What Do Tin-Enameled Ceramics Tell Us?: Explorations of Socio-Economic Status Through the Archaeological Record in Eighteenth-Century Louisiana: 1700-1790 Jason A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2004 What do tin-enameled ceramics tell us?: explorations of socio-economic status through the archaeological record in eighteenth-century Louisiana: 1700-1790 Jason A. Emery Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Emery, Jason A., "What do tin-enameled ceramics tell us?: explorations of socio-economic status through the archaeological record in eighteenth-century Louisiana: 1700-1790" (2004). LSU Master's Theses. 594. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/594 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT DO TIN-ENAMELED CERAMICS TELL US? EXPLORATIONS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS THROUGH THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY LOUISIANA: 1700-1790 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agriculture and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Geography and Anthropology by Jason A. Emery B.A. University of the South, 1998 December 2004 DEDICATION To My Kathryn, who, despite all my best efforts, maintained faith in my ability to complete this work. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank everyone who has helped me and advised me through this effort. I won’t remember everyone’s name here, but forgive me if yours is the one I omit. First I would like to thank Paul Farnsworth for his patience on the one hand and his flurried effort on the other. If I were on time, I think he would have a heart attack. I also want to compliment him for challenging me while giving me plenty of latitude— doing both is a tricky business. I also want to thank the other members of my committee Miles Richardson and Rebecca Saunders, both of whom have influenced my thinking. I would also like to thank all those people that helped me get access to collections, provided me with graphics, or did a little on the spot proof reading. Collection access was facilitated by George Avery, H. F. “Pete” Gregory, Thurston and Sara Hahn, Nathanael Heller, Greg Lambousey, Josetta Leboeuf, Rob Mann, and Jill-Karen Yakubik. David Morgan and George were kind enough to help me out with images they had made for some of the ceramics in the vicinity of Natchitoches. I have to thank Jill for allowing me to work with the 16OR136 collection, use some of her staff expertise for scaling images in arc-view, and indulging me when I wanted to share faience photos. Because this took me so long to complete, I have to thank two groups of employers, the Louisiana Division of Archaeology and the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana. Tom Eubanks and Duke Rivet, in addition to teaching me how things work in the Division, allowed me to work a flexible schedule and spend Fridays visiting institutions that had collections. Rachel Watson fielded all the phone calls on those Fridays, listened to me complain, and generally harassed me into setting some firm dates. iii I would also like to thank Kim Walden for being flexible with my schedule at the tribe and allowing me time to complete this thesis. I want to thank everyone for taking time to discuss some of the fundamental positions of archaeology, collections management, and how we as humans think about the world when they had planned to work on their project-of-the-day. It was and is gratifying to have these discussions with everyone. It is the fundamental exercise of free will to think and argue for new thoughts everyday, and I am pleased to have shared the experience with you. Finally, I want to thank the light of my life . she has spent countless hours doing all of the things I couldn’t do because I had to work on my thesis. She makes me strive to be better, to make me worthy of her, everyday. I guess it’s the dishes for the rest of my life. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication……………………………………………………………………………... ii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………. iii List of Tables………………………………………………………………………….. viii List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………. x Abstract………………………………………………………………………………... xiv Chapter 1 Introduction & Hypothesis……………………………………………………. 1 Where Do the Sites Come From?……………...…………………………... 4 The Sites………………………………………………………………. 5 2 The Theoretical Stage: Including Various Actors, Their Lines, and Their Import………………………………………………………..…………..…... 16 Anthropological Meta-Narrative………………………………………….. 16 The Actors and Their Lines: Theories of Socioeconomic Status…………. 19 Their Import: 18th Century Socioeconomic Status and Consumer Choice in Louisiana……………………………………………. 24 Social Practices.……………………………………………….………. 26 Succession Records…………………………………………….……... 28 Upper Class………………….…………………………………….. 29 Middle Class…………………….……………………………….... 34 Lower Class……………………….…………………………..…... 38 Trends in the Documentary Record…………………………………… 40 3 Faience: Origin, Manufacture, Forms, Decorations, and Classifications……... 41 Origin of Faience………………………………………………………...… 42 Manufacture of Faience………………………………………………...….. 44 Forms of Faience………………………………………………………...… 54 Flatware Vessels……………………………………………………….. 55 Hollowware Vessels or creux……………………………………….…. 63 Decoration of Faience…………………………………………………...…. 79 Trends in Decoration and Production……………………………...….. 79 Classifications of Faience………………………………………………...... 81 Typological Propositions…………………………………………….... 81 Summary of Existing Classifications………………………………...... 83 Proposed Typology……………………………………………………. 88 4 The Political and Economic Situation in Lower Louisiana…………………… 101 Mercantilism to Capitalism………..………………………………………. 101 Establishment of the French Presence (1699-1712)………………………. 102 v Expansion under the Companies (1712-1731)…………………………..... 103 Retrocession and the Kings Fiat (1731-1763)…………………………...... 105 Characterizations of the French Colonial Economy………………………. 105 Colonial Louisiana’s Economy Reconceived……………………………... 107 French Economic Strategies………………………………………….. 109 Native American Trade and the Development of the Hinterland..... 110 Plantation System and the Development of Hinterland.………...… 112 Rates and Commerce……..…………………….………………...…... 116 5 Archaeological Sites: History, Archaeology, and Tin-enameled Ceramics…... 118 New Orleans Area Sites…………………………………………………..... 119 Madame John’s Legacy (16OR51)…………………………...……….. 119 Historical Setting: Madame John’s Legacy (16OR51)…………… 119 Archaeology at Madame John’s Legacy (16OR51)………….….... 123 Tin-enameled Ceramics at Madame John’s Legacy (16OR51)….... 127 French Colonial Barracks/ Square 62 (16OR136)……………..……… 131 Historic Setting: French Colonial Barracks/ Square 62 (16OR136). 131 Archaeology at the French Colonial Barracks/ Square 62 (16OR136)……………………………………………………...… 133 Tin-enameled Ceramics at the French Colonial Barracks/ Square 62 (16OR136) Barracks Occupation……………..………..……... 139 Tin-enameled Ceramics at the French Colonial Barracks/ Square 62 (16OR136) Post-Barracks Occupation………………..……….. 141 Lower Pontalba Building (16OR209)…………………………………. 143 Historic Setting: Lower Pontalba Building (16OR209)…...…….... 143 Archaeology at the Lower Pontalba Building (16OR209)………... 147 Tin-enameled Ceramics at the Lower Pontalba Building (16OR209)………………………………………………….…...… 149 Mid-River Sites………………………………………………………...…... 152 Galveztown (16AN39)………………………………………………… 152 Historical Setting: Galveztown……………………………………. 152 Archaeology at Galveztown (16AN39)………………………...…. 156 Tin-enameled Ceramics at Galveztown (16AN39)……………..… 158 French Site I (16PC80) …………………………………………...…... 160 Historical Setting: The Point Coupee Coast……………………….. 160 Archaeology at French Site I (16PC80)…………………..……….. 162 Tin-enameled Ceramics at French Site I (16PC80)…………...…... 164 The Bicentennial Gardens (22AD999)………….…………………….. 166 Historical Setting: The Bicentennial Gardens (22AD999)………... 166 Archaeology at the Bicentennial Gardens (22AD999)….….…...… 167 Tin-enameled Ceramics at the Bicentennial Gardens (22AD999)... 167 Natchitoches Area Sites …………...………………………………...…….. 170 Los Adaes (16NA16) …………………………………………………. 170 Historical Setting: Los Adaes (16NA16)………………………….. 170 Archaeology at Los Adaes (16NA16)………………….……...….. 171 Tin-enameled Ceramics at Los Adaes (16NA16)……………...….. 173 vi The American Cemetery (16NA67)……...…………………………... 175 Historical Setting: The American Cemetery (16NA67)………..…. 175 Archaeology at the American Cemetery (16NA67)………...…….. 176 Tin-enameled Ceramics at the American Cemetery (16NA67)…... 177 The Chamard House (16NA100)……….……………………………... 179 Historical Setting: The Chamard House (16NA100)..…………….. 179 Archaeology at the Chamard House (16NA100)………………..... 181 Tin-enameled Ceramics at the Chamard House (16NA100)…….... 183 6 Tin-Enameled Ceramics: Of Decoration and Distribution Analysis and Conclusions……...…………………………………………....... 185 Class Level Dimension………………………………………………........... 188 Group Level Dimension………………………..……………………........... 189 Type Level Dimension……………………………………………………... 190 Style Level Dimension……………………………………………....... 193 Socioeconomic and Consumer Choice Comparison.……………..….... 194 Differences in the New Orleans Area………………….………….. 194 Socioeconomic Similarities Across Distance……………………... 196 Vessel Forms and Socioeconomic