CONCLUSIONS
The artifacts from the Middleton Place privy present a unique opportunity to observe one aspect of this plantation’s past. This collection of ceramics, bottles, and other items constitute the refuse discarded by the occupants of Middleton Place following the Civil War. It reflects their needs and tastes and represents an unconscious record of activities a century ago. Artifacts in the collection include items from an earlier time as well as things purchased throughout the last half of the nineteenth century.
These materials also reveal much about the privy’s history. When compared with collections discarded around contemporary buildings, the artifacts from Middleton Place are similar to those often associated with abandoned buildings. The artifacts in the Middleton Place privy, then, are likely to have been deposited there, not as the result of day-to-day living, but as a consequence of cleaning out the rubbish of the house’s earlier occupants. We may identify the privy artifacts as a collection of items accumulated during a time of refurbishing as in the 1920s when J. J. Pringle Smith moved into the family residence and began restoring it.
Figure 30. Many hours are spent in the laboratory conserving and studying the artifacts.
Although interesting and informative as individual objects, the privy artifacts are much more informative as an “assemblage” resulting from past activities. The archeologist must study assemblages, like pieces of a puzzle, to reconstruct, interpret, and explain past events that produced them. It is important to record carefully all the artifacts found together as well as their relationships to one another and to the deposit from which they were removed. Artifacts taken from the ground without proper recording are removed from their archeological context, and the information they hold is forever lost. Aimless “treasure” digging has destroyed much of our historical heritage. The Middleton Place privy collection illustrates how proper care, recording, and analysis can reveal new information. With foresight and planning, archeology can increase knowledge of the past for ourselves and for future generations.
APPENDIX I
CERAMIC MANUFACTURERS’ MARKS
A. Arthur J. Wilkinson, Royal Staffordshire Pottery, Burslem, Staffordshire. White ironstone plate, 1891-1896. B. John Edwards, Fenton, Staffordshire. White ironstone plate, c. 1891-1900. C. John Maddock and Sons, Burslem, Staffordshire. White ironstone plate, 1891-1896. D. C. C. Thompson & Co., East Liverpool, Ohio. White ironstone nappy, 1884-1889. E. Limoges, France. White porcelain saucer, c. 1875. F. Haviland & Co., Limoges, France. White porcelain plate, c. 1876-1891. G. Unidentified mark, decal-printed porcelain plate. H. John and George Alcock, Cobridge, Staffordshire. Light blue, transfer-printed bowl, 1839-1846. I. Josiah Wedgwood, Burslem, Staffordshire. Impressed on creamware sauce tureen, 1769 to present. J. Unidentified impressed mark, white porcelain platter.