The English Style in Charleston: Analysis of Ceramic Tea Wares from a Planter's Town House

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 37: 1 and 2 The English Style in Charleston - Botwick

43

The English Style in Charleston: Analysis of Ceramic Tea Wares from aPlanter’s Town House

Brad Botwick

INTRODUCTION

During the antebellum period, the position and authority of Charleston elites came under pressure from changingsocial, economic, and political circumstances. Planters responded with intensified efforts at strengthening andasserting their position atop the regional social hierarchy. While a variety of material correlates of this phenomenonhave been discussed, data from the College of Charleston Library site (38CH1871) suggest that low country plantersalso used tea wares to express status and class identity. Analysis of the cups, saucers, and other tea drinkingequipment found at the former town house of planter Michael Keckeley and his family indicated a clear preferencefor transfer-printed decorations that evoke the English countryside. These motifs reflect the well-known penchantfor Charleston planters to model themselves on the English aristocracy. At the same time, the design motifs on thetea wares were a stylistic device used to express class connections and alliances.

REDUCED CIRCUMSTANCES: HISTORIC CONTEXT OF ANTEBELLUM CHARLESTON

During the antebellum period the position of low country planters at the top of the region’s social, economic, andpolitical worlds was challenged. One of the factors leading to this was the emergence of short-staple cotton, a cropthat prospered in the backcountry. The expansion of the cotton economy prompted a migration inland and shiftedthe center of plantation culture and associated social and political authority with it. The removal of the state capitalfrom Charleston to Columbia was a sign of this trend. Other conditions that undercut Charleston elites includedfinancial downturns and a loss of shipping that caused the region’s economy to vacillate and finally to collapse intoa sustained depression by the 1820s (Pease and Pease 1985:10-11; Coclanis 1989).

Charleston’s position in the country also underwent important changes during the nineteenth century as it lostground to other Atlantic ports. The decline in international trade led the city to turn inward, ultimately giving riseto an exaggerated sense of place focused on sectional differences and an identity as a distinctly Southern city.During this period, the city emerged as an embodiment of Southern society and culture (Rogers 1969; Fraser1989:207; Zierden 2000:95). The economic focus on staple crop agriculture and a commitment to slavery also led toincreasing political and ideological isolation, defensiveness, and an ethos of unity intended to present a cohesivefront to outsiders. This worldview arose and matured throughout the antebellum era (Rogers 1969; Fraser 1989;Edgar 1998).

The class structure of Charleston was another important dynamic during the nineteenth century that contributed tosocial uncertainty. The top of the social hierarchy was made up of the elite planters whose wealth and status werebased on land ownership and control of labor (Joyce 1992, 1997:177). Although many members of this classengaged in commerce, they would not consider it their primary occupation. Merchants aspiring to equal footing inthis class had to operate on a massive scale because retail trade was considered beneath the dignity of the aristocracy


44

(Bowes 1942:117-118). Retailers belonged to the middle social levels along with other professionals. Joyce (1992,1997:177) divides the middle social classes into two tiers, the higher one being composed of professionals (e.g.,physicians, merchants, lawyers, and bankers) and the lower middle class consisting of clerks, shopkeepers, andsupervisors. The lowest social classes were made up of skilled and unskilled laborers (Trinkley and Hacker 1996:8).The preceding model, of course, refers mainly to Charleston’s white population. At the very bottom of the socialhierarchy were enslaved African-Americans, while free African-Americans occupied an ambiguous social positionin the social ladder.

Although foreign immigrants were not as prominent during the early nineteenth century as they were in other cities,there was a large German community. More important, though, was the large population of African-Americans,which comprised the majority of the population until 1860 (Edgar 1998:290). This large group of disfranchisedinhabitants caused rising levels of insecurity on the part of the white population, especially after the plotted Vesseyrevolt in 1822 (Edgar 1998; Robertson 1999; Zierden 2000:95).

All of these forces contributed to a sense of unease among Charleston’s elites by the early 1800s. Faced withanxiety, economic decline, and social tension, Charleston elites focused on retrenchment and maintenance of a statusquo. Planters sought to preserve their social distinction through rituals of inclusion and exclusion (McInnis 1999:32,45), and these rituals were bolstered with material goods. As tensions increased, elites and probably the middleclasses intensified their efforts to define themselves and justify their social positions. Material symbols of classidentity and affiliation attained renewed importance in this context.

CLASS AND MATERIAL CULTURE IN CHARLESTON

The decorations on tea wares examined for this study show a definite preference for designs that are suggestive ofthe English countryside. Such items worked as class markers because Charleston elites patterned themselves afterthe English gentry (Waterhouse 1982; Pease and Pease 1985:122; Jordan 1988:3, 5; Zierden 1999:76). RichardWaterhouse (1982:400-401) argues that the English model took during the Colonial era because of trade, family, andreligious ties with England. More importantly, though, Charleston planters sought to establish themselves as anAmerican version of the English gentry because they saw the European precedent as the ideal version of a rulingclass in a rigidly hierarchical society with limited class mobility. For South Carolina planters, establishingthemselves as a version of this aristocratic class was a means of entrenching their position at the top of the social,economic, and political worlds. The need was particularly acute once African-Americans became a majority of thepopulation, which deepened the psychological need of white elites to adhere to the normative values of Englishculture. Although the ideal of the English gentry originated earlier, planters maintained it into the antebellum period(McInnis 1999:33-34).

Charleston elites also used material goods to express their place at the top of low country society. Prior studies ofthe antebellum Charleston aristocracy have most often cited architecture and landscape or use of space as materialsymbols of power (Calhoun and Zierden 1984; Joyce 1992, 1997; Zierden 1996a, 1997; Herman 1999; McInnis1999; Vlach 1999; Del Lago 2001, Zierden et al. 2001). In addition, interior furnishings (Jordan 1988; McInnis1999) and clothing (Joyce 1992) have been described as signs of class identity and affiliation. These symbolsbroadcast the political, economic, and social wealth and authority of Charleston’s planters and set them apart fromthe other social classes.


45

More generally in Euro-American society, the highest social classes have distinguished themselves from the lowerclasses by developing distinct rules of conduct, usually expressed as “refinement” or “gentility” (Kasson 1990;Bushman 1992). Likewise, Charleston planters used their wealth to purchase the accoutrements fitting to their statusand that allowed them to demonstrate adherence to ideals of gentility. Elaborate townhouses and gardens, filledwith appropriate furnishings, tea- and table wares, and clothing provided the backdrop and implements required todisplay one’s mastery of refined conduct (Jordan 1988:18; Zierden 1997:165; McInnis 1999; Zierden et al. 2001:6-1). Tea- and dinner parties were important social rituals of the low country aristocracy (McInnis 1999:44) becausethey provided opportunities to display one’s refinement and for the host and hostess to display their taste andunderstanding of the nuances of genteel behavior.

For Charleston elites, demonstrations of refinement and taste also required them to show their adherence to theideologies based on the English aristocratic model. As McInnis (1999) and others have discussed, English fashionsinfluenced planters’ choices in interior furnishing, clothing, and other goods. Analysis of the tea wares from theCollege of Charleston Library site appears to have revealed another area where planters displayed this identity.

TEA WARES FROM THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON SITE

The archaeological materials used for this study came from the College of Charleston Library site (38CH1871) atthe southwest corner of Coming and Calhoun Streets. The materials relate to the household of Michael Keckeley, aGoose Creek planter who built a townhouse at present-day 83 Coming Street around 1810 and who lived at the siteuntil his death around 1829. A second set of data used for comparison relates to the household of Keckeley’sdaughter and son-in-law, Jane and John Klinck. Klinck was a German-born merchant who acquired the propertyafter his father-in-law’s death and occupied it with his family during the 1830s and 1840s. The tea wares associatedwith his household show a different style and suggest different influences and class identity.

THE KECKELEY AND KLINCK HOUSEHOLDS: HISTORY

The earlier of these two households, that of Michael Keckeley, was associated with Charleston’s planter class. Itneeds to be pointed out, though, that the planter class was a much a social category as an economic one. Asdiscussed, this social category was not open to just anyone who could accumulate huge wealth. Status positions inCharleston society relied on a mixture of wealth, political authority, and traditional and expected deference. Being amember of the planter class also involved adhering to certain attitudes, manners, and ideologies, but did notnecessarily equate only with wealth.

A case in point might be Michael Keckeley, who was clearly a member of this class, but not a particularly affluentone. Keckeley owned a plantation of about 400-450 acres in Goose Creek. In comparison to other low countryplanters this was a small holding where the average plantation size during the early 1800s was almost 900 acres anda quite a few planters owned over 1000 acres (Coclanis 1989:69-70). An 1820s tax assessment for Keckeley’s landvalued all of it at the moderate rate of $4.00 per acre, where land was assessed values between 20 cents and $26 peracre (Charleston District 1824). He owned no land in the three highest assessment categories: $26, $17, and $8.50per acre. Ninety percent of this most valuable land belonged to only the wealthiest planters (McCurry 1995:28),further suggesting Keckeley’s lower economic standing within the planter class.


46

Another measure of wealth in the low country was slave ownership, where possession of 20 slaves was generallyconsidered the minimum required for someone to qualify as a planter (Edgar 1998:311). Keckeley’s 28 slaves justput him in this category, but here again, the quality of his holdings was not very high, as his 28 slaves were assesseda total value of only $21.00 in 1824.

Owning a townhouse was another mark of the planter lifestyle. Once more, though, Keckeley appears to have beenless grandiose than others. Where the average planter town house contained over 7000 square feet and occupied lotsmeasuring over 18,000 square feet (Zierden 1996b:138, 1997:165), Keckeley’s town lot measured only about 6420square feet (as best as can be determined), closer to the average middle class lot size of 6000 square feet. Thus,while Michael Keckeley was one of Charleston’s planter elites, he was among its less affluent members. Henevertheless accumulated many of the trappings of a low country planter and clearly aspired to portray himself asone.

In contrast, Keckeley’s son-in-law, German-born John Klinck, was a middle-class grocer. For part of the time heoccupied the property (ca. 1830-1850), Klinck owned two grocery stores in the city, one of which he had establishedat the site (Hagy 1996, 1997) by converting the former planter’s town house. His real estate holdings were valued at$48,000 in 1850 (US Census 1850), around the time he moved from the site. This assessment put him among thewealthier end of the middle class, and he was probably better off than his father-in-law. Despite his economicstanding, Klinck’s profession would not allow him entry into the elite level of Charleston society. Merchants likeJohn Klinck belonged to the middle social levels and it is probable that his outlook and class sympathies would bewith those ranks, notwithstanding his wife’s background in the planter class. This fact would influence their choiceof material culture.

ARTIFACT ANALYSIS

This study deals with the ceramic tea wares from the two households. The data for the analysis came from twofeatures containing quantities of house wares, with large assemblages of teacups, saucers, small plates, and tea orcoffee pots among them. Items like bowls, pitchers, glassware, and other items that could have been used for teadrinking, but whose functions are ambiguous are not included in the study.

The Keckeley occupation is represented by a densely packed refuse pit (Feature 41) that appeared to date between1813, when the Keckeleys first occupied the site and shortly after 1820. The feature contained over 4100 ceramicsherds (the high total being a product of smashing by construction traffic) and from these 140 separate vessels couldbe identified. These were sorted into form and functional categories, revealing 11 teacups, one tea bowl, and 20saucers. Small plates were also identified that were probably part of the family’s tea serving equipment, based onthe matching design motifs (Botwick et al. 2004:94).

The later Klinck tenancy is reflected by another refuse-filled pit (Feature 52). Datable ceramics from this featuresuggested a chronology between the late 1820s and circa 1840, a period corresponding to portions of the Klinckoccupation. The 692 ceramic fragments recovered from this feature were sorted into a minimum of 73 vessels. Teawares in this feature included two cups, seven saucers, and a single coffee- or teapot (Botwick et al. 2004:115).

The majority of the tea wares from both assemblages consisted of mostly pearlware and whiteware decorated witheither printed or hand painted designs. Porcelain, the most expensive variety of ceramic available, was rare


47

(MNV=3 in the Keckeley assemblage), which is an interesting side note given the supposition that the Keckeleyhousehold did not live as extravagantly as wealthier planters.

This analysis concentrates on the decorations on the two tea ware assemblages and particularly their design motifs.To analyze these, the procedures used by Diana Wall (1994) in her study of ceramics from New York City wereadopted. Design motifs on tea wares from the Charleston site were classified as landscape, Chinoiserie or Asian,and floral. Other themes were rare in the assemblage. “Landscape,” for this analysis, includes what PatriciaSamford (1997:17) would call American and British views and American historical scenes, along with Romantic,Classical, Pastoral, and Gothic designs. Although the analysis did not separate out the landscape types into thesecategories, the general impression gained while inventorying them was that the majority reflected British views,Romantic, and Pastoral (Figure 1). “Floral” motifs included those where a botanical theme comprised the centraldecoration on a vessel, and does not refer to the borders of printed vessels, which typically used floral decorationsregardless of the central motif.

Looking at the two assemblages, the majority of the tea wares from the earlier Keckeley deposit possessed printedlandscape and printed or painted floral decorations. Looking at the three principal motifs, Landscape was mostprevalent, being represented by 199 sherds and a minimum of 13 vessels (making up 53.1% of all three motifs).Floral motifs were the next most prevalent with 153 sherds representing a minimum of 11 vessels and 40.8% of thetotal. Chinoiserie was a minor motif in this sample, consisting of only 23 sherds and a minimum of four vessels(6.1% of the total) (Figures 2 and 3). Of note, the floral motifs from the Keckeley assemblage consisted mostly ofpainted examples. Excluding oriental export porcelain, the remaining tea wares with floral motifs included abouttwice as many painted sherds (n=179; MNV=11) as printed (n=68; MNV=6) (Figure 4). Because it is unknown ifthe painted and printed wares would have been used together or for separate occasions, the implications of thisfinding are not clear. If the two were used separately, then it suggests that the landscape motif was even moredominant among the printed wares.

The Klinck tea wares were mostly decorated with floral designs, which were present on 127 sherds, making aminimum of 19 vessels and 75% of the three principal motifs. All of the tea wares with floral decorations from thisassemblage consisted of small hand-painted flowers on white backgrounds (Figure 5). The balance of the decoratedtea wares from the Klinck sample were printed Asian designs, which were identified on 41 sherds and a minimum offive vessels. Landscape motifs were absent (Figures 6 and 7). Clear differences thus existed between the twohouseholds: floral decorations dominated in the later Klinck sample but were proportionately less common in theearlier Keckeley assemblage. Landscape motifs were the most prominent in the Keckeley sample, but were absentfrom the later collection.

Additional differences were noted between the Keckeley sample and middle class households from New York thatDiana Wall (1994) reported for the periods around 1805 and the 1820s, which roughly bracket the Keckeley data. Inthe New York samples, printed floral motifs dominate on tea wares. Other motifs, including landscapes, are presentbut make up insignificant proportions of the assemblages (Figure 8).

Another point to make is that during the 1810s, when the Keckeleys were using mostly tea wares with landscape-themed decorations, Chinoiserie style decorations were at the height of their popularity. Landscape motifs wereonly just starting to become fashionable (Samford 1997:16; Miller et al. 2000:13-15). In the Keckeley assemblage,a few Willow pattern tea wares were found, but these were probably used at family meals along with a set ofmatching plates, and did not likely figure prominently at social tea parties. This suggests that the Keckeleysdeliberately selected landscape styles for tea ware.


48

Figure 1. Examples of Printed Tea Wares with Landscape Motifs, Keckeley Household (Feature 41).


49

4 11 13

199

23

153

0

50

100

150

200

250

Chinoiserie Floral Landscape

Motif

Count Sherds

MNV

Figure 2: Decorative Motifs on Teawares, Keckeley Household.

6%

41%53%

ChinoiserieFloralLandscape

Figure 3: Frequencies of Decorative Motifs on Tea Wares, Keckeley Household.


50

Figure 4: Examples of Painted Tea Wares with Floral Motifs, Keckeley Household.

Figure 5: Representative Tea Wares, Klinck Household.


51

41

127

0519

00

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Chinoiserie Floral LandscapeMotif

Count

SherdsMNV

Figure 6: Decorative Motifs on Tea Wares, Klinck Household.

24%

76%

0%

ChinoiserieFloralLandscape

Figure 7: Frequencies of Decorative Motifs on Tea Wares, Klinck Household.


52

DISCUSSION

This analysis suggests one way that Charleston planters used style to establish and maintain class affiliation. Thelandscape motifs seen on the tea wares from the Keckeley household were class identity markers. Thisinterpretation assumes that style is a means for displaying social boundaries and that the decorative motifs on theKeckeley’s tea wares carried meaning to other members of their social class.

Among the households looked at for this study, the Keckeleys would have the most interest in demonstratingmembership in Charleston’s planter class and the decorative styles they chose for their tea wares might have beenone means for them to accomplish this. Michael Keckeley owned many of the trappings of a low country planter,including the plantation, the town house, the requisite number of slaves, and he identified himself as a planter in citydirectories.

Another way for the Keckeleys to display affiliation with the planter class would be to demonstrate that theyunderstood and internalized the ideals of this class. As discussed, low country planters used the English aristocracyas their model of the ideal ruling class and this was expressed through architectural styles and interior furnishings.The decorative motifs seen on the Keckeley tea wares seem to be a further manifestation of this phenomenon. Teawares were probably among the more public items of material culture used by the Keckeleys. During thenineteenth century, “tea” was the late-afternoon or evening meal and it was to this occasion that guests were usuallyinvited, as opposed to the main meal, “dinner,” which typically included only the family (Wall 1994:123). Thus, thecups, saucers, and other equipment used for social teas would have been out for guests to see. These items weretherefore ideal for making social statements to members of one’s community.

5

23

47

25

3

19

57

21

0102030405060

Minimal Chinoiserie Floral OtherMotifs

Percent

ca. 18051820s

Figure 8: Percentages of Decorative Motifs from New York City Tea Wares (after Wall 1994).


53

When guests shared tea with the Keckeleys, they would be served with ceramic vessels that evoked the Englisharistocratic model. The decorations on these ceramics not only called to mind an idealized English countryside, butthey also portrayed a pleasant, gentrified, and under-control world. These decorations signified that the Keckeleysshared the worldview and tastes appropriate for their social station.

While the symbolism of tea wares was only a contributing element to entire suites of material goods, the tea wareswould reinforce the message of affiliation and unity being sent by the Keckeleys, and such displays would have beenespecially important in a time of increasing uncertainty as Charleston headed into the nineteenth century. The useof printed English ceramics would have also been a practical solution for the Keckeleys because they were not aswell off financially and probably could not afford the opulent displays that the wealthiest planters could. The use oflandscape decorations on English-made (as opposed to exported Chinese) tea wares would be a relativelyinexpensive way to express taste and social aspirations.

This study, therefore, seems to show one way that planters used material culture as a symbolic tool in their relationswith one another. Looking at the tea wares this way shed some new light into the working of Charleston elitesociety during this period. First, it highlighted the diversity within the planter class in terms of economic positionsand material culture. Second, it added to our understanding of the role of how planters viewed themselves anddefined themselves as a separate social class. And finally, it illustrated a material correlate of English style inCharleston.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was sponsored by Enwright Associates, Inc. of Greenville as part the Marlene and Nathan AddlestoneLibrary at the College of Charleston. I would like to express my thanks to Faith Meader of New South Associates,Inc., who conducted historical research for this project and identified the past property owners of the site. I wouldlike to thank Catherine Long for inviting me to participate in the ASSC Annual meeting, which led to thepreparation of this paper. Of course, I am responsible for all errors and omissions.

REFERENCES CITED

Botwick, Brad, J. Faith Meader, Lisa D. O’Steen, and Leslie Raymer2004 “Of Sterling Worth and Good Qualities”: Status and Domesticity in Nineteenth-Century Middle

Class Charleston. Archaeological Investigations at Site 38CH1871, Marlene & NathanAddlestone Library, College of Charleston, City of Charleston, Charleston County, SouthCarolina. New South Technical Report 1187. Prepared for Enwright Associates, Inc., Greenville,South Carolina, by New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Bowes, Frederick P.1942 The Culture of Early Charleston. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Bushman, Richard L.1992 The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Calhoun,

Jeanne A., and Martha A. Zierden


54

1984 Charleston’s Commercial Landscape, 1803-1860. Charleston Museum ArchaeologicalContributions 7. Charleston.

Calhoun, Jeanne A., and Martha A. Zierden1984 Charleston’s Commercial Landscape, 1803-1860. Charleston Museum Archaeological

Contributions 7. Charleston.

Charleston District1824 Return of Michael Keckeley Taxable Property in the Parish of St. James, Goose Creek (Document

Series S126061, Item 02272). On file at South Carolina Department of Archives and History,Columbia.

Coclanis, Peter A.1989 The Shadow of a Dream: Economic Life and Death in the South Carolina Low Country, 1670-

1920. Oxford University Press, New York.

Del Lago, Enrico2001 The City as Social Display: Landed Elites and Urban Images in Charleston and Palermo. Journal

of Historical Sociology 14(4):374-396.

Edgar, Walter1998 South Carolina, A History. University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Fraser, Walter J., Jr.1989 Charleston! Charleston! The History of a Southern City. University of South Carolina Press,

Columbia.

Hagy, James William1996 Charleston, South Carolina City Directories for the Years 1816, 1819, 1825, and 1829.

Geneological Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland.

1997 Directories for the City of Charleston, South Carolina, for the Years 1830-1, 1835-6, 1837-8, and1840-1. Geneological Publishing Company, Maryland, Baltimore.

Herman, Bernard L.1999 Slave and Servant Housing in Charleston, 1770-1820. Historical Archaeology 33(3):88-101.

Jordan, James C., III1988 The Neoclassical Dining Room in Charleston. Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts 14 (2):1-

26.

Joyce, Dee Dee1992 Race, Class, Gender and Ethnicity: An Analysis of Social Relations in Antebellum Charleston,

South Carolina. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology, Kingston, Jamaica.


55

1997 The Charleston Landscape on the Eve of the Civil War: Race, Class, and Ethnic Relations in WardFive. In Carolina’s Historical Landscapes, edited by Linda F. Stine, Martha Zierden, Lesley M.Drucker, and Christopher Judge, pp. 175-185. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Kasson, John F.1990 Rudeness and Civility: Manners in Nineteenth-Century Urban America. Hill and Wang, New

York.

McCurry, Stephanie1995 Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political Culture of the

Antebellum South Carolina Low Country. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

McInnis, Maurie D.1999 “An Idea of Grandeur:” Furnishing the Classical Interior in Charleston, 1815-1840. Historical

Archaeology 33(3):32-47.

Miller, George L., Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew Madsen2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29:1-22.

Pease, William H., and Jane H. Pease1985 The Web of Progress: Private Values and Public Styles in Boston and Charleston, 1828-1843.

Oxford University Press, New York.

Robertson, David1999 Denmark Vessey. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Rogers, George C., Jr.1969 Charleston in the Age of the Pinckneys. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia (1980

edition).

Samford, Patricia M.1997 Responding to a Market: Dating English Underglaze Transfer-Printed Wares. Historical

Archaeology 31(2):1-30.

Trinkley, Michael and Debi Hacker1996 The Other Side of Charleston: Archaeological Survey of the Saks Fifth Avenue Location,

Charleston, South Carolina. Chicora Foundation Research Series 45. Columbia.

United States Census1850 Census Data for Charleston, South Carolina. On file at the South Carolina Department of Archives

and History, Columbia.

Vlach, John Michael1999 Plantation Tradition in an Urban Setting: The Case of the Aiken-Rhett House in Charleston, South

Carolina. Southern Cultures 5(4):52-69.


56

Wall, Diana DiZegera1994 The Archaeology of Gender: Separating the Spheres in Urban America. Plenum Press, New York.

Waterhouse, Richard1982 The Development of Elite Culture in the Colonial American South: A Study of Charles Town,

1670-1770. Australian Journal of Politics and History 28(3):391-404.

Zierden, Martha A.1996a The Urban Landscape, the Work Yard, and Archaeological Site Formation Processes in

Charleston, South Carolina. In Historical Archaeology and the Study of American Culture, editedby Lu Ann De Cunzo and Bernard L. Herman, pp. 285-317. The Henry Francis du PontWinterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware (University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville).

1996b Big House/Back Lot: An Archaeological Study of the Nathaniel Russell House. The CharlestonMuseum Archaeological Contributions 25. Charleston.

1997 The Urban Landscape in South Carolina. In Carolina’s Historical Landscapes, edited by Linda F.Stine, Martha Zierden, Lesley M. Drucker, and Christopher Judge, pp. 166-174. University ofTennessee Press, Knoxville.

1999 A Transatlantic Merchant’s House in Charleston: Archaeological Exploration of Refinement andSubsistence in an Urban Setting. Historical Archaeology 33(3):73-87.

Zierden, Martha A. (with contributions by Nicole Isenbarger, John Jones, Karl Reinhard, Lisa Kealhofer, KellySullivan, Elizabeth Reitz, and Greg Lucas)

2001 Excavations at 14 Legare Street, Charleston, South Carolina. Archaeological Contributions 28,the Charleston Museum. Prepared for Historic Charleston Foundation, Charleston.

The English Style in Charleston: Analysis of Ceramic Tea Wares from a Planter's Town House

Documents