figure 15: Colander from Cottage Interior (Left) and Exterior (Right)
66
that there were ceramics brought in by the boarders and guests. Members would have also
brought in new ceramics. The Ripley’s may have purchased ceramics for the community when
they moved in; new members most likely brought their own ceramics when they moved into the
community.
The large amounts of newer ceramics is likely because those starting members, the
Ripley’s, Charles Dana, Nathaniel Hawthorn, and others were not poor members of society.
These beginning members were able to bring their own property to Brook Farm. They would
have been able to afford whiteware and yellow ware in their own lives and thus able to bring
these items to their homes at Brook Farm.
Figure 16. Whiteware Jug Rim from the Eyrie.
Figure 16: Whiteware Jug Rim from the Eyrie
67
Brook Farmers were using undecorated whiteware for the majority of their ceramics,
along with yellowware, which is a utilitarian ware. There was a low level of decorated or
expensive ceramics such as porcelain, only 1% of the assemblage, this is indicative of the
simplicity that was stressed in the Brook Farm community.
Figure 17. Re-fit Hand Painted Floral Print Rim.
Figure 17: Re-fit Hand Painted Floral Print Rim
Figure 18. Blue Transferprinted whiteware.
68
How does the Cottage assemblage compare to the Eyrie Assemblage?
The Brook Farm assemblage discussed as whole in the previous section was made of two
different areas for analysis; the Eyrie and the Cottage. The Brook Farm areas were both
residential and contained different ceramic assemblages. The Cottage contained whiteware
(76%), creamware (10%), pearlware (9%), yellowware (1%), redware (3%), and porcelain (1%)(
Figure 7). The Eyrie contained whiteware (62%), yellowware (31%), pearlware (5%), redware
(1%), stoneware (1%), and unidentified (2%) (see Figure 4).
The chi square test was used to determine if the difference in ceramics at each location
was significant. For both the sherd count and the vessel count the ceramics are statistically
dependent on the area that they came from, beyond a 98% confidence level. This means that the
ceramics at the Eyrie and the Ceramics at the Cottage provide are different. The difference is
Figure 19. Sample of undecorated whiteware, majority of
Brook Farm assemblage.
Figure 19: Sample of undecorated whiteware, majority of Brook
Farm assemblage
Figure 17: Blue Transfer Printed whiteware from the Cottage
Figure 17: Blue Transfer Printed whiteware from the Cottage
69
caused by the people who stayed at these two buildings. The people living at these two building
had different assemblages.
The difference was likely due to who was living at the Eyrie and who was living at the
Cottage. The Eyrie was the residence of the Ripley year round, with guest and boarders that they
invited into their home. The Cottage was the home of boarding students and guests, not people
who stayed the entire time at Brook Farm. The residences of both buildings were different and
thus they had the difference assemblages. It is interesting to see the Cottage contained porcelain
artifacts and the Eyrie did not. The porcelain in the Cottage assemblage likely was caused by
guests bringing in their own ceramics, maybe even just a tea cup.
Visitors and boarders with the Ripley’s at the Eyrie were few and far between. The
Cottage was a constant place for older boarders and guests to the farm.. These visitors, although
they supported their friend were not committed to his cause and community. They would have
perhaps brought a tea cup from home. Same with boarders, they would likely bring some
comforts from home to their new school and room.
How does this assemblage compare to a non-utopian assemblage? Is the Brook Farm
assemblage different than a non-utopian site from the same time period?
The Tremont Street Housing Site was an assemblage made from a working class area in
Roxbury Massachusetts. This site had a total of 1389 ceramic sherds in the assemblages. There
majority was whiteware at (63%), with porcelain (8%),Rockingham (7%), pearlware (7%),
redware (6%), yellowware (4%), and stoneware (5%) (Figure 13). This assemblage was tested
using a chi-square to determine if it was statistically different from the Brook Farm assemblage.
The result was a 99% confidence level that there is a dependence of the ceramics to sites. The
vessels were also taken into consideration for analysis, Brook Farm had a total of 57 vessels and
70
Tremont Street Housing had a total of 166 vessels. These vessel counts were taken from the
Tremont Street Housing Report and calculated using rims and bases to determine Brook Farm
vessel count. The chi-square result was a 99.99% confidence level that the vessel types were
dependent on the site they came from. Further analysis was conducted comparing decorated and
undecorated whiteware by with whiteware sherd count. The whiteware sherd count provided a
99.99% confidence level that the decoration of the whiteware was dependent of the site it came
from.
The Brook Farm site and the Tremont Street Housing site comparison shows that the two
sites are different. The ceramics are different both at a vessel and sherd level. The Brook Farm
site had more undecorated whiteware which may be part of living in a utopia, having simple
material goods to focus on nature. The Tremont Street Housing site reflects a non-utopian
example of Boston life and material culture. There is much more decorated whiteware, and more
varied ceramics in general, there is creamware, pearlware, yellowware, rockingham, redware,
stoneware and porcelain (Figure 9). The ideology of Brook Farm focused on the simple life,
commitment to nature and education, that focus is reflected in their ceramics. The outside Boston
community is reflected in the Tremont Street Housing site, many different concerns are part of
their purchases.
Conclusion
The analysis has provided quite a bit of information to what was going on at Brook Farm.
There is a difference between the Cottage and Eyrie each area had a unique assemblage. This is
also true for Brook Farm and the Tremont Street Housing site. There is a different assemblage at
each of the sites. The Cottage and Eyrie were different because different community members
used different ceramics. The guests and boarders of the Cottage made the ceramic assemblages
71
slightly more diverse than the Eyrie. These differences prove that the different members brought
in some of their ceramics and each residence likely had different artifacts.
The comparison with the Tremont Street Housing site has also provided useful results;
there is a significant difference between the two assemblages. This helps to solidify Brook Farm
as unique from non-utopian sites. The consumer choice of the members of Brook Farmer were
different from the residents of the comparative site. The majority of plain whiteware from Brook
Farm supports the simple ideals of a utopian community.
Future Research
This analysis is preliminary and produces more question than answers for the Brook
Farm assemblage. The Cottage and Eyrie assemblages have been catalogued and analyzed but
there are other artifacts in the assemblage. There are building materials, glass, possible toys, and
other small finds. The metal artifacts are deteriorating but it is worth trying to determine what is
left for analysis. There are also several other buildings at the Brook Farm location, the Hive, a
large communal building, the workshop, the outer barns, and the print shop. All of these building
contain different artifacts and different information about Brook Farm as a whole.
The research questions have been answered, yet there are many more questions to be
asked is; How does Brook Farm compare with other Fourierist communities? How does Brook
Farm compare with more diverse non-utopian sites? What other artifacts are at Brook Farm?
What can be said about the entire site, all of the occupations? There are many different questions
that can be asked of the Brook Farm artifacts. This research has allowed Brook Farm to be
noticed once more and opened it for further research projects.
There is a Native American component, Camp Andrew from the Civil War, the Roxbury
Almshouse, and the Martin Luther King Jr. Orphanage. Each of these different components has
72
their own assemblage that can be analyzed and should be for further information and understand
of how these sites are related and separated in time. The Almshouse would be an interesting site
for those interested in small find. There almshouse and orphanage both contain a large number of
children’s toys, while Camp Andrew contained buttons and military artifacts.
The Brook Farm site is much larger than this analysis has provided, but this is just the
beginning of the research. There can be much more conducted on the Brook Farm site. This is a
ceramic analysis, but it is also attempt to contribute to the knowledge that is being held in
repositories throughout the country.
73
References Cited
Burton , Katherine
1939 Paradise Planters: The Story of Brook Farm. Longmans, Green and Co. New
York.
Charles, Sheila and Woodward Openo
1987 The Tremont Street Housing Site, Roxbury, Massachusetts Reports on the Phase
III Archaeological Data Recovery. For the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority Southwest Corridor Project.
Codman, John Thomas
1894 Brook Farm: Historical and Personal Memoirs. Arena Publishing Company,
Boston, MA.
Curtis, Edith Roelker
1961 A Season in Utopia: the Story of Brook Farm. Thomas Nelson and Sons, New
York.
Delano, Sterling F.
2004 Brook Farm: The Dark Side of Utopia. The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, Cambridge MA.
Francis, Richard
1997 Transcendental Utopias: Individual and Community at Brook Farm, Fruitlands,
and Walden. Cornel University, Ithaca, NY.
Frothingham, Octavius, Brooks
1959 Transcendentalism in New England: A History. Harper & Brothers, NY.
74
Guarneri, Carl J.
1985 Importing Fourierism to America. Journal of the History of Ideas 43(4): 581-594.
Guarneri, Carl J.
1991 The Utopian Alternative: Fourierism in Nineteenth Century America. Cornell
University Press, Cornell, NY.
Gura, Philip F.
2007 American Transcendentalism: A History. Hill and Wang, NY
Haraszti, Zoltan
1937 The Idyll of Brook Farm: As Revealed by the Unpublished Letters in the Boston
Public Library. Published By the Trustees of the Public Library, Boston MA.
Healey, Joseph F.
2009 Statistics: A Tool for Social Research. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, United
States.
Holloway, Mark
1966 Heavens on Earth: Utopian Communities in America 1680-1880. Dover
Publications Inc. New York.
McGrane, Reginald Charles
1965 The Panic of 1837: Some Financial Problems of the Jacksonian Era. Russell &
Russell Inc., NY.
Pendery, Steven
1991 Archaeological Testing at Brook Farm. Report to the Massachusetts historical
Commission, Boston, from Steven R. Pendery, Boston City Archaeology
Program, Boston MA.
75
Preucel, Robert, W and Steven R. Pendery
2006 Envisioning Utopias: Transcendental and Fourierist Landscapes at Brook farm,
West Roxbury , Massachusetts. Historical Archaeology 40(1):6-19.
Purser, Margaret
1992 Consumption as Communication in the Nineteenth-Century Paradise Valley
Nevada. Historical Archaeology 26(3):105-116.
Rose, Anne C
1981 Transcendentalism as a Social Movement, 1830-1850. Yale University Press, New
Haven CT.
Rousseau, Peter L.
2002 Jacksonian Monetary Policy, Specie Flows, and the Panic of 1837. The Journal of
Economic History 62 (2): 457-488.
Van Buren and Tarlow
2006 The Interpretative Potential of Utopian Settlements. Historical Archaeology (40):
1-5.
Van Wormer, Stephen R. and G. Timothy Gross
2006 Archaeological Identification of an Idiosyncratic Lifestyle: Excavation and
Analysis of the Theosophical Society dumb in San Diego, California. Historical
Archaeology (40):100-118.
Voss, Barbara L and Rebecca Allen
2010 A Guide to Ceramic MNV Calculations Qualitative Analysis. Technical Briefs in
Historical Archaeology (5):1-9.
76
APPENDIX A
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
N0 W0 Str1 Lev4
4 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
unidentified
food/beverage
service No glaze
N0 W0 Str1 Lev4
2 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service transfer print transfer print green 1830 1860 1845 Transfer printed whiteware.
pink Exterior Exterior
N0 W0 Str1 Lev4
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware rim
N0 W0 Str1 Lev4
10 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
commerce
seal 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware body fragments
N0 W0 Str1 Lev4
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805 Plain pearlware rim
N0 W0 Str1 Lev4
56 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Creamware, lighter yellow glaze
food/beverage
service 1775 1820 1798 plain creamware body
N0 W0 Str1 Lev4
6 vessel, flat
base Earthenware, refined
Creamware, lighter yellow glaze
food/beverage
service 1775 1820 1798 Has maker mark Virginian, Made in USA A 42 N? 8
N0 W0 Str1 Lev4
8 vessel, flat
rim Earthenware, refined
Creamware, shell-edge
food/beverage
service luster 1790 1800 1795 Scalloped edged creamware with luster decoration along the rim.
Interior
77
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
N0 W10 -- Level Str3Lev1
2 vessel, indeterminate
handle Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, molded
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain, whiteware handles
N0 W10 -- Level Str3Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Porcelain food/beverage
service decal decal decal black 1825 1900 1863 brown pink Interior Interior Interior
N0 W10 -- Level Str3Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Porcelain food/beverage
service painted blue 1800 1830 1815 Handpainted blue porcelain scalloped rim.
Exterior
N0 W10 -- Level Str3Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain yellowware rim
N0 W10 -- Level Str3Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Burnt yellowware body fragment
N0 W10 -- Level Str3Lev1
3 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware rim
N0 W10 -- Level Str3Lev1
25 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware body fragments
N0 W10 -- Level Str3Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service transfer print blue 1830 1900 1860 Blue transfer printed whiteware body
Exterior
N0 W10 Str1 LEv1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Stoneware brown, salt-glazed
food/beverage
Storage Albany slip Stoneware, salt glazed and Albany slipped
Interior
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service molded 1780 1830 1805 Sprig Mold, Floral
Exterior
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, hollow
body Porcelain food/beverage
service molded 1640 1750 1695 Dehua White china
Exterior
78
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Porcelain food/beverage
service stenciled painted red 1750 1900 1825 green Exterior Exterior
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, hollow
body Porcelain food/beverage
service other blue 1800 1830 1815 Littler's Blue porcelain
Exterior
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
2 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, flat
rim Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805 Plain Scalloped pearlware rim
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
3 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 colander rim Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
preparation
1780 1820 1805
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service transfer print blue 1830 1900 1865 Exterior
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
4 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
2 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecora
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Scalloped edges
79
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
ted
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
2 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, molded
food/beverage
service mottled 1800 1840 1820 Molded with small raised dots on along edge. Scalloped edges
Exterior
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
unidentified
food/beverage
service 0 0 burned
N0 W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, hollow
base Earthenware, refined
Whiteware
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860
N0 W15 -- Level Str3Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Creamware, lighter yellow glaze
food/beverage
service 1775 1820 1798 Plain Creamware, rim
Both
N0 W15 -- Level Str3Lev1
11 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, coarse
Redware, Lead Glazed
food/beverage
preparation
Lead Glazed Redware
Interior
N0 W15 -- Level Str3Lev1
15 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware, body
Both
N0 W15 -- Level Str3Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware rim
Both
N0 W15 -- Level Str3Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service transfer print blue 1830 1900 1865 Blue transferprinted whiteware, nature scene, piece has stem with leaves.
Exterior
N0 W15 -- Level Str3Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service transfer print purple/manganese
1830 1900 1865 Purple transferprint, on the edge of the rim.
Interior
N0 W15 - 1 vessel, body Earthenwa Whitewar food/bev service transfer print blue 1830 1900 1865 Blue Exterior
80
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
- Level Str3Lev1
indeterminate
re, refined e, transfer printed
erage transferprinted body, whiteware
N0 W15 -- Level Str3Lev2
14 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, coarse
Redware, lead glazed
food/beverage
storage Plain, lead glazed redware
Interior
N0 W15 -- Level Str3Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, Transfer Printed
food/beverage
service transfer print blue 1830 1900 1865 Floral and possibly other design. All blue
Exterior
N0 W15 -- Level Str3Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service transfer print blue 1830 1900 1865 Small, whitware
Exterior
N0 W15 -- Level Str3Lev2
16 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware
N0 W15 -- Level Str3Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Refits with Lot# 58105
Exterior
N0 W15 Str1 Lev1
1 vessel, tableware
base Earthenware, refined
Ironstone food/beverage
service transfer print brown 1840 1930 1885 Crossmends with lot #57041 and lot #57042
Exterior
N0 W15 Str1 Lev1
1 vessel, hollow
rim Earthenware, refined
Ironstone food/beverage
service transfer print brown 1840 1930 1885 crossmends with lot #57040 and lot #57042
Exterior
N0 W15 Str1 Lev1
1 vessel, hollow
base Earthenware, refined
Ironstone food/beverage
service transfer print brown 1840 1930 1885 Crossmends with lot #57040 and lot #57041
Exterior
N0 W15 Str1 Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
Porcelain food/beverage
consumption
painted blue 1750 2000 1875 Overglazed porcelain
Exterior
N0 W15 Str1 Lev1
3 vessel, indeterminate
body Porcelain Not Assigned
painted black 1750 2000 1875 Polychrome Porcelain, hand-
blue red Exterior
81
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
painted, green, blue,black, red, pink
N0 W15 Str1 Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
base Porcelain Not Assigned
painted stenciled green 1750 2000 1875 Likley same vessel or set as lot #57044. underglazed a hand painted and stenciled
red pink Exterior
N0 W15 Str1 Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Ironstone food/beverage
service transfer print blue 1840 1930 1885 Blue tranfer print flower. Evidence of burining
Interior
N0 W15 Str1 Lev1
1 vessel, flat
base Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 Plain ironstone, likley plate.
Both
N0 W15 Str1 Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
Not Assigned
1820 1900 1860 Plain Ironstone, no decoration. Just glaze
N0 W15 Str1 Lev1
1 vessel, hollow
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
preparation
1780 1830 1805 Collander, crossmends with Lot# 57050 rim
N0 W15 Str1 Lev1
1 vessel, hollow
rim Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
preparation
1780 1830 1805 Plain, crossmends with lot #57049. Collander
N0 W20 -- Level Str1Lev3
0
N0 W20 Str1 Lev1
2 vessel, indeterminate
foot Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860 Plain Whiteware Base/Foot Rin Fragment
82
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
N0 W20 Str1 Lev1
8 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860 Plain Whiteware, Small Fragments of the Body
N0 W20 Str1 Lev2
3 fragment body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860
N0 W20 Str1 Lev2
3 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860 Bases/Foot Rings, Likely Flatwares
N0 W20 Str1 Lev2
1 vessel, hollow
base Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860
N0 W20 Str1 Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
foot Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860 Foot Ring, 4 Pieces Crossmended
N0 W20 Str1 Lev3
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
consumption
transfer print blue 1832 1839 1836 Exterior
N0 W20 Str1 Lev3
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, flow blue
food/beverage
consumption
flow blue blue 1844 1860 1852 Exterior
N0 W20 Str1 Lev3
11 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860 Small Body Fragments, Plain
N0 W20 Str1 Lev3
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860
N0 W20 Str1 Lev3
1 vessel, indeterminate
foot Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860 Foot Ring
N0 W20 Str1 Lev3
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860
N0 W20 Str1 Lev3
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, sponged
food/beverage
consumption
sponge gray 1820 1900 1860 Unknown locaton, maybe interior, exterior or
83
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
both, only has glaze on one side of fragment
N0 W20 Str1 Lev3
2 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
consumption
transfer print blue 1820 1900 1860 Interior
N0 W25 Str2 Lev2
2 vessel, indeterminate
midsection
Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware, no definin marks.
N0 W25 Str3 Lev1
2 vessel, indeterminate
Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860 Plain Whiteware, No Idenifying Marks
N0 W30 str2lv1
9 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
service plain Both
N0 W30 Str 2 LEv1
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
consumption
1779 1820 1800
N0 W30 Str 2 LEv1
1 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
Creamware, deeper yellow glaze
food/beverage
consumption
1750 1820 1785
N0 W30 str2lv1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
service sponge Exterior
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
20 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
2 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805
N0 W5 -- 13 vessel, rim Earthenwa Pearlwar food/bev service 1780 1830 1805
84
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
Level Str2Lev1
indeterminate
re, refined e, undecorated
erage
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
24 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
unidentified
Not Assigned
No glaze
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, hollow
body Stoneware food/beverage
storage 1820 1900 1860 Both
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
2 vessel, hollow
rim Porcelain food/beverage
service 1800 1900 1850
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
14 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
323 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware, small pieces could be same vessel or multiple.
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
10 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware base fragments
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, hand painted polychrome
food/beverage
service painted painted purple/manganese
1820 1900 1860 Purple and green hand painted body fragment.
green Exterior Exterior
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
3 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undentified
food/beverage
service luster brown 1790 1840 1815 Annular luster deccoration on the rim.
Exterior
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
5 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, sponged
food/beverage
service sponge blue 1820 1900 1860 Blue sponge decorated whiteware rims.
Interior
N0 W5 -- Level
25 vessel, indetermi
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware,
food/beverage
service sponge blue 1820 1900 1860 Blue sponge decorated
Interior
85
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
Str2Lev1 nate sponged whiteware, body fragments
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
5 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, stenciled
food/beverage
service transfer print blue 1820 1900 1860 Floral decoration, blue transfer printed, whiteware.
Exterior
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
11 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service transfer print blue 1820 1900 1860 Blue transferprinted whiteware.
Interior
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undentified
food/beverage
service luster purple/manganese
1790 1840 1815 Annular luster decoration on whiteware.
Exterior
N0 W5 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, hand painted polychrome
food/beverage
service luster painted brown 1790 1840 1815 Hand painted whiteware with annular luster decoration on rim.
orange Interior Interior
N0 W5 -- Level Str3Lev1
7 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware body fragments
N0 W5 -- Level Str3Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undentified
food/beverage
service luster purple/manganese
1790 1840 1815 Annular purple luster decoration.
Interior
N0 W5 -- Level Str3Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
unidentified
food/beverage
Not Assigned
No Glaze, cearmic unknown
N0W15 -- Level Str2Lev1
2 vessel, flat
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undentified
food/beverage
service decal decal pink 1890 1900 1895 green Exterior Exterior
N1 W14 Lev1
2 vessel, hollow
rim Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, hand painted
food/beverage
service painted 1780 1830 1805 Crossment, Floral hand-painted,
Exterior
86
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
polychrome
Large jar.
N1 W14 Lev1
1 bottle, indeterminate
rim Stoneware food/beverage
consumption
1820 1900 1860 Rim/Shoulder piece
N1 W14 Lev2
4 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service molded clear 1780 1830 1805 These pieces are the same vessel, 2 Crossmend, Likely a bowl, a molded fan pattern on exterior.
Exterior
N1 W14 Str1 Lev1
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
1780 1820 1805 Possibly Crossmend with Lot49357 N1 W14 Ft1 Lev1
N1 W14 Str1 Lev2
6 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
Not Assigned
1780 1820 1805 Small, glazed fragments
N1 W14 Str1 Lev2
2 vessel, hollow
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, hand painted polychrome
food/beverage
service 1780 1820 1805 Crossmends with Lot 49357
N1 W14 Str1 Lev3
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
storage 1830 1900 1865
N1 W14 Str1 Lev3
4 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
consumption
1780 1830 1805 May crossmend with lot 48299, N1W14 Ft1 Lev2
N1 W14 Str1 Lev3
2 fragment body Earthenware, refined
unidentified
food/beverage
consumption
0 0 Burned/Iron Stained, One or more
87
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
may crossment with 48299 and 49360.
N1 W14 Str1 Lev3
1 fragment rim Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
consumption
1780 1830 1805
N1 W14 Str1 Lev3
1 vessel, hollow
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, hand painted polychrome
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805 Crossmends with Lot 49357. N1 W14 Ft1 Lev1
N1 W14 Str1 Lev3
1 fragment rim Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
storage 1830 1900 1865 May Crossmend with Lot 49359 N1 W14 Ft1 Lev3
S1 W11 Str 2 Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
preparation
1830 1900 1865 Undecorated, No Glaze, Buff Bodied
S1 W17 Str1 lev 4/5
76 vessel, hollow
near intact
Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 25%-50% 1820 1900 1860 Made of two different level. Most of rim and body, all refit. Thus put in one bag.
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 fragment body Earthenware, coarse
Redware unidentified
food/beverage
preparation
none Undecorated Redware body fragments
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
12 fragment body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
none clear 1820 1900 1860 Undecorated Ironston
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, unidentified
food/beverage
consumption
none 1780 1830 1805 Body Fragemnt, no decoration, has iron statining
Both
88
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
2 fragment rim Earthenware, refined
whiteware, unidentified
food/beverage
consumption
Annular blue 1820 1900 1860 Annular, yellow rim with blue annular.
yellow Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
whiteware unidentified
food/beverage
consumption
Annular Annular other blue 1820 1900 1860 Body, likely part of lot # 56994. With evidence of more decoreation, black.
yellow black Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
preparation
sprig molded
yellow 1830 1900 1865 Sprig Molding, leaf.
Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
28 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
storage 1820 1900 1860 Plain yellowware body fragments. Some crossments. Likley same vessel as lot #56996 sprig mold.
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
storage plain yellow 1820 1900 1860 Plain yellowware
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
8 fragment body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
plain clear 1820 1900 1860 Plain ironstone
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 fragment rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undentified
food/beverage
consumption
Annular Annular blue 1820 1900 1860 Rim and crossmends with lot #56994
yellow Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
2 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undentified
food/beverage
consumption
Annular Annular Annular blue 1820 1900 1860 Body Fragment that is likley part of Lot #57003 and 56995 and #5664.
yellow black Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 fragment body Earthenware, coarse
Redware, lead
food/beverage
preparation
plain Plain Body, Likley part of
Both
89
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
glazed lot #57006
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 fragment rim Earthenware, coarse
Redware, lead glazed
food/beverage
preparation
plain Rim fragment, likley part of lot #57005
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
15 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
service plain 1840 1900 1860 Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
3 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
service plain 1840 1900 1860 Two are crossmended, they both crossmend with lot #57294
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
8 vessel, indeterminate
foot Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
service plain 1840 1900 1860 crossmends with base sherd in lot #57292
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
7 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, mocha
food/beverage
service Mocha 1830 1900 1865 Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
unidentified
Not Assigned
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
3 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
service plain 1840 1900 1860 Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
4 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
2 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, mocha
food/beverage
service Mocha 1830 1900 1865 Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, banded
food/beverage
service incised blue 1830 1900 1865 Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
4 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 Both
90
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
14 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 vessel, indeterminate
foot Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, mocha
food/beverage
service Mocha 1830 1900 1865 Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
15 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
2 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, hand painted polychrome
food/beverage
service painted green 1820 1900 1860 likely a leaf Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
7 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, mocha
food/beverage
service Mocha 1830 1900 1865 Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
5 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, mocha
food/beverage
service Annular blue 1830 1900 1865 Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
3 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
1 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
2 vessel, indeterminate
handle Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860
S1 W17 Str1 Lev4
40 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860
S1 W17 1 fragment body Earthenwa Pearlwar food/bev consumpt plain 1780 1820 1805 Undecorate Both
91
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
Str1 Lev5 re, refined e, undecorated
erage ion d Pearlware body fragment
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
2 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
consumption
plain 1830 1900 1865 Plain yellow ware. Part of str1 lev4?
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
preparation
other green 1830 1900 1865 Plain on one side with green on the other side
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
2 fragment body Earthenware, refined
unidentified
Not Assigned
No glaze, just the earthenware body
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 fragment rim Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
plain 1820 2000 1860 Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
20 fragment body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
plain 1820 1900 1860 Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, sponged
food/beverage
consumption
sponge red 1830 1871 1851 Whiteware, small evidence of red sponge decoration
Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 vessel, hollow
rim Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
preparation
plain 1830 1900 1865 Plain yellowware Rim.
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
3 vessel, hollow
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
storage 1830 1900 1865 Plain yellow ware. Likley same vessel as lot # 57095
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 vessel, indeterminate
Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service 1830 1900 1865 Plain whiteware, evidence of uring, and iron leaching.
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, coarse
Redware, Lead Glazed
food/beverage
storage plain Plain, lead glazed redware,
Exterior
S1 W17 18 vessel, body Earthenwa whitewar food/bev service plain 1820 1900 1860 Plain Both
92
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
Str1 Lev5 indeterminate
re, refined e erage Ironstone, Some crossmended
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 vessel, indeterminate
foot Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 Foot of a round vessel. Possibly goes plain ironsont body sherds from Lot # 57235
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
0 Not Assigned
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 Crossmended with body sherd from lot #57235, likley part of same vessel as lot #57239
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, mocha
food/beverage
storage Annular Mocha yellow 1830 1900 1965 Mocha , yellow ware. Possibley crossfits with other annular mocha where from same pit.
blue Exterior Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
27 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 Ironstone, plain, Most crossmended.
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
service plain 1820 1900 1860 base, likley same vessel as lot# 57263
Both
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
unidentified
Not Assigned
No indicative
93
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
glaze. Evidence of buring.
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, mocha
food/beverage
service Mocha green 1830 1900 1865 Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, mocha
food/beverage
service plain Annular 1830 1900 1865 blue Both Exterior
S1 W17 Str1 Lev5
4 vessel, hollow
rim Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service incised blue 1830 1990 1865 4 pieces crossmended, contains B19.0295 and B19.0334
Exterior
S1 W17 Str2 Lev1
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
unidentified
Not Assigned
plain, no glaze just body
S1 W17 Str2 Lev1
3 fragment body Earthenware, refined
whiteware
food/beverage
consumption
plain 1820 1900 1860 Both
S1 W17 Str2 Lev2
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
storage plain 1830 1900 1865 Plain yellow ware
Both
S1 W17 Str2 Lev2
1 fragment rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
consumption
transfer print blue 1820 1900 1860 Blue Transfer print. Not large enough to find pattern type
Interior
S1 W17 Str2 Lev3
2 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
storage plain yellow 1830 1900 1865 Plain Yellowware, body fragment
Exterior
S1 W17 Str2 Lev3
1 fragment body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
consumption
plain clear 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware body sherd.
Both
S10 W15 1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, unidentifi
food/beverage
service other brown Exterior
94
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
ed
S10 W15 -- Level Str1Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service Plain whiteware,
S10 W15 -- Level Str4Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware rim
S10 W15 -- Level Str4Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware body
S10 W15 -- Level Str4Lev1
2 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service transfer print painted pink 1820 1900 1860 Transfer printed flowers pink and yellow, with hand painting over glaze, green.
green Interior Interior
S10 W15 -- Level Str4Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Rockingham-type
food/beverage
service 1812 1900 1856 Rockingham
S10 W15 -- Level Str4Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
foot Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1779 1820 1800 Plain, pearlware, foot ring.
S10 W15 -- Level Str4Lev2
3 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1779 1820 1800 Plain pearlware, body fragments
S10 W15 -- Level Str5Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undentified
food/beverage
service Annular pink Base, with pink annular decoration around the footring.
Exterior
S10 W15 -- Level Str5Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service transfer print black Black tranferprint
Exterior
95
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
S15 W0 -- Level Str2Lev1
2 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
service 1830 1900 1865 Plain Yellowware
S15 W0 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Creamware, lighter yellow glaze
food/beverage
service 1750 1820 1815 Plain Creamware body fragment
S15 W0 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1820 1805 Plain pearlware rim fragment
S15 W0 -- Level Str2Lev1
2 vessel, hollow
handle Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1820 1805 Plain pearlware handle
S15 W0 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1820 1805 Palin pearlware body fragment
S15 W0 -- Level Str2Lev1
11 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Palin whiteware body fragment
S15 W0 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware rim
S15 W0 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, hand painted polychrome
food/beverage
service painted green 1820 1900 1860 Handpainted whiteware base. Interior green painting.
Interior
S15 W0 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service transfer print transfer print pink 1820 1900 1860 Tranfer printed floral, whiteware
green Interior Interior
S20 W5 -- Level St12Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
unidentified
Not Assigned
No glaze
S20 W5 - 5 vessel, body Earthenwa unidentifi Not Burned
96
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
- Level St12Lev2
indeterminate
re, refined ed Assigned ceramics, unidentified.
S20 W5 -- Level St12Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Rockingham-type
food/beverage
service molded Rockingham Exterior
S20 W5 -- Level St12Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, mocha
food/beverage
service Mocha blue 1795 1830 1860 Exterior
S20 W5 -- Level St12Lev2
8 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860
S20 W5 -- Level St12Lev2
3 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware rims
S20 W5 -- Level St12Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Stoneware food/beverage
service Brown Salt Glazed stoneware
S20 W5 -- Level St12Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Porcelain food/beverage
service Plain porcelain rim
S20 W5 -- Level Str1Lev3
2 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, transfer printed
food/beverage
service transfer print black 1820 1900 1860 Black transfer printed
Exterior
S20 W5 -- Level Str1Lev3
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware.
S20 W5 -- Level Str1Lev3
2 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware rim
S20 W5 -- Level Str1Lev3
1 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware base
S5 W0 2 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecora
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware body
97
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
ted fragments
S5 W0 1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware rim
S5 W0 -- Level Str1Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Porcelain English porcelain
food/beverage
service 1750 1900 1825 Plain porcelain
S5 W0 -- Level Str1Lev2
3 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware body fragments
S5 W0 -- Level Str1Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
base Porcelain English porcelain
food/beverage
service 1750 1900 1825 Plain porcelain base
S5 W0 -- Level Str1Lev3
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805 Plain pearlware.
S5 W0 -- Level Str1Lev3
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Yellow ware, plain
food/beverage
storage 1820 1900 1860 Plain yellowware.
S5 W0 -- Level Str2Lev2
7 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805 Plain pearlware body
S5 W0 -- Level Str2Lev2
3 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plian whiteware body fragments
S5 W0 -- Level Str2Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Creamware, lighter yellow glaze
food/beverage
service 1775 1820 1798 Plain creamware body fragment
S5 W0 -- Level Str2Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, sponged
food/beverage
service sponge blue and manganese
1830 1871 1850 Sponge decorated whiteware rim fragment
Both
S5 W0 -- Level Str2Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecora
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805 Plain pearlware rim fragment
98
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
ted
S5 W0 -- Level Str2Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
base Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805 Plain pearlware base fragment
S5 W0 -- Level Str2Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Creamware, lighter yellow glaze
food/beverage
service 1775 1820 1798 Plain creamware rim
S5 W10 -- Level Str2Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undentified
food/beverage
service decal pink 1890 1900 1895 Interior
S5 W10 -- Level Str2Lev2
2 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805 Plain pearlware body fragments
S5 W10 -- Level Str2Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Pearlware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1780 1830 1805 Plain pearlware rim fragment
S55 W20 Str1lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Ironstone food/beverage
service 1840 1900 1870 Plain Ironstone
Test Pit 1 -- Level Str1Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Creamware, lighter yellow glaze
food/beverage
service A sprig mold from a creamware vessel
Test Pit 1 -- Level Str2Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service Plain whiteware body fragment
Test Pit 2 -- Level Str1Lev1
1 vessel, indeterminate
rim Earthenware, refined
Creamware, lighter yellow glaze
food/beverage
service molded 1766 1820 1793 Molded creamware rim
Exterior
Test Pit 2 -- Level Str1Lev2
1 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, hand painted polychrome
food/beverage
service painted painted painted blue 1830 1900 1865 Hand painted whiteware ploychrome, black, red,
black red Exterior Exterior Exterior
99
Cottage and Eyrie Ceramic Catalogue
ProvID Quantity Object Portion Material 2 Material 3
Function 1
Function 2
Decoration 1
Decoration2
Decoration 3
Decoration Color 1
Mold Pattern
Begin Date
End Date
Mean Ceramic Date
Comments Decoration Color 2
Decoration Color 3
Location of Decoration 1
Location of Decoration 2
Location of Decoration 3
blue, and black
Test Pit 2 -- Level Str1Lev2
7 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware body fragments
Test Pit 2 -- Level Str1Lev3
5 vessel, indeterminate
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, undecorated
food/beverage
service 1820 1900 1860 Plain whiteware body fragments
Test Pit 2 -- Level Str1Lev3
1 vessel, hollow
body Earthenware, refined
Whiteware, hand painted polychrome
food/beverage
service painted green 1820 1900 1860 Hand painted polychrome
Exterior
1261
