W&M ScholarWorks
Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects
2012
Rogue Fishermen: Codfish, tlanticA Items, and the Isles of Shoals
Megan Victor College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd
Part of the Fresh Water Studies Commons, Oceanography Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons
Recommended Citation Victor, Megan, "Rogue Fishermen: Codfish, tlanticA Items, and the Isles of Shoals" (2012). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626683. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-jwyy-yq12
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rogue Fishermen: Codfish, Atlantic Items, and the Isles of Shoals
Megan Victor
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
Bachelor of Arts, University of Michigan, 2010
A Thesis presented to the Graduate Faculty of the College of William and Mary in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts
Department of Anthropology
The College of William and Mary May, 2012 ProQuest Number: 10630697
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest.
ProQuest 10630697
Published by ProQuest LLC (2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346 Rogue Fishermen: Codfish, Atlantic Items and the Isles of Shoals
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Masters of Arts in Anthropology from The College of William & Mary.
by
Megan Rhodes Victor
Accepted for Masters of Arts
W\r- :------Neil L. Norman, Committee Chair
Brown III
Nath^fa D. Hamiltqji
Danielle Moretti-^a
Freae
Williamsburg, Virginia
April 1,2012 ABSTRACT PAGE
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, taverns stood as integral places in the daily lives of the inhabitants of England and her colonies. While they functioned as a central location in nearly every town and city, taverns also served as locations where wages, windfalls, and purloined wealth could be spent or consumed through gifting, making them important sites for scholars who examine a range of economic networks. Despite the potential for illuminating practices of daily life and local customs of socialization, as well as the role of feasting and gifting in a historical context, there has been a relative dearth of archaeological research done on colonial coastal taverns. This paper seeks to address these underrepresented tavern sites through a three-fold comparison. It focuses upon the ceramic assemblages from the taverns at the fishing village of Pemaquid, Maine, the fishing station established on Smuttynose Island in the Isles of Shoals, whose tavern was discovered only this past summer, and the larger port city, Port Royal, Jamaica. Through this comparison, the paper seeks to illuminate the exchanges of economic and social capital, as well as the processes of identity formation that lie behind illicit trade, which took place within these establishments. Table of Contents
Dedication Page ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables iv
List of Appendices V
I. Introduction 1
II. A Theoretical Approach 8
III. The Isles of Shoals: A Brief History 31
IV. Data Analysis 44
V. Conclusions from the Data 62
VI. Conclusions 73
Appendices 75
References 109
i Dedication Page
This thesis is dedicated to my parents Cindy and David, my step-parents Steve and Dianne, my sister Connie, my step-sister Danielle, my grandmothers Delphine and Fran, my partner Anne, and to the memories of my grandfathers, Louis and Irving. Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Neil Norman, for his countless hours of patience and advice. Additionally, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Marley Brown, III, Dr. Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, and Dr. Frederick Smith for their advice and support along the way. I would also like to thank Dr. Nathan Hamilton for his generous support my research, including the lending of the Smuttynose Island ceramic assemblage to me for analysis and for all of his assistance and expertise on the subject of Isles of Shoals, both in the field and outside of it. Thanks go to Arthur Clausnitzer, Jr. for his valuable advice and assistance. Finally, I would like to thank my partner Anne for her undying support for my research, including late night phone calls and out-loud readings of countless iterations of my thesis. List of Figures
Figure 1: Isles of Shoals Showing State Boundary Line (Reproduced from Harrington, 1992: 251)
Figure 2: Fishing Stations on New England’s Coast 1600-1630 (Reproduced from Harrington 1985a: 30)
Figure 3: Division of Colonial and European Earthenwares
Figure 4: Ivory Die (Photo Courtesy of Arthur Clausnitzer, Jr.)
Figure 5: Lead Tavern Token (Photo Courtesy of Arthur Clausnitzer, Jr.)
Figure 6: Site Map with Activity Areas List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Table of Analyzed Smuttynose Island Ceramic Assemblage 75
Appendix 2: Map of Excavation Site at Pemaquid, ME 91 (Reproduced from Camp, 1975:4)
Appendix 3: Table of Analyzed Pemaquid Ceramic Assemblage 93
Appendix 4: Map of Excavation Site Port Royal, Jamaica 96 (Reproduced from Donachie, 2001:36)
Appendix 5: Table of Analyzed Port Royal Ceramic Assemblage 98
Appendix 6: Table of Calculated Mean Ceramic Dates 101 for Smuttynose Island Ceramic Assemblage
Appendix 7: Key for Mean Ceramic Date Calculation 107 for Featured Ware Types
v I. Introduction
The colonial fishermen who explored the Isles of Shoals, a group of islands off of the coast of present-day Maine, comprise a study in contrasts: a barren North
Atlantic landscape of craggy rock-faced and treeless islands with seemingly endless marine resources. The waters teemed with nautical resources, including mackerel, herring, and most importantly to colonial fishermen - cod. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Britain established colonies in the New World with the goal of acquiring new resources and wealth; fish was one such resource and the fishermen at the Isles of Shoals and the merchants that worked with them realized they had a setting for a highly profitable enterprise. During the middle Atlantic period, fishermen bundled and barreled their stores in colonial frontier ports and shipped them to metropolitan centers of Europe, such as Barcelona, Lisbon, and Marseilles
(Pope, 2004: 95). Recently, researchers’ broadened studies focused solely on instrumental economic forces with the Atlantic where peripheries serviced and supplied cores to include research on outer nodes (e.g., frontiers, outposts, secondary settlements) themselves, with the goal of understanding the local political economies that were cores in their own right. These places, which were previously referred to as peripheries and accordingly given peripheral attention, are now central to a more nuanced understanding of the trade networks that spanned the Atlantic and the ways that economic and social capital was negotiated within local exchange networks and local regimes of value (Orser, 1996). Against this backdrop of trade networks, exchanges, and relationships, this paper addresses the microeconomics of the Isles of
1 Shoals and argues that the fishermen there leveraged their position at a key node in the international cod-fishing trade for their own political and economic gain within the broader Atlantic World. It further argues that Shoalers deployed economic gains to negotiate social capital within the tavern that sat on Smuttynose Island. Such taverns served as media for social economic transaction and fundamental locales to local political economies. This research articulates with archaeological investigation of alcohol and sociability, both emerging topics in historical archaeology and historical studies (Smith, 2008). This case study, situated well within the reach of documentary sources, holds the potential to address how processes of social negotiation, such as diacritical feasting, were materialized and build on comparative theories of such in the much deeper archaeological past (Dietler, 1996). Thus, it works toward a comparative approach which, building on the feast, highlights not only cultural and historical specificity in such rites, but also places commensal politics into a broader context, as a strategy common to the human condition.
Additionally, it seeks to place Smuttynose Island along a continuum within a larger geographic model of early English colonialism that extended from the Grand Banks in Newfoundland through New England to the bustling city of Port Royal, Jamaica in the Caribbean.
The Isles of Shoals consist of nine islands which lie across the oceanward extension of state border between present-day Maine and New Hampshire. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the area’s ecosystem supported a population of codfish, gadus morhua, which were generally larger and more plentiful than those
2 caught at other contemporary fishing centers. Period commercial records and historical accounts show that during a time when cod was considered a highly valuable commodity, the ‘world’s price’ for this fish was gauged against those caught off of the Isles of Shoals; and as such, merchants who received codfish in
Europe and the Caribbean used Isles of Shoals cod as a ‘gold standard’ (Hamilton,
2009; Hamilton, 2011, Rutledge, 1997). In addition to procuring codfish, the location of the Shoals also served as a trading post of sorts. Other types of fish, as well as goods like pipes, tobacco, wine, rum and sugar were imported from Europe and its
New World colonies and subsequently distributed to mainland New England, the
Maritime Provinces of British Canada, and the Caribbean (Jenness, 1875; Hamilton,
2009).
This position at the center of the fishing industry and other trade networks gave the community on the Isles of Shoals a considerable amount of economic leverage in the Atlantic world trade. Building on previous archaeological research done on the Isles of Shoals, this paper seeks to address where spatially, and how culturally, it was that the six hundred or so fishermen at this settlement spent their excess income; the initial ceramic analysis indicated that the wares were largely middling-class in value, suggesting that the Shoalers’ wealth was being pooled in items, services, and pursuits other than tableware1. Through a comparative examination of the ceramic assemblages from Smuttynose Island, Pemaquid, Maine, and Port Royal, Jamaica, this paper seeks to determine if the fishermen on the Isles
1 It is unclear if the Shoalers were spending money at the tavern, or if they used more of a system of barter.
3 of Shoals focused their wealth on domestic spaces, or in the tavern on Smuttynose
Island. This paper further examine what the Shoalers spent and consumed at the tavern by assessing the ceramics for ware type, vessel form, and relative ‘value’ in terms of standard economic understandings of vessel price, as well as the relative cost of the content of these vessels. Then, the thesis works to contextualize these materials within local practices, specifically the rites and rituals associated with the exchange of social capital. If feasting was important to these exchanges, it can be theorized that wealth would be pooled in discrete domestic contexts where such exchanges took place (e.g., parlors), or in a public forum, like a tavern, which was similarly associated with conspicuous consumption of food and drink - both sites where commensal politics would take place. However, there are different implications for each with the former representing more individualizing social practices and the latter associated with status negotiations focused on public rites and rituals taking place quite literally in the public house.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, taverns stood as integral parts of the daily lives in the European Atlantic World, which included American and
Caribbean colonies. In these places, inhabitants and visitors of different classes could drink alcohol together and socialize; as such they frequently served as meeting places for this very reason. It was here that the fishermen ate, drank, smoked and conversed in the company of the merchants, sailors, pirates, privateers, and other seedier folk who frequented the Isles in the course of trade. In the course of socializing, patrons of taverns could exchange information, negotiate power relations
4 and maintain both social and cultural norms. This was largely because taverns, following the work of Victor Turner, were liminal spaces that stood outside of the standards established for social norms; patrons could speak and act in ways that they could not in other settings (Turner, 1967, 1969; Smith, 2008). Although Turner refers to rites of passage and thus temporal liminality, the characteristics he ascribes to the Timinal persona’ describe liminal spaces as well; these places, like taverns, represent a “cultural realm that has few or none of the attributes” of the culture around them (Turner, 1969: 94). Liminal spaces are ambiguous because those that move within them “elude or slip through the network of classifications” which work to define the norms of “cultural space” (Turner, 1969: 95). Thus, taverns as liminal spaces are “betwixt and between” the classifications “assigned and arrayed by law, custom, [and] convention” (Turner, 1969: 95). Taverns were unique, liminal features on the settlement’s landscape because they bore witness to conduct and ideas that could not exist within the quotidian norms of the community found outside of their walls.
The reputation that fishermen at the Isles of Shoals earned themselves certainly speaks to conduct and ideas outside the accepted norms of behavior. These men were known for their lawless conduct, including drunkenness, illicit trade and piracy, and constant disregard for established authority from Europe or the colonial mainland (Jenness, 1875; Dow, 1923). Commanding such high prices for their cod, the Shoalers felt their economic importance in the Atlantic World and consequently harbored resentment toward authorities who tried to regulate their behavior or tax
5 their profits which they earned as individual fishermen, rather than as men working on a fishing plantation. That the Shoalers wielded substantial economic power is further reinforced by the high prices they commanded and is manifested in their conduct, which included tormenting local officials, and trading indiscriminately with those who could best serve them financially or could best provision them, especially with alcohol (cf Pope, 2004).
Additionally, there was a lack of accountability associated with those who drank, which is still seen today, and as such, actions taken or works spoken under the influence of alcohol, real or feigned, were more readily excused (Smith, 2008). Due to the role that such institutions played, they were also locations where ill-gotten wealth could be traded and spent, making taverns also stand as important sites for the examination of both contemporary legitimate and illicit networks of trade. Because these ale-houses held such a central position in colonial life, especially at a community like the Isles of Shoals, the fishermen’s wealth may have passed through the taverns and have been negotiated along with social status and agreements of power.
This paper will use a comparative approach to examine the tavern on
Smuttynose Island, primarily through a detailed analysis with the tavern assemblage found at Port Royal, Jamaica. The settlement at Port Royal is roughly contemporaneous to that at the Isles of Shoals and was a bustling port and center of trade and illicit behavior—and thus similar to the activities taking place on
Smuttynose Island —which makes it a valuable site for comparison. At the other end of the spectrum of nefariousness and cooperation with colonial authorities, the Isles of Shoals and specifically the tavern on Smuttynose Island will be compared to
Pemaquid, a fishing station on the coast of Maine and a contemporary to Smuttynose
Island, which also contained a tavern. The site has been referred to in previous research as a ‘typical’ fishing station and it is against this image that this paper seeks to further compare the community at the Isles of Shoals and the negotiation of social capital that took place there, especially within its taverns.
Using these sites, it is possible to set up a continuum of behavior vis-a-vis colonial authorities and the larger mercantile system which centered on the concept of peripheral nodes working to serve the metropole. On one end, are residents of a location who are fully committed to the colonial enterprise and are relatively complicit in regards to figures of authority and the laws they enforce. On the other end, there are those who were opposed, often violently, to colonial rule and the mercantile core/periphery system and who represented the basest level of the colonial enterprise because of it. What follows is a discussion of the unique institution of the tavern in the historical record, and its importance to archaeology as a site where commensal politics and the negotiation of capital took place; additionally, this paper seeks to place the inhabitants of Smuttynose Island along this continuum, along with the comparative sites of Port Royal and Pemaquid.
7 II. A Theoretical Apyroach
This chapter establishes the theoretical groundwork that will inform the thesis. It explores the core and periphery model which is used by historians and archaeologists to describe and postulate political and economic dynamics of the
Atlantic World during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; it should be noted that this is a heuristic devise used by scholars to model the economic and political events of the period. This chapter then goes on to present the case study of the Isles of Shoals to challenge and critique a formulation that focuses on the agency of
Western European metropoles at the expense of colonial settings. After establishing the Isles of Shoals as a core space in its own region, the paper then moves to the hyper local region of the settlement system and examines the core social, political, and economic nodes within the settlement on Smuttynose Island. Specifically, this thesis examines the institution of the Smuttynose Island tavern, along with a discussion of the negotiations of social capital, power, and authority that took place within it, viewed through the lens of commensal politics nested within the dynamics of a core node of the Atlantic World. In so doing, it brings the historical archaeology of Smuttynose Island into conversation with anthropological discussions of feasting and sociability.
World Systems and Frontier Theory
Within the larger theoretical conception of World Systems is the economic model of the center and periphery as it pertains to the emerging Atlantic World; it has commonly been used to explore and classify the early iterations of the hyper- connected world that we live in today. In the early 15 century,th Europeans struck out from Western European ports in search of the trade goods that would sustain economies, which were previously buoyed by war booty acquired through crusading wars in the Middle and Near East. The early search for trade goods in northern and northwestern Africa quickly turned to a thorough scouring of the known world for raw materials to feed early industrialization. As plantations sprang up in colonial settings, labor—in the form of indentured and later enslaved-people -was brought from first Europe and then Africa; this was done to feed the “peripheral” settings that supplied metropoles with the raw materials needed for European factories. This economic escalation built throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, as did the demand for exotic trade items, new foodstuff, novel stimulants, and perennial favorites. This period was characterized by the forging of political alliances based largely on economic exchanges, and the wars based on them - or the lack thereof. This climate facilitated the negotiations of business deals and social capital, both within the confines of colonial law and under it. In these models, European metropoles were of central importance as they unprecedented concentrations of political, economic, and social exchanges. This describes what Immanuel Wallerstein (1976) and others refers to as a world-system, which is a large social network with bounded polities within which its members identified themselves as entities. Most importantly, though, a world system is characterized as an economic-material system which can function in a self-contained manner as it draws its strength from wide-spread divisions of labor within it and across the geographic space it encompasses (Wallerstein, 1976; Wolf,
9 1982). However, perhaps their centrality had been over valued vis-a-vis the colonies.
In World Systems Theory, the ‘core,’ or metropole, is not only an economic center alone, but rather, it is also a social and political one. Ideas, fashions, and beliefs originate there, and then slowly dissipate out toward the colonies and the outer edges of their frontiers (Champion, 1995, Wallerstein, 1976). Due to the inherent delay the spread of such information from a colonial center, those in the colonies had limited contact with their homelands and thus limited enforcement of, or care for, mainstream Western European social norms and laws. In this system, trade and exchange took place through a series of nodes across the Atlantic World, with some existing solely to service others, namely the peripheries servicing the metropoles.
Within this model, the Isles of Shoals’ location on the peripheries of England’s colonial settlement on the American mainland would place them even further into a liminal, frontier zone than inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay colony.
However, the Isles of Shoals were actually a fundamentally important node within the Atlantic world and because they were separated from both Europe and the
American mainland, they were positioned in the middle of a network of trade routes from which they could draw influence, commerce, and wealth. As explained earlier in this paper, the codfish from the Isles of Shoals were seen as the ‘gold standard’ for
Atlantic cod, and merchants and fisher folk there set ‘world’s price’ (Hamilton,
2009; Hamilton, 2010, Rutledge, 1997). The inhabitants of the Isles exerted considerable economic authority, and leveraged their control of the well of cod gushing out of the Atlantic. As people who controlled the source of this limitless—
10 for that is the way it seemed at the time —supply of one of the most valuable fish in the Atlantic, as well as the process of dunning (or curing the fish) they felt little need to courteously serve the English homeland, or the crown’s appointed agents on the
American mainland.
In this way, the Isles of Shoals represent a true “frontier” locale, which
Frederick Jackson Turner defines as the meeting point between conflicting forces
(1920). Leonard Thompson and Howard Lamar further clarify this definition, explaining the frontier to be a “zone of interpretation between two previously distinct societies” (1981: 7). Such a zone only ‘closes’ when a single authority “established] hegemony” over it (Lamar & Thompson, 1981: 7). Until such political hegemony is in place, frontiers are “worlds of social diversity, innovative cultural adaptations, and political mutability” (Cayton & Teute, 1998: 3). Thompson and Lamar identify three characteristic of a frontier: geography, the meeting of distinct peoples, and the way that the relationships between these different groups and the environment solidify
(1981: 8). The landscape of the frontier both gives opportunities to those who settle it and “set the limits for human activity there” (Lamar & Thompson, 1981: 8). Turner describes the environment of the frontier as being “at first too strong for man,” who must “accept the conditions which it furnishes or perish” (1920: 4). This harsh environment can stem from physical factors such as temperature or amount of precipitation, from the social climate that emerges as a product of the conflicting cultures, or from both. Turner points out that the result of this environment is the creation of a new and hitherto unseen way of living, doing business, and viewing the
11 world; it creates a locale characterized by a strong dichotomy: succeed or die. With regards to the conflicting cultures, Thompson and Lamar point out that there are no monolithic societies and as a result, individuals on the frontier usually perform several differing roles; this creates a situation where “several types of intruders are usually present in a given frontier zone” simultaneously (Lamar & Thompson, 1981:
9). It is crucial to note that there is no single, uniform frontier theory that describes all events that take place in such diverse locations as North America, Southern
Africa, and Tasmania. Additionally, a view of the frontier that examines the phenomenon solely as a series of “sequences of white settlement” is too narrow and too ethnocentric to apply to all frontier zones (Berkhofer, 1981: 44). The frontier is a process rather than a steady movement.
Thus, the identification of complete political control as the factor that eventually ‘closes’ a frontier zone reexamines and calls into question Turner’s concept of the frontier as moving ever more westward and leaving ‘civilization’ in its wake. There is no set period of time for a frontier zone to be opened or closed and a new zone can open before a previous zone has closed, as was the case with the west coast and the Great Plains of North America. The frontiers in the North America, for example, did not really ‘close’ until roughly 1900 - although Alaska present an exception even to this date (Lamar & Thompson, 1981: 310-311). Similarly, the interactions that take place within a frontier zone are not uniform, but are instead an
“aggregate of changes” accrued through the whole process of the frontier, all of which significantly affect the events that take place there and the way these events
12 are conceptualized (Berkhofer, 1981: 46). What is described here is frontier theory as it best applies to the Isles of Shoals and to Smuttynose Island.
Turner references the Atlantic coast as the first4 American’ locale, because it was the frontier of Europe and thus a location characterized by a “steady movement away from the influence of Europe” (1920: 4). The English colonists along the
Atlantic viewed any land to be a frontier if it existed “beyond the pale of their civilization” and the complexities of the life of the metropole (Cayton & Teute,
1998: 1). This is largely because frontiers existed on the periphery of ‘established’ countries and empires (Milner, 1981: 123). Turner describes the Atlantic frontier as a location comprised of fishermen, traders, and farmers; its advance, he argues, decreased the colonies’ dependence on Europe but increased the need for traders
(Turner, 1920: 23-24). This is seen at Smuttynose Island, where Europe as a whole was viewed as a trading partner, but not a source of laws to be followed. This observation confirms the Isles of Shoals’ place as a frontier, because a region stops being a frontier zone only after a single group can establish political control over the area (Lamar & Thompson, 1981: 10). Turner advocates that one of the most important aspects of the frontier is the fact that it is a product of and production center for individualism (Turner, 1920: 30). He continues that the frontier, by nature, is “anti-social [and] produces antipathy to control, and particularly to any direct control,” regarding the taxman as “a representative of oppression” (30). Turner argues that the economic power of the frontier secures political power; he describes inhabitants of the frontier as being “strong in selfishness and individualism,
13 intolerant of administrative experience and education,” and willing to press
“individual liberty beyond its proper bounds” (32). It is also a place where the
“bonds of custom are broken and unrestraint is triumphant;” it stands as a “gate of escape from the bondage of the past” and is a place of freshness, confidence, the birth of new institutions and the “scorn of older society” (38). Turner describes inhabitants of the frontier as having certain characteristics: a strength and coarseness, which is combined with inquisitiveness; a practical and inventive mind; a mastery over the material world; and a dominant individualism (37). The motivating force behind many of the characteristics is the fact that key policies were developed in the core and subsequently applied to the peripheral frontier zone, with little or no understanding of the area about which they were concerned. This ineffective policy created a need for ingenuity so as to be able to adapt to the frontier locale.
As a frontier location distanced from the core, the Isles of Shoals were inhabited by and attracted a “motley, shifting community of fishermen... sailors, smugglers, and picaroons who made the Isles of Shoals their rendezvous and their home” (Jenness, 1875:123). In fact, these fishermen were as “unconcerned with ideology or national borders as the fish they caught” (Smith, 2006: 27). This lack of identification with either side of the Atlantic manifested itself in the form of constant indifference, dislike, and “open defiance” towards all established authority, which would blossom at times to more vehement displays; at times, the fishermen would even “escape into the open sea” to “elude” officers of the law (Jenness, 1875: 119-
123).
14 This is made especially clear through a series of case studies reported by the historian John Scribner Jenness in his The Isles o f Shoals, An Historical Sketch
(1875). Jenness sets up the case study by explaining that the Shoals were “too remote from the mainland to be within effective reach of the feeble governments established there” (Jenness, 1875: 123). Their “remoteness” led to a substantial inability to maintain order there (Jenness, 1875: 119). He reports that they “would naturally despite all courts” and their representatives and were more content to turn to their “own sturdy right arms alone for the redress of grievances” (Jenness, 1875:
123). To this end, Jenness reports one fisherman who was tried for assault and battery against an officer of the court; the man freely admitted that he had beaten up the officer and then added that he and his fellow fishermen “agreed to heave the law one side” and threw the man into the sea (Jenness, 1875: 124). In another instance, three inhabitants, Bartholomew Mitchell, Rebora Downs, and Bartholomew
Burrington, all had charges brought against them for “assailing the Shoals' constable” verbally and physically, threatening to “break his neck on the rocks” and finally pulling off the officer’s “neck cloth" and other clothing (Jenness, 1875: 120).
This frontier node in the Atlantic World represents a location where wealth and goods flowed steadily, but where the core was not able to fully exert social or political control. As evidenced above, the Shoals were a hot-bed for rabble-rousing and for staunch, and often violent, personal views on politics and economic regulations. To understand the dynamics that took place at this fundamentally important location in Atlantic World trade, the activities at the local level must first
15 be understood. The Shoalers traded with the countries of North-Western Europe, including France, England, and the Netherlands, as well as those of the
Mediterranean, including Portugal, Spain, and Italy. This broad trade network resembles that belonging to a more central location, rather than one belonging to a peripheral location. The Isles of Shoals were, in fact, truly on the edge of the
European conception of the Atlantic World, due to the fact that they were peripheral to New England, which itself was peripheral to London. At the center of these global activities, and at the heart of the community on the Isles of Shoals, stood the tavern; it is toward this institution that this paper now turns its focus.
Taverns and their Role in Communities
In the period focused on for this thesis, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, taverns stood as integral locations in the daily lives for the inhabitants of
England and her colonies. They were places where often “the rich drank alongside the poor,” especially in port cities, including those of the Caribbean (Salinger, 2002:
5). Given this rich mixture of economic conditions of life, political inclinations, and occupations, taverns functioned as integral places of meeting. Sharon Salinger points out that unlike in Europe “most colonial towns and villages boasted only two types of public buildings - churches and taverns” (2002: 4). Taverns in the British colonies served as the sites of myriad and complex activities and interactions, aside from the typical, and expected, processes of eating, drinking, and smoking; they would at one moment act as a meeting hall for officials, and at another a “union hall where workers and employers looked for one another” (Thorp, 1996: 662). This is partially
16 because these buildings were often “the only large buildings which could serve as
places for groups of people to meet both formally and informally for secular
purposes” (Rockman & Rothschild, 1984: 113). In fact, taverns were the “most
numerous public institution in colonial [America],” which gives them prominence on
the social landscape due to their prominence alone (Conroy, 1995: 2). Given their
centrality in terms of the spatial layout of colonized towns, as well as their centrality
in terms of socializing, hosting political discussions, and planning “both legal and
extralegal activities” these institutions are ideal locations upon which to focus a
study of Atlantic World trade, as well as an examination of illicit trade, smuggling,
and piracy (Thorp, 1996: 662).
Further expanding upon the activities that took place within public houses,
Frederick Smith argues that an examination of taverns provides “enormous
opportunities” to investigate alcohol consumption and the substance’s role in crafting
“the appropriate atmosphere for sociability” (2008: 64). Due to the fact that certain taverns were used as meeting places for specific professions, an examination of these institutions can also shed light onto the quotidian activities of non-elites within the
Atlantic World. For example, shipbuilders, sailors, and merchants would often meet at a particular tavern to carry out the details of a shipping contract, as was done at
Tontine in New York (Rockman & Rothschild, 1984: 113). At another, such as the
Wellfleet Tavern in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or John Earthy’s Tavern in Pemaquid,
Maine, fishermen or whalers would gather at the end of a workday (Bragdon, 1993;
Rockman & Rothschild, 1984; Camp, 1975). Government officials often mandated
17 that one or more tavern be established in a new community (Rockman & Rothschild,
1984; Thorp, 1996) largely because they were seen as central to the “establishment
and maintenance of social, [political] and cultural norms;” however, they were also
integral in the challenging of these norms, because taverns were places where one
could act in ways they could not outside of the building’s walls (Thorp, 1996: 662).
Due to their association with alcohol, taverns are inextricably bound up with
the concept of sociability. These institutions would also serve as “centralized social
anchors for members of dispersed...communities,” especially in New England
(Smith, 2008: 67). This is largely because taverns were “specialized places for
socializing” (Smith, 2008: 68; Rockman & Rothschild, 1984) and alcohol drinking
was “usually part of a larger social performance” (Smith, 2008: 63). Taverns were
“building[s] specifically designed for the group consumption of alcoholic beverages”
and as a result they worked to reinforce the “social and sociable nature of drinking
events,” including the feelings of camaraderie, commiserating, loyalty, and loosened
inhibitions (Smith, 2008: 64). This loosening of inhibitions and lack of
accountability were often what spurred patrons to act and speak in ways they could
not outside of the tavern, as mentioned above.
Despite the dearth of knowledge on Caribbean taverns in the archaeological
record, substantial work has been done on taverns on the English colonial mainland
of North America. Especially since the 1960s, there have been a fair number of projects focused upon taverns examinations, or larger block or town excavations that
include detailed excavations of taverns (Burrow, et al., 2003, Rockman &
18 Rothschild, 1984; Bragdon, 1993; Smith, 2008). One of the results of these
excavations is the establishment of a pattern of sorts for identifying taverns in the
archaeological record. Several criteria have been established for this identification
process, including a large number of artifacts used in the preparation, serving, and
consumption of food, a large number of vessels, especially those for drinking, a
subsequent greater amount of ceramic types used for drinking vessels and alcohol
storage, glass-wares with specialized functions, and smoking pipes (Bragdon, 1993,
Burrow, et al. 2003, King, 1988, Smith, 2008). Rockman and Rothschild have argued
that the assemblages from taverns are dependent on the functions and the size of the
community that the buildings served (1984). As such, it is important to note that
these artifact types related to eating, drinking (alcoholic beverages), and smoking are
useful for distinguishing tavern sites from domestic ones, but not all categories are
needed in the same proportions to certify the presence of a tavern. A rural tavern
serving a small community would likely have more artifacts pertaining to eating as it
would have served as an inn and performed a broader range functions within the
area. (Rockman & Rothschild, 1984; Smith, 2008). A tavern serving a large
community, especially one in an urban context, would likely be more specialized in
its functions, and as a result, its archaeological signature seen in the proportions of artifacts in the assemblage recovered from it, might favor one particular action over another, such as the consumption of alcohol over the consumption of food.
The record should show, generally, evidence of “activities in which people engage while socializing and exchanging information” such as drinking and smoking
19 and it is the increased amount of artifacts pertaining to these two activities that separate a tavern assemblage from a domestic one (Rockman & Rothschild, 1984,
Bragdon, 1993, Burrow, et al. 2003). The social atmosphere that came of alcohol consumption, as described by Smith above, facilitated the exchange of information in ways that conversations at a domestic location would not.
In sum, the study of taverns can act as a guide to the activities that went on within it, including socializing through food, drink, and tobacco, as well as more economically remunerative interactions, such as the establishing and finalizing of shipping arrangements, both through the law and under it, and the negotiation of social capital. As such, an archaeological examination of taverns on islands, such as
Smuttynose Island or Jamaica, is especially crucial to understanding trade networks because, as Paul Rainbird writes, islands are places of contact wherein the inhabitants “engage with outsiders socially and continuously” (2007: 173). He continues that islanders often “incorporate elements of this contact into their own populace” and that “through contact and exchanges [they] create a distinct community identity” (Rainbird, 2007: 173). As such, an island tavern stands as the ideal location to best view the remains of trade networks, both legitimate and illicit.
In the absence of more detailed archaeological reports on taverns in the Caribbean, a study of the taverns at analogous island communities can help contribute to the dearth of such literature specific to the region.
20 Feasting and the Negotiation of Social Cavital
Taverns were central to colonial communities as places to converse, celebrate, mourn, and rebel, but also as places to negotiate power and forge alliances.
Societies are inherently both fragile and volatile; micro-politics are vehicles through which stability is maintained, coalitions are forged, and fractions formed to embrittle polities. These negotiations for power are what allow a state to escape its otherwise ephemeral and transient state, because it must always reinforce a degree of consent within its population. However, taverns, as institutions, are not formalized branches of the government, but rather represent locations that are red-hot in their capacity to subvert the influence of state power, especially because alcohol is prevalent within them, which numbs inhibitions and reduces accountability, as described above.
Within public houses and ordinaries, inhabitants of the local community carried out their quotidian activities and negotiated power through them; Fleisher & Wynne
Jones argue that “locating power in everyday activity and interaction” is key to understanding manifestations of authority in the archaeological record (2010; 178).
Power itself has been classically defined as the “probability,” regardless of its basis, that “one actor within a social relationship will be in the position to carry out his own will” despite any actions of resistance (Weber, 1964: 152 in Fleisher &
Wynne Jones, 2010: 180). The concept of authority itself comes from the joint forces of obtained power and the legitimacy required to keep it. This process is an “ongoing negotiation” which is present within every social interaction, action, and relationship, including those taking place within taverns (2010: 179-180). Drawing from Foucault,
21 the state is built upon relationships with its subjects, which are crucial to a society’s
stability because each one of these interactions stems from and reinforces the
existing structures of power (Fleisher & Wynne Jones, 2010, Foucault, 2000).
Power, as a concept, does not necessarily act directly upon members of a
society, but rather affects their actions because it shapes their worldview and the
expectations that they have for the ways in which their relationships with others and
their society will turn out. This makes a society or state’s exercising of power
something that is both pervasive and unseen by its subjects, who still actively
participate in legitimizing that power. As a result of these interactions, power can
manifest itself in a dialogue of many forms including cooperation, collaboration,
negotiation, and empowerment (Spencer-Wood, 1999: 179 in Fleisher & Wynne
Jones, 2010: 182). The form of power negotiated, reinforced, and challenged within
taverns is referred to as “instrumental power” because it centers on the “possibilities
of coercion and control” (Fleisher & Wynne Jones, 2010: 183).
One key way of addressing these issues of the negotiation of power, is
through an examination of feasting and commensal politics. Michael Dietler has
defined commensal politics, the structured sharing of food and drink, as “the ways in which the shared consumption of food and drink is marshaled in the negotiation of power” (2003, 272); an examination of these politics does not focus a ‘top down’ hierarchy, but rather shows how negotiations permeate society and social life at all levels and the ways in which consumption acts as a political practice. Louise Steel also argues in “A Goodly Feast...A Cup of Mellow Wine” that the “social and
22 political functions of feasting are closely intertwined” because “hospitality is used to
establish and maintain social relations and to forge alliances” (2004: 283). Feasts can
create a shared feeling of identity and belonging and allow the “host to accrue
prestige and standing (symbolic capital) within a community” (Steel, 2004: 283). She
points out that the “enhancement of the host’s status within the community will
“buy” influence over decisions made by the community” (Steel, 2004: 283).
Authority figures or groups, defined as those whom members of a society accept and
legitimize holders of power, are not the only ones who can hold feasts, however
(Fleisher & Wynne Jones, 2010). Social groups, households, and even individuals
can host such events and negotiations of power, and it is this latter type of host that
this paper focuses upon, within the tavem-context. Alcohol in particular plays a large
role in the negotiation of social capital. As a relative form of food, Dietler argues,
alcohol can also be said to be “embodied material culture” (2006: 232). He goes on
to explain that this makes it a special form of material culture that is made to be
destroyed through ingestion. He argues that because of this relationship to the body,
it has a close relationship to concepts of personhood and sense of self. Additionally,
because the resources used to make alcohol are conspicuous and also must be replenished in order to make it again, it directly links domestic and political
economies. Such embodied material culture “constitutes a prime arena for the negation, projection, and contestation of power,” (2006: 232). Dietler views alcohol as a “versatile and highly charged symbolic medium and social tool” that is used in the “playing out” of politics and rituals, as well as the negotiations of social and
23 economic relations (2006: 232). As embodied material culture, Dietler argues that
alcohol can be seen as a “total social fact,” following Marcel Mauss, who defined the
term as a phenomenon that concerns both individuals and collective entities, and is
simultaneously religious, legal, political and domestic, as well as economic because
it involves accumulation, and consumption (Mauss, 1923; Dietler, 2006: 232).
Louise Steel further supports this varied and all-inclusive meaning in stating that
“alcohol serves to construct an ideal world” because it is “particularly appropriate”
for both “ceremonial consumption and the forging of alliances.” (Steel, 2004: 283).
In “Feasts and Commensal Politics in the Political Economy Food, Power
and Status in Prehistoric Europe,” Dietler establishes three types of feasts, namely:
entrepreneurial, patron-role, and diacritical (Dietler, 1996: 92 - 99); participants
carry out each type with a different set of symbolic logic. As such, in order to
examine the feasting and commensal politics taking place within taverns, the type of
feast, and its intended goals, must first be ascertained. At heart, feasts are
performances that involve food and drink. They differ from daily life because they
provide a stage for the “highly condensed symbolic representation of social
relations” (89). Feasts “express idealized concepts” including “the way people
believe relations exist or should exist” (89). What follows is a summary of what are
regarded as the three ‘main’ models of feasting, following Dietler, with an example to illustrate each type. The tavern at Smuttynose Island falls into the last of these
categories, the Diacritical Feast.
24 Entrepreneurial Feasts
A fitting example of an entrepreneurial feast comes from the folklorist and
historian Roger D. Abrahams’ Singing the Master. He focuses on the corn-shucking
ceremony on nineteenth-century Southern plantations of the United States.
Specifically, he examines how the power relationships of slavery were “dramatized”
through “scenes” wherein slaves sang as they worked, participated in work and play
activities with a competitive edge, and received a feast and a “good time” as a
reward (Abrahams, 1992: 80-81). In this way, he is examining the very commensal
politics discussed above, and the fact that the ceremony carried meaning for all
members of the plantation society that were involved, even if it was viewed in
different ways by different groups.
Following Dietler, entrepreneurial feasts involve the use of commensal
politics and hospitality to gain social capital through “informal political power and
economic advantage” (Dietler, 1996: 92). In this arrangement, the holder of the feast
is looking to gain prestige, which is “the ability to influence group decisions or
actions” that derives from relationships that are created and reinforced through
“personal interaction” (92). It is this form of the feast that the corn-shucking ceremony embodies, especially because the hosts of entrepreneurial feast often used the “institution of the work-party feast” to gain political and economic power as well as increased social status (93). Dietler defines the work-party as a “labor mobilization device” wherein “a group of people are called together to work on a specific project for a day and then are treated to a meal and / or drink, after which the
25 host owns the proceeds of the day’s labor” (93). He further characterizes work
parties as either “exchange” or “festive” types; in the former, the reward at the end is
small as is the group working, but there is a strong obligation to reciprocate the
work-party at another location with one of the worker acting as host. The latter, or
“festive” type of work-party involves larger groups of people at work and the
“obligation to provide reciprocal labor services is minimal or non-existent,” while
the “quantities of food and drink required are much greater” (94). Work-party feasts
function as an “opportunity to make public statements about [the] prestige” of the
host and as a “mechanism” to further social inequalities” (94). Abrahams’
description of the corn-shucking ceremony was a work-party feast, and thus it
negotiated power relations and portrayed an ideal model of such interactions; the
planter would assemble neighboring planters and their slaves to join him on his
plantation to shuck his com. Afterwards, Abrahams points out, they were rewarded
with large amounts of food and alcohol. It is important to note, however, that the
shucked com belonged to the planter not the slaves -despite the work that they put in to harvest and husk it. Further, the planters used the com-shucking ceremony to
display their patriarchal benevolence to the slaves present as well as fellow planters who attended. The reciprocal nature of an entrepreneurial feast comes in at the level of the planters, namely in that one wealthy plantation owner would invite other members of the planter class with the expectation that he would be subsequently invited over to his neighbor’s com-shucking ceremony.
26 Patron-Role Feasts
The category of the patron-role feast also involves the negotiation of social
capital. In this model, “the formalized use of commensal hospitality” works to
“symbolically reiterate and legitimize institutionalized relations of unequal social
power” (Dietler, 1996: 97). The driving principle behind a patron-role feast is “the
relationship of reciprocal obligation engendered through hospitality” (97). However,
there is no expectation of equal reciprocation from the feast’s guests. Instead, there is
an acceptance of “a continually unequal pattern of hospitality” which is symbolically
expressed through the motions of the feast; this acceptance “naturalizes the
formalization through repetition of an event that induces sentiments of social debt”
(97).
Enrique Rodrigez-Alegria, in “Eating Like an Indian: Negotiating Social
Relations in the Spanish Colonies,” presents a patron-role feasting relationship. He
himself argues that feasting practices act as “cultural means for negotiating power”
and specifically looks at eating and feasting practices in sixteenth and seventeenth
century Mexico and the Andes and the way that the Spanish colonizers negotiated
social capitol through food and alcohol (2005: 565). In his opinion, feasts were an
“ideal way to make relationships of power and domination appear amicable and mutually beneficial” in a colonial setting (556). In such situations, power is “in flux” and thus, personal political power is best achieved through “charisma, informal leadership, and the right kinds of social relations” (557). Rodrigez-Alegria states that food and material objects related to food are “used in behaviors in which social
27 relationships are negotiated and power is transformed” (551). He continues that
“food production, preparation, and consumption” are all “imbued with symbolism and social meanings,” and are crucial aspects of culture and society (552). Further, he argues that food is an important form of material culture because it gets ingested and the “biological need for sustenance and nutrition” is then connected to
“culturally mediated social relations that make production, exchange, and consumption of food possible” (552). Rodrigez-Alegria’s arguments fit into the patron-role feast category most when he argues that instead of viewing ceramics and other food-related artifacts and material culture as ethnic markers or evidence of wealth, archaeologists should view them as objects that worked to “naturalize relationships of domination” (Jamieson, 2000: 161-162, in Rodrigez-Alegria).
Diacritical Feasts
The third form of feast is the diacritical feasts, which Dietler defines as a feast that “involves the use of differentiated cuisines and styles of consumption” which function symbolically to “naturalize and reify concepts of ranked differences in social status” (1996: 98; Van der Veen, 2003). Louise Steel describes diacritical feasts in her article, “A Goodly Feast...A Cup of Mellow Wine” as “symbols of exclusive membership” which are usually “characterized by distinctive cuisine...and elaborate dining sets;” additionally, these feasts often “make reference to specialized knowledge of external, exotic social practices as means of demonstrating their exclusivity” (2004: 284). Further, the “symbolic force” of this type of feast comes from the “manipulation of an exclusive style that is closely guarded by the elite,
28 through their privileged access to limited supplies of exotica” (284). Steel emphasizes that there is a “degree of fluidity in the choice of symbolic, ideological referents used by the elite” though, and that diacritical feasts are not strictly of one variety (284). Diacritical feasts, she argues, create a “distinctive package of practices that are readily identifiable in the archaeological record;” this ‘package’ usually includes “the debris of food and drink together with specialized apparatus for their service and consumption, patterns of differential disposal of faunal remains, and possibly the identification of specialized locations for the activities” (284).
What exactly would a diacritical feast look like? Come look inside the tavern on Smuttynose Island, in 1648, once it was well established. A merchant sits in the comer, two stoneware tankards of ale sitting on the table in front of him. A fisherman tmdges in, catches the man’s eye and heads over. He sits, drawing the ale toward him; when he has drunk deeply, the merchant speaks. A patron-role feast emphasizes, reinforces, and naturalizes differences in social status. The ale on the table is soon followed by a bowl of stew, also bought at the merchant’s expense.
Through this gift of food and drink, he reinforces his superior status over the fisherman. Between mouthfuls, the fisherman discusses the deal he can arrange with the merchant, making reference to the wealthier man’s influential status. In accepting the food and drink, and in what he says, the fisherman has thus acknowledged the merchant’s superior status. However, unlike a patron-role feast or an entrepreneurial feast, this diacritical feast has no focus on reciprocity or changing one’s social status.
This meeting is beneficial for both parties involved, though, because it solidifies
29 their relationship and secures similar such arrangements in the future. The deal finalized, the fisherman pushes back from the table and ambles out of the door. The merchant sits back, drinking the ale. The money spent on the food and drink, the medium through which he secured his deal, was well-worth it.
30 III. The Isles of Shoals: A Brief History
This chapter discusses the political economy and history of the Isles of
Shoals, and then turns to a discussion of sites, which are used in this paper as
comparative case studies, namely Pemaquid, Maine, and Port Royal, Jamaica.
Smuttynose Island is one of nine rocky landmasses off the Maine/New Hampshire
coastline that together are referred to as the Isles of Shoals. In the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, the area’s ecosystem fostered a wide array of nautical
resources.
Figure 1: The Isles of Shoals Showing State Boundary Line (Reproduced from Harrington, 1992; 251)
/ ~>
iMNtm■*& y \ ■
mm m wmmmay m mm sitOAij w...... t A P i t iM c .. s c a u t GUtJF OF MAJNF ATLANTIC OCFAN
Colonial settlers were drawn to one in particular: cod which were generally much larger than those caught at other contemporary Atlantic fishing centers and which would have dwarfed those caught today. The largest of these historic codfish,
31 gadus morhua, that weighed around 200 lbs, today commercially harvested cod
average between 6 and 10 pounds, although they have been fished to virtual
extinction along the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as in the
Gulf of Maine, a trend which is only recently starting to reverse (Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, 2006; Jenness, 1874, Hamilton 2009, Drake 1875). Another benefit to the colonial mariners was the region’s dry climate, which aided greatly in the thorough curing of the fish and subsequent stability when shipped across the
Atlantic. The fishermen from North Devon, England and across Ireland who settled the Shoals -reported as mostly roguish men -sought these environmental conditions when establishing the station which would grow to become incredibly successful. In fact, the fishery on the Isles of Shoals was one of the oldest in New England
(Jenness, 1875, Harrington, 1992, Levett, 1628, Drake 1875).
Established around 1623, it immediately outshone its competition. When
Captain Christopher Levett visited the Isles that year, he noted that there was enough fish to support six ships, each with at least fifty men onboard (Levett, 1628). The historian John Scribner Jenness in his The Isles o f Shoals (1875) concludes that
“even before the first settlement of the mainland,” the Isles were “already the scene of a busier activity than any other spot” in New England, north of Plymouth,
Massachusetts” (Jenness, 1875: 51). Much of this success was due to a new process of drying fish called dunning which made the fish thinner, allowing more to fit into a standard hogshead, yet used relatively little salt. The fish were thus well-preserved and durable even in the warm climates to which they were shipped, such as the
32 Mediterranean (Hamilton, 2009, Jenness, 1875). This dunning process, an invention
of the fisherfolk at the fishing station, was possible largely because of the specific
environment of the Isles of Shoals, as described above. The result was a highly
profitable local economy. Furthermore, the market price for cod from the Shoals was three or four times that for those processed at other major fishing centers in the New
World. In addition to curing and trading codfish, the Shoals also acted as a lively point of trade and a traveler’s rest. Additionally, prisoners headed for Europe often arrived at the Shoals before finishing their journey east.
This chapter now turns to an overview of the political history and history of two comparative cases: Pemaquid, on the Pemaquid Peninsula in Maine’s Penobscot
Bay and Port Royal, Jamaica in the Caribbean. Like the fishing station on the Isles of
Shoals, the station at Pemaquid was established during the 1620s (Camp, 1975).
However, after its contemporaneous founding, Pemaquid and the Isles of Shoals begin to differ. The community on the Isles of Shoals was a loosely-managed operation of ‘fishing masters’ who worked together to build individual capital.
Successful fishermen could become quite wealthy. These fishermen lived in privately held and rather solitary transient structures along the Isles, first as bachelors, and then later in more substantial structures with wives and families
(Harrington, 1992, Hamilton 2009, Jenness, 1875). In contrast to the emphasis on individual fishing masters on the Isle of Shoals, Pemaquid’s organization was much more ‘typical,’ and resembled that of other “contemporary stations” like Richmond’s
Island, also in Maine, near Cape Elizabeth, or St. John’s on Newfoundland’s English
33 Shore (Camp, 1975: ix; Harrington, 1992; Pope, 2004). The men at these fishing stations worked on what was referred to as a fishing plantation, which was a
“waterfront premises from which the fishery was conducted” (Pope, 2004: 1); they labored under an agent who regulated almost every aspect of daily life in place of the absentee landlord or under a wealthy “planter,” who owned the fishing plantation and the boats. In both cases, this man was a wealthy European who was “counted as an economic personality” because of their social and economic class (Pope, 200.4: 1).
The fishermen at these mainland stations were at constant risk of losing their jobs, because the proprietor could close the plantations at any time due to financial difficulties or mere boredom (Harrington, 1992, Hamilton, 2009). Operations like those at Pemaquid also resulted in a different type of social organization and settlement pattern with men living in a communal settlement structure. A single, large “Great House” acted as the center of domestic activity for the fishermen at the stations. The Great House was both a place where all the inhabitants lived together communally, and also served as a building in which all manner of work could be carried out while being protected from the elements.
Another distinction between fishing plantations like those in Newfoundland or Pemaquid and the Isles of Shoals is the fact that the mainland fisheries were organized and funded so as to be entrepreneurial enterprises. In the beginning of the seventeenth century, the term plantation was synonymous with colony and planters were planting people in the location as much as they were tending to the bringing in of fish (Pope, 2004). Within a broader framework of Atlantic World trade systems,
34 these fishing plantations were part of a triangle trade, which was comprised of “two
steady streams” of economic flow “and one trickle” (Pope, 2004:91). This is because
the cod fisheries supplied the Mediterranean with dried cod; these European centers
in turn exported both fruit and wine to more northern ports in owned by the English
and the Dutch. From there, these ports then sent ships back to the fishing plantations,
but these were never nearly as heavily loaded with goods and those that were on
board were not very valuable. This is why Pope refers to the unequal flow of goods
within this triangle of trade spanning the Atlantic (Pope, 2004).
As a collection of independent fishermen, the men on the Isles of Shoals were
structurally distanced somewhat from this triangle just as they were geographically
distanced from the larger fishing plantations of St. John’s in Newfoundland or
Pemaquid, Maine and from the larger port cities such as Portsmouth, New
Hampshire. The Shoalers were not ‘planted’ colonists funded by a European merchant, but still produced enough fish (and that of a fine enough quality) to be able to compete with the fishing plantations and to export to the Mediterranean.
The contemporaneous history of these two stations initiated from their early seventeenth century founding continued throughout their occupation. The Isles were most heavily populated as a fishing center from their founding in the early seventeenth century until roughly 1780. Pemaquid, on the other hand, prospered until
1675, when it experienced the first of a series of “Indian uprisings” (Camp, 1975), known as King Phillip’s War, after the name the English gave to the war chief of the
35 Wampanoag Metacomet. After being abandoned for two years, it was resettled, and
fishing temporarily flourished again.
Figure 2: Fishing Stations on New England’s Coast 1600-1630 (Reproduced from Harrington 1985a; 301
K C.
GRAPHIC SCALE FISHING STATIONS ON iOf »»■« NFW ENGLAND COAST 1600 1630
The Isles of Shoals had their highest population from roughly 1710 to 1750
(Harrington, 1992, Hamilton, 2009). Pemaquid experienced a series of scuffles, uprisings, and land conflicts during this time, each of which caused its population to decline then resurge again and again. It experienced at least four major uprisings during the period when the Isles of Shoals boomed: King William’s War (1688),
Queen Anne’s War (1703-1713), Lovewell’s War (1722), and the French & Indian
36 War (1753). It is worth noting that raids like those at Pemaquid were common at
mainland stations; the fact that the Isles of Shoals were free of such raids stands as
another reason for their economic success when compared to other fishing stations,
and perhaps the disposition of its populace.
During the 17th and 18th centuries, the inhabitants of these two fishing
stations also had very different relationships with the authorities of the colonial
mainland. Commenting on the Isles of Shoals, contemporary historians as well as
later authorities, such as John Scribner Jenness and Samuel Adams Drake (1827 -
1879), recount that most complaints against the ‘Shoalers’ were for resisting and
disrespecting officers of the law; they were frequently accused of going so far as to physically assault them. (Jenness, 1875:119, Drake, 1875). Moreover, the authorities of the time reported in frustration that the Shoalers seemed to be under no governmental restrictions at all, due to their “utter indifference” to the legal authority of the colonial mainland (Jenness, 1875: 124). Unlike the Shoalers, the inhabitants at Pemaquid frequently cooperated with local officials to settle continuous land disputes over the prosperous fishing waters and later, to protect them from violent raids. The contrast is striking given the fact that both communities subsisted off of cod fishing in the Gulf of Maine. That the Shoalers earned a reputation for being ill- behaved is especially notable given the fact that most fishermen at fishing stations were viewed as a “looser sort of people and ill-governed men” (Pope, 2004: 3); the men at the Isles of Shoals, then, were regarded as lawless among a crowd already known for its inherent coarseness and rowdiness.
37 The population on the Isles of Shoals greatly decreased during the time of the
American Revolution due to a mandatory evacuation by the newly forming
American Government, because they were “unsure of the political allegiance of the
Shoalers” (Harrington, 1992: 258). In fact, it was found that the inhabitants of the
Shoals “afforded sustenance and recruits to the enemy, early in the war” (Jenness,
1875: 107). Pemaquid cooperated with the Americans and decommissioned the fort that had been there since its founding and removed all of the guns shortly before the
War. During the Revolution itself, the “local people destroyed what remained of the old fort to keep it from being used by the British” (Camp, 1975: xvi).
As a direct result of the evacuation during the Revolutionary War, the Isles of
Shoals never fully recovered financially or in population. In 1775, a mere forty-four inhabitants still lived on the islands, having refused to evacuate during the war. A final attempt at resuscitating the Shoals was made during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century by Samuel Haley; for a brief time, Smuttynose Island became a “self-sustaining possession” (Drake, 1875:183, Hamilton, 2009, Jenness,
1875). Samuel Adams Drake points out, however, that this bustling operation at first
“succeeded.. .in peace” but eventually, it all fell “to decay within his [Haley’s] lifetime” (Drake, 1875:183). By the end of the nineteenth century, the population at last completely disappeared, which is how Smuttynose Island and the Isles of Shoals stand today (Jenness, 1875, Harrington, 1992). Pemaquid, after being consistently ravished by war, suffered a long period of abandonment, but today is a thriving small town on the coast of Maine, which still makes part of its living today fishing.
38 As noted in the previous chapter, the Isles of Shoals was a frontier location
inhabited by, and attractive to, a “motley, shifting community of fishermen... sailors,
smugglers, and picaroons who made the Isles of Shoals their rendezvous and their
home” (Jenness, 1875:123). In fact, these fishermen were as “unconcerned with
ideology or national borders as the fish they caught” (Smith, 2006: 27). This lack of
identification with either side of the Atlantic manifested itself in the form of constant
indifference, dislike, and “open defiance” towards all established authority, which
would blossom at times to more vehement displays; at times, the fishermen would
even “escape into the open sea” to “elude” officers of the law (Jenness, 1875: 119-
123). Jenness supports this proposition by explaining that the Shoals were “too remote from the mainland to be within effective reach of the feeble governments established there” (Jenness, 1875: 123). Their “remoteness” led to a substantial inability to maintain order there (Jenness, 1875: 119). He reports that they “would naturally despise all courts” and their representatives and were more content to turn to their “own sturdy right arms alone for the redress of grievances” (Jenness, 1875:
123). To this end, Jenness reports one fisherman who was tried for assault and battery against an officer of the court; the man freely admitted that he had beaten up the officer.
Furthermore, the Shoalers were associated with other lawless conduct, including drunkenness, illicit trade and piracy. Jenness reports, in addition to attesting that smugglers and picaroons lived on the Isles, that “these barren rocks were the resort of the Letter of Marque [the privateer] and the pirate” (1875: 170)
39 and that “the islanders were generally indulgent, and sometimes friendly and
serviceable in their intercourse with the numerous pirate ships which visited their
harbor” (1875: 122). Jenness’s book is not the only source detailing the presence of
pirates at the Isles of Shoals. Clifford Beal in Quelch’s Gold writes that the pirate
ship the Larrimore Galley , captained by Thomas Larrimore, headed to the Isles of
Shoals to gain men and provisions. He adds that “this was not a surprising
destination” because “since the early seventeenth century the Isles had been a
favorite waypoint for people looking to disappear” (Beal, 2007: 134). This is
confirmed by several other sources including George Francis Dow’s 1923 The
Pirates o f the New England Coast: 1630-1730.
The predominant position of Smuttynose Island and the Isles of Shoals as a
whole in trade networks of goods and information, both legitimate and illicit, makes
it a good comparative site for the large Caribbean city of Port Royal, Jamaica. This
city was the only legal port-of-entry for any merchant ships coming to Jamaica, which aided in its “unprecedented growth in size, population, and economic status”
(Hamilton, 2006: 14). Additionally, Port Royal was wealthiest merchant town in the
British New World with far-reaching international trade networks, thanks to
“clandestine trade” as well as a “combination of piracy and privateering;” indeed,
Hamilton points out that that the port had coins of many “different nationalities in circulation for daily trade transactions” and had established exchange rates set for them (Hamilton, 2006: 15, Hamilton, 1984, Fox, 2002). Port Royal acted as a center for the redistribution of goods because all legally imported manufactured goods that
40 arrived from England and Europe to Jamaica’s many sugar plantations had to pass
through it first. The merchants of this city thus held great sway over on the island.
Additionally, they concocted an elaborate illicit trade network whereby they sent
manufactured goods, which hypothetically could only pass through Port Royal, along
with slaves to Spanish colonies in the New World, behind the back, so to speak, of
the English government. (Hamilton, 2006). The growth of the sugar plantations on
the island are attributed in part to this network, with many merchants becoming
sugar planters themselves (Hamilton, 2006). Just before the devastating earthquake
of 1692, the city was larger and more prosperous than any other contemporary city in the New World, except for Boston, and had a population of over 7,000 - 8,000, many of whom lived in multistoried brick buildings (Hamilton, 2006, Hamilton,
1984). These structures are significant, because it emphasizes just how many people were present at this location; so great was the population, that they needed to expand upward in space to accommodate them, rather than merely expanding the town across the landscape.
The most notable feature of Port Royal, for the purposes of this paper, is that it was both a “mercantile center” and a “pirate port” veritably stocked with taverns, nineteen in total (Hamilton, 2006: 15; Lane, 1998: 106). As Donny Hamilton writes in “Pirates and Merchants,” “the mere mention of Port Royal, Jamaica, conjures up images of wanton lust, debauchery, greed, and notorious pirates” (Hamilton, 2006:
13). This relationship with pirates began immediately after the English seizure of
Jamaica from the Spanish in 1655; unable to defend Jamaica militarily, the governor
41 of Port Royal made a deal with a coalition of local pirates who called themselves the
Brethren of the Coast. He requested that they act as the city’s guard and navy and in return they could plunder Dutch, French, and Spanish ships that attacked or threateningly approached Port Royal (Hamilton, 2006, Hamilton, 1984, Cordingly,
2006, Latimer, 2009). One of the most prominent figures in this group of men was the legendary Sir Henry Morgan, who mounted several very successful attacks on local Spanish ships near Jamaica, as well as other colonies in the Spanish New
World (Cordingly, 2006, Latimer, 2009). Thus far, the only archaeological evidence of piracy at Port Royal is the discovery of the wreck of the Ranger, reputed to belong to the pirate captain Bartholomew Roberts (Hamilton, 2006). She served as consort to his flagship, theRoyal Fortune and it aided in the capture of ships from many the
Netherlands, Portugal, France and England (Hamilton, 2006). To date, there is no information on how the Ranger ended up at Port Royal but it now lies under the water near the approximate one third of the city that sank beneath the water in the earthquake of 1692. Due to the lack of other concrete evidence of piracy, a focus on taverns might aid in painting a more complete picture of the networks of illicit trade in which Port Royal was a part.
These three sites, Smuttynose Island, Pemaquid, and Port Royal, exist on a continuum in terms of their economic importance and their involvement with illicit trade. Port Royal is by far the largest settlement and was a thriving port with a much greater population that the either two locations. However, as described above, it had a reputation for illicit trade and within its taverns, negotiations of social capital may
42 have taken place, which were similar to the ones on Smuttynose Island. On the other end of this continuum is Pemaquid plantation, which was less prosperous than Port
Royal, less populated, and more complicit towards colonial authorities. The society on Smuttynose Island lies somewhere between these two points, having a reputation both for very fine dried cod, prosperous trade both illicit and legitimate, although its population and infrastructure are not equal to that of Port Royal. It is with the history of these three sites in mind, that this paper now turns to an analysis of the data from
Smuttynose Island, in the Isles of Shoals, and an examination of how the trends found therein compare to the sites of Pemaquid and Port Royal.
43 IV. Data Analysis
This chapter focuses on the archaeological data from the three sites in
question, Smuttynose Island, Pemaquid, and Port Royal, focusing most heavily on
the materials from Smuttynose Island. It begins with a brief summary of the
excavations done at the three sites before moving on to a discussion of the ceramics,
along with other artifacts, from the assemblages.
Although it has been boldly claimed that “there is no industry in America that
antedates the fisheries” (McFarland, 1911: i), investigations into the history of such a purportedly ancient industry have been largely limited to historical, and not
archaeological, projects. Raymond McFarland, for example, wrote an exhaustive account entitled A History o f the New England Fisheries, in 1911. The book sets out to demonstrate the “development and importance of the New England fisheries from pre-colonial days to the present” (McFarland, 1911: i). The volume aids in contextualizing Smuttynose and the Isles of Shoals, as well as Pemaquid, in terms of the regional political economy. Additionally, Harold Innis’s The Cod Fisheries, published in 1940, focuses on the structures of fishing villages, especially those in
New England, and he details the historical processes that affected their founding; again, he takes a more historical approach to the issue of cod fishing and fisheries.
More recently, Mark Kurlansky published Cod: A Biography o f the Fish that
Changed the World in 1997. He provides a grim picture of the ailing cod, and the industries that are failing because of it, from the vantage point of what he sees as
“the wrong end of a 1,000-year fishing spree;” he reviews the history of cod fishing
44 in North America from the first major discovery of the Grand Banks’ resources by
the Basques to the present, and concludes with provocative, if disheartening,
speculations about the fate of the species and the industries attached to it.
(Kurlanksy, 1997: 14). Kurlansky’s book proves to be especially useful to situating
the three case studies at the heart of this paper; he discusses the significance to
fishing, specifically cod fishing, to New England and the way that fishing rights
shaped legal policy during the region’s earliest days as colonies and their lasting
legacies today. He also speaks of the rise of industrial centers in New England as a product of the cod fishing industry and continues that these powerful cities, like
Boston, used both cod and the wealth gained from the resource to partake in larger-
scale Atlantic trade, including the Triangle Trade. Kurlansky describes a certain product of the fishing industries, the West India cod, which was a low-quality dried and salted codfish sent to the plantations in the British West Indies, including
Jamaica. After the American Revolution, the British stripped New England of its ability to trade with the British West Indies. As a result of this, among other factors, during the period from 1780 to 1787, 15,000 enslaved Africans died of hunger in
Jamaica (Kurlansky, 1997). Thus Kurlansky shows the trade networks that connected fishing villages, like Pemaquid and the Isles of Shoals, with the Caribbean, specifically Jamaica, where Port Royal is located. Most recently, Peter Pope published Fish Into Wine: The Newfoundland Plantation in the Seventeenth Century
(2004), which thoroughly describes the geographic, social, and economic place that the fishing plantations on the Grand Banks held in the seventeenth century in a way
45 no other work has done. Like Kurlansky, Pope discusses the initial plumbing of the
Grand Banks for fish in the sixteenth century and then describes the processes at
work, which transformed the settlements in Newfoundland from migratory fishing
camps into permanent locations. The fishing communities described in Pope’s book
provide a striking contrast to the one found on the Isles of Shoals, as was explained
previously.
Archaeology at Pemaquid
One of the few colonial fisheries that have been thoroughly excavated and reported is that at Pemaquid, Maine. This, along with its contemporaneous founding, heavily influenced my decision to choose Pemaquid as one of the sites with which I compare the assemblage on Smuttynose Island. One of the main goals of the ten years of excavation (1964-1974), set by project director Helen Camp, was to identify the recovered artifacts’ places of manufacture, and also to refine the chronology of the fishing station through these artifacts. Project members recorded detailed information on the metal found in excavations, especially objects pertaining to boats and fishing equipment. However, their research focused most heavily on the study of pipe fragments, ceramics, and glass which they used as “datable artifacts” (Camp,
1975: 78). Overall, Camp concluded that the dates for Pemaquid “range from the early 1600s through the period of the American Revolution,” a span almost exactly parallel to that of Smuttynose on the Isles of Shoals. She also concluded that the inhabitants of Pemaquid were “for the most part fishermen,” as were the inhabitants
46 on the Isles of Shoals, although the former seem to have been cut form a more docile
cloth (Camp, 1975: 79).
Archaeology at the Isles o f Shoals
Very little archaeological work has been published on the Isles of Shoals. The most comprehensive publication on them thus far is Faith Harrington’s “Deepwater
Fishing from the Isles of Shoals” in 1992, although she published several other preliminary research papers in the 1980’s. Harrington’s research focused on the earliest occupation of the Shoals as well as the transitions the fishing station there underwent as it gradually progressed from a temporary to a permanent habitation throughout the course of its years of operation; she saw the Shoals as “a case study” for examining about “the process of establishing and maintaining a fishery” and about the “religious, social and economic” activities at New England fisheries during the early 17th century (Harrington, 1992: 249). Her work centered for the most part on the largest island in the Isles of Shoals, Appledore Island and it is mainly from this island that her larger conclusions were drawn. She then contrasted this information with Richmond’s Island, which she considered to be a typical fishing station, with Appledore; which she characterizes as atypical. Harrington relied in part on an analysis of pipe-stems and bowls from a total of 355 fragments to study an occupational history of Appledore Island. Aside from her work on Appledore, she also initiated some preliminary survey and excavation on Smuttynose Island and
Malaga Island, also located in the Isles of Shoals, in the 1990s.
47 More recently Nathan Hamilton of the University of Southern Maine, has conducted excavations on Smuttynose Island, including recent and ongoing excavations, which started in 2008 (Hamilton, Brack, and Seeley, 2009). Already, a wealth of artifacts has been recovered, in larger numbers than found by Harrington on Appledore. For example, the total number of pipe-stem and bowl fragments is over thirteen times the amount found by Harrington: the excavations thus far have yielded 4,897 such fragments. Faith Harrington had been looking for the island where the majority of the fishermen lived, in her excavation on Appledore and survey of Malaga; Nathan Hamilton located the best candidate yet on Smuttynose
Island.
Hamilton’s research has focused heavily on analysis of faunal and malacological (the study of shellfish) remains found from Smuttynose Island, both in using invasive species in the archaeological record to help tighten his chronologies, and in using fish remains to document temporal changes in the size of gastropod and fish species in and around the Shoals, and not on the ceramics found. In particular, he has focused on the gastropod known as the smooth periwinkle, or Littorina obtusata to tighten his chronologies, because shell morphology changed between
1890 and 1905 as the species adapted to the arrival of an invasive crab; as such, the periwinkle looks different pre-1890 than it does after roughly 1905.
A large number of fish bones, was recovered in excavations, including many diagnostic bones, such as vertebrae and premaxilla, which are used to tell a fish’s age, weight and/or size. As another example comes from the assemblage of otoliths
48 found at the site; these are small bones within a fish’s ear that add an alternating
opaque or translucent layer on for every season that a fish lives - two bands indicate
one year in the fish’s life. These can be used to estimate a fish’s age (Hamilton,
2009, Hamilton, Brack, and Seeley, 2009). From all of the remains found, Hamilton
has noted a trend in the fish’s size. They got smaller over time. This pattern is
supported stratigraphically in excavation units from Smuttynose - the lower levels of
the units, which contain older deposits, have much larger fish remains than those
found closer to the top.
The only other longitudinal archaeological work done on the Shoals, aside
from that of Harrington and Hamilton, is that done by myself at the University of
Michigan in 2009 and 2010 for my Undergraduate Honors Thesis. I sought to
compare the assemblages from Smuttynose Island with those from Pemaquid,
specifically looking at the ceramics form the two sites. I examined the ceramics’ places of manufacture and the relative value ascribed to the different ware types. I concluded that the pattern of the ceramics in terms of their value differed greatly between the two sites. The ceramics at Pemaquid formed a bimodal distribution, with the most ceramics clustering at the very expensive and the very inexpensive ends of the spectrum. At Smuttynose Island, however, most of the ceramics were of a middling-class type, although there was a large amount of low-end, utilitarian wares present in the assemblage. There was not a very large concentration of high-end, expensive, and high-status wares found on the island, although some were found.
Additionally, there were anomalous ceramics found at the site, such as the pieces of
49 white German Westerwald ceramics, was in the period normally commissioned, and
a Blue Willow bowl which does not match any standard mass-manufactured patterns
for the period and also might relate to have been a private commission. Most of the
ceramics at the Isles of Shoals came from England, with fewer Rhenish, French, and
Dutch ceramics than were expected. There were also far fewer Chinese porcelains
and Mediterranean ceramics present in the assemblage than was originally predicted for such a productive trading site. However, this supports the results that most of the ceramics on the Isles of Shoals were of a middling class variety and that the
Shoalers’ great wealth was not used in purchasing large quantities of high-end prestige ceramics.
Ceramic Analysis
This next section details the reasons for selecting ceramics as the central artifact for analysis. It also defines and explains the ceramic categories used for analysis in this study. As it was pointed out earlier, ceramics are one of the artifact types most often associated with taverns. Ceramics pertaining to food serving and preparation, as well as beverage storage and serving are especially good indicators of a tavern, when coupled with large quantities of smoking pipes and alcohol related glassware. However, ceramics receive the most focused attention in this study because of their ability to add a more detailed interpretation to sites through studies of trade, technology, resources, daily habits, etc. Carla Sinopoli (1991:2) writes that
“because of their ubiquity and excellent preservation in archaeological context, ceramics are among the most common materials that archaeologists recover in
50 research” (Sinopoli, 1991: 2). They are ubiquitous because they were often used for
many different types of quotidian and special activities (Anderson, 1985, Deetz,
1996) such as those in domestic spheres compared with those used in a tavern
setting. The excellent preservation of most ceramics makes them especially
important in reconstructing the past, because they often endure where other artifacts
do not (Sinopoli, 1991: 7). Anne Anderson, in Interpreting Pottery, highlights this
advantage to using ceramics as a data source as well; she argues that “in the form of
small pieces, pottery is virtually indestructible” (Anderson, 1985: 17).
However, it is important not to forget the most noticeable aspect of ceramics:
the paradoxical nature inherent in their contrasting durability in the archaeological
record and their perishability, as James Deetz refers to it, when part of the “living
world.” When actively being used, ceramics are rather fragile; as a result, the pottery
found at a site was probably broken not long after its manufacture (Deetz, 1996: 68).
Their durability means that the sherds there haven’t changed largely the moment they broke until the present. Ceramics, unlike other artifacts, are not really able to be recycled into new and useful objects. Once broken, they are most often consigned to trash pits.
Because of their abundance, preservation, and fragility in the world in which they were used, ceramics can also be used to examine anthropological questions such as those of chronology, use, and production, as they relate to the population in which they were found and produced (Kingery, 1982). By taking into account stratigraphic and other evidence such as changes in design style, archaeologists can very often
51 determine when ceramics were made, which helps with dating and creating a tighter chronology for the sites from which they are recovered. Additionally, they can discover where and by whom the ceramics were made from primary contexts as well as chemical and other analyses.
This allows scholars to consider whether artifacts found at particular sites are local or not, which in turn can inform them about exchange, and the affluence or other social and cultural aspects of the inhabitants who owned the artifacts. In learning how ceramics were manufactured, an archaeologist can begin to understand the technologies involved in and used by the population that created the artifact and the organization of production. Certain ceramics require particular materials and mechanical capabilities to manufacture; if such sherds are present in an artifact assemblage, it stands to reason that these materials and mechanical capabilities existed somewhere during the time that the site’s inhabitants lived - even if they were the possession of another population or nation.
The utility of an artifact was made is often much harder to determine, yet here too ceramics often provide insights into their function. For example, a ceramics that melt or crack at a certain temperature cannot be used for containing molten metal of a much higher temperature. Highly porous and permeable vessels could not have been used to transport liquids across long distances unless their deficiencies were compensated for in another way, as in with a lining or a glaze (Kingery, 1982).
Ceramics Used in Colonial America
52 Three distinct types of ceramics were used in early colonial America: earthenware (coarse and refined), stoneware, and porcelain. (Deetz, 1996; Hume,
1970; FLMNH, 1995-2010; DAACS, 2004; Stelle, 2001). It is on these three groups that I am focusing my analyses of the Smuttynose and Pemaquid assemblages, as well as those from Port Royal.
The first category, earthenwares, is defined as ceramics that are fired at low temperatures and have soft and often porous bodies. As such, these vessels had to be glazed, or otherwise sealed, to be able to hold liquid (Deetz, 1996, Hume, 1970,
FLMNH, 1995-2010, DAACS, 2004, Stelle, 2001). While low-fired earthenwares are the earliest ceramics in most regions of the world, relevant wares for my research began to be produced in England during the Middle Ages, with production beginning in the Americas roughly around the 1620s, the same time that the fisheries on
Smuttynose and Pemaquid were founded. Depending on their level of refinement, earthenwares could be used for utilitarian vessels like storage jars and milk pans and also could be used for decorative prestige ceramics. Figure 3 gives a quick summary of the divisions within the larger category of earthenware, especially as they pertain to this paper’s research.
53 Figure 3: Division of Colonial and European Earthenwares
Earthenwares
Coarse
Creamware
Peariware
Whiteware
In contrast to earthenwares, stonewares were fired at a high temperature, creating a non-porous (vitrified) “stone’Mike material. Because of this, they were essentially waterproof. No glaze was needed to enhance their ability to hold liquid, but many European stonewares were salt-glazed which created either a smooth and glassy surface or a typical “pitted” or “orange-peel” surface (Deetz, 1996; DAACS,
2004; Stelle, 2001). This glaze was very easy to wipe clean due to its smoother, more glass-like surface. European stonewares were produced in Germany, specifically in the Rhineland almost exclusively until the late seventeenth century (Deetz, 1996;
Hume, 1970) when they began to be produced in England. Stonewares were used mostly for jugs, crocks, pitchers, mugs, jars, bottles and tankards.
The final category relevant to the study of colonial ceramics is that of porcelains. These vessels were produced from specialized white clay called kaolin, and were fired at the highest temperatures (1250 - 1400 °C) (Stelle, 2001). They
54 were also impermeable to water and very hard. Unlike the other two basic categories,
porcelains are uniquely translucent when held up to light. Porcelains were originally
imported from China, from which the present-day habit of referring to them as
“chinaware” or just “china” comes (Deetz, 1996; Stelle, 2001; Hume, 1970).
Porcelains were expensive goods and were most frequently purchased by affluent
colonists; they were usually used for bowls, tea-cups, plates, platters, and vases.
Research Methods
This study takes into account the signature artifacts in a characteristic tavern
assemblage, namely pipes, glass, and ceramics - with the strongest focus on the latter. In total, 11,004 ceramic sherds were analyzed from Smuttynose Island, 15,215 sherds from Pemaquid and 1,618 sherds from Port Royal. These were grouped into
36 different ware types and then were organized by relative value and date range. A mean ceramic date was generated for each test unit on the site as well as for each ten- centimeter level in the units. The data from both Pemaquid and Port Royal comes from published excavation reports that detail the ceramics found at the sites. The data comes Smuttynose Island comes from Dr. Nathan Hamilton’s four years of excavation done at the site, which took place in three stages. First, five transects were laid out systematically across the site and Sample Test Pits (STP’s) of 50cm were set into this grid 5 meters apart; 18 STPs were laid in. Dr. Hamilton, who followed the survey with in Test Units (TU) of lm along the five transects. The
TUs were concentrated near those STPs that proved to be the most artifact rich; 21
TUs were laid in. The final stage was that focusing on data recovery, specifically
55 from the area speculated to be where the tavern once stood. A new set of 12 TUs
were laid in along the island’s old shore line, where the previous two stages of
excavation had recovered promising indicators of the tavern’s presence. These 12
TUs were placed in three different transects which were set three meters apart from
one another. Four test units were placed along each transect, eventually creating three trenches that measured lm by 4m in area. These were excavated down to the island’s culturally sterile bedrock, which generally lay 60 to 80 cm below the
surface.
The Excavation o f the Tavern on Smuttynose Island
The three transects mentioned above proved to be very productive, yielding the signature pattern of a tavern and confirming the inferences made by the previous two stages of excavation. Specifically, TUs 8,9,11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 contained artifacts relating to the tavern and it was specifically those seven units which prompted the data recovery phase of the project.
Architectural Features
These excavations, specifically data recovery trench 116, revealed an area of worn, non-local stone which was placed onto the bedrock. This was below a layer of brick rubble and debris that likely comprised the tavern’s walls and suggests that the stone area was a portion of the tavern’s floor. In this same trench, two large metal locks were found, parallel and back-to-back, spaced about 5 cm apart from one another in the ground; below these, big metal pintels were found, suggesting the presence of a door, although it is unclear at this time whether this door served as a
56 front or back door for the tavern. Other architectural features found in trench 116
aside from the brick rubble and the door hardware include lead flashing, window
glass, and large metal nails, likely used for timber. Evidence for the tavern has
currently been found in a 7 x 4 m2 wide stretch on the western side of the island. The actual tavern is expected to be much larger than this; however, a thick covering of poison ivy, thorns, and dense bushes lay across what is believed to be the tavern’s southern end and excavations have not continued further to the north of the last 4x1 laid in this past summer (2011). Additionally, the project director has not yet laid in further units to the east of the tavern. To the west is a rocky, bald shoreline.
In contrast to the tavern architecture, the domestic, or ‘town,’ architecture of the community is ephemeral; it leaves no structural traces in the archaeological record. According to period documents, the Shoalers’ houses were small, insubstantial wooden structures. As such, only the activities that took place within these houses leave a trace in the site’s record.
Tavern Artifacts
An in-depth discussion of the ceramics from the tavern found in the area is to follow. First, however, this paper turns to a discussion of on other artifacts found which point strongly to the presence of a tavern on Smuttynose Island. An ivory die and a lead token with what appears to be “XXX” were found in the area of the tavern
(See Figures 4 & 5). The token was likely made from a flattened lead bullet and used as a form of currency, redeemable only at the tavern on Smuttynose. Noel Hume writes, in his extensive A Guide to Artifacts o f Colonial America, that they had “no
57 monetary value” like copper and brass tradesmen’s tokens, nor did they have a wide circulation; he concludes that as a result, it may be that these were “associated with taverns” (Hume, 1970: 173). Additionally, a large proportion of faunal bones were found in the area associated with the tavern, namely those associated with cattle, pigs, sheep/goats, fish, and what may be seabirds. Remains from a large animal found in trench 116 may be those of a horse. These remains included jaws (upper and lower mandibles), teeth, leg-bones, ribs, and vertebrae. Combined with the ceramic and glass assemblage found, it is likely that these remains are connected to the food that was served at the tavern during its operation.
Figure 4: Ivory Die (Photo Courtesy of Figure 5: Lead Tavern Token (Photo Arthur Clausnitzer, Jr.) Courtesy of Arthur Clausnitzer, Jr.)
Tavern Ceramics
The largest category of ceramics found in the tavern assemblage was that of earthenwares. Of these earthenwares, most of them were coarse, lead-glazed earthenware, numbering 2,413 sherds, with at least 100 different vessels found. Most of these pertain to storage, tableware, and drinking. Specifically, at least four tall pots were found, which often help provisions such as salted meat and were then kept as storage vessels for beers and ales because of the fairly watertight glazing on the
58 tall pot’s interior (Clausnitzer, 2011). Several rim sherds off of drinking mugs were
found as well. These redwares are likely either locally made on the American
mainland or are imported from England. Coarse earthenware ceramics from North
Devon were also found in fairly high proportion, with at least 46 vessels, which
includes at least nine tall pots. Most of the North Devon ware is smooth (n=954
sherds) although there are gravel-tempered wares in the assemblage (n=125 sherds).
Additionally, several North Devon sgraffito pieces were found (n=33), which can be
grouped into at least eight vessels. These appear to take the form of tableware.
The next largest group represented in the assemblage is that of tin-glazed enamelware, comprising 534 sherds and at least 34 vessels. The place of manufacture for these wares varies widely, with ceramics from Portugal, Spain, the
Netherlands, and England. Much of the tin-glazed enamelware vessels are in the form of tableware. Border Ware ceramics, including storage and tableware vessels were also found in the assemblage (n=24 with at least three vessels), as were Iberian storage and small olive jars (n=4 with at least three vessels), New England slip- trailed redwares (n=31 with at least two vessels), and a very small amount of North
Italian sgraffito and marbled slipware (n=7 with at least one vessel), as well as
European polychrome slipware (n=2).
Several Staffordshire slipware earthenwares were found in the assemblage, much of which was comb-dragged (n=60). At least five vessels were found that were made of this fine ware. Additionally, Jackfield (n=2 with at least one vessel),
Jackfield type (n= 38 with at least four vessels), Whieldon Ware (n=9 with at least 2
59 vessels) and Rockingham (n=4) were found. Whitewares also appeared in the
assemblage, including creamware (n=304 with 18 vessels), plain pearlware (n=509
with at least 23 vessels) and painted pearlware (n=160 with at least 22 vessels), hard
whitewares and ironstones (n=34 with two vessels) and transferwares (n=12). These
whitewares are comprised of teaware and tableware vessels, but do not feature other
common vessel form types for this ware, such as chamber pots.
Stonewares make up roughly four percent of the assemblage, and include
Rhenish Bellarmine/Bartman and Westerwald vessels, English Staffordshire white
salt-glazed and scratch blue stonewares well as English Brown, Nottingham brown
refined stoneware and Bristol Glazed vessels. At least 64 stoneware vessels were
found in total, with the vast proportion of them pertaining to drinking mugs, jugs,
and other storage vessels, likely used for alcohol storage.
The assemblage contained sixteen porcelain sherds and they appear to be
both Chinese and English in manufacture. All four of the vessels found were
teaware.
Town Ceramics
The trends mentioned above differ from those found in the domestic spaces
on Smuttynose Island. Redwares still comprised the largest number of ceramic
sherds with 1,601 sherds in total and at least 41 vessels. Elowever, none of the more
expensive wares such as tin-glazed enamelwares (n=63), fine stonewares (n=182), or refined earthenwares such as Staffordshire (n=37) were represented in the same proportions. Additionally, only four pieces of porcelain were found. Most of the
60 ceramics recovered from this area, aside from the redwares mentioned above, were
refined whitewares, namely cream wares (n=912), plain (n= 1,265) and painted pearlwares (n=503), whitewares (n=229), and transferwares (n=198). This seems to
indicate that the ceramic assemblage increased in size later in the settlement’s history, once these whiteware ceramics, which were mass-produced, were available at a more middling class price.
61 V. Conclusions from the Data
Figure 6: Site Map with Activity Areas
-avati \m standard test pit (50 cm1) 1 ® standard test unit (1 in1) K*
Coney House
The artifact trends reported in the previous chapter denote the presence of the tavern on Smuttynose Island, but they also speak to its significance within the community that centered around it. There is a definitive difference between the ceramic assemblage that was found within the tavern, and the one found outside of it.
The assemblages found speak to the different activity areas found on the island. The portion of the site described in Victor (2010) encompasses the domestic and fish processing spheres, whereas this study focuses on the newly-located tavern.
The differentiation between the two areas and their assemblages can be seen in the comparative monetary values of the ceramics in the two locations, the nature of the vessels in each assemblage, and the variety of ware types found within the assemblages (Figure 6).
The most valuable ceramics, English and Chinese porcelains, clustered in those units associated with the tavern. As for the next most-valuable ceramic type represented, tin-glazed enamelwares, examples arriving mainly from England, the
62 Netherlands, and Portugal were found in much higher abundance in the tavern units
than in those outside of the tavern activity area. The same trend holds for white salt-
glazed stoneware, North Devon sgraffito slipwares, Staffordshire slipwares, and
North Italian Marbled slipwares and sgraffito. Lead-glazed redwares are ubiquitous
and make up the largest proportion of the assemblages from both the tavern units and
the other activity areas. As such, its status as an inexpensive material comes to the
fore when it is contrasted with the presence or absence of more valuable ceramics. In the domestic, or ‘town’ related units, most of the sherds are coarse lead-glazed
earthenwares, broken up by much smaller proportions of fine ceramics, if any at all
surface.
The tavern is further characterized by an assemblage of ‘sociability.’ Most of the vessels found in its assemblage relate to the serving of patrons, namely tablewares and teawares. North Devon, Border Ware, stonewares, creamwares and porcelains in the form of cups, plates, saucers, and bowls indicate the serving and consumption of food and drink, which set the stage for the commensal politics discussed earlier. Tablewares and teawares are vessels that require interaction between individuals, be it the tavern keeper and his patrons or between the patrons themselves. There are also more vessels related to alcohol at the tavern than are found in the assemblage from the rest of the site. As mentioned earlier, taverns were
“specialized places for socializing” (Smith, 2008: 68) largely due to the consumption of alcohol that took place therein which, as Smith argues, was “part of a larger social performance” (Smith, 2008: 63). As such, Bellarmine/Bartman jugs, Westerwald
63 mugs, North Devon tall-pots, which were used originally to ship food and later to
store beer (Clauznitzer, 2011), Iberian storage jars, which often held wine, Border
Wares, which were often used in jugs and pitchers containing alcohol, and Merida-
type wares, which primarily came in the form of bottles and costrels (pear-shaped
drinking vessels) all suggest the storage, serving, and consumption of alcohol at the
tavern in a way not found in the domestic part of the site. Returning to the lead-
glazed redwares mentioned above, they appear in the form of utilitarian storage
vessels and dairying vessels in the domestic context, while the dairying forms are
almost non-existent in the tavern assemblage.
The variety of ware types found within the two assemblages also differs
markedly between them. In analyzing the data from the ‘town’ activity areas, Victor
concludes that the wealth is not found in ceramics, due to the lack of such valuable
ceramics as porcelains, and also to the relatively small amount of wares with places
of manufacture outside of England. Hardly any Mediterranean wares were found, which was notable considering the heavy amounts of trade done with the region
(Victor, 2010). Within the tavern, by way of contrast, are many different types of ceramics manufactured in the Mediterranean included North Italian marbled slip and sgraffito slipwares, Portuguese Merida-type wares, Iberian storage and olive jars, and
Portuguese tin-glazed enamelwares. Additionally, Rhenish Bellarmine/Bartman and
Westerwald ware, as well as Dutch tin-glazed enamelwares were also recovered from the tavern in higher proportions than they had been recovered from the domestic portion of the site.
64 These findings suggest that the economic situation on the Isles of Shoals was different than that reported in Victor, 2010. She had argued that there were no expensive wares represented in the assemblage and that the Shoalers’ wealth must have been vested in something other than ceramics. It seems that that wealth was in fact invested in the tavern, because most of the fine, expensive wares come from its vicinity. However, even as it answers questions, the assemblage raises new ones. It is unclear if these ceramics were owned by the Shoalers themselves and kept at the tavern, or if they were owned specifically by the tavern-keeper, who interacted the most with traders, both legitimate and illicit. This interaction also questions whether the Shoalers owned these wares at all, or if they were instead the wares of those merchants and smugglers who frequented the Isles of Shoals. The trends found in this study also contrast with both Pemaquid and Port Royal’s assemblages, which will be addressed respectively.
Comparison with the Assemblages from Pemaquid
A total of 15,215 sherds were analyzed in Helen Camp’s report on the excavations from Pemaquid, as stated above. As with Smuttynose Island, the assemblage from the tavern at Pemaquid stands out both for the sheer quantity of ceramics it contains and for the variety of them. It should be noted that there will not be an analysis of specific vessels here because a vessel count was not included in
Camp’s report on Pemaquid. In total, there were 4,967 ceramics recovered from the tavern at Pemaquid, as compared with 4,761 ceramics from Smuttynose Island. The largest category of tavern ceramics is also lead-glazed redware (n=2,403); this
65 number is almost the exact number of lead-glazed redware sherds recovered from
Smuttynose Island. North Devon wares were also found at the Tavern at Pemaquid,
although they are almost all gravel-tempered (n=223). There were no smooth North
Devon wares found at the tavern and only 18 pieces of North Devon sgraffito.
Overall, then, Smuttynose Island has more North Devon wares, and especially had a
greater variety of them, including almost double the number of North Devon
sgraffito pieces recovered from Pemaquid. Iberian storage and small olive jars are
found more prevalently in the assemblage from Pemaquid (n=55), perhaps
suggesting that the fishing plantation had a closer connection to the ‘triangle trade’
Pope discusses than Smuttynose Island had; this is not surprising, considering that
Pope’s model was based on the interaction of fishing plantations with Europe, not independent fishing stations like those at the Isles of Shoals. The final category of identified coarse earthenwares, Border Wares, do not appear at all in the tavern assemblage.
The second largest category of ceramics at the tavern at Pemaquid is also tin- glazed enamelware, and it contains only a slightly smaller amount of tin-glazed enamelware sherds (n=403 compared with n=534). However, the tavern shows the same variety of these ceramics that the Smuttynose Island tavern does. Enamelwares from England, the Netherlands, and Spain were recovered, although the assemblage contains no Portuguese sherds. As for slipwares, no New England redwares were recovered from the Pemaquid tavern assemblage, very few North Italian sgraffito pieces were found (n=3) and only slightly more other continental European slipwares
66 were found (n=22). Staffordshire slip wares make up a much larger proportion of the
ceramic assemblage at Pemaquid then they do at Smuttynose Island with 212 sherds,
which is almost three times the amount found at the Isles of Shoals. The mainland
tavern does lack the variety of earthenwares that Smuttynose Island’s tavern has; there are no Merida, Jackfield, Jackfield type, Totnes, Whieldon Ware, or
Rockingham wares. It also yielded no refined whitewares such as cream ware or pearlware. This implies that teaware may have not been used in this tavern (although tea services could also be made out of white salt-glazed stoneware). The assemblage does contain a small number of Buckley ware ceramics (n=26), however, which are not found in the Smuttynose Island assemblage.
Stonewares from Pemaquid’s tavern comprise roughly 31 per cent of the assemblage, which is much larger than that from the Smuttynose Island tavern. The same variety of Rhenish Bellarmine/Bartman vessel, Westerwald, and Staffordshire white salt-glazed stoneware are found in the assemblage, although there are no
Bristol Glazed, English Brown, or American Gray stonewares. The Westerwald and
Staffordshire white salt-glazed stoneware quantities are most divergent from those found at the tavern on Smuttynose Island. The large amount of white salt-glazed stoneware (n=625) may have served the function that the refined whitewares at the
Isles of Shoals did; however, without a description of vessels it is hard to know for certain. The assemblage contains 35 pieces of porcelain, which is roughly double the number found at Smuttynose Island; all of the sherds are Chinese rather than English in origin, though.
67 The tavern at Pemaquid seems similar to that of the Isles of Shoals in almost
every respect. It is in the ‘town’ assemblage, especially from domestic spaces, that
Pemaquid plantation truly differs from Smuttynose Island. Most of the fine ceramics,
along with the widest variety of them, are found in Smuttynose Island’s tavern; at
Pemaquid, however, a large proportion of fine wares are found in domestic spaces as well. A total of 4,693 ceramic sherds came from the dwelling spaces excavated, compared with 6,243 sherds, which were recovered from the domestic spaces at
Smuttynose Island. Redwares still make up the largest proportion of the domestic ceramics (n=3,003) and are present in a quantity that is almost double that found at
Smuttynose Island. The remaining ceramics in the Pemaquid domestic assemblage differ considerably from that found on the Isles of Shoals. There is a greater quantity of higher valued ceramics found in these domestic spaces than in the ones found at the Isles of Shoals. For example, a total of 591 sherds of tin-glazed enamelware were recovered from the domestic spaces, as compared with only 63 sherds on Smuttynose
Island. There are also many more fine stonewares, such as Westerwald and scratch blue white salt-glazed stonewares, which were found in the domestic spaces; added together, there are 528 sherds of fine stonewares, whereas there were only 182 such stoneware sherds in the Smuttynose Island domestic assemblage. Similarly, there are
253 pieces of Staffordshire slipware while only 37 pieces were recovered from
Smuttynose Island’s domestic spaces. Finally, the number of porcelain ceramics from the Pemaquid’s domestic spaces (n=29) is roughly 7 times the small amount found on Smuttynose Island (n=4). The only refined whitewares on the site come
68 from the domestic spaces but are not represented in nearly the numbers that they are
found in within the Smuttynose Island domestic assemblage. This analysis makes
clear that while the taverns may have been similarly furnished in both locations, the
domestic spaces at Pemaquid contain more fine ceramics than those at Smuttynose
Island do. However, these fine ceramics are not evenly distributed across all of the
dwelling spaces, but are clustered in two or three buildings; the rest of the dwellings
structures have mostly just coarse earthenwares (See Appendix 3). This may imply a
hierarchy of settlements across the site, with the wealthy planter and his agent living
in well-furnished structures and the employed fishermen living in more modest
locations. This hierarchy is not seen on Smuttynose Island.
Comparison with the Assemblages from Port Royal
Smuttynose Island compared with Port Royal in unexpected ways; there were far more ceramics excavated Smuttynose Island than there were published in the report on Port Royal’s ceramics (Donachie, 2001). Only 1,618 ceramic sherds were analyzed in Donachie’s report and this is the only data readily accessible for Port
Royal’s ceramics at the time of writing. The ceramics were recovered from three layers of excavation, and buildings were identified and excavated. However,
Donachie’s report focuses on three locations, a building she argues to be a tavern, the home of a wealthy family named Drummond, and Tun Inn. Donachie’s analysis of vessel count, form, and function really focus on these three buildings, although her database, attached as an appendix, lists all of the ceramics recovered from the three layers of excavation and it is from this that I draw my comparison.
69 The largest proportion of ceramics in the Port Royal assemblage is that of tin-
glazed enamelware, rather than lead-glazed redware (n=646, or roughly 40%,
compared with n=222, or roughly 14%) as it was at Smuttynose Island and
Pemaquid. A single piece of smooth North Devon ware and of North Devon sgraffito
ware were recovered, but most of the North Devon ceramics are gravel tempered
(n=42), which make up roughly 2.5% of the assemblage. Not surprisingly, there are
no sherds of New England redware found at Port Royal, but there are also no Merida
or Totnes sherds recovered. Another continental coarse earthenware, that of the
Iberian storage vessel, is found in the assemblage and makes up just shy of 4% of the
assemblage with 60 sherds. The last of the coarse earthenwares, Border Ware, is represented, comprising roughly 2% of the assemblage (n=31).
There is a rather scarce amount of refined earthenwares in the Port Royal assemblage, although this is largely because of the city sank into the ocean in 1692.
This would explain the lack of all of the refined white-bodied earthenwares,
Jackfield and Jackfield type, Whieldon ware, Rockingham, and yellowware. The assemblage does contain 17 pieces of North Italian sgraffito ware, but this makes up just barely one percent of the assemblage; there is an even smaller amount of other continental European slipwares (n=2). The Port Royal assemblage contains a larger proportion of Staffordshire, though, totaling 71 pieces (roughly 4% of the assemblage). The stonewares present a similar result, with American Gray, Bristol
Glazed, and Scratch Blue white salt-glazed stoneware all manufactured after the
1692 earthquake. However, there are no English Brown or Nottingham stonewares
70 present in the assemblage either, and they were available before the date of the
earthquake (See Appendix 6 for MCD’s). Overall, stonewares are not strongly
represented in the assemblage even in the three categories of these wares that are
present. There are only ten sherds of Westerwald, which began to be produced in
1575). Additionally, Rhenish Bellarmine/Bartman sherds numbered 25 sherds, or roughly 1.5 per cent of the assemblage. Surprisingly, there were nine sherds of white
salt-glazed stoneware found, which is surprising, given that the earthquake took place before the ware was produced (DAACS, 2004). The porcelains found (n=33) comprise roughly two per cent of the assemblage, which is a greater proportion of the total numbers of ceramics found than is seen for this ware type in either the
Pemaquid or the Smuttynose Island assemblage.
Madeleine Donachie identifies one of the buildings excavated as a tavern and speaks to the presence of vessels related to food storage, preparation, serving, and consumption. However, this is not indicated very clearly in her database, but instead it is found in her 2001 dissertation on the ceramics. The analysis done here shows that although Port Royal was indeed a large city and a bustling port, it did not possess the variety of ceramics that Smuttynose Island or Pemaquid did, even after the ware types, which were produced after the city’s demise, are taken into account.
The wealth of the city is indicated by the large proportion of tin-glazed enamelware, as well as the percentages of the assemblage which were comprised of Staffordshire slipware and porcelain, both of which were larger than those found in either of the
71 other two assemblages. The smaller proportion of low-value utilitarian wares is a trend unique to Port Royal in this study and may also speak to the wealth of the site.
72 VI. Conclusions
This paper has sought geographically, historically, and economically, to place
Smuttynose Island, and the Isles of Shoals of which it is a part, within the larger
Atlantic World. The fishing station established there falls on a continuum between the large port city of Port Royal and the fishing plantation of Pemaquid because it was not a collection of urban buildings, large houses and taverns, nor was it a fishing community owned by a wealthy planter. The artifacts recovered from the site indicate the presence of a tavern on Smuttynose Island, which until now had been spoken about in historical records but had never been located archaeologically.
Additionally, the ceramics revealed that the tavern on Smuttynose Island was very similar to that found at the larger but less wealthy Pemaquid, while the domestic spheres differed greatly, indicating a disparity in the wealth of the domestic spaces at
Pemaquid. Smuttynose also demonstrated a wider variety of ceramics than was found at either Pemaquid or Port Royal (even after taking into account those wares which were manufactured after the 1692 earthquake); this may speak to the many different trading routes and contracts associated with the independent fishing masters at the Isles of Shoals and may also point to the islands’ distance from the typical
‘triangle trade’ model for the codfish trade described by Peter Pope. Overall,
Smuttynose Island appears to be a location distanced from the norms of the mercantile system, and instead sits as a unique site on the landscape of Atlantic trade. Its tavern indicates that it offered the same amenities and thus could compete with the larger fishing stations for the time and money of fishermen, sailors,
73 merchants, and perhaps even pirates. The fishing station’s apparent wealth, seen in the tavern but not the domestic spaces, also indicates that it was enough of an economic power to be a sufficient participant in Atlantic trade; however, it also indicates that the fishermen had enough influence to be able to maintain their fiercely independent and rather hostile attitude toward established colonial authorities on both sides of the Atlantic.
Using the newly discovered tavern as a base may be possible in the future to further transactions and patterns of trade that took place on Smuttynose Island, both legitimate and illicit. This site offers much for future research that looks at informal economies, especially because of its economic success and prominence and also because of its location on the frontier of England’s North American colonies - themselves peripheral settlements when compared to London or Bristol.
74 Appendix 1: Table of Analyzed Smuttynose Island Ceramic Assemblage
75 1 1 1 i i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 I i i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 Tao |P38 |i«Jd f ta»d [North | North ] [North lute* i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Miiit**!? of jhsaoric [pswei- [NcrtftStsvoo jSs'afffio.'siipwa |&m*4n :5«*« F",f4rfl 1 1 |iae*an Icwsus UftltNam* |u*e jsepift G6f®EsiC [p3!t*>'Y [ufi)d«GBS«Kl jsmccsfc (tempered |s*f4Sf!B [» [Merths l&xifcr Wire Jatms |ijr xurafTu^ jT FlU im 6 In ‘1 3 1 ) "]a Its l i F •0 ~fo b F 114*20 {TU«) IT Yo aaus ' 63 "Id !ia "T a------“ Ta------Ic "To------“F ------•0 "To------h------b IwRiajTua:) ~i3 bfl33 cm 36 l i 1 u li" Id" IF “ Io io Io a "lb 114*20 {TUS) ~j* _gO40 :m q 28 1b Yla .5" F jo jo" iQ 1 V P “ b 114*20 {TO M) JS 1*0 S3 cm 31 [13 [2 Ip [0 c :0 10 P ? P P P UlfllO rm «J 16 posa«s 41 1C 17 126 ra 10 10 p ■Q 10 p ■0 P 111*13 {TOSj [7 "poiarm 65 N “ Il "fa ' h !j tc J n !«» b t r 114*11 {tu&i |6 21____ |0 n______b _! ------_ j L _ . 4 .— — -•F— -P 114*13 {tins) |s [sosa a* 2 !i Id |o k p io p P
|114S10 {TO-6) ju jcs-jgta | 1236 ii 1*6 [65 |13 |2 jo b 12 io b
114R1 ITUS) 12 I n s iC i42 i8 [0 ic io ta io io b 0 0 1;4* jT 1 13 pFss cm 1 _ p [21 [3 0 [D m 0 ts ? P ■■a m P P i: 4R_3 £U0i__ [4 m 1 ■ 31 P !13 [3 K> !’ |0 P ■0 _I2 P TS p i:4(U_jT_l__ |5 [40 53 m 1 l i s [G [28 II II IL li ._P :0 £ b J> i: «13{TU0j ]6 jicnacm 1 |S2 P [3 [41 |g |c [0 P •2 [0 P b 9 114*1 jT | |? jawa-tw I It7 |o !* |*6 |J p p P :5 P ¥ p P 11 BI2{TU6| |6 fro-rn cm | ■ 21 [C itt [c [o ;2 [0 p
ImRiajnwiiAi jQsmmlg 1 IsSS |C |6 |2 p 19 U [ b I 1
114*16 {TU121 il |l 2 ic to i3 f3 iC io b io io b b b 114*18 {TOll) t f I s 23 cm 1 r ? i Jo ~ “fe i l ' 1 ' to "1® P “IT p _F iJDiacm 1 [15 - f — [3 [0 ■■0 [0 0 U4Rll'fTU'lir jf !* 9 l i P p 114*18 {TU 51) |4 [3046 « 1 JS8 p [27 P P p P \0 p I* b p [40S3 :m I 114*16 {TU-llj |S 1177 p [56 I1 P I1 p P :0 p P b p 114*18 {TU I1) |6 j-O&Ocw 1 |36 IC P }17 |1 P p P il p P p p 114*16 {TU,12) [T pS TS i m | [43 1*2 "ll l i s T* Jo TS ¥ :2 -]o 1 > P w 114*18 {TU 11! [8 iXHMtift | I s ” 15 -*— F 1 5 ------;o "lei IT U4H16 {TU ,12) "iS 'm w m 1 [I "Ic ' "15 IT F Ic IT “Is ;o to t ~ 5" ~b 114818JTUH) iWalST&'sBsf | l"l I n “ ia l i 0 To i s Ter “ 10 ~b a
1 13*18 {TU 23) jl p-Wm
U 3 R 1 » {t u b i |2 jiosarm UlililTUBi113*18 {TUSl |3 ulRiflfuB) Is libUl IbrIsTTWTc [sSisi TiJaliTf'JITr- !? ^oto! ’ulIIITmliPii' 1to~»37~ UMFfTlIWrlr J
|136
1 13*20 {TU 24) |2_ _H_21 '0 [6 '1 Jl '1 JC* b 0 '0 '1 b jo_ 113R70 {TU !4f JT [ib lOrm ^ B lg O [C [41 |*S "[0 "jo p 0 |o~ p — 15 ~ p iTskTtuui^Y "15 "lis if- F "F IT Ho 0 "Ta "F p _F Il3R23 {TU 14) j4 iJS-WtlR- ® 3 9 li) "|23 (5" fe" |CT F " f c 0 "Io p ~ f r “ p
113820 {TU-24) |s_ jlO KUm H_17 !c j S It j j t Jo jo © 1 1 113*23 [TU i i i 16 13063 c m ' H ' 4 6 IC itO |22 tO iC lO 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o| of © fo ils ©|'© |© ' i f ~ |G *31 IlS 11 fe IS fe" 5|"DjTf l"IlM{TSi24)— ■fe"73T~'H'32 JLJU
76 stef* w a i* . jsngtw town j A m e te s S f a ? Jeev^ttasMt [w ttM o r i j jacidMi jertsi& t Sia jstouwar* jtttonftism [stowwam jscsttn V teterwaM |st!misw3Fe jefsm d -w srtjw ar* [iaafittd Ifj-at Isafesfdshlf® [yslowwar* Ta T ------W!_ ------~]l^------T^ ------F F T % T IT F “ IT «a fa p IX .e— 0 il -E------1------l — -ji------+ t ------b----- ±------1------tr:------i i i v E m •a ______ja______je______ja______'e______|i. - _ |L . -I- _ j L — p . _4»
3 ID il to il to i3 :C ia il il to Id Id io i4 2 P I3 p il p p :D IB 14 0 P P [B_ [1 ji 3 |3 P JI ji IE ;B ID 13 p p P JD JO JD ]i ____ jl______!______IL______I3 P _ 1 _ ____1 L _ _ 1 L_ _J! ___ 1 1 1 1 r»i i ______i p____ 1 - _____L __ __J!L ___ __ J P |3 P P P je -c jD ji p |a P jD jo P 3 la P P |a fa je ;C je lt p p [a |0 jo jo 3 la |e is |e li jo |o jc
P la ii L I |2 li it 13 \u il P to ie |2 il a b ia b b rD to to ic Id b Id b ie io ie i ta jF 1 * t 3 t —?F t o t !l l i IL [r t o I I l |a ~ I 3 " P P P 1 » _ :D 'fi Q P P E. _ie |0 P i *3 I3 P ii ii p it ID j2t PP P |D 1° jD a [a I1 P P P ji ;i 'fi ji® P P I1 je PP 8 [a PP PP |i iD |D j!4 P P P |e P P b fa —!F l a 7 0 ¥ - ]j ¥ W I 3 P ¥ T® T? P ¥ w ------— W “ io ;d '~ P "ia ------i r - T e To l e a F " la 1 ) b “ Io to l i |G b l a tT l e io I d a "B t r ID “ to T i Its —S“ its I d "B" “Id "B IF To iis
js ji 12 jts jtst ji je jj f f a p I3 P P P p to p P PP PP p P a p !3 P I1 P je ;b je PP P P je jo P i p |a P I* P |i is |D P P (a P |i 11 |i b T — J— ------[a”------ji— — T“ ------je— fi ------F -J------[a— ------f a ------[T- 1 Q b "]d ¥ W “ ji Ta “ Ti "IT T d i i P l a ¥ |F T i |D a F ' l a T a ¥ F l e ;e i s |i" !i b- I ts l e T F l a “Ta I d F —Il ■B I d Hi ~ b "B b Id Io I d l Ta li" ! r “ la "B "Id —IF “ fc "l6 t r "B If Ta ie 3 p la B” ~B "B Id b t o ¥ l a "B If t a |D
3 |1 P p !? ji 12 \2 |8 •so j* P |2 ji [2
77 iawthefMam, [Engisfe j Icnamm Ip^brwstc lunSdcr&Httd ipewwialft liwwMn
[25
1.2
•0
1X7
J2B |1S
I 1' fl3
78 1 • n ■ i i i i i i 1 i i 1 i i ■ i i i i i i 1 i i 1 i i■%]i |F'C jMgteii jNortS* |8te©i Sevan, | JSiiKtfi twter | 1 i i 1 1 i 1 i I |risS*ar«, joswss. jsw ei jNorniOMM) j^ atti^ ltp e r* jfs*o**«e item te g m i 1 i j:'sr:4n JTM'sge Un)i Nam* [u^si I ■ & r » ic s jiMKtenr liisMorSSisd [sftiCKSh jttmatwd IspafSfco |r» |i?esiw* \w tfm [Sfcfdr liar 113R23JTU 14) Is J i i ta m 1 ■ 7 4 *{e ~^2S “l i t ~j5 ”16 "!S F ;a X X b F m m n m M ^ W jU m J ■ i ~ k "” !i !a " 1 "!e " i F IS X ~h *> F
113823 {TO 14] '41 Marges
17*818 TU 3 !30>2S<» 124R18 {TU 3 3 X 134313 TU 3 IMRltmMSi AS mmsmw1M81S {TM£| uil isoacm msis msi !«
319317 [1 __plQ m 5 !E . J! IS. E JB ID Jo . 1 a p Ij H J3 . . 119817 |j 131 |D j72 !* ja |e IS jo |S js £ Iff 113817 la 151 |b |lt3 |1S |a I5 |e |o ID !o !* P p 113817 5 'fi il |e je IS |s !3 jo nmiJ fcmmtz 331 |e |1B7 |2 i |3 is 'fi |o ;s |0 1 b ja 84£jm U381S !i "llO-iS t? fr lU R li 13 4 113818
113313 113313
113313
113823 !2 i
116819 115813 113819 EOaSCiSS 115813 118819 116813 iwsi*3i! mmm !*t MUSS 115813 taKU» n«j “{a “D0 3iJ as U5R 23 11SR23 X X
79 i 1 1 l 1 i i I i 1 i i 1 1 1 I l I i i I i 1 i i 1 | [whsc » t I l l 1 j I i 1 i i ! i I i i stofnewar*, i jEitglsO Cf3*n ! i i [Austrian S q > to’igSiiM fiVniCdto'i I i i i jarwtoMSbtt |stoH*iar* lltesanglam |stor>e»af* ISftrtwspnlfw Wast*n*s:& IjCSfWJKHHS Itnvmsj i*»r*j»af* Iftaoringtei [a&sfc-y Issftwflshir* lyetasrwai® 1 a ia ¥ T j ------'T o ¥ T " l e Ta ¥ ’“ ia " ¥ T o ¥ i i a ¥ ¥ ¥ 1 b ¥ ¥ 3 fe To ¥ " ~ h ' ¥ T o ¥ 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I8 |
Is la h la to il il 3 le ill il k il iie to
l >3 IS m ie i f 16 13 13 10 IQ il !3 to P a 5 jia !e ¥ 1 1 1 1 1 i h = f 1 _ JT h k h d » I3 ! i D to to to 3 to to to Io to
li la I n Il :7 I to to to
3 la la io I* L ie G ie ii ia to ie io ia 3 ¥ —Sa I o ¥ ¥ l e G ¥ ¥ ~ b ¥ ¥ T e ¥ l e
|3 to to p p to G to to 10 ia to |0 |£ to
D £ JL ._ ! 3 !a 1 ia _ to 1 . J i JP to __ to __ J £ —to 3 [a |l |l to |2 to 2 to to to ja to to to to 3 P to |3 to to to 0 to to to to to to to to 3 la Io to to 6 to to la to to to
la |3 11 il L ii 3 ie is I io to 13 io to 1
13 |3 ia ia iO ia ie io ie " “ jo. ‘ 15 “- J T ‘ 1 j je "T ■jr "T !5 l i ‘ 13 >4 13 13 13 li 11 IS 4
— |L -J.1 |E :G |G P P P 1 IB :C P jl 0 P to ■a to to to
to |a to to to [18 to to to
3 to to to to to ie to to to to to to
ie *3 1 ______|1 — — 1?------j ? — ______j ! _ _ ------j i ------_____ i l ------f r — — f r — a ------J------|D to to - 4 - to to - i r - |4 Oj to to to - 4 - ¥ ,_ j_ _ la " ja ; e 1 ia J l i I - - I 1 " a ■3~ fto r ID to ia IB ~It IB 13 0 - ■ ?13 13" 10fr - -10 1 - - £l& - a la to ¥ l a la ¥ le “ Je 11 ¥ “ la ¥ ¥ “lb fe
80 1 ! 1 1 i i i 1 wfifcie [ J j 1 ,p»ir?*«sd > }transiter> i * «iu e / jcsoara®! |Enif sh j p«ArftM»r
fi1
4
81 r i i i i i i i i 1 : i i i i i i i i i i i 15M: Jp»« JtaliicM ) [Ncrts [Harro [ jNatti (rate | i 1 : i 1 Nu*fesrs? jsstsrk jrisiddfar®,. |db*w , |i?awt> jtesrth S* m <* JSjPitttofcSpnia J&wbpi*** INbw 8r#af!
[11S822 1 1 1 P ]3 P _J3 P is E •0 -P P © P 1116822 p !ia*2aem 1 ■ 2 sa J2 1133 P i i i i P •8 . E _ P 0 © 11582? js !38>sa«»- 1■ l.S9 P lias {2_S i i i i i i J> :S . J2 ._ JL . b _ P _ 111*822 |4 [30 « im 1 1 1 1 ? P |S1 jsa |3 PP P 12 |o P P [i 118822 !$ Irnrnm j I s |0 1* P P p P P :S |0 P © P H 6 R S _ II |iJ li la |B P :0 |a ©
i&l fceoanaia | I s s s P \m ilSfi |s Is P P ;i Io 11 ia U 12281? II b lO :m I 1 .3 to i3 is ia io is b ia io b 0 to J f 122817 J i jiosa tm 1 ■ 228 !® "[125 jis JT JT - y to J o '’ f ' P ~ h ~ 122RI7 J3 GfrS&as 1 ■ 5 3 p jll jl P P P p to PP © E 12281? J4 [3Qi«l im. 1I s ia il ia ii p :0 id P © p
K5
|«6S |o jl8£ |l36 la II b I? |o b il Ii 1 I1 |51? |© |15S |1S3 |S 11 la P il Io I* ©
Iss? j0 |ll? la |a is P ia |s P ©
|l82 |s iss la li la la P io Io h b b 1
|?64 io i n i iii ill is ii b i3 il il © b 1
|273 ;s ; 1 is [55 !7 P ji P to j3 9 © P [
|«83 !© !272 jl23 iss jl ji if jl jl to
|595 |S ||JB | l * |3 |9 |0 il |8 11 © H I
82 lacttisiss jBaeington IsoriEnarE jttaaowat jfeiiemiM |eRamt[i«3r«-[i>-afc IfotMnghaas liadtftetf Ityae jsafeHifttmm jyefawt^rt
■Ir
I w 163 122
“Tu
83 I J ?W«*W» jranitef [wMgewaMre / iMvtfewrMW***, |E rapists: j |«*sar» }>rawtiBin»____ iurildengfeird jporortafcii ipoworiaiw iil_ 112 •21
^ — ------1 1*5
• 2 3
•11
lO
13 ;a
I n
[12
ill 10
•3 ;0
122 |S1
84 Marta Devon, j jNortfi t o t o mmmrtst r#g*a?« gravel jtorth &mn js&aifc&MiP*® £ar mpk vessel yjad&r cap ; *rasag*: ® uc iim a ff tjawam wa«i mad lar V&ssels frsm S^es Isl es of fc^revsKion vessei tM © « taH aot mmm ^fcilabks Qmfmxt'tem i wm mm lawm 131R40 fltH * U 6 M 0 fTU-3) l2lfl34 fttHft l 120^34 m ~ n ptatJ | [tailp, 1 iufD3rTUsi mu*, 2 at lla t »4flasfnMj j |i t3t 3 Ut 113£C&>:; at P imsrru ui i i l t M u t |Sut,2 urns pu-uj !i ta , sc us itaiip Icos* » :uL lta & & l '5 at,I U3B2g{TU44] mmatTUB) i 124H13 {TIMS) i il mue 85 ! jwhs»«R* ! ! | ! | | | ||S3Md: j j : jAiBHkamSray jen>fi**«f [sshsete* I j jN atJnjjhsm [stomawaf* Iso sa JsS ita ! 8*Si*rsi I n e j Wests fwjsii |flM3n®««rs ! e s a « l « ^ |# a r ® _____ Iteiipjhaai (lacidWi) 1:14 IS t&, | m!%, 1 j j a s a , 2 j jts a f tii, 1 as. j3 86 J jpairstssd {transfer- Jwftfeawa** / ipearswa?a |toT«iSlE«® ~ T l « T ? ' |zs 13 It s i l ? 117 'IS 133 |1 3 | a g& Utfa ;i tfe j l 87 r i i i i i i i i 1 i i i i i i i i W % m |?re isa^fUsrt jNerts Mar© Sevan, [ |fi«hftate ] i j i |Nymte3?[&&3ric r«fwar«, jDftii&’V pane). jNorth Onwt jSjpuftHtfciip** jfegapwi taiE*§assi j j j&fc^an Storage U n l t f t a n s s Ipen^cs |p c t i m y iiatesfsed jsmcatfc Isgraftto |r« |ssjs*am 'esJ*sre iMcrVSa jSo/de’-Wsw " M m liar 1 i i i i i i i i 1 | i1 i1 i1 i1 i iI u r n s hs b lcmsk.l dsim idan iaf IS tO 0 i Io b 1 j jii^lia,! j 1 1 I i i 1 i i i I U6R20 115 ID jo I* IJ g is id io o io bd> $ |3 1 i 1 13 talic 3 I > I * i i 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 l j i«ut40U juUmu*, | j | j i i 1 1JSR2I 149 Its* lalio, ami , l k tea |2 fa te b o Io b e to 1 j j5 rs,. 3 d'in*, S III! | i i 1 1 i I j Italia, 1 taita/ta, | | | | | 1 1 i iisiua Is* Id hut Im-us la hts Id b o !o b o i i m USR17 '2 a UBRla llSRls iwRja I l I i i i I i i 1i JtitiUtfU I i i i i i i I22R3? 25 !S \Mr$, [0 & \$ !8 % iS !o !P is £1 88 iltb il tea, life & 89 j j pair tad sf1 j jamianware Ip-sarfwane- iatartwara [aare unidert&ted kartscrtware Itsor’-etal i jpraraeisis il tfe, I ftea iQ |l tea, 1 12 tm?& iltfe illte i l t e a !? tfa 90 Appendix 2: Map of Excavation Site at Pemaquid, Maine (Reproduced from Helen Camp 1975:4) 91 EX3CAVATION8 AT PEMAQUtD pic* nr iwaptt PTwtknirtf rnmm w t / mm < HI 1 I**** wmm i cuirows w w » »*W <1N * • r * v t m 4a p pf c mm?4*zum m . * ruMPM 92 Appendix 3: Table of Analyzed Pemaquid Ceramic Assemblage 93 kad -g la a sd N&rth D evon , ! North Italian 1 Total Number jPre-Sisterss NXtora«, Ndctft Oev&ft, gravei- North Ew an iSgralTiiivsliP European New England Iberian stonew are, Tavern v Town i Structure of Ceramics jjMflerx. unidentified sm ooW tem gered sqradTta iw are sljgwar* __ redware Merida iBorder Ware Totnes S to r a o e 'm unidentified j 1 - Custom! law n : House 7 6 ! 0 54 0 0 0 ! 0 1 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 Tavern T 2 - Tavern 2 5 0 1 1 0 1194 0 $ 1 8! 1 4 0 oT 0 0 S O Tavern | 2a ■ Taverr 2 4 6 6 ! 0 120 9 G 2 3 5 0! 2 18 0 0! 0 G 5G 0 Town j J - Ford* 251 j 0 140 0 2 11 0 18 0 Oi a 0 0 G | 4 - f t _j_ Pemasuu 1 4 6 7 1 0 747 Gl 0 12; 11 Q 0 oi 0 01 1GJJ 0 Tftrtn | 5 - Dwalfcx) 9 3 1; 0 522 G 4 31 0 1 0 0! 0 0 i 0 Tewst ! 6 ■ Jail? 9 0 S : 0 9 3 9 G 3 Oi 0 0 0 o i Q 0 7 0 ■ 7 - Pablsc T«*m : Builcinq 2 4 5 3 ! 0 2131 G 7 2| 0 0 0 o' 0 0 225 0 T»**5 | 8 - Dnegttng 723 V 0 m 0 0 qT 0 0 0 oT 0 0 1 0 Tcvrn ! 9 ■ Oweiifens 4 4 7 i 0 3 14 G 0 Oi 0 0 0 Oi a 0 S 0 Tdrtri ; 10 - Dwelling 19 6 ; 0 31 0 87 0; i 0 0 oi 0 0 55 0 Tc-wn _ i_ ii - o w e i m 1 4 0 1 Q 102 G 0 Oi 6 0: 0 Oi a 0 0 0 I 13a T&fti* ; D w elteis 1.900! 0 1 42S G 0 Oi D 0 0 0! 0 0 71 0 | 13b • T 6»fl i Dwailtoo 3 5 6 ! 0 2 43 Q 1 Oi 0 0 0 oi 0 0 0 0 T 14 - Tnrtrt ! StoretxjuseT 2 9 0 ! 0 1 07 0 G oi 0 0 Q oi 3 0 G 0 ! Grand Total: 1 5 2 1 5 ! 0 9 5 0 4 G 327 3 6 ! n 4 2 G 0 ! 1 0 521 0 i Total Taverr 4967 i 0 2 4 0 3 0 2 2 3 1 8 ! 3 22 0 Oi 0 0 55 0 7" Tola: Tnwr 10248 V 0 7101 0 1 04 isT a 20 0 oT 1 0 4 66 0 I TaU • DomesUc _ ! S p ace! 4693 I 0 3 0 0 3 0 92 3! 2 0 oi 0 0 133 0 I Tolas Town ! i i ! fti.usnintK Vf 0 1 ? 333 ______m l _____ »» ____ m _____ & , , - a i ______& 1 iw&itesaH;- jAmerkjwt Eng&sN bt Tfew# S ■ w ell ng G 0 Oi G 0 0 39 ; 0 4 8 ! 0 0 0 b i 23 Tbwf'r j 1C w*li ng 0 fl Oi t 0 9 Oi a S i 0 0 0 0; 3 1 il w w H lft 0 0 D1 4 0 1 7 1 0 137 0 0 0 Oi 5 j O a - TO1*?? j D w e l l s 0 0 o i 59 0 0 73 : Q 11.3! 0 0 G Oi 92 : 13b • T&Wft ! D w ells^ 0 0 ■oi 17 0 0 30 i 0 3 5 ! 0 0 0 oi 6 T i< • TS'Wfs ! Storehouse? 0 c- 0! 16 0 0 24 i 0 4 2 j 0 0 0 oi 16 ; c;ra^d ratals 0 G 0 ! 9 6 0 50 85 MSS! 0 1 2 7 2 i 0 0 0 0 ! 5 92 1 T 94 j j w tte j ! painted white ware / earthenware, ieaarse English s I £ Tavern v. Tows i Structure !* Ji veitow-ware •creamtvare i nssrfware ioesrtware C3 1 Ironstone unidentified jearthenware porcelain porcelain | a - gy^d 95 Appendix 4: Map of Excavation Site Port Royal, Jamaica (Reproduced from Madeleine Donachie, 2001: 36) 96 97 Appendix 5: Table of Analyzed Port Royal Ceramic Assemblage 98 I I I | Total Number of | jlead-glaied redware, (North Devon, (North Devon, grave!- (North Devon [North Italian _j€*fwrtks jpre^sfetaric pottery janiientiied ismootfi [tempered [sgraffito jsgraffito/slipwara Port Royal Layer i (153 jo ~ ~1io |0 ■ [ o > " > Port Royal Layer 2 jsos J o ;47 J o Ji------jL— Port Royal Layer 3 |11SG |i |i 137 11 l i t Grand Totals 11515 JL 1222 (42^ JE. I I I I I I 1j L (New rEngland 1 j ; I 1 I 1 I 1 jstorteware, 1 ^jEuro slipware jredware perida ^Border Ware jlotnes Jlberian Storage Jar Junidentified Port Royal Layer i (0 (0 j& (2 (0 j£ Port Royal Layer 2 ______J o ______-0______J s ______b ______js______jiS_____ Port Royal Laver 3 |1 iG ~ 1 o " 124 |0 |4S |43 [Grandjotals |2 (0 ft 131 10 |§0 JSL I I j I I I I | | English brown j (white salt-glaied | I I J Bristol G lass ^stoneware jNotingham Jstoneware Jseratch bl ue Jiellerm ine Jwesterwald Port Royal Layer i (0 (0 |D |G p p (0 Port Royal Layer 2 0 _ j o ______j o j? ______b ______|o k ______ Is______E______HI______112_____ 1 ' 1 i 1 1 1 1 ! 1 I 1 1 (American Gray (tifrglaied enamel j 1 1 1 1 [stoneware [ware !wWeldon ware [Rockingham jjadfteid jiacfdfeld type Jstaffordshke ” | 4 Po^ Poya1 Layer I - f r “ ■' |li IT (0 p Port Ro»al Layer 2 P !° ------Port Royal Layers |0 |5B9 T i ° j o j o 4 r ------Grand Totals J i______|646 • o j o _i£„ __-Jp______ill_____ . 99 I I I 1 1 1 i I I j j jwhrteware / (white earthenware, J yellow-ware jcreamware jpearlware jpiisted peariware jtransfer-ware ^ironstone Juts identified Port Royal Layer 1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 1° Port Royal Layer 2 j o ______j o -0 |o ______jo______Jp______Port Royal Layer 3 io iQ |0 "|0 10 |0 I ------ Grand Totals JL I I I i I I J coarse earthenw are ^porcelain Fort Royal layer i (91 |3 ForLRoyal Layer 2 _| 160 J.1! ----- Fort Royal Layer 3 1130 |15 Grand Totals J*L 100 Appendix 6: Table of Calculated Mean Ceramic Dates for Smuttynose Island Ceramic Assemblage 101 Unit Name [Level {Depth ^MCD's [Comments 114R20 (TU-S) 1 0-10 cm 11734.75 j 114R20 (TU-8) 2 10-20 cm ! 1796 I 114R20 (TU-8) H r2 D - 3 0 c m ~ [ l 7 7 2 [” 114R20 (Tll-8) 4 30-40 cm 11761.75 1 114R20 (TU-8) 5 40-50 cm ""f1706,68 [~ 114R20 JjU -8) 50-60 cm 1677,15 | 114R20 (TU-8) |7 60-70 cm 1629,69 I 114R20 (TU-S) 8 70-80 cm 1693,6 j j j Note: Only 2 pcs are in the level and only 1 can determ ine MCD 114R20 (TU-8) 9 80-90 cm |i 701 (because the other is prehistoric which does not contribute I114R20 (TU-S) [Ail [Ceramics 11719,8 114R19 (TU-9) 2 10-20 cm 1777 114R19 (TU-9) 3 20-30 cm _| 1760,65 114R19 (TU-9) 4 30-40 cm 11746 114R19 (TU-9) 5 4 0 - 5 0 c m j 1 7 3 9 . 1 5 114R19 (TU-9) 6 50-60 cm [ 1 6 7 9 , 8 7 114R19 (TU-9) 7 60-70 cm 11671,87 % 170-80 cm "]1667,42 114R19 (TU-9) I All [Ceramics [1720,28 T14R18 (TU-ll) 1 0-10 cm 1 7 5 6 , 8 3 114R18 (TU-11) 10-20 cm 1766.64 114R18 (TU-11) 3 20-30 cm 1746 114R18 (TU-11) 4 30-40 cm 1725.37 114R18 (TU-11) 5 40-50 cm 1718.19 1 1 4 R 1 8 ( T U - 1 1 ) 6 5 0 - 6 0 c m 1 6 7 6 , 0 7 114R18 (TU-11) 6 0 - 7 0 c m 1 6 7 5 114R18_(TU-li)_8 ,7 0 - 8 0 c m 1 7 2 5 , 5 1I4R 18 (TU-11) 9 8 0 - 9 0 c m 1 6 5 5 Note: Only 1 pc determ ines MCD 114R18 (TU-11) t a f i i 1hWallfall 1 1 6 5 5 Note: Only 1 pc determ ines MCD 102 Unit Name [Level [Depth [MCD's [Comments 114R 18 (TU-11) jAII [Ceramics [1710 1 113R19 (TU-13) 1 0-10 cm 1 7 5 6 . 7 9 | 113R19 (TU-13) 2 10-20 cm 1768.6 1 113R19 (TU-13) [3 2 0 - 3 0 c m 1 7 5 7 [" 113R19_£TU-13)_j4 3 0 - 4 0 c m 1 7 4 7 , 1 9 L 113R19 (TU-13) 15 40-50 cm 11704,78 1 113R19 (TU-13) [6 50-60 cm j1728 [ 113R19 (TU-13) 17 160-70 cm 11693 j 113R19 (TU-13) |S |70-80cm |1678.25 | 113R19 (TU-13) [9 ISO-90 cm ~[l678.75 [~ 113R20 (TU-14) il 0 - 1 0 c m j 1 7 5 7 j 113R20 (TU-14) [2 10-20 err? 1742,1 | 113R20 (TU-14) 3 2 0 - 3 0 c m 1 7 7 2 . 8 [ 113R20 (TU-14) 4 30-40 cm [1762,26 [ 113R20 (TU-14) 5 40- 50 or? 1.717,75 j 113R20 (TU-14) 16 150-60 cm 1 6 8 7 . 6 3 1 113R20(TU-14) 7 1 60-70 cm 1695,8 l_ 113R20 (TU-14) 8 7 0 - 8 0 c m 1 6 8 9 , 2 2 113RZ0 (TU-14) [9 [80-90 cm [1750 [Note: Only 1 pc determines MCD U 3 R 2 0 T U - 1 4 ) A ll C e r a m i c s 1 7 3 0 . 5 1Z4R18 (TU-15) 2 10-20 cm 1789,66 124R1S (TU-15) 3 20-30 cm 1738,74 124R18 (TU-15) 4 30-40 cm 1750 Note: Orrly 2 pcs all of the sam e ware type determ ine MCD 124R 18 (TU -15) I All iCeramics 11759.47 103 U n i t N a m e | L e v e l T D e p t h ^ M C D ' s [ C o m m e n t s 1 1 1 j/tofe; This date is after the end of the site's habitation and 124R19 (TU-16) ll 1 0 - 1 0 c m 1 1 9 3 5 , 5 3 lis thus confusing 124R19 (TU-16) [2 tl0-20 cm ~ | l 7 5 5 h 124R 19 (TU-16) iAlI i C e r a m i c s 11 8 4 5 . 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 R 1 7 ! i j o - 1 0 c m j 1 7 5 0 \Note: Only 5 pcs all of the sam e ware type determ ine MCD R 1 1 9 R 1 7 1^ " J i o - 2 0 c m ~ | l 7 5 6 , 5 1 119R17 13 120-30 cm 11743,4 1 h 1 1 9 R 1 7 | 4 " i 3 0 - 4 0 c m ” f 1 . 6 7 4 1 1 9 R 1 7 I C e r a m i c s 1 1 7 3 1 1 1 9 R 1 8 | D - 1 0 c m 1 1 8 3 2 , 7 5 jNote: Only 2 pcs determ ine MCD I 1 9 R 1 8 1 1 0 - 2 0 c m 1 7 5 2 , 5 119R18 20-30 cm 1 7 4 2 , 3 119R18 iCeramics 1 7 7 5 , 9 1 1 9 R 1 9 1 1 0 - 2 0 c m 1 6 4 7 1 1 9 R 1 9 tn 1 7 4 4 . I C e r a m i c s 1 1 6 9 5 , 7 1 1 9 R 2 0 j f l - 1 0 c m ! 1 . 7 4 1 1 i| i 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 h 1 1 9 R 2 0 i^ 11 0 - 2 0 c m j 1 6 5 5 I/Vote; Only 3 pcs all of the sam e w are type determ ine MCD 1 1 9 R 2 0 13 1 2 0 - 3 0 1 1 7 6 0 I/Vote.* O nly 1 pc determ ines MCD 1 1 9 R 2 0 116R19 11 10-10 cm 11752,9 1 h 1 1 6 R 1 9 |2 T l O - 2 0 c m ~l 1 7 4 9 , 9 I 104 Unit Name | Level {Depth “{MCD's {Comments 1 1 6 R 1 9 120-30 cm 11721.8 1 P j 1 1 6 R 1 9 |4 1 3 0 - 4 0 c m ! 1 6 9 0 . 1 I 1 1 6 R 1 9 " { 4 0 - 5 0 c m “ [ 1 6 8 7 . 2 r H - - i 1 1 1 i 1 1 6 R 1 9 i w a l l f a l i iW a llfa i! ! 1 7 2 6 . 3 iNote: Only 4 pcs(3 of the sam e ware type) determ ine MCD 1 1 6 1 9 IAN ICeramics 11721.4 1 1 6 R 2 0 i l { 0 - 1 0 c m { 1 7 5 4 , 9 I 1 1 6 R 2 0 12 110-20 cm {1747.9 1 1 1 6 R 2 0 I s |20-30 cm 11707,6 1 r 1 1 6 R 2 .0 |4 "[30-40 cm ”|l709,9 j 1 1 6 R 2 0 1 4 0 - 5 0 c m { 1 6 9 0 . 4 i P 1 1 1 6 R 2 0 6 i50-60 cm 11679,9 1 1 6 R 2 0 I C e r a m i c s 11715.1 1 1 6 R 2 1 11 { 0 - 1 0 c m 1 1 8 5 3 . 2 5 jitofe; Only 2 pcs determ ine MCD 1 1 6 R 2 1 12 110-20 c m 1 1 7 5 4 . 1 1 1 1 1 6 R 2 1 |3 [20-30 cm 11743,9 i 1 1 6 R 2 1 {4 {30-40 cm { 1 7 3 1 , 7 1 1 1 6 R 2 1 i s | 4 0 - 5 0 c m | 1 6 1 8 1 r 1 1 6 R 2 1 j 5 0 - 6 0 c m ~ j l 7 0 2 , 4 j 1 1 6 R 2 1 17 160-70 cm 11702,5 i 1 1 6 R 2 1 fw a T I fa lf " iW a llfa ll ~ 1 1 7 5 0 \Note: Only 1 pc determ ines MCD 116R21 C e r a m i c s J 1 7 6 3 , 9 1 1 6 R 2 2 | i .... j 0 - 1 0 c m | ...... _ ... 1 1 6 R 2 2 >2 [10-20 cm [1745,6 1 1 1 1 6 R 2 .2 i s | 2 0 - 3 0 c m { 1 7 3 8 , 4 1 ^ 3 0 - 4 0 c m ” [ 1 7 0 7 r 1 1 6 R 2 2 F j i 1 1 i 1 1 6 R 2 2 ___ b ____ |4 0 - 5 G c m 1 1 7 5 0 \Note: Only 3 pcs all of the sam e ware type determ ine MCD 105 Unit Name i Level [Depth “[MCD's [Comments 1 1 6 R 2 2 16 15 0 - 6 0 c m 1 1 6 7 8 jiVote; Only 2 pcs determ ine MCD | 1 6 R 2 2 | l i l [ C e r a m i c s j 1 7 3 0 . 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 R 1 7 k | o - I O c m 11 7 5 0 1/Vote: Only 3 pcs all of the sam e ware type determ ine MCD 1 2 2 R 1 7 "jlO-20 cm J749.8 _ H _ . 1 . . 1 2 2 R 1 7 13 120-30 cm 11733.6 1 I- 1 2 2 R 1 7 Ii j30-40 cm |1670,3 1 2 2 R 1 7 i AH iCeramics il725,9 1 106 Appendix 7: Key for Mean Ceramic Date Calculation for Featured Ware Types 107 • Lead-glazed redware - 1600-1900, MCD of 1750. • North Devon - 1600-1710, MCD of 1655 • North Devon gravel - 1600-1775, MCD of 1687.5 • North Devon Sgrafitto - 1600-1710, MCD of 1655 • North Italian - 1610-1675, MCD of 1642.5 • Euro Slip - 1670 - 1800, MCD of 1735 • New England redware - 1600-1900, MCD of 1750 • Merida in the North America - 1650-1700, MCD of 1675 • Border Ware - 1480-1900, MCD of 1690 • Totnes - 1300-1800, MCD of 1550 • Iberian - 1600-1780, MCD of 1690 • Bristol - 1835-1900, MCD of 1867.5 • English Brown - 1671-1775, MCD of 1723 • Nottingham - 1683-1810, MCD of 1746.5 • White salt-glazed - 1720-1805, MCD of 1762.5 • Scratch blue - 1744-1775, MCD of 1759.5 • Bellermine — 1500-1700, MCD of 1600 • Westerwald - 1575-1775, MCD of 1675 • American Gray - 1750-1920, MCD of 1835 • tin-glazed enamelware - 1600-1802, MCD of 1701 • W hieldon- 1740-1775, MCD of 1757.5 • Rockingham - 1830-1900, MCD of 1865 • Jackfield & Jackfield type - 1740-1790, MCD of 1765 • Staffordshire - 1670-1795, MCD of 1732.5 • Yellow-ware - 1830-1940, MCD of 1885 • Creamware - 1762-1820, MCD of 1791 • Pearlware - 1775-1830, MCD of 1802.5 • Painted Pearlware - 1775-1820, MCD of 1797.5 • Transferware - 1810-1900, MCD of 1855 • Whiteware - 1820-2011, MCD of 1915.5 • Porcelain - 1660-1860, MCD of 1760 • English Porcelain - 1745-1795, MCD of 17 108 References Abrahams, Roger D. 1992 Singing the Master. New York: Penguin. Anderson, Anne 1984 Interpreting Pottery. New York: Pica Press. Beal, Clifford 2007 Quelch’s Gold: Piracy, Greed, and Betrayal in Colonial New England. London: Praeger. Berkhofer Jr., Robert. F. 1981 “The North American Frontier as Process and Context” In The Frontier in History: North America and Southern Africa Compared. Leonard Thompson & Howard Lamar, eds. Pp. 43-75. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bragdon, Kathleen J. 1993 “Occupational Differences Reflected in Material Culture” In Documentary Archaeology in the New World. Mary C. Beaudry, ed. Pp. 83 - 91.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown III, Marley R. 1977 A Survey of Historical Archeology in New England. New England Historical Archeology. Boston: Boston University Press. Burrow, Ian Et. Al. 2003 “John Tweed's Log Tavern: The Archaeology, History And Architecture Of The Gutherie-Giacomelli House (Tweed's Tavern), Crs-#N-L101 And Tweed's Tavern Archaeological Site, 7nc-A-18 Mill Creek Hundred, New Castle County, Delaware”. Hunter Research, Inc. Delaware Department Of Transportation Archaeology Series No. 167. Camp, Helen 1975 Archaeological Excavations at Pemaquid, Maine 1965 -1975. Augusta, ME: Maine State Museum. Champion, Timothy C. 1995 Introduction. In Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. Timothy C. Champion, ed. Pp. 1-20. London: Routledge. 109 Clausnitzer Jr., Arthur R. 2011 “As Well as any Beere:” The Seventeenth-Century Brewhouse and Bakery at Ferryland, Newfoundland. Masters Thesis. Department of Archaeology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s. Clayton, Andrew R. L. & Frederika J. Teute 1998 Contact Points: American Frontiers from the Mohawk Valley to the Mississippi, 1750 - 1830. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. Conroy, David W. 1995 In Public Houses. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Cordingly, David 2006 Under the Black Flag: The Romance and the Reality o f Life Among the Pirates. New York: Random House. Deetz, James 1996 In Small Things Forgotten: Archaeology of Early American Life. New York: Anchor Books. Dietler, Michael 2003 “Clearing the Table: Some concluding Reflections on Commensal Politics and Imperial States” In The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires. Tamara L. Bray, ed. Pp. 271-282. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum. Dietler, Michael 1996 “Feasts and Commensal Politics in the Political Economy Food, Power and Status in Prehistoric Europe” In Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Pauline Wilson Wiessner & Wulf Schiefenhovel, eds. Pp. 87-125. Providence: Berghahn Books. Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) 2004 The Digital Archaeological Archive of Chesapeake Slavery http: //www. daacs. org. Donachie, Madeleine J. 2001 Household Ceramics at Port Royal, Jamaica, 1655 - 1692: The Building 4/5 Assemblage Ph. D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A & M University, College Station. Dow, George Francis 1923 The Pirates o f the New England Coast: 1630-1730. Salem, MA: Marine Research Society. 110 Drake, Samuel Adams 1875 Nooks and Corners o f the New England Coast. New York: Harper and Brothers. Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2006 “Atlantic Cod” Ottawa, Ontario. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/finfish-poissons/atl-cod-morue- eng.htm Fleisher, Jeffry & Stephanie Wynne-Jones 2010 “Authorisation and the Process of Power: The View from African Archaeology” The Journal o f World Prehistory, 23(4). Pp. 177-193. Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) 1995-2010 Historical Archaeology: Digital Type Collection. University of Florida, Gainesville. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/histarch/gallery_types/type_list.asp Foucault, M. 2000 “The Subject and Power.” In J. Faubian (Ed.), Power. Essential works o f Foucault, 1954-1984. Vol. 3. Pp. 326-348. New York: The New Press. Fox, Georgia L. 2002 “Interpreting Socioeconomic Changes in 17th Century England and Port Royal, Jamaica, Through Analysis of the Port Royal Kaolin Clay Pipes” International Journal o f Historical Archaeology. 6(1), March 2002. Pp. 61 - 78. Hamilton, Donny L. & Robyn Woodward 1984 “A Sunken 17th Century City: Port Royal, Jamaica.” Archaeology Magazine. January / February 1984. Pp. 4 0 -4 5 . Hamilton, Donny L. 2006 “Pirates and Merchants: Port Royal, Jamaica” In X Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy. Russel K. Skowronek and Charles R. Ewen, eds. Pp. 13-30. Gainesville, FI: University Press of Florida. Hamilton, Nathan 2010 Personal Conversations. Hamilton, Nathan 2009 Personal Conversations. I ll Hamilton, Nathan, Ingrid Brack and Robin Hadlock Seeley 2009 Environmental Archaeology on Smuttynose Island, Isles of Shoals. Presented at the New Hampshire Archaeological Society, Mount Kearsarge Indian Museum, Warner, NH. 24 October. Harrington, Faith 1992 “Deepwater Fishing from the Isles of Shoals.” In The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology: Essays in Honor of James Deetz, Anne Elizabeth Yentsch & Mary C. Beaudry, eds. Pp. 249-263. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Hume, Ivor Noel 1970 A Guide to Artifacts o f Colonial America. New York: Knopf. Innis, Harold. 1940 The Cod Fisheries: The History o f an International Economy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jamieson, Ross. 2000 Domestic Architecture and Power: The Historical Archaeology of Colonial Ecuador. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. Jenness, John Scribner 1875 The Isles of Shoals: An Historical Sketch. Cambridge: Riverside Press. King, Julia A. 1988 “Comparative Midden Analysis of a Household and Inn in St. Mary’s City, Maryland.” Historical Archaeology. 22(2). Pp. 17-39. Kingery, W. D. 1982 Plausible Inferences from Ceramic Artifacts. Archaeological Ceramics. Washington DC: Smithsonian Press. Kurlansky, Mark 1997 Cod: A Biography o f the Fish that Changed the World. New York: Walker and Company. Lamar, Howard & Leonard Thompson 1981 “Comparative Frontier History” In The Frontier in History: North America and Southern Africa Compared. Leonard Thompson & Howard Lamar, eds. Pp. 3-13. New Haven: Yale University Press. 112 Lamar, Howard & Leonard Thompson 1981 “Epilogue” In The Frontier in History: North America and Southern Africa Compared. Leonard Thompson & Howard Lamar, eds. Pp. 308-316. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lane, Kris E. 1998 Pillaging the Empire: Piracy in the Americas, 1500 - 1750. London: M. E. Sharpe. Latimer, Jon 2009 Buccaneers o f the Caribbean: How Piracy Forged an Empire Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Levett, Christopher 1628 A Voyage into New England. London: William Iones. Mauss, Marcel 1923 “Essai su le don: Forme et raison de l’echange dans les societes primitives” L ’Annee Sociologique, seconde serie 1923-24, t.l. McFarland, Raymond. 1911 A History o f the New England Fisheries. New York: Appleton and Company. Milner II, Clyde A. 1981 “Indulgent Friends and Important Allies: Political Process on the Cis- Mississippi Frontier and its Aftermath” In The Frontier in History: North America and Southern Africa Compared. Leonard Thompson & Howard Lamar, eds. Pp. 123-148. New Haven: Yale University Press. Orser Jr., Charles E. 1996 A Historical Archaeology o f the Modern World. New York: Plenum Press. Pope, Peter E. 2004 Fish into Wine: The Newfoundland Plantation in the Seventeenth Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Rainbird, Paul 2007 The Archaeology o f Islands Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rockman, Diana Diz. & Nan A. Rothschild 1984 “City Tavern, Country Tavern: An Analysis of Four Colonial Sites” Historical Archaeology, 18(2). Pp. 112 - 121. 113 Rodrigez-Alegria, Enrique 2005 “Eating Like an Indian: Negotiating Social Relations in the Spanish Colonies” Current Anthropology, 46(4). Pp. 551 - 573. Rutledge, Lyman V. 1997 Ten Miles Out: A Guidebook to the Isles o f Shoals. Portsmouth, NH: Peter E. Randall. Salinger, Sharon V. 2002 Taverns and Drinking in Early America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Sinopoli, Carla M. 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York: Plenum Press. Smith, Frederick H. 2008 The Archaeology o f Alcohol and Drinking. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Smith, Joshua M. 2006 Borderland Smuggling: Patriots, Loyalists, and Illicit Trade in the Northeast, 1783-1820. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Spencer-Wood, S. M. 1999 “Gendering power.” In Manifesting Power: Gender and the Interpretation of Power in Archaeology. T. L. Sweely, ed. Pp. 175-183. London: Routledge. Steel, Louise 2004 “A Goodly Feast.. .A Cup of Mellow Wine: Feasting in Bronze Age Cyprus.” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 73 (2). Pp. 281-300. Stelle, Lenville J. 2001 An Archaeological Guide to Historic Artifacts of the Upper Sangamon Basin. Center For Social Research, Parkland College. http://virtual.parkland.edu/lstellel/len/archguide/documents/arcguide.htm St. MaryDs University Archaeology Lab 2010 Ceramics Database http://www.smu.ca/academic/arts/anthropology/ceramics/welcome.html 114 Thorpe, Daniel Barrett 1996 “Taverns and Tavern Culture on the Southern Colonial Frontier: Rowan County, North Carolina, 1753 - 1776” The Journal of Southern History , 62 (4) Pp. 661 - 688. Trussed, Timothy D. 2004 Artifacts of Ambition: How the 17th Century Middle Class at Port Royal, Jamaica, Foreshadowed the Consumer Revolution. Ph. D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A & M University, College Station. Turner, Frederick Jackson 1920 The Frontier in American History New York: Henry, Holt, and Company. Turner, Victor 1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine. Turner, Victor 1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects ofNdembu Ritual Ithaca: Cornell University Press. van der Veen, Marijke 2009 “When is Food a Luxury?” World Archaeology. 34 (3): Pp. 405-427 Victor, Megan R. 2010 “Fishing for a Link: A Comparative Ceramic Analysis of Smuttynose Island, Isles of Shoals, and Pemaquid, Maine” Senior Honors Thesis. Department of Anthropology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Wallerstein, Immanuel 1976 The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins o f the Euopean World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press. Weber, M. 1964 The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free Press. Wolf, Eric. R. 1982 Europe and the People Without History. Los Angeles: University of California Press. 115