A Comparative Archaeological Study of Colonial Chesapeake Culture (www.chesapeakearchaeology.org)

• PDF File (37.1 MB)

• About the Project
• Site Summaries
  • Sandys
  • Carter’s Grove CG8
  • Reverend Buck
  • Rich Neck Plantation
  • Jordan’s Journey
  • Old Chapel Field
  • Clifts Plantation
  • Camden
  • Posey
  • Mattapany
  • Compton
  • Patuxent Point
  • King’s Reach
  • Chaney’s Hills
  • Chalkley
  • Burle's Town Land
  • Homewood's Lot
  • Bennett’s Point
• Map
• Interpretations and Papers
• Database
• Downloads
• Technical Data

An Analysis of Marked and Decorated White Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Lower Patuxent Drainage

by Katherine D. Cavallo

St. Mary’s College of Maryland
Department of Anthropology and Sociology
St. Mary’s Project
Spring 2004

Abstract

This paper examines the types, quantities, and distributions of marked and decorated white clay tobacco pipes from four 17th century archaeological sites located along the lower Patuxent River in southern Maryland. Although marked pipes often account for a relatively small percentage of total pipe assemblages, important patterns in both their temporal and spatial distribution are clearly evident. For example, even though records indicate that Bristol pipemaker Llewellin Evans was working from 1661 until 1689, preliminary analysis suggests that, at least along the Patuxent, Evans' pipes are found primarily in post-1680 deposits. This paper discusses Evans' pipes and other marked and decorated pipes in the Patuxent River assemblages.

Acknowledgements

This year has been a long one, but I’ve learned a great deal from this project. I couldn’t have done this on my own, and there are many people I should thank.

I would like to thank Ed Chaney for all of the help he provided, finding information, trying to figure out problems with the catalogue, and critiquing my papers. I would like to thank Becky Morehouse, Jenny Kehs, and Laura Galke for helping me learn my way around the MAC Lab, so that I could work confidently on my project, without too many hiccups. Also, thanks go to Catherine Alston for supporting me at the MAAC and helping to keep my nerves calmed. I’d also like to thank Silas Hurry for providing me with information about work in Historic St. Mary’s City.

But most of all I would like to thank Julie King, my mentor. She pointed me in the right direction, nudged me when I needed to be put back on track, or full out kicked me when I stalled and didn’t know how to proceed.

Introduction

White clay tobacco pipe fragments are one of the most common artifacts found on colonial Chesapeake sites. This is due mainly to the tobacco economy that existed in Maryland and Virginia in the early years of European settlement. Most planters were growing tobacco, and just about everyone was smoking tobacco; rich and poor, young and old, male and female. The pipes from which tobacco was smoked were fragile, and usually broke soon after acquisition.

The purpose of this project is twofold. The primary purpose is intended as a detailed study of the marked and decorated white clay tobacco pipes found at 17th century sites along the lower Patuxent River. Types of decorations, the quantities found, and the distributions of these pipes are all examined. The second purpose of this project is a comparative analysis of the pipe data that was produced in order to identify trends in the distributions of marked and decorated pipes between the four sites. Although they are a relatively small percentage of the total pipe assemblages, patterns from their distribution can be discerned.

Tobacco and Tobacco Pipes

Although tobacco was most commonly smoked in the 17th century, in the 16th century tobacco was consumed mainly in the form of snuff, largely for medical purposes, in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. In a “Chronologie” written by William Harrison in 1573, he describes smoking; “In these daies the taking-in of the smoke of the Indian herbe called ‘Tobaco’ by an instrument formed like a litle ladell.” Harrison then goes on to describe the healing properties of tobacco and the tobacco plant. Documentary evidence suggests that pipe smoking began in the 1570s and was widely practiced in England by the 1590s. It took pipe makers almost 50 years, however, to become an organized body (Oswald 1975).

White clay tobacco pipes were produced mainly in Britain and the Netherlands. It is difficult, however, to tell Dutch-made and English-made pipes apart. Clay was not always used to produce pipes in locations near where it was mined. For example, English clay was sometimes shipped to Holland where it was used to produce pipes. Because of this, the surest way to tell British and Dutch pipes apart is by marks and decorations.

White clay tobacco pipes are made up of a bowl, a stem, and sometimes a foot, heel, or spur. The hole passing through the stem is referred to as the bore (Figure 1). European tobacco pipes were made from white clay, which was already in use for producing ceramic vessels (both glazed and unglazed) and as a slip for other ceramic wares. Much of the white clay used for pipe making came from places in England, but clay was also mined in Belgium and France (Oswald 1975). Some minor color variations occur in clays from different countries, but the European clay is usually distinguishable from North American red clay, which was used to make pipes in the Chesapeake. The clay was mined in cubes, was allowed to dry so that it could be ground into a powder, and then remixed to form the clay which was then used for production (Oswald 1975).

The damp clay was pressed into molds to form the shape of the pipe, and then a wire was stuck through the stem of the pipe to create the bore. Then the pipe was removed from the mold and was fired in a kiln. After being removed from the mold, and before firing, finishing tools were used to smooth out the exterior of the pipe.

One of the best ways to date a pipe is the length of the stem. The earliest pipes, from the late 16th century, had very short stems, averaging 3.5 inches in length (Noël Hume 1969). Later, during the 17th century, the length of stems grew, sometimes reaching over two feet, but more commonly somewhere between 9 and 13.5 inches (Noël Hume 1969). Clay tobacco pipes, however, are rarely found in the ground in one piece. Because of their shape and make up, tobacco pipes are very fragile and usually break into small pieces, making it difficult to use stem length as a dating technique on sites. Studies by J. C. Harrington suggest that, from the 17th century into the 18th century, the bore sizes of most pipes got smaller (Noël Hume 1969). Bore size decreased because it was easier to put a smaller wire through a longer stem to create the bore.

Yet another way to date pipes is the shape of the bowl; for more information on this, see Figure 97 in Ivor Noël Hume’s A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Length of the stem and the size of the bowl both relate to the change in availability of tobacco. As the price of tobacco fell throughout the 17th century, more tobacco could be smoked and bowl size grew in response to this change. The lower prices also caused the length of the stem to grow to allow the smoke to cool before reaching the smoker. Basically, changes in pipe form occurred because it was not as expensive to allow a little bit of tobacco smoke go to waste.

There is another method for dating pipes, one which does not relate to bowl shape. This dating technique utilizes the marks or decorations that were placed onto the pipe during its production. There are some decorations which display some sort of picture, and have little other function than to be aesthetic. Other marks were meant to advertise the maker, usually referred to as a maker’s mark. Extensive records, such as English apprentice rolls or deposition books, list names of pipe makers, so that initials or names can be identified, and often styles of marks are well documented.

Marks and decorations could be applied to the pipe in any number of ways. One such way is to include the decoration or mark in the mold itself. This causes the mark to protrude from the exterior of the pipe, in relief. A second method involved applying the mark to the damp pipe after it is removed from the mold. This can be done by incising, or cutting the mark into the pipe, or by impression, using a stamp to impress the mark in the wet clay. Decorations not meant to be makers’ marks, and makers’ marks could be formed in any of these ways. Decorations are usually found on either the bowl or the stem of the pipe, and maker’s marks can be found on the bowl, stem and the heel.

Methods

For this project, I studied the white clay tobacco pipe assemblages of four 17th century sites in detail. I chose 17th century sites because marked and decorated pipes were more common on white clay tobacco pipes during that time than during the 18th century. The artifact assemblages from the four sites, Patuxent Point (18CV271), William Stevens’ Land (18CV279), Eltonhead (18ST704), and Mattapany (18ST390), are housed at the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory at the Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum in Calvert County, Maryland. More than 500 marked or decorated pipes were found in these collections, and I developed a procedure for capturing relevant information about each pipe.

My first step was to create a catalogue sheet which could be reproduced and which would have space to clearly organize all of the information I would need about each decoration or mark.

For each sheet, only marked or decorated pipes were recorded. I did not catalogue any undecorated pipe fragments. Because this information would form the basis for an electronic database, I wanted to have as many categories as possible in which I could choose one of a small number of answers, or simply answer yes or no. After doing a brief and general study of maker’s marks and decorations, I identified the attributes I wanted to collect and created my sheet (Figure 2).

First, and most important, was the provenience information for the pipe. Site number, provenience, and lot number, if it was available, made up the top most section of the sheet. This allowed me to keep all pertinent information about the pipe’s provenience right along with the information about the mark. After the basic provenience information, I noted whether or not the decoration was a maker’s mark. If the answer was no, then I would know that there was a different type of decoration on the pipe fragment. The next category on the catalogue sheet concerned rim rouletting. Rouletting on the rim of the bowl is one of the most common features of 17th century pipes, and many decorated pipes were only decorated with this rouletting. A “no” answer for this category can show immediately that the decoration is more elaborate than simply a rouletted rim. The location of the mark on the pipe was the next attribute on my sheet.

I then left space for any other observations or sketches I might need in order to completely and correctly describe the decoration or maker’s mark. The final two categories provide more basic information about the make up of the fragment. First the number of fragments, because sometimes nearly identical fragments were cataloged together (such as multiple rouletted rims), and then the measurement of the bore diameter, in 64ths of an inch. If the bore diameter was unmeasurable, or if the fragment is a section of the bowl with none of the stem attached, then “N/A” is placed into the bore diameter category. The final category was citations and notes.

Whenever I needed to do some research about a mark or decoration to describe it on my sheet, I made a note or citation in that area of the sheet. Figure 2 is an example of a filled out sheet for two rouletted rim pipe fragments from a plow zone unit at Mattapany.

Once the pipe catalogue sheet was created, I located the marked and decorated pipes from each assemblage. After identifying marked and decorated pipes in each site’s catalogue, I examined the pipes themselves to make sure I could complete my catalogue sheet. I made sketches for many of the unique marks, and I described the marks and decorations in words to make it easier to record in the electronic database.

The method of gathering data as shown above was initially used for five sites: Patuxent Point, Mattapany, William Stevens’ Land, King’s Reach, and Eltonhead. The King’s Reach site was later dropped from the study because of its significantly later dates of occupation, and therefore different collection of decorated white clay tobacco pipes. For the Eltonhead site, there was no paper catalogue, so a database created by the excavators and stored on a CD was used. I transferred their marked and decorated pipe information directly into a database of my own.

In order to create my database in Excel, I worked directly from my catalogue sheet. My columns were Entry Number, Site Number, Lot Number, Provenience, Description, Fragment, Fragment Count, Bore, Maker’s Mark?, Location (of Maker’s Mark), Description (of Maker’s Mark), Rim Rouletting?, Description (of Rouletting), Beveled?, Other Decoration? Manner of Decoration, Description (of Other Decoration), and Other Notes (See appendices). I also included a column for whether or not the pipe was missing, in case the information from the collection’s catalogue was incomplete for my purposes, and I was unable to locate the pipe.

Each of these columns were filled in a similar manner to the way in which they were on the catalogue sheet. The columns were constructed to record the most complete data possible, so that it could be used by anyone else who was interested. This database was also created so that it would be easier to analyze numbers.

Most problems I came across during the cataloging process of this project were due to problems in the original catalogues. I found some marks and decorations which were either not mentioned and therefore were incorrectly described as “undecorated,” or were incorrectly described in the original catalogues, as well as one or two which were completely missed from the catalogue, either as decorated or undecorated. More than twenty pipes from the four sites were considered lost, because I could not find them in the collection.

Sites Used in the Study

Four sites were used in this study spanning the period 1651 and ca. 1700 (Figure 3). All four sites were located in the lower Patuxent drainage, in St. Mary’s and Calvert counties. The earliest site is William Stevens’ Land (18CV279) (referred to as Compton by the excavators), occupied from 1651 until about 1685, first by the family of William and Magdalen Stevens through the 1660s, and then by an as-yet-unidentified family. The site, which is now a large residential development, was excavated in 1988 by Louis Berger Associates, Inc. (LBA). LBA excavated 162 2.5-by-2.5-foot plow zone units and 26 features, recovering thousands of artifacts.

There were 1,528 white clay pipe fragments recovered from this site, of which 219 were marked or otherwise decorated (Louis Berger Associates, Inc. 1989; Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003) (Figure 4).

Patuxent Point (18CV271), which is less than a thousand feet from William Stevens Land, was occupied from 1658 until ca. 1690. The site was excavated in 1989 and 1990 in advance of housing construction. A total of 72 5-by-5-foot units and 64 features were excavated at this site (King and Ubelaker 1996). The Patuxent Point Site was occupied in 1658 by John Obder (Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003). From approximately 1663 to the end of the 17th century, the site appears to have been inhabited by an unidentified tenant family (Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab 2003). A total of 1,979 white clay tobacco pipes were recovered, with 124 of these showing some decoration or mark (Figure 4).

Mattapany (18ST390), located on the south side of the Patuxent in St. Mary’s County, was occupied ca. 1663 until 1740. Governor Charles Calvert, third Lord Baltimore, lived at the site until 1684, and the property remained in the Calvert and Sewall families well into the 19th century. Excavations in 1981, 1982, 1993, and 1994 focused on Calvert’s house and on the nearby powder magazine (Chaney 2004). Excavation strategy consisted of 5-by-5 units and feature excavation. A total of 1,916 white clay tobacco pipe fragments were recovered, 101 of which were decorated or marked (Figure 4).

The fourth site, Eltonhead (18ST704), was first acquired by William Eltonhead in 1648 when he came to Maryland. The portion of the land from which the study collection comes was probably not occupied until 1668, when the Sewall family acquired the property, then known as Charles’ Gift. The property remained in the Sewalls’ possession until the 19th century. In 1999, R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc. excavated the Eltonhead site prior to the renovation of Officer’s Club facilities at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station. A series of shovel test pits, seven 5-by-5-foot units and 138 features were excavated (R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2001). Analysis suggested three phases of occupation: ca. 1650-1695, 1695-1814, and 1814-1943 (R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2001). The largest feature was Feature 12, which appears to have been filled sometime between 1682 and 1700 and is possibly associated with Nicholas Sewall’s plantation house (R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2001). On the entire site, 549 pipes were found, 88 of which are decorated or marked. A total of 379 white clay tobacco pipes were found in Feature 12; 74 of these pipes were marked or otherwise decorated (cf. Figure 4).

Results: Decorative Marks

From the four sites, a total of 5,972 white clay tobacco pipe fragments were recovered.

Of these, 533 were marked, representing 8.9% of the total study assemblage. Over time, the numbers of marked and decorated pipes exported to the colonies decreased, but this trend cannot be clearly seen among these four cases. After the 17th century English pipes were not decorated with rouletted rims, due to a new way to finish the rims in the mold instead of after the molding process (Oswald 1975). Eighteenth century pipes more rarely displayed makers’ marks or decorative designs.

A wide range of marks and decorations were recovered from the four sites. Marks and decorations are found on the heels, bowls, and stems and include rim rouletting, stem rouletting in both the Bristol and Dutch style, decorative bowl motifs, and makers’ marks on the stem, bowl, and heel, among others. Many decorations, motifs, and marks are identifiable while others cannot be identified or are too fragmentary to permit identification with confidence.

Rim rouletting was a common feature of decorated pipes from all four sites. Two types of rim rouletting were found, including dentate milling (Figure 5) and incising (Figure 6). There were 73 total rouletted rims at Patuxent Point (58.9% of the total decorated pipe assemblage), 149 at William Stevens’ Land (68.0%), 72 at Mattapany (71.3%), and 47 at Eltonhead (53.4%).

At all four sites dentate milling made up most, if not all of the rouletted rims. In some cases of dentate milling, only a tiny portion showed the interruptions in the lines that distinguish it from incising, so it is possible that others cataloged as incised could actually be examples of poor dentate milling.

Other decorations on the pipes included molded bowl decorations. The two that were most commonly found on the four sites in this study were the Pikeman and Minerva motif and the Mulberry Tree motif. The Pikeman and Minerva motif, also called Crusader and Huntress, depicts a man in armor holding a pike on one side of the bowl, and a woman on the other side of the bowl (Figures 7 and 8). These two figures have animals and plants surrounding them. Some researchers believe this is a Dutch motif, that can be dated from 1670-1700 (Hurry and Keeler 1991). Ten bowls fragments with the Pikeman and Minerva motif were found at Patuxent Point, 30 at William Stevens’ Land, and none at either Mattapany or Eltonhead.

The Mulberry Tree motif is a more simple design. A series of raised round bumps form a triangle representing a stylized pine tree, with a raised line at the bottom representing a trunk (Figure 9). This design was found at Steven’s Land, Patuxent Point, and Mattapany. There are other molded bowls, but these fragments are too small to identify the motif. There were no molded designs listed in the Eltonhead catalogue, either whole, or fragmented, and I did not examine the pipes listed as undecorated.

The stem decorations are mostly incised, rouletted designs. Two of the most common include Bristol-style and Dutch-style rouletting. Bristol-style (Figure 10) was commonly found surrounding the initials of makers working in Bristol, England, but could also be found without maker’s marks. Bristol-style usually includes “scrolled diamonds” of some design, and “lines of dentate milling” (Hurry and Keeler 1991:63-65). Dutch-style (Figure 11) also has lines of dentate milling, but instead of scrolled diamonds, this variety usually includes an “oval linked chain” (Hurry and Keeler 1991: 65-67). There were often stem decorations which were probably fragments of one of these styles, having only a line of dentate milling along a broken edge, or something similar, but the fragmented design was too small to attribute to this. Both Bristol and Dutch styles were found at all sites but William Stevens’ Land, at which neither style was found.

There were a few types of stem decorations involving fleur-de-lis, no two matching, all three from William Stevens’ Land. One such fleur-de-lis decoration was a series of diamonds containing fleur-de-lis stamped in a row on the stem (Figure 12) and another was an apparently rouletted design (Figure 13). The fleur-de-lis decoration is possibly Dutch (Hurry and Keeler 1991).

Results: Makers’ Marks

Several maker’s marks were found at each of the four sites. In some cases, the marks were severely fragmented and were unidentifiable. In other cases, the initials could be linked to any number of makers in Europe, and without knowing which maker it belonged to, not much can be discerned from the mark itself. But, many of the makers’ marks could be linked with specific makers.

At Stevens’ Land, three identifiable marks were recovered. The letters “PE” (Figure 14) were located on the back of one bowl, and this mark is linked to the makers Phillip Edwards I and II who worked out of Bristol between the years 1649 and 1696 (Oswald 1975:152). A second mark is “FLO/WER H/VNT,” located on the heel of one pipe (Figure 15). Flower Hunt worked from 1651 to 1672, also out of Bristol (Louis Berger Associates, Inc. 1989). The third identifiable maker’s mark at this site is “EB,” and will be discussed in detail later in this paper.

There were also other marks at this site. One bowl with “L_” was found. This mark is possibly the mark of Llewellin Evans, but without the other initial, this cannot be certain. Two other completely unidentifiable marks were also found, on the bowl. On these the letters are either worn away or are fragmented and cannot be read.

There were four identified marks at Patuxent Point. However, two of these marks are associated with the same maker. “WIL EVANS” and “WE” are both marks of the William Evanses of Bristol (Figures 16 and 17). William Evans I and II produced pipes between 1667 and 1682, and in 1697 (Hurry and Keeler 1991). The “LE” mark, which will be discussed later, was also recovered at this site: nine stem marks and two bowl marks. The mark “IS,” (Figure 18) found on the stem and surrounded by Bristol-style rouletting, is probably the mark of John Sinderling of Bristol, who produced pipes from 1666 to 1699 (Hurry and Keeler 1991:59). Other marks at Patuxent Point are “SF,” “MB,” and “F” on heels, and “HI” or “IH,” and “AA” on stems. Only one example each of these marks were recovered, and although some have been found at other Maryland sites, the specific maker associated with each mark is unknown.

At Mattapany, only two identifiable makers’ marks were recovered. “WE,” William Evans’ mark, was found on a bowl (Figure 19). “LE,” discussed later, was also identified on both bowl (n=2) and stem (n=1). Other makers’ marks include the initials “BB” and “H” which were found on heels, and “SV” which was found on a stem. The “SV” mark has been found before, but it has not yet been connected with a specific maker. There were also four with letters which were unidentifiable.

At the Eltonhead site, there were three identified makers’ marks. The initials “RS,” located on the stem, are initials most likely associated with the maker Robert Sheppard. Sheppard worked out of Bristol during the second half of the 17th century (R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2001). The mark “WE,” located on the stem (cf. Figure 16), is associated with the makers William Evans I and II of Bristol England, who produced pipes from 1667 to 1682 and in 1697 (Oswald 1975:152-153). The third identifiable mark recovered from this site was “LE” of which there were seven stems and six bowls. This mark will be discussed in detail later in this paper. Other marks at Eltonhead included “WK” in a cartouche on the bowl, and “AA” and “IP” on stems. As with the unidentified marks at other sites, some of these marks have been found at other sites, but are not associated with specific makers.

For the latter part of this analysis, I am focusing on two particular makers’ marks recovered from these sites, specifically Edward Byrd (“EB”), and Llewellin Evans (“LE”) pipes.

I have selected these marks because a large number of them were recovered from the sites I focused on in the Patuxent drainage.

Edward Byrd

“EB” pipes (Figure 20) are believed to be the product of Edward Byrd, an Englishman who produced pipes in Amsterdam from 1635-1665 (McCashion 1979). Although an “EB” mark may occur in several locations on a pipe, in the assemblage used in this study, each “EB” mark occurred on the heel of the pipe. Forty “EB” pipes were recovered from the Stevens site, and of these, a majority were found in Feature 8 (n=38) (Figure 21), with only two in plow zone.

This is not especially unusual, given that a large number of Dutch ceramics were also recovered from this site (Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. 1989).

The fact that “EB” pipes were not recovered from Patuxent Point or Mattapany, suggests that, by the time these sites were occupied, 1658 and 1663 respectively, “EB” pipes were no longer being imported. While this is not surprising for Mattapany, the Patuxent Point evidence does suggest that “EB” pipes in the Patuxent drainage might predate 1660. “EB” pipes have been found at Pope’s Fort (Miller 1991), from the Village Center in St. Mary’s City (Miller 1983), and at St. John’s in St. Mary’s City (Hurry and Keeler 1991). Although the “EB” pipes from the Village Center and St. John’s are not from tightly dated features, the 18 “EB” pipes recovered from Pope’s Fort appear to be dated to 1645-1655, supporting a pre-1660 date in southern Maryland (Miller 1991).

Llewellin Evans

“LE” (see Figures 22 and 23) is the mark used by Llewellin Evans who was working in Bristol from approximately 1661 to 1689 (Oswald 1975:152). Llewellin Evans’ marks have been found throughout Maryland and Virginia. In Maryland, "LE" pipes have been found in considerable numbers in St. Mary’s City (Miller 1983; Hurry and Keeler 1991; Miller 1991), in the Patuxent drainage (R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc. 2001; Pogue 1987), and in Anne Arundel County (Luckenbach, Cox, Kille 2002). These pipes are often used to date colonial sites to the second half of the 17th century.

Twenty-six pipes with the “LE” mark were found in the assemblage, from Patuxent Point, Eltonhead, and Mattapany. No “LE” pipes were recovered from Steven’s Land. It should be noted, however, that a fragmented mark with the first initial “L” (the second initial not available) was recovered from the plow zone at Steven’s Land (Figure 24). At Patuxent Point, “LE” pipes were found either from plow zone context (n=5), or from a large shell filled pit believed to have been filled after 1680. Although a number of features predating 1680 were excavated, none yielded an “LE” pipe.

At Mattapany, three “LE” pipes were found: two were found at Calvert’s house, and one was found at the nearby magazine. At Calvert’s house, one was recovered from the plow zone and one was found in a feature deposit filled sometime in the 18th century. At the powder magazine, which appears to have been abandoned around 1690, an “LE” pipe was found in feature filled with brick rubble.

At the Eltonhead site, twelve pipe fragments marked with an “LE” were recovered. Of these, nine came from Feature 12. Feature 12 is a large pit filled with architectural and domestic debris sometime after 1682, but before 1700. Of the other “LE” pipes, two were found in plow zone, and one was found in a feature that appears to have been filled in the early 18th century.

Based on this evidence, it appears that pipes manufactured by Llewellin Evans were being discarded sometime in the 1680s at these sites. Since tobacco pipes are fragile, it is unlikely that these pipes had been in use for many years prior to their breakage. Al Luckenbach has previously suggested that “LE” pipes occur in Maryland in the latter part of Evans’ dates of production. Based on the Patuxent data, Llewellin Evans’ pipes appear to have been imported only in the 1680s.

To test the conclusion that “LE” pipes are found in contexts dating after ca. 1680, I examined various reports from both St. Mary's City and Anne Arundel County. Several “LE” pipes were recovered from the St. John’s site in St. Mary’s City, which was occupied from c. 1638 through 1720. Most of the “LE” pipes recovered from St. John's are from non-diagnostic contexts (i.e., plow zone), but one “LE” pipe was recovered from a dated context: a kitchen pit.

This context dates to the site's Phase III occupation, from 1685-ca. 1720 (Hurry and Keeler 1991). This admittedly limited evidence fits well with the Patuxent evidence.

In Anne Arundel County, however, archaeological evidence suggests that “LE” pipes are being acquired, used, broken, and discarded in the 1670s. This interpretation is based on the excavation and analysis of tobacco pipes from tightly dated feature deposits. For example, at the Burle’s Town Land site, which was abandoned about 1676, a number of “LE” pipes have been recovered. This variation in distribution of “LE” pipes is intriguing and not wholly unexpected, given that archaeological assemblages recovered from Anne Arundel County sites do differ in many significant ways from assemblages recovered in the Potomac and Patuxent drainages.

In a study of pipe form and marks from features that had short known dates, Al Luckenbach (2002:2) argues that, “it is clear that regional variations exist in patterns of importation and local production.” Luckenbach and his colleagues in Anne Arundel County, observed that “LE” pipes, made by Llewellin Evans, are not found in pre-1670 deposits in Anne Arundel County (Luckenbach 1995). In southern Maryland, “LE” pipes have not been found in pre-1680 deposits.

Conclusion

As was expected, the four sites studied in this project showed both some variations and some similarities. Because of incomplete information about certain marks, little can be learned from their distributions, but other patterns can be discerned from the distributions of the decorations and marks. For example, at William Stevens’ Land, a large number of Edward Byrd pipes were found, whereas they are not found at the other three sites. The greatest quantity of Pikeman and Minerva pipes (n=30) are also found at William Stevens’ Land. Edward Byrd is a Dutch maker, and the Pikeman motif is thought to be Dutch. There may be a correlation between these two types of pipes. This is also the only site where any style of fleur-de-lis stem decorations are found, which also could be connected. Other than the Dutch pipes, there is a large amount of other Dutch artifacts, such as ceramics, in the artifact collection from William Stevens’ Land. However, there was also a fair number (n=10) of Pikemen and Minerva pipe fragments at Patuxent where there were no Edward Byrd pipes, no fleur-de-lis, and very few other Dutch artifacts. After 1660, fewer Dutch products were being imported to the Chesapeake and Patuxent Point’s beginning occupation date is 1658, while William Stevens’ Land was occupied in 1651. The most clear patterns can be seen with the two maker’s marks I examined in greater detail.

Using data that was gathered from four sites in the lower Patuxent drainage as well as from other sites in Maryland, the selected makers’ marks, “EB” and “LE” appear to have tighter date ranges than was previously thought. Although Edward Byrd’s documented dates of pipe making are from 1635 until 1665, his maker’s mark does not appear to reach the Patuxent after the mid-1650s, suggesting that his pipes may not have been exported to this area during the last five to ten years of production. Llewellin Evans is documented to have been producing pipes from 1661 until his death in 1688 or 1689 but his pipes are not present in features in the lower Patuxent that date before approximately 1680. It appears that there are some chronological distinctions, however, among the drainages within Maryland, such as Anne Arundel County and the lower Patuxent. The insights gleaned from the data from the four sites used in this study are supported by data reported from other southern Maryland sites. Because of these insights, these particular marks may prove to be better dating tools than previously thought. Further research is necessary to further solidify the conclusions reached in this paper, but so far, the implications are that makers’ marks and decorations reaching the colonies have more tightly defined dates than those defined by their production dates, which may span a longer amount of time.

Future Research

Towards the end of my research, I closely examined the styles of “LE” marks at the four sites. There were two styles of bowl marks, one which was more plain, and consisted of only the letters on the front of the bowl (cf. Figure 22), and the other which was more stylized, and had a scrolled decoration surrounding it. I had previously noticed that there was some difference in the sizes or proportions of the stem marks, suggesting that there may have been more than one rouletting tool creating the mark. When I set about doing a closer study of the stems, making measurements to ascertain the possibility of different rouletting tools, I noticed that there were two styles of diamonds represented at the four Patuxent sites (Figures 25 and 26). All of the “LE” pipe stems at Eltonhead had diamonds which were smaller in width and did not have raised central dots, and the diamonds on either side of the initials were only half diamonds. On the other hand, all of the “LE” stems at Patuxent Point the diamonds were the other style, larger diamonds, central dots, and complete diamonds on either side of the initials. Further research will need to be done involving other sites to see what sorts of patterns can be seen from this data.

There are a couple of ways variations in marks used by the same maker could prove to be useful, should the variations turn out to be meaningful. It is possible that the variations could be used to document individual shipments of pipes. However, it is also possible that shipments of pipes associated with a particular maker could contain more than one mark. If the variations can be lined to chronological differences, then it could be possible to examine change in archaeological deposits over shorter periods of time. The post-1680 time period was one of great change in the economy of Maryland. This was the period during which the tobacco economy fell into a deep depression, and slavery began to overtake indentured servitude in earnest as the more common form of labor. Studying micro change in archaeological deposits during these changes, or even during the time period leading up to these changes could tell us a great deal about the transformation of colonial Chesapeake economy and society. Changes might be discerned within each individual site, and how these changes related to the bigger picture might be inferred or understood due to the ability to study the micro change.

References Cited

Chaney, Edward

2004   Personal Communication.

Hurry, Silas D., and Robert W. Keeler

1991   A Descriptive Analysis of the White Clay Tobacco Pipes from the St. John’s Site in St. Mary’s City, Maryland. The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe XII: Chesapeake Bay. Edited by Peter Davey and Dennis J. Pogue, British Archaeological Reports International Series 566:37-71.

King, Julia A. and Douglas H. Ubelaker, eds.

1996   Living and Dying on the 17th Century Patuxent Frontier. Maryland Historical Trust Press, Crownsville, MD.

Louis Berger Associates, Inc.

1989   The Compton Site Circa 1651-1684 Calvert County, Maryland, 18CV279. Report prepared for CRJ Associates, Inc. Copy Available at Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab.

Luckenbach, Al

1995   Providence 1649: The History and Archaeology of Anne Arundel County Maryland’s First European Settlement. The Maryland State Archives and the Maryland Historical State Trust, Annapolis.

Luckenbach, Al, C. Jane Cox, and John Kille, editors

2002   The Clay Tobacco-Pipe in Anne Arundel County, Maryland (1650-1730). Anne Arundel County’s Lost Towns Project, Annapolis, Maryland.

Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab

2003   Archaeological Collections in Maryland: Patuxent Point 18CV271. http://www.jefpat.org/NEHWeb/Assets/Documents/FindingAids/18CV271-%20Patuxent%20Point%20Finding%20Aid.htm. Visited January 2004.

2004   Archaeological Collections in Maryland: Compton 18CV279. http://www.jefpat.org/NEHWeb/Assets/Documents/FindingAids/18CV279-%20Compton%20Final%20Finding%20Aid.htm. Visited January 2004.

McCashion, John H.

1979   A Preliminary Chronology and Discussion of Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco pipes from New York State Sites. The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe, II: The United States of America. Edited by Peter Davey, British Archaeological Reports International Series 60:63-150.

Miller, Henry M.

1983   A Search for the “City of Saint Maries”: Report on the 1981 Excavations in St. Mary’s City, Maryland. St. Maries City Archaeology Series No. 1.

1991   Tobacco Pipes from Pope’s Fort, St. Mary’s City, Maryland: an English Civil War Site on the American Frontier. The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe XII: Chesapeake Bay. Edited by Peter Davey and Dennis J. Pogue, British Archaeological Reports International Series 566:73-88.

Noël Hume, Ivor

1969   A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia.

Oswald, Adrian

1975   Clay Pipes for the Archaeologist. British Archaeological Reports 14. Oxford, England.

Pogue, Dennis J.

1987   “Seventeenth-century Proprietary Rule and Rebellion: Archeology at Charles Calvert’s Mattapany-Sewall.” Maryland Archeology 23(1):1-37.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

2001   Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 18ST704 Naval Air Station Patuxent River, St. Mary’s County, Maryland. Final Report prepared for TAMS Consultants, Inc. Copy Available at Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab.

Sharpe, Shawn, Al Luckenbach & John Kille

2002   Burle’s Town Land (ca. 1649-1676): A Marked Abundance of Pipes. The Clay Tobacco-Pipe in Anne Arundel County, Maryland (1650-1730), pp. 28-39, edited by Al Luckenbach, C. Jane Cox and John Kille. Anne Arundel County’s Lost Towns Project, Annapolis, Maryland.

---

Appendices with data sheets can be found in the PDF version of this paper.