Northeast Historical Archaeology Volume 31 Special Issue: Historic Preservation and the Archaeology of Nineteenth-Century Farmsteads in the Article 6 Northeast

2001 Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl: Salvage Archaeology at the Johannes Luyster House, A Dutch-American Farm Gerard P. Scharfenberger

Richard F. Veit

Follow this and additional works at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Scharfenberger, Gerard P. and Veit, Richard F. (2001) "Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl: Salvage Archaeology at the Johannes Luyster House, A Dutch-American Farm," Northeast Historical Archaeology: Vol. 30-31 31, Article 6. https://doi.org/10.22191/neha/vol31/iss1/6 Available at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol31/iss1/6

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in Northeast Historical Archaeology by an authorized editor of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl: Salvage Archaeology at the Johannes Luyster House, A Dutch-American Farm

Cover Page Footnote Several individuals provided invaluable assistance in the preparation of this article. Sherene Baugher encouraged our participation in this volume and read earlier versions of the manuscript. Her insights and critiques of these drafts ew re extremly beneficial in completing the article. Meta Janowitz and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments which helped us steer clear of possible pitfalls and assisted us in refining the paper. Monmouth University's Department of History and Anthropology supported the project through its 1998 field school in archaeology. Mary Metzger's meticulous analysis of the faunal collection fleshed out our understanding of what the Luysters were raising and eating in the early 19th century. the Archaeological Society of New Jersey provided a generous research grant to assist with the aforementioned faunal analysis. Joseph hammond graciously shared his knowledge of New Jersey's Dutch settlers and particularly the Luyster family. Mary Lou Strong of the Middleton Landmarks Commission gave continual support. Lee ellen Griffith, Director of the Monmouth County historical Commission allowed free access to the Luyster family heirlooms in their collections. carol Megill summed up the results of her research on the family Bibles at the Monmouth County Historical Association for us. Maryann Kiernan from the Monmouth County Archives assisted with the excavation and processing of the artifacts. Robert Tucher is to be thanked for his stunning artifact photographs. Zachary Davis for assistance with the graphics. Dan Sivilich helped with mapping the site. Alice Gerard helped interpret the dendrochronology samples. Robert Northerner, Scott ieW czorek, and Michael Gall regularly volunteered their time to help excavate the site. Michael Gall, Barabara Nitzberg and Jill Principi assisted with cleaning and processing the artifacts. Our spouses, Geraldine Scharfenberger and Teresa Veit, showed considerable patience as we spent Saturdays and off-hours excavating at the Luyster house and analyzing the collection. Of course, any errors of fact or omission remain our own.

This article is available in Northeast Historical Archaeology: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol31/iss1/6 Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 30-31, 2001-2002 53

Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl: Salvage Archaeology at the Johannes Luyster House, A Dutch-American Farm

Gerard P. Scharfenberger and Richard F. Veit Salvage excavations at the Johannes Luyster Farm (28Mo261) ·revealed extensive archaeological deposits reflecting three centuries of life on a Dutch-American farm. These deposits, when taken in conjunc­ tion with the architecture of the house and surviving primary documents, provide a glimpse of the changing lifestyles of the Jersey Dutch during the 19th century. Although the Luysters maintained some aspects of their ethnic heritage, they also participated in many aspects of the larger society. Case studies of individual sites such as this one are a first step towards understanding the interrelationships between national trends and their local manifestations. Furthermore, they highlight the importance of studying 19th-century, rural, agrarian sites. Les fouilles de sauvetage menees ii la ferme de Johannes Luyster (28Mo261) ont revele des depots importants refletant trois siecles d' occupation sur une ferme habitee par des Americains d' origine neer­ landaise. Ces depots, lorsque etudies en parallele avec I'architecture de Ia maison et les documents originaux toujours en existence, nous permettent de jeter un coup d' rei/ sur les changements dans les modes de vies des habitants du New Jersey d' origine neerlandaise au XIXe siecle. Quoique les Luysters aient conserve cer­ taines caracteristiques de leur patrimoine ethnique, ils ont aussi participe ii plusieurs aspects de la societe en general. Des etudes de cas menees sur des sites individuels tel que celui-ci sont un premier pas vers Ia com­ prehension des rapports mutuels entre les tendances nationales et leurs manifestations locales. De plus, elles soulignent /'importance d'etudier des sites agraires ruraux du XIXe siecle.

Introduction Dutch folk art, including an elaborately On a recent visit to the Holmes painted Kas (FIG. 2) and a charming hanging Hendrickson House, a historic house museum cabinet, left behind an archaeological assem­ in Holmdel, New Jersey, the authors heard a blage very much like those of their English costumed docent deliver an interesting presen­ and Scottish neighbors. Their tables were set tation on the Dutch settlers of Monmouth with matched sets of fashionable plates County. She noted that the English and Dutch imported from Staffordshire, England. They settlers of the region maintained distinct cul­ regularly drank tea and buried their dead tural traditions well into the 19th century. The under sandstone gravemarkers cut in northern docent's presentation, delivered to a receptive New Jersey by artisans participating in the audience, was substantiated by the clearly dis­ New England gravestone carving tradition. If tinctive architecture of this 18th-century not for the house itself, some surviving fur­ Anglo-Dutch structure, and several "Dutch" nishings in the collections of the Monmouth artifacts conspicuously displayed there, County Historical Association, and a single including a large free-standing Kas or cabinet. Dutch-form colander recovered from an early Less than two miles away, in the neighbor­ 19th-century context, there would be no hood of Middletown historically known as archaeologically-derived reason to believe that Holland (FIG. 1), excavations at the Johannes individuals who lived there were of Dutch Luyster house, another Dutch farmstead estab­ descent. This is even more curious given the lished in the 18th century, were revealing a fact that the Luysters, who owned the prop­ rather different picture of life among the Jersey erty from 1717 until 1946 are known to have Dutch during the early 19th century. The been proud of their Dutch heritage and even Luysters, though living in a house that is gen­ participated in groups like the Holland Society erally considered a model of Anglo-Dutch of America (Personal communication, Joseph architecture (Hunton and McCabe 1980-1984: Hammond 1999). 72; Bailey 1968: 405, 406; HABS-NJ-688; Here we examine the contradictions Mandeville 1927: 33), and which was once fur­ between the rhetoric and reality of Dutch life nished with several spectacular pieces of in 19th-century New Jersey. Were Monmouth 54 Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl/ Scharfenberger and Veil

Figure 1. The arrow indicates the location of the Johannes Luyster house (28Mo261) in Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 30-31, 2001-2002 55

sions are tentative, they are a step towards better understand. the changing lives of the Jersey Dutch during the 19th century.

Project Background The Luyster House project is an ongoing . archaeological and historical study of the Johannes Luyster house, formerly located at 199 Holland Road, Middletown, New Jersey. This house is one of a handful of early 18th­ century Dutch houses remaining in northern Monmouth County. Our study began in September 1997, in advance of the imminent removal of the structure, as part of the expan­ sion of AT&T's Middletown, New Jersey facility. The site is on private property, and the construction and expansion of the AT&T com­ plex was undertaken with private funds, thereby precluding any legally mandated cul­ tural resource survey. With the support of the Middletown Landmarks Commission, the authors organ­ Figure 2. A handsomely painted 18th-century Kas or ized a volunteer effort to document the archae­ cabinet associated with the Johannes Luyster house, now curated by the Monmouth County Historical ological deposits suspected to be present on Association. Reproduced courtesy of the Monmouth the site. Although we initially expected only a County Historical Association. short window of opportunity during which the property could be studied, the house remained in its original location until County's Dutch settlers a distinct cultural December of 1998, allowing nearly two years group or did they adopt so many customs of of intermittent excavation, including their neighbors as to be largely indistinguish­ Monmouth University's 1998 field school. We able from the general population? Historian identified and sampled artifact rich deposits Jack Larkin contends that after the Revolution reflecting the nearly three-century long ethnic groups became less important as indi­ Luyster occupation of the property, and recov­ viduals began to consider themselves ered prehistoric artifacts dating from the Mid­ Americans (Larkin 1988). Similarly, historian Archaic through Late Woodland periods. David Stephen Cohen has suggested that after In August, 1997, an agreement was reached the English conquest of New Netherland in between the property's owner and its pur- 1664, Dutch culture was irrevocably changed . chaser, AT&T to preserve the house's architec­ by the influence of the dominant group, and ture. The house was raised from its founda­ the Dutch began a slow, steady acculturation tion, several recent additions were demol­ to English traditions that continued into the ished, and the core of the historic structure late 19th century (Cohen 1992: 73, 74, 179). was moved roughly 1/4 mile where it was Are these theories borne out by the material restored and sold to a new private owner. record at the Luyster house? In answering these questions, we have chosen to focus on History and Architecture of the Luyster two aspects· of the site: the changing architec­ Farm ture of the house itself and a rich 19th-century The date of initial European settlement on deposit, probably associated with an out­ the Luyster tract is unknown, but is likely the kitchen: Although analysis ofthe Luyster very late 17th or early 18th century. Until the house assemblage is ongoing and our conclu- house's recent renovation, the building itself 56 Rethinking the Mengkam-Mixing Bawl/ Scharfenberger and Veit

was marked with a bronze plaque assigning it wood samples taken from floor joists removed a date of 1680. This seems too early, as from the house during its move returned a painstaking historical research by Joseph W. date of 1724 (Personal communication Alice Hammond has determined that Johannes Gerard, September 1999). The structure stood Luyster and his brother-in-law Jan Brower did on a very shallow dry-laid fieldstone founda­ not acquire the property, until January 1, 1717 tion one to two courses deep. The main block (Hammond 1998: 1). Their purchase totaled of the house has no cellar, though a deep cold­ 149 acres. Luyster and Brower, who were orig­ room under an 1862 addition may have been inally from Long Island, farmed the land associated with the earlier portion of the together for 18 years before dividing the prop­ building. erty. Curiously, Johannes Luyster appears in The house's earliest section has shingled the records of the Old Brick Reformed Church sides, a steeply-pitched gable roof, and two in January of 1715, 2 years before purchasing interior end chimneys on the main block (FIG. the Middletown property (Church Record 3). The pitch of the front and rear slopes of the Book 1715). Johannes Luyster was born in gable roof differ, a feature found on Dutch 1691 and died in 1756 (Bailey 1968:405), and there is no record of any other Luysters set­ houses in Long Island, but uncommon among tling in the area prior to him. the Dutch houses of northern New Jersey The core of the 1 1/2 story Dutch colonial (HABS-NJ-668: 4; see also Meeske 1998: 197). or Anglo-Dutch farmhouse is clearly depicted The framing of the house is impressive, on a privately-held survey drawn in 1730, the and local folklore has it that the builders used earliest known map of the property beams salvaged from a boat that sank on the (Hammond 1998). Dendrochronology of Navesink River in the 17th century.

Figure 3. HABS drawing showing the unmodified Luyster house. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 3(f-31, 2001-2002 57

4. David P. Van Brackle painting showing Monmouth County Historical Association. Unfortunately, dendrochronology could not be Dutch houses "were built with asymmetrical done on these beams to validate the early date, entry placement, most of them with even as they were fully exposed and structurally numbers of doors and windows, for example and aesthetically essential to the building. The two doors and two windows on a fa~ade. In interior of the oldest section of the house dis­ common with folk houses built by nearly all plays Dutch-style H-bent framing (see Fitchen European immigrants to America, th.e 1968; Prudon 1986; and Zink 1987 for excellent Montville Dutch houses had no formal entry­ discussions of Dutch framing) and retains ways and no internal passages" Oanowitz and some early features. The windows on the east Foster 1996: 101; also see Ryan 1997). This also side of the house are 12/12 sash and appar­ was the case at the Luyster house. ently date from the 18th century. Another In 1862, during the ownership of Peter small 18th-century window was revealed on Luyster, the great grandson of the builder, the the north wall of the house when the 20th-cen­ house was extensively modified (HABS-NJ- tury addition that had obscured it was 668: 3-4). A two-story, English-framed addition was made to the rear of the house (FIG. 5). removed. Other changes made about the same time Originally, the south-facing structure con­ sisted of two side-by-side ground floor rooms, included the replacement of the dual front each with its own divided or "Dutch" entry doors with a single central doorway flanked door. These functional doors allow the upper by paired windows on either side, thereby transforming the two room main block into half to be kept "opened for sunlight and fresh air, while the bottom remains shut to keep something approximating a center-hall plan. small children and a miscellany of farm ani­ Dormer windows were also added to the roof. mals inside or out. The lower half also pro­ Somewhat earlier, around 1840, the fireplaces' vided a social barrier for tradesmen and others mantelpieces were replaced (HAB5-NJ-668: 1). to talk without having to let them into the A jambless fireplace in the eastern section of house" (Meeske 1998: 264). the main house may also have been enclosed about the same time. The house's original two-room/two-door Although it remains an excellent example configuration is clearly seen in an 1840s of vernacular New World Dutch architecture, painting by David Van Brackle (FIG. 4). This the Luyster House was an organic entity sub­ pattern is more common in northern New ject to repeated modifications. As mentioned, Jersey. In Montville, for instance, many early the most extensive of these changes occurred 58 Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl/Scharfenberger and Veit

Figure 5. HABS photograph of the Luyster house showing the Exterior, East Elevation. Photograph by R. Merritt Lacey, September 16, 1940 (HABS NJ-668}. Trench 1 is located in approximately the same site as the small garden plot seen in the front center of this photograph. between 1840 and 1865. Although these cussion here focuses primarily on Trench 1, a remodelings left the basic form of the house rich early 19th-century feature. intact, the result was a building shorn of many As might be expected, excavations at a site of its distinctive Dutch features. This architec­ with an unbroken chain of occupation span­ tural remodeling is paralleled by other trans­ ning more than 270 years revealed dozens of formations in the Luyster's lives as shown by features chronicling the earliest days of settle­ both the artifacts found around the house and ment, 19th-century additions and alterations, the documents these Dutch farmers left and the recent addition of late 20th-century behind. amenities. Approximately 20 features have been identified, including post molds, buried The Archaeological Evidence walkways, wells, fence posts, stone founda" tions, and a trash-filled pit, possibly" the Excavation at the Luyster house focused remain of an outkitchen (FIG. 6). on recovering a representative sample of his­ Among the noteworthy features were a torical artifacts from the property and docu­ series of post molds, designated Feature 1, menting the locations of features reflecting the located immediately east of the present front various periods in the site's occupation before door step and adjacent to the buildiflg's foun­ the site was destroyed. The field teams exca­ dation. One post mold measured 7 in (18 em) vated a total of 110 shovel tests, 24 4x4 ft exca­ vations units, 1 SxS ft excavation unit, and 3 in diameter and the other two measuring trenches. To date, an estimated 20,000 artifacts approximately 4 in (10 em) in diameter. have been recovered from the site representing Feature 1 was encountered at a depth of 24 in most material groups, including a substantial (61 em). Given the proximity to the present amount of prehistoric material. Although foundation, it is conceivable that Jhese post some general comments are in order, our dis- molds were part of an earlier support system Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 30-31,2001-2002 59

BM- ' T- <1>ST-47 ST-4~T-45 ~T-31 ~T-30 ~T-29 ST-28 ;T-27 ;T-26 ST-25 '"'1>------_J 48 ST-45

-53 iT-54 ~T-55 ST-56 ST-57 iT-5 $ST-59~T-60 ~T-6 .jT-62 JT-63 ~T-64

ST-6 $ ST-44

ST-43

$ ST-41

ST-10$ $ ST-9 ST-21 ST-20 ST-~~T- 4 0 <1> <1> ST-23 ST-24 ST-1~ ST:-77 ST-39

------$-S-T--2--~ ST-8 ------BM--.r---- BM-3 $ST-1.ilsT-38 I ·1 s -15 BM-5/___r-- I ·~B -1 T-14 $ $ I ST-35 BM-6 ST-13 $ ST-34 N I ST-12 II l ., BM-7 t BM-1 ST-11 r (!) T 32 0' 10' 20' 50 SCALE I J ~

ND R •

Figure 6. Map showing the Luyster house and associated features. 60 Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl/Scharfenberger and Veil

for the house, or possibly the remnants of a kitchen. There is no documentary evidence "pioneer" house, erected before the permanent that relates to the feature. It does not appear structure. on a privately-held plat map drawn of the Another interesting feature is a buried property in the early 18th century, nor does it brick walkway extending north from the appear in late 19th-century photographs of the vicinity of the present kitchen toward the property. In the first third of the 19th century smallest surviving outbuilding, a 20th-century the structure was demolished. It appears that bunkhouse. This feature was encountered at a much of the foundation was robbed out, depth of 11 in (28 em) below the surface. though some stones were left in situ. Interestingly, a deposit that contained several small sherds of prehistoric pottery underlay it. The Assemblage Other features noted in the field include the dry-laid limonite fotmdation of a Dutch barn The excavators recovered 8,151 artifacts to the northwest of the house, and what was from the trench. Although our study of the likely an early-20th century privy southwest of overall collection is ongoing, the analysis of the house. the faunal remains, funded by a generous By far the most revealing feature was a grant from the Archaeological Society of New large trash-filled pit, which is the feature dis­ Jersey, has been completed and some prelimi­ cussed in this article. This feature was pos­ nary conclusions can be drawn. sibly the remains of a filled summer kitchen or Archaeologists recovered a variety of arti­ root cellar, located just east of the house. This facts in the upper and lower levels of the feature was first identified in a shovel test trench. A 1788 Connecticut penny was recov­ transect, running north to south, parallel to the ered from the lowest level of the feature and east wall of the house. An extremely dense may have been lost when the structure was in deposit of ceramics and faunal remains was active use. Most of the artifacts the excavators encountered in Shovel Test 36, the fifth on this found date to the late 18th or early 19th cen­ transect. Subsequent shovel tests revealed that tury. The lower levels included earlier wares the feature extended at least 10 ft (3 m) such as tortoise-shell decorated earthenware in north-south. addition to various decorated pearlware At this point, a trench measuring 13 ft x 4 sherds, while the uppermost level contained a ft., was laid out to try and determine the hori­ 1932 US penny. A mean ceramic date of 1825 zontal and vertical dimensions of the feature. was calculated for the assemblage; a terminus While this trench exposed part of the feature, post quem of 1835 is provided by some later time constraints precluded opening units and vessels, however, including four nearly-intact exposing the complete feature. Our excava­ hand-painted whiteware plates. Three are tions revealed three distinct strata. As the marked "JACKSON WARRANTED STAFFORDSHIRE." deposit was packed with artifacts, we divided This mark has been traced to English potters strata exceeding 6 in. in depth into arbitrary 6 Job and John Jackson, who used this mark in. levels. between 1831 and 1835 (Kovel and Kovel The trench was subdivided into three units 1986). The fourth plate is marked "JOSEPH (north, center, and south), and a total of six STUBBS LONGPORT," a mark in use betWeen 1822 levels were excavated in each of the three and 1835 (Cushion 1980: 125). Later 19th- cen­ units. All of the units ended in sterile subsoil. tury artifacts are conspicuous by their absence. Immediately overlying the subsoil we found large, displaced dry-laid fragments of sand­ Ceramics stone. They may represent demolition debris from some sort of superstructure or material Most of the nearly 2,500 ceramic fragments tossed into the open hole to help fill it. Clearly recovered from the trench are refined earthen­ wares: creamware, pearlware, and whiteware, defined boundaries of a pit which cross-cut used as serving vessels (TAB 1). They represent otherwise intact stratigraphy suggest that this at least 60 vessels. With rare exceptions they pit was purposely dug, and probably served are minimally decorated vessels that were as the foundation of an outbuilding, likely a fashionable but not particularly expensive (see Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 30-31, 2001-2002 61

iiitilk:iiE!i*.i:i :+a:~l!4li ~:±!%! +W!JfMNi:+Mt.W.iili!J Figure 7. Shell-edged pearl ware plates excavated Figure 8. Reconstructed "House and Tree" pattern· from Trench 1. pearl ware dish and teacup from Trench 1. Miller 1980, 1991). Royal or Queen's pattern the ·remains of a limited number of matched plates, simple blue and green shell-edge plates sets, or at least attempts at making matched (FIG. 7), and house and tree pattern cups, sets. For instance, there are seven blue shell­ bowls, and saucers are all common (FIG. 8). edge pearlware plates in the assemblage, with Polychrome hand-painted whiteware bowls five different edge patterns represented. and cups are also well represented (TAB. 1). Similarly, there are five, green, shell-edge Transfer-printed wares are almost completely pearlware plates with three different edge pat­ absent. The refined earthenwares seem to be terns present. Although pieces may have been

Table 1. Ceramic vessels represented in Trench 1. The minimum number of vessel calculations are based, whenever possible, on reconstructed vessels, augmented by base and rim fragments. Ware Type Vessel Form Decoration MNV Buff Bodied Earthenware Indeterminate 1 Rockingham Pitcher 1 Tortoiseshell Plate 1- Red ware Teapot 3 Red ware Pitcher 1 Red ware Colander 1 Red ware Bowl 2 Red ware Plate Slip trailed 4 Red ware Pan 3 Cream ware Plate Royal pattern 3 Creamware Bowl Beaded rim 1 Pearl ware Bowls House & tree 4 Pearl ware Bowl Floral hand painted 1 Pearl ware Cups House & tree 4 Pearlware Cup Blue transfer print 1 Pearl ware Plate 1 Pearl ware Plate Blue shell edge 7 Pearl ware Plate Green shell edge 5 Pearl ware Teapot 1 Whiteware Bowl 1 Whiteware Cup Floral hand painted 2 Whiteware Plate Floral hand painted 4 Yellowware Plate 1 Ironstone Plate Embossed 1 Stoneware Jug 3 Stoneware Crock 1 Stoneware Bowl White salt-glazed, scratch blue 1 Porcelain Teacup 1 Total Vessels 60 62 Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl/Schaifenberger and Veil

purchased individually, or perhaps a couple at several finely-potted porringers. The por­ a time, the end result would have been a table ringers have rim diameters of 5 in (12.7 em). where all of the pieces looked relatively sim­ Children in the household may have used ilar. Teapots are cmmnon, with at least four in these small vessels. the assemblage, including one in pearlware, Stoneware vessels are not common in the and three in redware. All of the latter sport a assemblage and only a handful. of vessels are lustrous black manganese glaze. represented (TAB. 1). They include a fragment Redware and stoneware food preparation from an unidentified Rhenishvessel and and storage vessels make up just under 1/3 of pieces of several storage jars. the Trench 1 collection. A particularly note­ It is worth noting that the Luyster's need worthy vessel is an uncommon Dutch-form not have relied so heavily on imported redware colander, perhaps the first found in ceramics. Their neighbor and close family New Jersey (FIGS. 9 and 10). The colander, friend, Daniel Hendrickson, scion of another which is heavily worn and had seen years of Dutch emigre family, was a redware potter use before it was discarded is nearly complete. during the late 18th century. He produced a While it is of Dutch form, its rather crude variety of vessels including porringers, jugs, structure indicates possible local manufacture platters, mugs, basins, bowls, and cups (Meta Janowitz, personal communication, (Branin 1988: 39-41). Moreover, in nearby 2001). Vessels such as this one, called vergiet in Cheesequake, the Morgans, Van Wickles, and Dutch, appear in 17th-century genre paintings other local families were actively producing a where they are depicted in kitchen scenes variety of stoneware products. Despite the drying fish, mussels, meat, and vegetables availability of these local wares, the Luyster (Boymans Museum 1991: 119; Janowitz, assemblage shows a clear preference for Morgan, and Rothschild 1985: 42). English tablewares. Similarly, Sherene Other redware vessels were fragmentary. Baugher and Robert Venables writing about They include plates, pitchers, storage jars, and somewhat earlier 18th-century ceramic assem-

0 10cm

Figure 9. A Dutch-form redware colander or vergiet. Figure 10. Underside of colander. Note the existing Reconstructed from 18 fragments. two feet and wear mark at location of missing third foot. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 30-31, 2001-2002 63

blages from New York State noted that thanks to a well-established transportation network, "Individuals in the hinterlands could share the same taste and market access for fashionable ceramics as their city counterparts" (Baugher and Venables 1987: 50). That appears to have been the case here as well.

Faunal Remains Although ceramics provide our best means of dating the deposit, faunal remains at 4,677 fragments, make up 57% of the Trench 1 collec­ tion (FIG. 11). The faunal assemblage is com­ posed primarily of pig (Sus scrofa), cow (Bos taurus), and sheep I goat bone (Ovis aries/Capra hircus). Other domestic species represented include chickens (Gallus gallus) and domestic ducks (Anas sp.). The collection also includes a few bones from pheasants (Phasianus colchinus) and a small number of vertebrae from small fish. Cattle(553 specimens) and pig (468 speci­ mens) bones dominate the collection. This proportion is evidence of the livestock prefer­ ence of the Luyster House residents. Smaller CM. -- -- • amounts of fish, fowl and shellfish augmented Figure 11. Examples of faunal material recovered the staples of beef and pork (TAB. 2) (Metzger from Trench 1. 2001). Out of the 4,677 bones and bone frag­ with high meat-utility such as vertebrae are ments represented, 1,209 (about 25%) could be present representing butchered cuts similar to identified to species and skeletal part. The high percentage of identifiable bones is indica­ short-loin, chuck and rib (Metzger 2001: 3; see tive of a deposit that is relatively undisturbed also Schulz and Gust 1983, Szuter 1991). The and enclosed, similar to those typically recov­ faunal analysis also indicates a similar pattern ered from privies or wells (Greenfield 1989: in the pig and sheep/goat fragments. The sig- · 93). nificant amount of mandible fragments and The cattle bones include parts representing upper and lower teeth is similar to that entire animals, both food cuts. and non-food encountered at other 19th-century sites of the bones. Bones with little meat utility, such as Middle Atlantic region (Price 1995), whereby carpals, tarsals, phlanges and metapodials are pig heads were utilized for head cheese and present suggesting primary butchering at the jowl meat. During the butchering and cooking Luyster House site. In addition to these, bones processes, teeth were detached and discarded Table 2. Faunal material recovered from Trench 1, excluding shell. Taxon Common Name NISP % MNI Bos taurus Cattle 553 45.7% 8 Sus scrofa Pig 468 38.7% 7 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Sheet/Goat 119 9.8% 5 Gallus gallus Chicken. 44 3.6% Not calc. Pisces Fish 22 1.8% Not calc. Phasianus colchinus Pheasant 1 <1.0% 1 Meleagris gallopavo Turkey 1 <1.0% 1 Anassp. Domestic Duck 1 <1.0% 1 Total 1209 100.0% 64 Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl/Scltarfenberger and Veit

into the midden (Metzger 2001: 3). While assemblage from Trench 1. It appears that somewhat fewer sheep/goat bones of low cattle were generally slaughtered between 3 meat utility were recorded in the assemblage and 4 years of age, with no indication of very they are still present. young or very old specimens. This suggests This information is particularly interesting that the Luysters may not have engaged in as it shows that the Luysters were butchering commercial milk production as a part of their and consuming livestock on site. The agricultural output. Pigs were generally butchery was done with an axe, cleaver, or slaughtered at 12 to 18 months, with evidence knife. Interestingly, a slightly earlier tavern of a few piglets and a few older specimens. assemblage from the Blue Ball Tavern/ Allen The sheep I goat remains seem to indicate House in nearby Shrewsbury, New Jersey was slaughter at about age 18 to 30 months limited to select cuts of meat apparently sup­ (Metzger 2001). plied by a butcher (Megan Springale 2001, per­ The paucity of chicken bones in the assem­ sonal communication) . The Luyster house blage may be evidence of the importance of faunal assemblage also highlights the fact that egg farming to the Luyster household during the early 19th century this family con­ economy during the 19th century. Also, the sumed only a limited range of species, pre­ absence of wild game such as deer may be an sumably animals that they themselves had indication of the socioeconomic status of the raised. Luysters, as the poor and wealthy classes The large percentage of pig remains rela­ relied more heavily on wild game, albeit for tive to sheep I goat may be indicative of the different reasons, while the middle class was maintenance of Dutch dietary. Greenfield's more reliant on domestic animals (Greenfield study of faunal deposits from 17th, 18th, and 1989: 97). 19th-century New York suggests the ratio of Despite the site's location on the Outer pig to sheep I goat to be indicator of ethnicity, Coastal Plain, clam (Mercenaria) and oyster with Dutch households preferring pork, and (Crassostrea americana) shell are not particularly English households favoring mutton (Pam common, with only 140 specimens recovered. Crabtree 2001, personal communication, Somewhat more puzzling is the presence of 30 Greenfield 1989: 101-103). knobbed whelk (Busycon caricia) or conch The first statewide agricultural record for (Strombidae) shells. These shells could be New Jersey, the 1850 Agricultural Census of used to make wampum beads, a form of cur­ New Jersey, provides a list of the livestock and rency used in trading with Native Americans crops grown by Peter Luyster, who inherited during the colonial period (Becker 1980). the farm upon the death of his father John P. Later, during the 19th century, "wampum Luyster in 1848. Although this census is beads, hair pipes, and moons, were trans­ roughly a decade later than the Trench 1 ported thousands of miles for trade to the deposit, we assume that similar produce and Indians of the western plains" (Williams and livestock were raised during the 1830s and Flinn 1990: 5-6). Dutch settlers in Bergen 1840s as those recorded in the 1850 census. County made wampum as a sort of cottage According to these records, Peter Luyster had industry lintil the late 19th century (Williams 6 "milch" cows, 6 swine, and one "other" and Flinn 1990: 5-6; Haggerty 1980). The cattle. No sheep or goats were listed. broken shells from the Luyster farm may indi­ Interestingly, other Dutch neighbors of the cate that Monmouth County's Dutch settlers Luysters including the Schenks and also were actively making wampum into the Hendricksons also raised cows and swine, but 19th century. Alternatively, the conch may listed no sheep or goats. Geographers Peter have been eaten. Wacker and Paul Clemens note that "farmers Other foodways related artifacts included in New England-settled sections of New Jersey bone handled knives and a two-tined fork. The showed more interest in sheep" (Wacker and excavators also recovered two fragments of a Clemens 1995: 191). case bottle and the base of an early 19th-cenc The slaughter schedules for cattle, pig, and tury wine bottle. Interestingly, the probate sheep I goat can be estimated from the faunal inventory of Johannes Luyster, taken in 1766, Northeast Historical Archneology/Vol. 30-31, ·2001-2002 65

lists 12 case bottles. Glass vessels made up Table 3. Functional categorization of Trench 1 only a tiny portion of the overall assemblage. assemblage. Category N % Small Finds Architecture 614 7.5 Most of the artifacts recovered from the Arms 4 <1 feature relate to food preparation and con­ Ceramics 2485 30.4 sumption. As such, they provide an inter­ Clothing 2 <1 4677 57.4 esting glimpse of diet and the culinary skills of Faunal Furniture <1 the Jersey Dutch in the early 19th century. We Glass 170 <1 also recovered smaller quantities of artifacts Personal 16 <1 relating to other aspects of life on the property Shell 71 <1 from the feature. These are arranged, for ease Tobacco 46 <1 of comparison using functional categories (TAB. Other 65 <1 3). Total 8151 100% Some 614 artifacts related to architecture were found. The majority are nails. Although Luyster House site, only 46 were recovered most are so corroded as to be unidentifiable, from the trench. None are marked and most both hand-wrought and machine cut nails are have very narrow bore diameters, generally present. The nails may indicate that a frame 4/64th of an inch. As such a small sample was structure once stood over the pit. The excava­ recovered, and the bowl fragments found are tors als9 found fragments of a large strap generally of ribbed forms common in the 19th hinge, presumably from a door. Although century, we did not calculate bore diameter brick fragments are not particularly common, dates. those found are broad and thin, Artifacts related to arms and armament, Interpretations clothing, tobacco use, and furniture were all uncommon (TAB. 3). A unique find was a tin­ Understanding this archaeological assem­ derbox, shown here after conservation (FIG. blage from the Luyster house is considerably 12). Tinderboxes consist of a drum-shaped box more challenging than describing it. While that contained a flint, or strike-a-lite, and clearly deposited in the first third of the 19th tinder, which was often charred linen or dry century, it is in many ways enigmatic. The grass to catch the sparks when the flint was struck against a piece of iron (Hayward 1962:82). The cover, which acted as a damper to extinguish the tinder, had a small handle, or sometimes a socket for a candle (Neumann 1984: 72). Tinderboxes were a staple in all facets of colonial life; commercial, domestic and military. With the invention of the match in 1826, tinderboxes eventually fell out of use, with matches coming into general use by mid­ century (Panati 1987: 108-109). The possibility that this tinderbox was discarded during the first half of the 19th century, works well given the ceramics it was found with. Other excep­ tional finds include gunflints, both English and French, a fragmentary drawer pull, sev­ eral buttons, and a clock's frame. Although clay pipes are ubiquitous on CM •••••• many historic sites, and several hundred clay Figure 12. An early 19th-century tinder box made of pipe fragments have been recovered from the tinned iron. 66 Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl/Scharfenberger and Veit

nature of the feature that held the deposit is time of his death in 1848, when the property is unclear. While we believe that the feature is transferred to his son Peter. Aside from John's the filled cellar of an outkitchen, the brick one wife and children, it appears that several might expect from a hearth is largely missing. female aduits lived in the house during his If the feature represents an offal pit, it is not occupation, possibly two sisters: Sarah Snyder, clear why the Luysters would have gone to the a widow, and Lucretia, who never married trouble to dig a straight walled rectangular pit, (Beekman 1974: 108}. In her will, written in and provide at least part of it with a founda­ 1838, and probated in 1839, Lucretia left all of tion represented by the scatter of dry-laid the " ... household and kitchen furniture limonite encountered at the base of the trench. together with all [my] moveable property... " to With the benefit of hindsight, it also appears her brother John P. Luyster (Will Book D: 195- poor judgment to have located the pit within 196). Perhaps John and his children found the ten feet of an active well located adjacent to austere creamware and pearlware plates old the house. fashioned and discarded them to replace them The artifact assemblage is also puzzling. with newer transfer printed wares. Many of the ceramics including bowls, plates, Archaeologists working at other sites have tea cups, and porringers appear to have been found evidence for what might be termed the deposited whole, with breakage occurring new owners phenomenon. Ivor Noel Hume, through dumping and pressure from over­ for instance, has attributed a rich deposit in lying deposits and surface activity (TAB. 1). the Williamsburg, Virginia, well of John Custis Moreover, several distinct patterns were over­ IV, to housecleaning by Martha Dandridge whelmingly represented in a variety of vessel Custis, later to gain fame as Martha forms-an indication that multiple examples Washington (Noel Hume 1996:18-31). of identical vessels were discarded in a single episode. Scenario B, Contagion There are several possible explanations for Another valid explanation is a mass this curious behavior. It may simply reflect an purging of all possible contaminated items episode of housecleaning related to the trans­ during a time of severe epidemic. During the ference of the property from one group of late 18th and early 19th centuries, the concept Luysters to another. Alternatively, it could of disease, its cause and cure was still little relate to an episode of illness that affected the understood. Devastating maladies such as family. In an effort to rid themselves of the smallpox, yellow fever, influenza, and scarlet contagion the Luysters may have discarded fever among others, beset early Americans seemingly contaminated items. Yet another with such unannounced frequency that des­ scenario could be stylistic, rooted in the "emer­ perate measures were often taken to counter gence of a national culture." Although any an impending epidemic. Believing that many one of these scenarios is tenable, it is particu­ diseases were caused by such physical mani­ larly curious that similar deposits, dating to festations as miasmic vapors or sleeping in roughly the same period, have been recovered damp beds, early Americans often resorted to on other early 19th-century sites. Here we extreme modes of prevention aimed at examine each of these alternatives in detail. phantom causal mechanisms. Carrying a tarred rope, wearing garlic in one's shoes, and Scenario A, Housecleaning shooting guns into the air to disperse the It is possible that the feature is full of unde­ deadly miasmic vapors were just some of the sirable or out-of-date items that were dis­ methods that grew out of fear and ignorance carded when the property was transferred during times of epidemic (Coffin 1976: 18, 37). from one owner to another. An examination of Therefore, the possibility that much of the census records from 1810 to 1840 indicate that ceramic and faunal deposit from Trench 1 was there was no change in ownership during the result of a similar ill-advised attempt at those years. John P. Luyster inherited the farm removing contaminated objects from the hub in 1810 upon the death of his father, Pieter. He of daily activity, cannot be discounted. This is listed as head of the household up to the would have been a costly remedy. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 30-31, 2001-2002 67

Scenario C, Emergence of a National Culture however, a twist at this site, that is not in evi­ dence at the other North American sites Deetz For want of a better phrase, the third sce­ examined, that is the ethnic heritage of the nario is titled "emergence of a national cul­ Luyster's. Not only was a new po_st­ ture." The phrase is taken from James Deetz's Revolutionary generation of Luysters commg book Flowerdew Hundred (1993: 133). to the fore, but they were doing so at a time Excavations at the Virginia plantation known when attitudes towards ethnicity were as Flowerdew Hundred revealed diverse fea­ changing (Larkin 1988). These national, tures dating from the 17th century to the indeed perhaps international trends, were felt present. One of these was an icehouse, associ­ even in the small New Jersey hamlet called ated with the Selden family ownership of the Holland. The market conditions and con­ property during the 19th century. This ice­ sumer behavior that helped shape the house was precipitously filled between 1825 American consciousness during the 19th cen­ and 1830. Deetz (1993: 123) describes its fill as: tury were an extension of the phenomena that originated during the second half of the 18th ... a solid mass of refuse: bricks, plates, century, namely: a wider choice of goods avail­ bottles, and drinking glasses, masses of able to consumers; a "standardization" of con­ animal bone, tools, smoking pipes, eating sumer performance; and, most relevant to our utensils, and a host of other objects, study, a widespread "Anglicization" of the looking for all the world as though American market (Breen 1994: 452). someone had tipped a house on its side The salvage excavations at the Johannes and allowed its contents to pour into the Luyster house provided an interesting, albeit gaping hole in the ground." somewhat surprising picture of life at an early, 19th-century Dutch-American farm. Although In both date and contents the Selden's ice­ we recovered artifacts dating from the 18th house directly parallels those from the through 20th centuries, the richest deposit Luyster's outkitchen. Another similar uncovered is a deep pit feature, probably the example comes from the Narbonne site in foundation of an outkitchen. It is a mass Salem, Massachusetts (see Moran, Zimmer, deposit similar to those noted by James Deetz and Yentsch 1982). Dozens of sites that are at numerous contemporary sites along the both temporally and spatially similar have eastern seaboard. As such, it may reflect the been documented along the eastern seaboard changing tastes and rise of national conscious­ (Deetz 1993: 124). ness during the post-Revolutionary genera­ Remarkably, the deposits from these sites tion. are similar in form and time of deposition to The presence of a substantial number of those at the Luyster House sites, perhaps English-manufactured ceramic wares, reflecting a larger change in American society including vessels for serving and drinking tea (Deetz 1993:124). Moreover, Deetz h~s noted from the Trench 1"deposit, further suggests an that all of the items encountered m these earlier, probably 18th century, departure fro~ deposits appear to pre-date the time of deposi­ adherence to traditional Dutch lifeways m tion by about ten y~ars. and that a?ditio_nal dis­ favor of assimilation/ acculturation into the carded materials mdicate possible simulta­ dominant English and eventually national cul­ neous refurbishing of their houses (Deetz 1993: ture. Although living on a farm in rural 127). Even more stunning is the fa~,t _that all of Monmouth County, the Luysters, like their these deposits date to the 1_830s. A time ~hen contemporaries around the world, found the first generation of native-born Arnencans themselves awash in a sea of imported English had reached maturity, and thus archaeology ceramics by the late 18th century. Neverthe­ seems to signal that critical point where the less, the presence of a heavily worn Dutch­ culture is no longer simply an extension of England, but rather American" (Deetz 1993: style colander in an 1830s deposit sho"':s that not all things Dutch were discarded until con­ 133). siderably later. It is within this broadest cultural context The trend evident in the early 19th century that the assemblage from the Luyster house is archaeological record from the site appears to most parsimoniously explained. There is, be paralleled by surviving historic documenta- 68 Ret/linking the Mengkom-Mixing Bawl/Scharfenberger and Veit

tion. Several Dutch Bibles from the Parenthetically, it should be noted that this Middletown area survived into the 20th cen­ process of change was a two way street. As tury and are an excellent source of family his­ the Luysters, Hendricksons, Schencks, and tory, as members \vould record milestones (i.e., other Dutch settlers in Monmouth County births, deaths, weddings) inside the blank were adopting the trappings of the dominant leaves. The first entry in the Luyster Bible is culture, their English and Scottish neighbors dated August 12, 1688 and the final entry is readily adopted some aspects of Dutch archi­ dated December 12, 1875. Each entry written tecture, particularly H-bent framing for their between 1688 and 1806 is written in Dutch. In houses and barns. The final result was a dis­ entries during the latter part of the 18th cen­ tinctive regional culture, neither Dutch nor tury into the first decade of the 19th century, English, but retaining aspects of both in dif­ English words were sporadically mixed with fering degrees. Dutch (December instead of Desember), and The excavations at the Luyster House site the Anglicization of first names became preva­ produced a wealth of data chronicling the life­ lent (Peter instead of Pieter, John instead of ways of a Dutch-American farmstead over Johannes). Beginning with the date Oct. 7, three centuries {FIG. 13). The majority of the 1835, every entry is in English. This suggests a material recovered dated to the 19th century gradual transition from Dutch to English over occupation of the site. The information the course of several generations. A recent gleaned from these artifacts and their associ­ study of Dutch bibles housed in the collections ated features, juxtaposed alongside the docu­ of the Monmouth County Historical mentary record, provides valuable insight into Association, shows that many families that the behavioral and cultural modifications that had studiously kept their records in Dutch dis­ beset a group whose roots extended back over carded this language in favor of English in the 100 years, but whose social malleability was 1830s (Carol Fisher Megill, personal communi­ visible and profound, even after several gener­ cation, 2000). ations. The Luyster House site also illustrates Although the Luysters were a family the importance and archaeological potential of proud of their Dutch heritage, their posses­ 19th-century farmstead sites. While macro­ sions, recovered archaeologically and sur­ level studies of groups have identified pat­ viving in museum collections, show a transfor­ terns of behavior on a regional or national mation of their lives over the course of the scale, investigations of discrete 19th-century 19th century. The Luyster's ethnicity was not sites offer the potential to study groups on an monolithic and unchanging. Although they individual basis where the dynamics and continued to display Old World family heir­ inherent variation of human agency can be looms in their house until they sold it in the observed as it manifests itself in the archaeo­ 1940s, they were setting their tables with the logical record. Encapsulated in the daily lives finest English tablewares by the 1820s. While of a nuclear family unit bound to a locality they kept their family Bible records in Dutch over several generations, farmsteads offer an until 1835, they were using gravestones carved idiosyncratic glimpse into the totality of the in English as early as 1766. This is in contrast human condition during the 19th century, to the Dutch in Somerset County, and particu­ when the home and the workplace were still larly Bergen County, who sometimes had their one and the same. As Mary Beaudry aptly gravestones carved in Dutch. The Luyster states in this volume, "Farmstead archaeology house, even today after repeated alterations is the archaeology of the historic household," and a quarter-mile move, is seen as an excel­ suggesting that each household, as a unit of lent example of Anglo-Dutch architecture. study, is a microcosm of the societal and cul­ Nonetheless, like many other Dutch houses in tural changes that occur on a larger scale. The New Jersey, it was considerably Anglicized in numerous social, religious and technological the mid-19th century (see Janowitz and Foster movements of the 19th century (Second Great 1996). Undoubtedly, as analysis of the artifact Awakening, industrial revolution, abolition of collection from the Luyster house continues slavery, Civil War, immigration, etc.) altered further insights into this process of accommo­ the lives of every American regardless of race, dation and change will become apparent. For ethnicity or, class, forever. Coupled with the now it is clear that while the Luysters con­ emergence of the United States as a polyglot tinued to relish their Dutch heritage, their pos­ "nation teeming with nations," the formative sessions speak to full participation· in the processes of culture during the 19th century larger society. are varied and complex, providing worthy Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. JD-31, 2001-2002 69

avenues for research to fill the void in a record the Monmouth County Historical Commission that is far from complete. allowed free access to the Luyster family heir­ looms in their collections. Carol Megill Acknowledgements summed up the results of her research on the family Bibles at the Monmouth County Several individuals provided invaluable assis­ Historical Association for us. Maryann tance in the preparation of this article. Sherene Kiernan from the Monmouth County Archives Baugher encouraged our participation in this assisted with the excavation and processing of volume and read earlier versions of the manu­ the artifacts. Robert Tucher is to be thanked script. Her insights and critiques of theses for his stunning artifact photographs. Zachary drafts were extremely beneficial in completing Davis for assistance with the graphics. Dan the article. Meta janowitz and two anony­ Sivilich helped with mapping the site. Alice mous reviewers provided helpful comments Gerard helped interpret the dendrochronology which helped us steer clear of possible pitfalls samples. Robert Northerner, Scott Wieczorek, and assisted us in refining the paper. and Michael Gall regularly volunteered their Monmouth university's Department of time to help excavate the site. Michael Gall, History and Anthropology supported the Barbara Nitzberg and Jill Principi assisted with project through its 1998 field school in archae­ cleaning and processing the artifacts. Our ology. Mary Metzger's meticulous analysis of spouses, Geraldine Scharfenberger and Teresa the faunal collection fleshed out our under­ Veit showed considerable patience as we spent standing of what the Luysters were raising Saturdays and off-hours excavating at the and eating in the early 19th century. The Luyster house and analyzing the collection. Archaeological Society of New Jersey pro­ Of course, any errors of fact or omission vided a generous research grant to assist with remain our own. the aforementioned faunal analysis. Joseph Hammond graciously shared his knowledge of References New Jersey's Dutch settlers and particularly the Luyster family. Mary Lou Strong of the Bailey, Rosalie Fellows Middleton Landmarks Commission gave con­ 1968 Pre-Revolutionary Dutch Houses and tinual support. Lee Ellen Griffith, Director of Families in Northern New Jersey and 70 Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl/Scharfenberger and Veit

Southern New York. Reprint of the 1936 Crabtree, Pam edition. Dover, New York. 2001 Professor of Archaeology, New York University, personal communication. Baugher, Sherene, a.-.d Robert \V. Venables 1987 Ceramics as Indicators of Status and Cushion, J. P. Class in Eighteenth-Century New 1980 Handbook of Pottery and Porcelain York. In Consumer Choice in Historical Marks. Faber and Faber, Boston. Archaeology, ed. by Suzanne M. Spencer-Wood, 31-54. Academic Deetz, James Press, New York. 1993 Flowerdew Hundred, The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation. University of Becker, Marshall J. Virginia Press, Richmond. 1980 Wampum: The Development of an Early American Currency. Bulletin of Fitchen, John the Archaeological Society of New Jersey 1968 The New World Dutch Barn: A Study of 36: 1-11. its Characteristics, Its Structural System, and Its Probably Erectional Procedures. Beekman, George C. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse. 1974 Early Dutch Settlers of Monmouth County New Jersey. Reprint of the 1901 Greenfield, Haskell J. edition. Polyanthos, New Orleans. ' 1989 From Pork To Mutton: A Zooarchaeological Perspective on Boymans Museum Colonial New Amsterdam and Early 1991 Pre-Industrial Utensils. Boymans New York City. Northeast Historical Museum, Rotterdam, Holland. Archaeology. Volume 18: 85-110. Breen, T.H. · Haggerty, Lewis M. 1994 Baubles Of Britain. In Of Consuming 1980 A Forgotten Wampum Factory in Interests: The Style of Life in the Bergen County. Bulletin of the Eighteenth Century, ed. by Cary Archaeological Society of New Jersey 36: Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. 12-13. Albert, 444-482. Hammond, Joseph W. Branin, M. Lelyn 1998 The Luyster Farm in Middletown, 1988 The Early Makers of Handcrafted New Jersey: A Land Title Hisfory. Eartheneware and Stoneware in Central Report on file at the Monmouth and Southern New Jersey. Fairleigh University Department of History Dickinson University Press, London. and Anthropology, West Long Branch, NJ. Church Record Book 1715 Records of the Dutch Reformed Hayward, Arthur H. Church, Marlboro, NJ. 1962 Colonial and Early American Lighting. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Coffin, Margaret M. 1976 Death in Early America. Thomas Historic American Buildings Survey Nelson Inc., Nashville. 1940 Johannes Luyster House, Holland, Middletown Township, Monmouth Cohen, David Steven County, New Jersey (HABS-NJ-668). 1992 The Dutch-American Farm. New York Library of Congress, Washington, University Press, New York. D.C. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 30-31, 2001-2002 71

Hunton, Gail and James McCabe 1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for 1981 Monmouth County Historic Sites Classification and Economic Scaling Inventory. Monmouth County Park of English Ceramics from 1787 to System, Monmouth County Historical 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1): Society, Freehold. ·1-25. 1984 Monmouth County Historic Site's Inventory. Monmouth County Park Moran, Geoffrey, Edward Zimmer, and Anne System, Monmouth County Historical E. Yentsch Society, Freehold. · 1982 Archaeological Investigations of the Narbonne House, Salem Maritime Janowitz, Meta, and Janet Foster National Historical Site. Cultural 1996 The Dutch-American Stone Resources Management Study No.6. Farmhouses of Montville. New Jersey Division of Cultural Resources North History 114(3-4): 95-111. Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Janowitz, Meta, Kate T. Morgan, and Nan A. Interior, Boston. Rothschild 1985 Cultural Pluralism and Pots in New Morrison, Hugh Amsterdam-New York City. In 1952 Early American Architecture: From the Domestic Pottery of the Northeastern First Colonial Settlements to the National United States 1625-1850, ed. by Sarah Period. Oxford University Press, New Peabody Turnbaugh, 29-49. Academic York. Press, New York. Neumann, George C. Kovel, Ralph and Terry Kovel 1984 Early American Antique Country 1986 Kovel's New Dictionary of Marks. Furnishings. McGraw-Hill Book Crown Publishers, Inc., New York. Company,. New York.

Larkin, Jack Noel Hume, Ivor, 1988 The Reshaping of Everyday Life, 1970 A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial 1790-1840. Perennial Library, New America., Vintage Books, New York. York. 1996 In Search of This and That, Talesfrom an Archaeologist's Quest. Colonial Mandeville, Ernest W. Williamsburg Foundation, Williams­ 1927 The Story of Middletown: The Oldest burg. Settlement in New Jersey. Christ Church, Middletown. Panati, Charles 1987 Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Meeske, Harrison Frederick Things. Harper and Row, New York. 1998 The Hudson Valley Dutch and Their Houses. Purple Mountain Press, Price, Cynthia R. Fleischmanns, New York. 1995 Patterns of Cultural Behavior and Intra-Site Distributions of Faunal Metzger, Mary Remains at the Widow Harris Site. 2001 Faunal Remains and Consumption Historical Archaeology 19: 40-56. Patterns at Luyster House. Report on file with the authors. Prudon, Theodore H. M. 1986 The Dutch American Barn in Miller, George L. America: Survival of a Medieval 1980 Classification and Economic Scaling Structural Frame. In Common Places: of 19th-Century Ceramics. Historical Readings in American Vernacular Archaeology 14: 1-40. Architecture, ed. by Dell Upton and 72 Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl/Scharfenberger and Veit

John Michael Vlach, 204-218. Williams, Lorraine E., and Karen A. Flinn University of George Press, Athens. 1990 Trade Wampum: New Jersey to the Plains. New Jersey State Museum, Trenton. · Ryan, Thomas R. 1997 Cultural Accommodations in the Zink, Clifford W. · Late-Eighteenth-Century Architecture of Maroletown, New York. In Shaping 1987 Dutch Framed Houses in New York Communities: Perspectives in Vernacular and New Jersey. Winterthur Portfolio Architecture, VI, ed. by Carter L. 22(4): 265-294. Hudgins, and Elizabeth Collins Cromley, 137-149. University of Richard Veit is an Assistant Professor in the Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Department of History and Anthropology at Monmouth University and Director of the Schulz, Peter D., and Sherri M. Gust 1983 Faunal Remains and Social Status in University's Center for New Jersey History. His research interests include ethnicity and 19th-Century Sacramento. Historical cultural identity in early America and vernac­ Archaeology 17(1): 44-53. ular architecture. He is the author of Digging Springate, Megan New Jersey's Past: Historical Archaeology in 2001 Archaeologist, Monmouth County the Garden State (Rutgers, 2002), as well as Historical Association, personal com­ articles on mortuary art, the Contact Period, munication. and industrial archaeology. His current research project is an archaeological study of Szuter, Christine R. the Rittenhouse/Evans log house, an 18th-cen­ 1991 A Faunal Analysis of Home tury German farmstead, in Rosemont, New Butchering and Meat Consumption at the Hubbel Trading Post, Ganado, Jersey. Arizona. In Animal Use and Culture Change, ed. by Pam J. Crabtree and Gerard P. Scharfenberger is a Principal investi­ Kathleen Ryan, 78-89. University of gator with the Louis Berger Group in East Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Orange, New Jersey, and an Adjunct Professor Philadelphia. in the Department of History and Anthropology at Monmouth University. His Wacker, Peter 0., and Paul G. E. Clemens research interests include church archaeology, 1995 Land Use in Early New Jersey: A 18th-century consumerism and acculturation Historical Geography. New Jersey in early America. He is currently working on Historical Society, Newark. the archaeological excavation of the 17th-cen­ tury Old Scots Meetinghouse in Marlboro, Wacker, Peter 0. New Jersey as part of his doctoral research. A 1975 Land and People, A Cultural Geography of Preindustrial New Jersey: Origins and Monograph is in the works synthesizing Veit Settlement Patterns. Rutgers and Scharfenberger's work on early New University Press, New Brunswick. Jersey farmsteads.

Wertenbaker, Thomas Jefferson Gerard P. Scharfenberger 1938 The Founding of American Civilization: Louis Berger Group, Inc. The Middle Colonies. Charles 120 Halsted Street, Scribner's Sons, New York. East Orange, NJ 07019 Richard F. Veit Will BookD Department of History and Anthropology n.d. Colc;mial Conveyances, New Jersey Monmouth University State Archives, Trenton. West Long Branch, NJ 07764-1898