Minimum Vessel Count

The purpose of a minimum vessel count is to provide the archaeologist with a more accurate total of ceramic or glass vessels recovered from an archaeological site. The 8,645 fragments of ceramic recovered from Site B by the end of 2007 do not represent 8,645 individual pots, plates, or bowls. Ceramic vessels break during use, get thrown out into yards and trampled, fracture from freezing and thawing over long periods of time in the ground, and shatter under the points and disks of agricultural plows. All of these activities turn a single piece of ceramic into many fragments.

Due to differences in vessel size, the fragility of certain ceramic types, and post-depositional activities, simply counting the sherds may provide a skewed picture of the ceramic or glass assemblage. A large creamware chamber pot when broken and plowed will produce a much larger number of sherds than a more durable stoneware jug under the same circumstances. The large number of creamware sherds does not indicate more creamware vessels however. The goal of a minimum vessel count is to separate the many fragments back into the vessels from which they originated. The resulting counts allow for better comparisons between sites or areas of very large sites that may have contained different structures, activities, or residents. Another benefit of these counts is the need for mending together fragments that may have come from very different places on an archaeological site. Mending allows the archaeologist to “track” the movement of a broken vessel and connect people or activities associated with different areas.

Procedure
The beginning stage of any minimum vessel count is sorting out all of the ceramic fragments by their ware type (creamware, pearlware, stoneware, porcelain, etc.) and decoration (hand painting, molded bodies, transfer printing, etc.). Sorting makes it much easier to find fragments that mend back together. During the mending process, blue masking tape is used to hold together fragments that fit together. When all mends have been found within an assemblage the tape is removed and the fragments are glued together using a product called B-72. This reversible adhesive can be dissolved with no harm to the artifacts if a mistake is made or other fragments are found later that need to be added to a vessel. As we have found with the mending process for Site B, fragments of vessels deposited at the current site are also being found scattered around Jefferson’s main house. Through these mends, we are able to link Site B with the wing of offices and ornamental plantings located in the north lawn and along the banks of the sunken lawn.

After mending, a second sort is conducted, separating base, rim, and body fragments for each ware and decoration type. Based on glaze coloring, decorative elements, and estimated vessel form and size, bases, rims, and body sherds are placed together in groups that could possibly represent a single vessel. Some vessels will be represented by rims alone because no body or base sherds match the same style, similarly unique base and body fragments may also represent a single vessel when no rims match that style. After exhausting all possibilities, each possible vessel gets a number.

The minimum vessel count for Site B is still ongoing, and as excavation continues the number of vessels will grow, or possibly shrink as we discover fragments of vessels that link together what we originally estimated were two separate ceramic objects. The process is similar to putting together many different jigsaw puzzles without all of the pieces. Despite the ongoing nature of this analysis, we have begun to learn a lot about Site B and its close connections to the main house and Jefferson’s ornamental grounds.

Results
By the end of 2007, a total of 310 vessels have been identified from Site B, although the later period whiteware vessels have not yet been included in the count. Even without these vessels, refined earthenwares dominate the assemblage. Pearlware (ca.1780 – 1830) is the best represented with 139 different vessels identified, while 47 creamware (ca. 1762 – 1820) vessels have been determined. A total of 73 utilitarian vessels were identified with this group separated into 40 redware vessels and 33 stoneware vessels. Vessel form for this group was predominantly pots and jugs, objects that would have been used primarily for liquid cooling and food storage. 48 porcelain vessels were determined, with 19 of these identified as Chinese export porcelain and the remainder unidentified. Also identified were 3 dry bodied stonewares (see Black Basalt Refined Stoneware Vessel 42), these high-fired, thin walled vessels were often in the forms of teapots or bowls, sometimes incorporating classical design elements in imitation of Greek and Roman pottery.

The decoration and vessel form of the refined earthenwares in particular suggests a mixture of tableware and teaware. Not surprisingly the creamware vessels are predominantly plain, however fragments of a pedastalled bowl with a molded basketweave design and open looped rim represents one of the more elaborate objects in the entire ceramic assemblage (see Creamware Vessel 1). For the pearlware vessels, transfer printing and hand painting are the most common decoration, eclipsing the cheaper blue and green shell edged plates. Based on vessel form, the transfer printed vessels are predominately flat, possibly representing the tablewares such as plates and platters used in different dinner services. The more evenly distributed vessel form, between flat and hollow vessels such as cups and bowls, within the handpainted polychrome assemblage, and somewhat in the handpainted blue group, may represent teawares that come in sets with both teacups and saucers. The high occurrence of transfer printed and handpainted pearlware vessels, the two most expensive types of refined earthenwares, represents an assemblage that on the surface appears to belong to an affluent household. We will continue to study this assemblage and refine our interpretation of its value and begin comparing it to other recovered ceramic assemblages at Poplar Forest, including the vessels from the Quarter Site and the Wing of Offices.

At this stage in our analysis of the Site B ceramic assemblage, the most valuable information has been gained from the crossmending. Seven multi-site crossmends were discovered between Site B, the service wing, shrub plantings along the banks of the sunken lawn, garden beds at the end of the sunken lawn, and ornamental tree plantings at the angles of the house. The majority of the Site B fragments were found in the plowzone, however fragments of a hand painted pearlware bowl with chinoiserie design were found in the southern end of the gully (Pearlware Vessel 3), in a layer of red silty loam mixed with charcoal. The other fragments of this bowl were recovered from a single planting hole associated with a clump of trees Jefferson planted in 1812, and an early 19 th century garden bed located at the end of the sunken lawn. A Chinese porcelain bowl base (Chinese Porcelain Vessel 2) recovered from the plowzone at Site B mended with fragments from a layer of soil at the southwest corner of the house, where another ornamental clump of trees stood. This pattern begins to suggest movement of objects through the movement of plants and two other Site B cross-site mends can be directly linked to a layer of red silty soil mixed with charcoal that is associated with a row of shrub planting holes lining the east bank of the south lawn. A third cross-mend is from a modern pipetrench disturbed layer cutting through this row of shrubs. Turning to Jefferson’s planting memorandum we find that these shrubs were planted in December 1812, just a month after the clumps of ornamental trees were planted. Also revealed through the crossmending are links between Site B and the wing of offices. A tureen lid (Pearlware Vessel 1) and a pearlware plate have direct mends between Site B and the trash midden associated with the wing’s kitchen. Three of the vessels with mends between Site B and ornamental plantings, also have fragments attributed to vessels recovered from the wing, although direct mends have not been found.

Based on these crossmends we are beginning to heavily consider the ways Site B could be connected to ornamental plantings. The most tantalizing possibility is that we have located the nursery for the plantation’s ornamental plants. Jefferson refers to a nursery, established sometime between 1808 and 1811, in memoranda and letters that direct the care of ornamental shrubs and trees brought from Monticello or direct the plantings around the Poplar Forest grounds. The only location given for this facility however is in reference to other buildings whose locations are also unknown, such as the two stables, which the nursery was located between. Garden and farm manuals in Jefferson’s library give some idea about how this space would have been structured. The location between stables is one of practicality as it makes hauling manure to the nursery easier, many manuals also suggest that compost piles be placed downhill from stables and barnyards in order to collect any liquid manure runoff. Also of value for enriching nursery soils and compost are soap suds, hearth ash, human urine, and kitchen trash. Amending soil with residential trash, in this case possibly originating from the kitchen in the wing and from nearby slave quarters, is particularly important in the hard clay of central Virginia. Plantings often require the addition of solid objects such as ceramics, nails, and glass in order to ease drainage and give roots purchase in the often impenetrable clay walls of planting holes. A plant started in this soil environment would carry any objects in the nursery soils along with the root balls of the plant when moved, as seems to be the case with the objects in the tree planting hole at the front of the house. Similarly, organic and artifact rich loads of compost spread around the base of the plants may leave a layer similar to that found on the banks of the lawn. The southern end of the large gully feature at Site B, filled with charcoal, ceramics mended to planting holes, possible root runs, and a patchwork of different mixed soils seems to have a signature consistent with an area used for composting and planting activities.

A selection of vessels identified during the count are presented along the side. Not all fragments were photographed for each vessel, however the maps that accompany each ceramic object show the location of each recovered fragment that has been determined to make up that vessel. Blue tape is still evident on several vessels as we continue to recover fragments of these objects in our ongoing excavations.