A relatively undisturbed "bottle tip" on private land behind a Colonial home in the western Boston, MA suburbs, was briefly tested for any significant data it might yield as to activities or possessions of former inhabitants.

PERHAPS FIFTY YARDS behind his circa 1731 Colonial home in the Boston suburbs, my son earlier located a relatively undisturbed "bottle dump" in heavy ferns and underbrush. There is some light scatter of random glass and other fragments for unknown distance around this findspot; probably more attributable to erosional factors and root and plant successions over the years than to deliberate digging.

On a recent visit and with limited time, and at his request, on July 13, 2007, I decided to "test" this spot with light hand-troweling. The finds all reported here came within the upper 3 inches of the deposit; no formal plat was derived for the area which measured roughly two feet square centered as near as could be judged over the central deposit. The depth of same is still unknown (no sounding made) nor were any vertical profiles derived. I probed this area with a Marshalltown trowel for about thirty minutes. No resort was made to sifting. The inventory was then washed, sorted, and photographed.

Site Appearance. The deposit at the surface consists of dark organic woodlands soil (it is a dank spot in "the woods," much overgrown with ferns...) with strong visible admixture of ceramic sherds and broken glass. A number of scraps of semi-rotted leather were noted, some bearing rows of metal eyelets. None of these were retained, but it is probable that more organics are present here as well. That the leather is not completely rotted away may suggest that some of the detritus could date as recently perhaps as the last fifty years, but I really have no data on disintegration rates for organics in this locale. The scraps could not be recognized (by me), but the rows of eyelets suggested they might be fragments of "shoe tops" or high-button shoes of an even earlier era. The deposit is notable for the number of whole or only lightly-broken domestic bottles, and notably panel bottles, which it has yielded or have been picked up nearby in a really quite restricted compass. Additionally, there are quantities of frost-spalled crockery of many types and periods; bits of anthracite coal, and occasional rusted iron objects, including wrought nails, presumptive toys, and (presumably) early machine parts – perhaps such as might have once comprised agricultural tools.

Inventory. This minimal collection might best be described outright via extended captions to the illustrations of same. I turn first, then, to the panel bottles – shown in Fig.2.

Though patent dates on bottles (and other objects) might at first suggest dates for given items, reflection shows that such dates really peg only the patent date itself, and cannot meaningfully be used to date the items, save as stop-dates backwards (i.e., they cannot be older than the date given).

Of the four bottles shown, I was able to develop the following information (mostly from bottle collector and bottle seller websites, whose primary interests, admittedly, are usually more "commercial" than analytical). For A, then:

"Charles H. Phillips, a British-born entrepreneur who settled in Stamford, Conn., patented his laxative formula in 1873. He called it “Milk of Magnesia” because it contained magnesium and looked like milk. His Charles H. Phillips Chemical Co. produced and sold Phillips’ Milk of Magnesia until 1923, when the family-owned business was sold to Sterling Drug. Today the brand is owned by Bayer Corp. The 1906 date ... is a patent date, not the year the bottle was made." 1

This source adds further, that such bottles today "sell" for up to about $30, depending on condition.

For the bottle at B, I could find nothing.

For the bottle at C, I turned up this lead:

"Augustus Schlotterbeck and Charles Foss joined forces in 1890 to begin a partnership which lasted at least through 1919.  they (sic) were both chemists and were located at 36 & 38 Brown St. in Portland, Me.  The bottles are common and come in varying sizes.  It seems like the Harris bottle is scarcer.  I was not able to locate any information about the company.  Digger" 2

Fig. 3 is a gem, but I think my (hasty) photographing does not do it justice. (I had to "opaque" the flash-spot glare a bit with my Graphics Program – so you should forgive, already!).

What it shows is a figure of a fisherman (to right) with a giant codfish slung over his back (on left), nearly the same size as the fisherman!. If you study this a bit, you may "see" it. The integral legend is as follows: "SCOTT'S EMULSION"/ "(Trade Mark)"/ "COD LIVER OIL"/ "WITH LIME AND SODA". Apparently, despite its "antique" look, "Scott's Emulsion" is still an over-the-counter item: one current source is listed as Walgreen's...! Here is what my "literature" search has turned up to date:

"I am listing: 2 old Scott's Emulsion bottles, bottles have raised lettering and a raised glass of an old man carrying a Cod on his back.  The raised lettering says: "Scotts Emulsion Cod Liver Oil with Lime & Soda", both labels are partially missing, however there is a box (pictured) that is mostly intact, about one forth of of one side is missing.  Printed on the bottom of one side of the box is: "New Style Bottle Adopted Nov. 15, 1921".  Also included is a small 8 page booklet ephemera" 3

Fig. 4 is of the ubiquitous "blue transfer ware" so common in tips and on historic sites everywhere in the Northeast. When the Eighteenth Century English explorer/traders first discovered the superior "China" or chinawares that the

"Heathen Chinese" were making, they were exceedingly envious. Originally, this superior "China" was imported back into Britain and was rather costly. But Josiah Wedgwood and other famous English potters in time learned to "simulate" the fine "boneware" types (or pretty close to it) of the Chinese potters (who used actual animal bones in their grog). In time, they developed additional pastes, and added to them the "transfer" technology of "decals" which they could apply to this rather "bogus china" to emulate the "real" hand-painted varieties of Chinese artisans. Thus arose "transfer ware" or sometimes "willow ware" – usually showing a standard scene of a Chinese lover and his mistress strolling 'midst pagodas under the weeping willow trees and other claptrap of a Chinese landscape – common on late 18th and 19th Century sites. A- F show standard domestic transferware china, imo. G-H, however, may be sherds of the much more valued "flowed blue" ware, perhaps a blue underglaze (?): G, in any event is a deep cobalt, while H, to me, with its "blurred" or smeared aspect, is quite suggestive of "flowed blue" – a much sought after ware even today, and samples of which can be often seen up-for-grabs on E-Bay. (In fact, "flowed blue" is a favorite of my son, Travis, - owner of the property here! He inherited a nice collection of same from his grandmother – my mother!)

Fig. 5 shows several pieces (A-C) of a fine, hard-fired "bone" type china, not quite "eggshell" quality. I take this to be the real goods, borne out by presence of Chinese characters and fine-line painting and decorative details. D - I take to

Fig. 6 illustrates some random sherds of generalized "polychrome ware." (Unfortunately the photo is slightly out-of-focus...). These are nicely-fired ceramics; B – shows a wavy rim and light mould impressions (design imprint);

Fig. 7 shows several sherds of common "ironware" – a more-or-less chronologically insensitive ceramic across the entire likely time period here. Sometimes "C.C." (but not to be confused with "china creamware") or alternatively

"F. G. Mellor was Vice-President and Treasurer of the Cook Pottery Co. As late as 1894, when this pottery took over the defunct Ott & Brewer Etruria Pottery, Trenton potters were still using faux British Royal Coat of Arms marks on their wares to make them appear British made. Barber in 1904 described this mark as used for CC (cream-colored) ware." 4

Trenton and other New Jersey towns harbored many 18th and 19th century potteries – in proximity to the favorable argillaceous deposits in that state. Interpretation of British designs and marks in contexts that may reach back to Colonial times calls for some caution: the "better" household china of that era was often British, even if owned by Colonials – and assuredly the better-classes used such china in their homes even during hostilities. A similar caution obtains in re presence of teapot fragments (Fig. 5, A-C most likely, and certainly D) and other presumptive evidences of tea-drinking... an earmark British custom. The Colonials were British and used British goods and practised British customs: it was their political differences that divided them from their English cousins. I have commented to this issue in my earlier excavation of a Colonial home in southwestern Connecticut:

"It would be unfounded to suggest that all sherds in the cellar represent in situ losses or breakages. Surely the better and more expensive pieces must have been broken elsewhere and found their way here as result of different notions of housekeeping in centuries past. Teapot fragments, of which we have a few at Lambert House, have elsewhere been held as indicating that the citizens of the time were more in revolt against political notions of the English homeland than they were against social customs of the British. Thus, during the Revolution, tea drinking prevailed as a formal, widespread habit spread among the Colonials even as they rebelled against their British cousins (G. P. Moran, 1976). Perhaps this was the case with the Lamberts; however, it should be noted that they are said to have been sympathetic to the Crown during those tumultuous times and thus were more "British" in their customs and habits." 5

Fig. 9 depicts at - A, a broken half of a pressed glass relish dish, emulation of earlier, finer cut-glass types. B – is a small ironstone dish, the glaze quite crazed, the obverse of which is shown at Fig. 7 – D, with badly frost-spalled bottom.

The ceramics illustrated in Fig. 10 show (A,B), fragments of the ever-popular "salt glaze" utilitarian pottery used since earliest days to the present for storage crocks, jars, demijohns, and the like and are presumptive evidence of domestic

food storing and preservation practices. Its presence here as "kitchen" domestic ware bolsters the further presence of the items shown in Fig. 11 which are canning jar lids, as at A - a group of four compound "canning" or jar lids

(one damaged) featuring glass liners or inserts, and once highly popular with housewives and home canners. B – shows a flat, clear-glass canning jar lid, which bears a raised glass legend giving the maker's name, dates, etc.(not here visible), and which unfortunately, I failed to write down in my log.

Non-Ceramics:

Certainly, one of the most interesting finds in this group is shown at Fig. 12 which is a most carefully executed cast-iron horse, now badly rusted, of course. But the figure shows quite a bit of detail still: harness, horse collar, halter, etc.

and one presumes it must have been brightly painted in the original, too. Three legs have been broken off; there is also a tiny horizontal hole right where the bit is placed – which leads me to believe there may have even been organic materials (leather?) strap or other "tack" attached here. This would have made the piece quite "detailed" for a common "toy" – though it does not rule such out. I suggest it may once have been, however, part of perhaps a full "four-in-hand" set of cast, lifelike figures, perhaps even including a coach or sled as part of the group, and maybe have been more of a (valued) decorative piece than a child's toy. But this is just speculation.

The final illustration, Fig. 13, shows at A, a broken, forged, shaft-end (at first I thought it might be a hand-forged punch or tool), but the lower end is a definite break, and I believe the mushrooming on the other end is result of

peening-over with a hammer while hot, to secure what must have been a longer piece of stock holding some type of apparatus together. (A number of broken, mostly cast, iron machinery parts were noted here and there on the ground). B – is a lump of anthracite (hard) coal: the onetime ubiquitous 19th century household cooking and heating fuel. (It is

Fig. 14

Obviously not too much can be made of such a limited effort and inventory. Certain it is that a household refuse deposit is intimately associated with a home built in 1731. In keeping with the then-cultural habit of disposing of domestic discards in fields and waste spaces, it seems likely that the bottom of this deposit may contain the earliest materials present here – perhaps dating close to the actual time (Colonial Period) the dwelling was built and occupied. We did not "sound" to any depth at all here, so if this is the case, it waits for later excavators to so-demonstrate.

The uppermost three inches of the deposit as we found it, contained a dense mix of ceramic and non-ceramic materials, and notably, numerous clear-glass bottles of the type once used for elixers, flavoring agents, and medicines and nostrums of the previous century. Seasonal, climate-induced "opalescence" was not anywhere very developed on same, though some faint sheen was detectable on some specimens. (This mid-latitude weathering phenomenon has elsewhere been invoked after a sort of "varve counting" technique to derive age estimates on ancient glass; I am, however, unaware if this has ever been done on any New England sites...).

As to the panel bottles... the oldest so far recovered would not seem to much predate the last century. Presumably there are likely much earlier ones present here at depth.

The ceramic wares, backbone of site seriations, are yet numerically too sparse, and not yet tied to verical placement (chronological)to permit of much inference. There would seem to be present, in my view, salt glazes and "ironwares" - work-a-day ceramic products related to routine food prepartion and preservation behaviors of times past and perhaps usually more frequent in early levels. There are sherds of very well-made, hard-fired, quite thin, "bone-like" china suggestive of tea-set fragments - thus presumptively mid-to-upper class cultural practices and tastes; which view is perhaps enhanced by presence of some nice elements of polychrome ware, bearing gold ornamentation as well. The ever-popular, and ever-present "Willoware" or blue transfer ware, if I do not go too far, might be said to mark always the "cultural liberation" of English-speakers from their onetime sole reliance on the astounding (and pricey!) productions of distant Chinese potters on the same and slightly earlier time horizons. Don Rittner, onetime Director at the well-known Pine Bush Preservation Project, Albany, NY, once favored me with a detailed analysis of the ceramic inventory at my better-studied Lambert House Excavation in CT many years ago. Perhaps his comments on the inventory there would make a fitting termination for this report; many of the same ceramic types are present at both places.

“The majority of ceramic pieces were (sic) too small to identify as to pattern, except for the common Willow print, developed on Pearlwares after 1792. The majority of identifiable pieces were transfer printed designs in underglaze blue. Transfer printing was a technique perfected after 1756 but became popular at the end of the 18th Century. Pearlwares, (cobalt added to the glaze for a mother-of-pearl effect) were the most common ceramic type in your collection. This ceramic type is the usual majority type found on early 19th Century sites. The shell-edge pearlwares, common in your collection, is (sic) the most frequent pearlware found. What is unusual about your collection is the shell-edge color is usually blue whereas in your collection, the rims are more frequently green. Most likely, a personal preference. Mochaware, represented by a creamer, is a pearlware, specifically an annular pearlware with fern-like designs created from a mixture of tobacco juice and urine. It has a time span of 1795-1890.

“Pearlwares were replaced by various hard paste wares, commonly called Whiteware. These whitewares, in turn, varied in composition and were known as Ironstones, semi-porcelains, hotel china, etc. They were taking over in popularity about 1820. Unfortunately, they are difficult to date unless maker's marks are on the pieces, so a date of 1820+ is assigned to them. Creamwares, 3rd on the list in frequency, are thin, hardfired, pale yellow earthenwares covered with a clear glaze. They were perfected by Wedgewood around 1762. Red earthenwares,also abundant in your collection are another type which was commonly used during the 18th and early 19th centuries. These were usually in the form of plates, storage containers, etc.." 6

It is my opinion that this findspot could be profitably investigated by regional historic archaeologists. If any are interested, and care to contact me with proposals or inquiries, I might be able to help in aquiring permissions, etc. (The site is, as noted, on private land).

B. W. Powell
Chuluota, FL
July 23, 2007