Material Culture and Its Role in Emulating Genteel Society in Early America

By Meghan A. Pearce

Material culture is the study of the objects that people create, use, and leave behind. This includes everything from small everyday items such as tools, clothing, and utensils to even larger structures like buildings and monuments. Regardless of their size, all of these objects serve as tangible records of human activity and offer valuable insights into the lives, values, and societies of the people who made and used them.^[1] Historical objects often transcend mere utility, and can be studied to infer its owner’s aspirations and beliefs, as well as their place within their era’s social structure.^[2] These artifacts can also be studied to tell its viewers more details about the period’s technological innovations, use of trade and cultural exchange, and the overall systems of labor and production that supported its creation. Because of their tangibility, these items provide a lens to understand history in ways that written documents alone cannot fully capture.^[3] While written records often reflect the voices of elites or those in power, material objects shine a light on how individuals from all levels of society lived and thought. Furthermore, they offer a window into the practical and social values that shaped daily life and help historians to develop a more inclusive picture of historical experiences. By studying material culture, historians are able to immerse themselves into what people from different times in history deemed important, and are able to better understand the broader systems that structured their lives. Overall, the study of material culture helps historians to piece together human history in a more intimate way, while providing an avenue to establish integrated perspectives from both the ordinary and the elite into historical scholarship.

In the context of early American history, material culture also works to provide historians with an especially rich method of study to further understand the social and economic dynamics of the period. The study of household inventories in particular are essential to understanding the American “material world.” These household records span across the social spectrum and contain a definitive list of what each household had in their possession at the time of their deaths. By examining the artifacts recorded within these records, historians can also better understand the tensions that existed between an item's function of utility and display, as well as the role of material possessions in social mobility, and the broader economic and cultural systems that shaped early American life. As will be seen throughout this piece, the study of these inventories reveal a distinct pattern of emulation, where lower- and middle-class families sought to replicate the gentility of wealthier households by acquiring luxury items to complement the presence of their functional goods.^[4] This aspiration was deeply tied to notions of social mobility and respectability and demonstrates how material possessions were used to project one's status and identity in American society.

Generally speaking, the emulation of higher socio-economic classes through material goods was important for lower- and middle-class households because it provided a pathway to social recognition and upward mobility in a society where status and respectability were largely defined by material wealth and presentation.^[5] In early America social hierarchies were rigid, and by owning items that were typically associated with the elite (such as fine china, silverware, or tea sets) it allowed for individuals to signal their alignment with these values of refinement, and sophistication. These displays of gentility were a way for families to demonstrate their ability to participate in the social and cultural practices that defined higher social standing, even if they did not necessarily have the wealth to match it. One valuable source of insight into this phenomenon is the household inventory, which is a detailed list of a person's possessions taken at the time of their death, which offers a snapshot of the material goods deemed significant or valuable and reflects the economic and social status of the deceased. For many, owning such goods was not just a matter of improving their material comfort, but a deliberate effort to secure respect and acceptance within their own communities. In a world where economic success was often tied to social influence, the ability to present oneself as a refined and cultured individual could open doors to new opportunities, partnerships, and social circles.^[6] Because of this reality, emulating the material culture of the elite became an essential strategy for those who aspired to improve their social position, and gain a foothold in a society where one's status was often dictated by their outward appearances.

Before analyzing these inventories, it is important to note that these records not only shed light on the economic and cultural pursuit of attaining luxury items and gentility; they also illuminate how deeply rooted the role of slavery played in supporting the economic system and labor structure of the time. Enslaved individuals were frequently listed in these household inventories as property, which reflects the central role they played in generating the wealth that enabled families to acquire these luxury goods. Enslaved laborers not only produced the economic surplus that allowed for these displays of status but also performed the intense domestic work that sustained the genteel lifestyles of their owners. In wealthier households, enslaved individuals were especially integral to maintaining the social appearances of refinement. They took on the more labor-intensive tasks, which enabled slaveholders to engage in the activities of the time that were associated with prestige and leisure.

The household inventories of lower-income early Americans reveal their material culture's functional core and highlight their emulation of upper-class behaviors despite their limited resources. In this first category of people, we see the material possessions of individuals whose household was valued at less than £100. Although these household inventories primarily included practical items like simple furniture, dishware, and small amounts of livestock essential for daily survival, they also trace the gradual introduction of luxury items that is present in this class. Captain George Wilkinson’s inventory (1768, valued at £68.8.0) is a prime example of this mimicry. Found on his property among basic necessities was his ownership of a gold ring, a silver toothpick case, silk pocketbook, chocolate, and mustard; items which were present as items of luxury rather than subsistence.^[7] This blend of utility and aspiration was not unique to Wilkinson. Julius Kirk’s inventory (1763, valued at £22.3.4 ½), while clearly modest, showcased a similar duality. His practical furnishings like a small oval walnut table and a painted pine cupboard were accompanied by two small mirrors and colored prints, which reveals his effort to align with genteel tastes despite his limited means.^[8] John Jeggitts’s possessions (1769, valued at £74.13.3) further illustrate this pattern, with his household featuring essential functional items such as pewter dishes, as well as the inclusion of a tea chest, tea kettle, and dictionary (all luxury items) which hinted at his own engagement with rituals of refinement that were valued by the upper classes.^[9] Samuel Roberts’s inventory (1768, valued at £51.14.3) reflected a similar progression, where functional material like earthenware dishes and pots coexisted with items associated with comfort and elegance. In his case, this included a punch bowl, a large copper kettle, swords and a bayonet.^[10] These possessions suggested an inclination toward creating a more aesthetically pleasing and social domestic environment, which was a hallmark of genteel aspirations. Joseph Pullet’s inventory (1767, valued at £83.13.6 ½) adds further presence and perspective to this pattern, blending practicality and luxury on a larger scale than seen in the other previous inventories. Alongside his survival necessities, Pullet owned instruments such as a trumpet and two French horns, a mahogany table, silver teaspoons, and tea boards.^[11] All of which clearly signify his symbolic investment that he has made in his own social status. Finally, Joanna McKenzie’s household inventory (1767, valued at £98.14.0) epitomized the era’s aspirations for gentility among the lower economic classes. Unique among her category peers, she owned a slave, further underscoring the labor system's role in enabling displays of refinement. Her material possessions, including chocolate, chinaware, and a tea board, further demonstrated this alignment with elite cultural values, where tea-related goods were strong symbols of sophistication.^[12]

When looked at all together, these inventories in this category provide the historian with a nuanced understanding of how lower-income Americans navigated this intersection of necessity and aspiration. By incorporating modest luxury items into their lives, they not only emulated wealthier households but also engaged in the broader cultural practices that defined status and identity in early America. Items such as Captain George Wilkinson’s gold ring and silver toothpick case, Julius Kirk’s small mirrors and colored prints, and John Jeggitts’s tea chest and tea kettle all reflect aspirations toward elite cultural practices.^[13] These objects were not necessities for survival but rather deliberate investments in goods that signified social status and alignment with genteel values. The recurring presence of tea-related items, such as tea boards, silver teaspoons, and chinaware in the inventories of Joseph Pullet and Joanna McKenzie, highlights the widespread cultural importance of tea rituals as a marker of sophistication and refinement during the era.^[14] These inventories also reveal the lives of individuals in this economic category as a complex interplay between survival and aspiration. Functional items like pewter dishes, livestock, and practical furniture provided the foundation for daily life, and reflected the necessity of meeting basic needs. While at the same time, the inclusion of luxury goods (such as musical instruments, punch bowls, and decorative furnishings) illustrates the active pursuit of aesthetic pleasure and social recognition. Collectively, these inventories paint a picture of lives that were delicately balanced with the practical realities of lower-income households with the desire to participate in broader cultural practices of refinement and demonstrate the significance of material possessions in shaping identity and aspirations in early American households.

As household inventories increase in value, lower middle-class families are able to demonstrate a clearer balance between functionality and emerging luxury, which reflects their growing ability to emulate the gentility of the wealthier classes even further. In this next category of inventories there are households whose possessions were valued between £101-£250. To start in this category is Thomas Crease’s inventory (1757, valued at £166.4.3) which while including practical items such as basic dishware and a modest pine table, also includes his investment in more valuable assets, the most valuable of these being his 6 slaves.^[15] Crease's significant reliance on enslaved labor underlines how labor itself was often the defining cornerstone for achieving and maintaining a more luxurious lifestyle. With this increased labor, Mr. Crease was also able to own finer items of the time that were more common among wealthier categories such as a chocolate pot, backgammon tables, tea boards, and a silver watch.^[16] Joseph Nisbett’s possessions (1762, valued at £104.14.6) reveal a similar but slightly different approach to balancing practicality while striving for an increased presence of refinement. His inclusion of items like a money scale and inkstand could indicate that his household was one heavily focused on managing financial and professional affairs.^[17] While his seven silver teaspoons, china ware plates, and black walnut desk and bookcase could also suggest aspirations that extended beyond basic financial stability.^[18] His items of china and quality wood furniture represent the deliberate choices made to elevate his household’s cultural and social appearance, working further to signal his participation in genteel practices like formal dining and literacy. Lydia Charlton’s inventory (1761, valued at £126.5.1) focuses more heavily on aesthetics and comfort, which also signals her household’s prioritization of creating an environment that is as aligned with upper-class values as it can be. Her ownership of multiple fine walnut tables and 15 leather-bottomed chairs reflects an emphasis on hosting or entertaining, which were activities commonly associated with gentility.^[19] She also incorporated decorative items, such as several pictures, which further supports her investment in aesthetic enrichment.^[20] This emphasis on both comfort and presentation suggests a household consciously striving to embody the ideals of respectability and status. In contrast, William Fuller’s inventory (1758, valued at £167.6.10) in this category clearly shifts the focus towards acquiring agricultural wealth and stability, with his material possessions playing a secondary role to his extensive herd of livestock.^[21] His focus on agricultural investments over acquiring luxury items suggests a more practical mindset for the household, one that is unlike the others in his category. However, his decision to invest in the labor of two enslaved individuals could also indicate a growing connection to a system of labor that would enable him to work upwards in social mobility.^[22] Fuller’s inventory also shows that for some households, wealth in resources rather than material luxuries, could also serve as the early foundations for gentility. Thomas Burfoot’s inventory (1758, valued at £143.18.0) highlights a stronger commitment to luxury, which is clearly evidenced by items of his such as silver spoons, sugar canisters, and china bowls.^[23] These possessions continue to suggest a conscious investment in refinement and participation in practices that are associated with upper-class households, such as serving tea or hosting guests. Burfoot’s inventory also includes significant means for enjoying oysters, which is a unique option for someone in his category.^[24] Finally, John Coulthard’s possessions (1756, valued at £212.2.9) continue to demonstrate a household fully engaged in blending practicality with enhanced status. His investment in mahogany chairs, backgammon tables, a tea board, and china-ware reveal a deliberate effort to replicate the material culture of wealthier families.^[25] It is also important to note that these items were not merely of decorative use but also functioned as tools for participating in genteel rituals and social customs. The inclusion of two enslaved individuals further illustrates his participation in the labor system which facilitated the aspirations for higher status.^[26] Coulthard’s inventory epitomizes the ways in which lower middle-class households used a combination of material possessions, agricultural and labor investments to attempt to carve out their place in the broader social hierarchy.

Material objects in this category reflected a desire for gentility by combining a mix of practicality and luxury, each item carefully chosen to imitate the lifestyles of wealthier families. Households in this category enjoyed ownership of items like china plates, fine furniture, and strictly decorative pieces, working to signal a deep desire for refinement and higher social status. These inventories also mark the start of households that consistently invested in slave labor. As mentioned previously, enslaved labor and agricultural wealth are most often the foundation that supports these households in their intent to rise to their aspirations. Overall, these inventories reveal that people in this category lived fairly diverse lives that were heavily shaped by their own perceptions of what they considered basic priorities and necessities. Some of these households, like Thomas Crease and John Coulthard, relied on enslaved labor to achieve their blend of practicality and luxury.^[27] Others, such as Joseph Nisbett, focused more on professional and intellectual pursuits, which is reflected in items like desks, money scales, and inkstands.^[28] Lydia Charlton prioritized comfort and aesthetics, creating an environment for hosting and entertaining.^[29] Meanwhile, William Fuller focused on agricultural wealth over material luxuries, showing a more resource-oriented lifestyle.^[30] The household inventories within this category highlight a lifestyle of constant balance between striving for refinement and addressing their practical needs, with each household navigating their place within the social hierarchy in their own way.

As we move into the inventories of wealthier households in Category Three, the relationship between function items and luxury becomes even more pronounced. These households’ range between £251-£500, and continue to demonstrate a greater capacity to blend practical needs with modest displays of gentility as they accumulate an array of fine goods alongside the necessities of their everyday life. For example, James Martin’s inventory (1767, valued at £292.12.9) reflects this blend with items like his 12 black walnut chairs, multiple mahogany tables, and decorative objects such as his 14 pictures, a dozen prints, wine glasses, and a silver watch.^[31] All of which work well to suggest his appreciation for finer items. His recorded inventory goes on to include even finer goods such as mahogany tea boards and a tea chest with canisters, making him the first in this pattern to acquire this combined luxury.^[32] Sarah Green’s possessions (1759, valued at £338.17.2) showcase a similar balance, with her ownership of ivory-handled cutlery, a large silver teapot, and two mahogany tea boards; all working to display her own aspirations towards higher society living.^[33] William Timson’s inventory (1757, valued at £364.4.8) continues this dual focus of growth and stability, featuring functional business related items like 50 barrels of corn, 16 sheep, and a spinning wheel alongside his leisurely goods such as a silver watch, a speaking trumpet, and gold rings.^[34] The quantity of a few of Timson’s goods could also suggest that he operates a small business with his agricultural and livestock means. This potential focus on business and product also works to highlight his social and economic aspirations. Gerrard Roberts, Sr. (1757, valued at £369.11.1 1⁄4) similarly maintained this balance with practical livestock investments such as steers, hogs, and barrels of corn that were complemented by refined items like six large silver spoons and an oak desk.^[35] In this way, Roberts’s inventory suggests an investment in both utility and modest social display. John Shield’s inventory (1770, valued at £412.1.1 ½) continues this pattern of a focus on business with his significant holding of livestock, barrels of corn, 200 pounds of bacon, and 238 pounds of cotton.^[36] Shields' inventory also includes his holder ship of seven enslaved individuals, who were clearly essential to the progress of Shield’s residence.^[37] Alongside his financial investments is the presence of china cups and saucers, a fine walnut table, and a collection of tart molds, all of which worked to reflect a conscious commitment to achieving a higher level of refinement.^[38] Finally, James Mills’s possessions (1763, valued at £473.2.1½) include a large mahogany table, a mahogany tea chest, over 33 prints and maps, ivory knives, a marble slab, and a silver-hilted sword.^[39] These items which signal wealth and gentility, were balanced with more functional items such as the family bible and earthen-ware that were more necessary for daily living.^[40]

The material objects that were present in Category Three households demonstrated gentility by reflecting an aspiration for refinement and upper-class material goods. Items like James Martin’s tea chest and Sarah Green’s ivory-handled cutlery are a prime example of this, as they reveal a conscious effort to blend practicality with any modest display of wealth and social status that they could manage.^[41] These possessions signaled an appreciation for finer things and a commitment to achieving a refined household aesthetic. They also reveal that the lives of category three families were increasingly defined by their ability to engage with the ideals of gentility while more comfortably managing practical demands. Simultaneously, these households’ use of functional items like livestock, agricultural tools, and spinning wheels emphasize their reliance on small-scale economic productivity. Overall, the households of category three work to reveal a transitional phase in which luxury goods could become more integral to household identity, even as their wealth remained tied to smaller scale labor and resource management.

As we examine the inventories of wealthier households in Category Four, the growing presence of refined goods and increasingly significant displays of wealth highlights a shift toward financial stability and greater investment in luxury items. The households within this category range between £501-£750. Captain Ellyson Armisted’s possessions (1758, valued at £665.15.0) start this trend off strongly, as his items clearly align with an enhanced ability to project refinement. His inventory included a plethora of luxury items for the time such as a clock, a silver watch, tea tables, specialized dishware (such as chocolate, coffee, and butter pots) and decorative maps, to name a few.^[42] Beyond these specific items, Captain Armistead’s inventory illuminates a lifestyle that very closely resembles the highest of these categories. With his reliance on slave labor, Armistead was able to successfully run a homestead with plentiful amounts of livestock while still being able to enjoy higher class activities such as engaging in literature.^[43] Robert Crawley’s inventory (1760, valued at £588.4.6) reflects a similar pattern and lifestyle, as he was also able to balance practical tools for household success and agricultural productivity with refined items that elevated his social appearance. Among his inventory was a significant amount of alcohol, with over 460 gallons of “cyder,” and 40 gallons of brandy, suggesting that Crawley may have been operating as a distillery as primary a source of income.^[44] Crawley, like most of the households from this point on, relied on slave labor for the function and financial growth of his household. This delegation of labor would have helped to bring more money into home, which allowed for Crawley to have other forms of luxury possessions including silver spoons, an oval walnut table, sugar, and fine china.^[45] The reliance on enslaved individuals, who comprised a significant portion of his household, underscores how critical their labor was in sustaining both his economic base and his ability to continue to acquire luxuries. Hugh Orr’s household inventory (1764), which was valued at £637.12.6, also highlighted a deep engagement with refinement. Orr’s possessions listed in his inventory are extensive, and included a variety of specialized dining ware, tea ware, decorative furniture, framed maps, to start.^[46] Furthermore, his assortment of silverware and an extensive collection of books reflected a household focused not just on wealth but on intellectual and aesthetic pursuits.^[47] Benjamin Catton’s inventory (1768, valued at £639.3.0) further underscores this trend. However, within his household inventory there is an interesting difference between his and the others reviewed so far. Catton’s record indicates less of a reliance on agricultural or livestock success, but potentially a career in medicine as he had two boxes worth of surgeon’s instruments, which were valued at £18 (indicating their worth as a potential investment).^[48] Beyond this, his inventory aligns with the patterns of the others, as he also enjoyed mahogany furniture, bird cages, gold jewelry, and high-value books and magazines.^[49] Catton's refined possessions signal his social ambition, and emphasize his ability to participate in some of the cultural practices of the upper classes. Anna Maria Thornton’s inventory (1761, valued at £663.13.6) provides yet another perspective on this balance. While her household included essential agricultural items and livestock, it also featured other unique refined goods like mourning rings, silk gowns, and decorative china.^[50] Her possessions reflected both her own economic stability and a deliberate effort to align with upper-class tastes. This is further evidenced by other items of hers such as her silver spoons and a dressing box.^[51] Lastly, Frances Mennis’s inventory (1761, valued at £729.5.2) is the final display within this category of both functional business and luxurious items. Her household inventory reveals the holding of 8 slaves, and over 180lbs of cotton, suggesting a reliance on this crop as a form of income.^[52] Beyond this, her inventory featured items such as walnut furniture, decorative mirrors, and a variety of pewter dishes, alongside her wide array of agricultural goods.^[53] Her investment in slave labor and cotton production, combined with the luxury items she had in her household all work to suggest that she was someone who was interested in climbing the social and economic ladder. Overall, these inventories collectively reveal that as households in Category Four achieved greater financial stability, they increasingly invested in material goods that signaled refinement and elevated social standing. Their increased reliance on enslaved labor played a central role in enabling these families to be able to balance functionality with the continued cultivation of a lifestyle that emulated upper-class ideals.

Category Five marks the clear entry into the upper class, where households showcased their wealth and status through a mix of a variety of luxurious and practical goods. Within this category are households whose worth was established as being between £751-£1,000. These inventories reveal not only significant financial resources but also a deliberate effort to project their own refinement and sophistication. John Coke’s inventory (1768, valued at £772.18.1) illustrates this ability to project his household's place in higher society through material objects. His household possessions, which indicated a clear lifestyle of comfort included the presence of his mahogany tea boards, chocolate cups, and fine copper cookware.^[54] His inventory also highlights some of the economic activity that supported this lifestyle. The labor of nine enslaved individuals, coupled with Coke’s abundance of livestock and corn, suggests that he made his money through agricultural means. Coke’s possessions, and his use of slave labor demonstrate how his material wealth worked to support his genteel identity.^[55] William Waters’s household inventory (1769, valued at £810.16.8) further emphasized his taste and refinement. At the time of his death he owned 12 wild cherry chairs, framed prints, wine glasses, and a variety of specialized dishware, including butter boats and custard cups.^[56] These items were complemented by mahogany furniture and decorative carpets, further showcasing his appreciation for genteel culture.^[57] Supported by the labor of 11 enslaved individuals, Waters’s inventory also works to reflect his dual priorities of economic productivity and social distinction, and indicates a lifestyle of general comfort for Waters.^[58] William Hunter’s possessions (1761, valued at £892.18.5) continue to highlight a strong presence on culture and sophistication. His lengthy inventory included framed artwork, mahogany furniture, a writing table, and expensive books, suggesting a presence of intellectual pursuits and aesthetic refinement.^[59] Even the more practical items such as his musket, pewter plates, and brass candlesticks reveal a household grounded on a foundation of financial stability, while luxury items like ivory-handled cutlery and tea boards signaled his continued effort to emanate an elevated social standing.^[60] The labor of four enslaved individuals made this lifestyle possible, which underlines the reliance on slavery to sustain both wealth and gentility.^[61] James Bates’s inventory (1769, valued at £996.6.9:), the final of this category and the most valuable at nearly £1,000, is a prime example of upper-class living during this time. His household featured silver tankards, silver cook and cutlery ware, a buffet, clock, and mahogany mortar and pestle; all which are items that would have been used to enhance comfort and elevate his aesthetic as a member of higher society.^[62] Furthermore, the presence of his large Bible, dictionary, and other books reflect the importance he placed on intellectual engagement.^[63] With 19 enslaved individuals supporting his estate, Bates was able to achieve a balance between economic abundance and the possession of various forms of material symbols that are associated with elite status.^[64] To sum up the evidence seen through the material objects in Category Five households, each of them demonstrated their gentility by blending their displays of wealth and refinement with clear intellectual pursuits, and a focus on economic growth. These inventories reveal that their lives were defined by this display of luxury, where material possessions were a direct symbolization of wealth and social standing.

The inventories found in category six represent the pinnacle of material wealth and social refinement in early America, where possessions served as powerful markers of their gentility and elite social and economic status. The household inventories in this category are all valued from a base of £1,000 or beyond. Starting off strong with Edmund Tabb’s household (1762, valued at £1,214.10.6), which was valued at over £1,200, his record is a perfect example of the kind of material abundance that was possible for a member of genteel society. His inventory featured larger items of luxury like a backgammon table, a large boat, and a large mahogany table.^[65] The presence of the backgammon table gives further reason to support the comfort and leisure that was available to someone at this socio-economic level. Furthermore, his inventory illuminates the opulence that was especially focused in the food and drink area of this lifestyle. His records show a plethora of specialized dishes and cookware, anywhere from chocolate pots and cups, fruit plates, wine glasses, to cake pans; suggesting a life of daily access to an elevated dining experience common amongst gentility.^[66] Next in this inventory is Joseph Royle’s estate (1766, valued at £2,068.8.8 3⁄4) which further elevates the level of refinement that was possible for someone with this economic stability. His inventory included items such as a mahogany card table, mahogany couch, japanned tea boards, and prints of Rome, which further demonstrated the appreciation for global aesthetics, intellectual engagement, and leisure activity that was synonymous with genteel culture.^[67] These luxury goods, along with even more elevated luxury items like china sets, a silver watch, and fine rugs showcase how someone at this level of affluence could set the standard for others to emulate.^[68] With the combination of all of his items and slaves noted in his inventory, it is clear that Royle lived a life of comfort and leisure. William Prentis (1765) is the final inventory from this category, with an estate valued at £2,318.10.9 3⁄4. His estate, like his peers, makes very clear the level of material freedom that was available to those of elite wealth. His inventory features an unmatched collection of china, mahogany furniture, and damask textiles.^[69] He also possessed a plethora of specialized kitchenware, outdoor tools, and even a chariot.^[70] His material culture reflects a life of comfort and prestige, which would have reinforced his powerful status and created a model of aspirational gentility for this time.

The immense wealth of these households not only defined their lifestyles but also trickled down to influence the material culture of lower categories. This pattern also likely created markets for simpler versions of luxury goods to exist. The diffusion of upper-class material culture allowed for less affluent households to participate in the broader cultural aspects of gentility; all the while still reinforcing existing class distinctions and offering a pathway for upward social mobility. The material culture of Category Six not only exemplifies the apex of wealth for this time period but also is clear evidence that the habits of this category of households shaped the aspirations and economic activities of the rest of society as a whole. The objects in these inventories demonstrated gentility by highlighting what it meant to have refined taste, cultural sophistication, and economic power during this time. These objects serve as more than just personal material items, they are symbolic representations of what it was like during this time to live a life that was marked by comfort, privilege, and a pursuit of status. On the other hand, these objects of luxury are also adversely symbolic of a society that functioned on the backs of slaves and their labor. Overall, these displays of wealth worked to reinforce existing social divisions while simultaneously shaping the aspirations of those in lower classes.

The variations in the types and quality of material objects across these categories are striking, and a deeper analysis of the similarities and differences across socio-economic classes offers valuable insights. By comparing and contrasting Categories 1 and 2 with Categories 3 and 4, we can observe a distinct evolution in how material possessions reflected both functionality and aspirations for gentility. Households in Categories 1 and 2, such as those of Captain George Wilkinson and Julius Kirk, were characterized by modest inventories where functionality took precedence over display. However, the occasional presence of luxury items like Wilkinson’s gold ring or Kirk’s colored prints signaled an aspiration toward refinement within their limited means.^[71] These lower income households relied heavily on practical items essential for survival but carefully included small markers of gentility to project higher status and an attempt to align with cultural norms. In contrast, Categories 3 and 4 displayed a more pronounced ability to balance functionality with increasingly elaborate displays of refinement. Households like James Martin’s in Category 3 showcased items such as mahogany tea boards and silver spoons, while Captain Ellyson Armisted in Category 4 owned clocks, decorative maps, and specialized dishware.^[72] These inventories suggest not only greater financial stability but also a continued deliberate effort to incorporate finer goods into daily life. Furthermore, the reliance on enslaved labor in Categories 3 and 4 became more prominent, which also worked to enable these families to achieve potentially greater economic status and the ability to accumulate more goods that would further signify a higher social standing. The key difference between the two groups lies in scale and intent. While Categories 1 and 2 focused on survival with a few aspirational touches, Categories 3 and 4 had the resources to actively pursue refinement, and created homes that visibly mirrored upper-class ideals. This progression also works to illustrate how material culture evolved across socio-economic tiers and reflected both the growing means of households and the pervasive influence of gentility as a societal ideal.

Building on the similarities and differences observed in Categories 1 through 4, the shift from Categories 3 and 4 to Categories 5 and 6 highlights an even starker contrast between aspirational gentility and its full realization. As stated previously, Categories 3 and 4 exhibited a growing emphasis on blending functionality with gentility, while Categories 5 and 6 represent the full realization of elite refinement. Households in categories 3 and 4, such as those of Sarah Green and Hugh Orr, demonstrate this blend effectively. Green’s inventory included more refined items like her ivory-handled cutlery, a silver teapot, and mahogany tea boards, alongside functional goods that supported her daily life.^[73] Similarly, Orr’s possessions featured decorative furniture, framed maps, and silverware, which emphasized his cultural aspirations while also maintaining practical tools and livestock for basic productivity.^[74] The incorporation of these few examples of luxury items alongside more functional goods reflects the categories general financial stability and their deliberate effort to mirror the lifestyles of wealthier households. As mentioned earlier, these higher categories also saw a significant reliance on enslaved labor to sustain their economic prosperity. In categories 5 and 6, this balance of practicality and luxury shifted significantly toward the dominance of luxury. Households like those of John Coke and William Prentis displayed unparalleled opulence, with inventories featuring extensive collections of fine china, mahogany furniture, silver tea wares, and imported decorative items such as prints and carpets.^[75] These possessions within these higher categories signified not just wealth but also a deliberate cultivation of what it meant to have an elite identity. Their inventories showcase an emphasis on conveying leisure, intellectual engagement, and aesthetic refinement. The sheer scale of enslaved labor in these higher categories, such as the 19 enslaved individuals in James Bates’s household or the 21 in Prentiss, further illustrates the systemic exploitation that enabled the acquisition of these extravagant lifestyles.^[76] The contrast between categories 3 and 4 and categories 5 and 6 lies in the degree of refinement and the purpose of their material possessions. While the former focused on integrating modest luxury into practical living, the latter emphasized extravagance as a defining feature of their social status. Overall, this progression reveals the extent to which wealthier households used material culture to assert their social dominance and influence, setting the aspirational standards for those in lower categories, and ultimately reinforcing the societal hierarchies and ideals of gentility for the period.

The comparisons between Categories 1 and 6 exemplify the most significant differences that were present in material culture and social status during this time. The differences between these two categories can be seen in the households of Edmund Tabb and Samuel Roberts. Edmund Tabb’s inventory from category 6, reflects a lifestyle of refinement and comfort, with luxurious possessions like a large mahogany table, specialized dishware such as chocolate pots, wine glasses, and a variety of other decorative items.^[77] His collection of fine goods, which is supported by his wealth and the labor of enslaved individuals, demonstrates a household that not only valued economic success but also deliberately curated its objects to reflect a high social standing and alignment with cultural sophistication. In contrast to this display, Samuel Roberts’s household from category 1 was modest in comparison, but also still suggests an emerging aspiration toward gentility. His inventory included practical items like earthenware dishes and copper kettles, alongside a punch bowl, swords, and a bayonet, which highlights the unique merging of necessity and emerging luxury that is commonplace within this category.^[78] While his household was primarily focused on basic survival, the inclusion of his few items that were associated with comfort and aesthetic pleasure does work to indicate a desire to mimic the more refined lifestyles of wealthier households. While the differences in wealth and lifestyle between these two categories are clear, both households share an underlying commonality in their use of material possessions to signify social aspirations. While for Tabb this meant an array of luxury items that showcased his elite status, it also applied to Roberts, who showed a gradual attempt to incorporate symbols of gentility within the constraints of his economic position. Both households also reflect the integral role of enslaved labor in sustaining these aspirations. Tabb shows his reliance on enslaved individuals which enabled him to cultivate his lifestyle centered on leisure and cultural pursuits, while Roberts’s more limited use of luxury goods points to a less direct but still present connection to the broader systems of labor and production. Overall, the comparison of these two polarized categories highlights how material culture was used as a tool for signaling identity and aspirations in early American society.

In conclusion, the material culture of early American households as seen through the analysis of their inventories, highlights a distinct pattern of intentional emulation, where lower and middle-class families sought to replicate the gentility of wealthier households by acquiring luxury items to complement their basic functional goods. This pattern is a reflection of a broader cultural aspiration, where possessions are markers of social identity and tools for navigating the rigid structures of class and status. For modest households of the day, the careful inclusion of refined items worked to symbolize their attempted engagement with ideals of gentility, even amidst economic constraints. Wealthier families on the other hand, embraced material abundance as a way to solidify and display their elevated positions. What this reveals to the historian is that across all social strata, these patterns emphasize the importance of material goods not merely as necessities but as vehicles for self-expression, aspiration, and social mobility. They reveal just how deeply intertwined personal identity and public perception were with the objects that filled one's home. At the same time, these inventories also expose the economic and social systems that underpinned such cultural pursuits, such as their reliance on enslaved labor, which allowed for the accumulation of wealth and refinement in many households. By examining the possessions within these inventories, historians gain more than just an understanding of domestic life in early America and are able to interpret the values and ambitions that shaped society. As seen throughout these categories, material goods were not only practical but also deeply symbolic as they served as a bridge between the realities of daily life and the ideals of refinement and status that defined the era. Overall, these inventories reveal a society in which individuals sought to engage with cultural norms and aspirations and did so by using their possessions to project a preferred sense of identity and belonging within the existing social order. It is through this lens that the material culture of early American households becomes clear as a powerful testament to the fusion of ambition and identity that aligned with the evolving ideals of gentility during this era.

^[1] Henry Glassie, Material Culture (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999), 41.

^[2] Jennifer Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-century British America (Williamsburg: University of North Carolina Press, 2017), 9.

^[3] Henry Glassie, Material Culture, 46.

^[4] Richard Bushman, The Refinement of America (New York: Vintage Books by Random House Publishing, 1993), 239.

^[5] Richard Bushman, The Refinement of America, 403.

^[6] Richard Bushman, The Refinement of America, 404.

^[7] Inventory Estate of Captain George Wilkinson, York County, Virginia, July 18, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[8] Inventory Estate of Julius Kirk, York County, Virginia, March 21, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[9] Inventory Estate of John Jeggitts, York County, Virginia, June 19, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[10] Inventory Estate of Samuel Roberts, York County Virginia, August 15, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[11] Inventory Estate of Joseph Pullet, York County Virginia, May 25, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[12] Inventory Estate of Joanna McKenzie, York County Virginia, May 18, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[13] Inventory Estate of Captain George Wilkinson, York County Virginia, July 18, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of Julius Kirk, York County Virginia, March 21, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of John Jeggitts, York County Virginia, June 19, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[14] Inventory Estate of Joseph Pullet, York County Virginia, May 25, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of Joanna McKenzie, York County Virginia, May 18, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[15] Inventory Estate of Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, January 27, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[16] Ibid.

^[17] Inventory Estate of Joseph Nisbett, York County Virginia, June 24, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[18] Ibid.

^[19] Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, March 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[20] Ibid.

^[21] Inventory Estate of William Fuller, York County Virginia, May 15, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[22] Ibid.

^[23] Inventory Estate of Thomas Burfoot, York County Virginia, July 17, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[24] Ibid.

^[25] Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, June 21, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[26] Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, June 21, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[27] Inventory Estate of Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, January 27, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, June 21, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[28] Inventory Estate of Joseph Nisbett, York County Virginia, June 24, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[29] Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, March 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[30] Inventory Estate of William Fuller, York County Virginia, May 15, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[31] Inventory Estate of James Martin, York County Virginia, March 16, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[32] Ibid.

^[33] Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, May 21, 1759. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[34] Inventory Estate of William Timson, York County Virginia, February 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[35] Inventory Estate of Gerrard Roberts Sr., York County Virginia, January 17, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[36] Inventory Estate of John Shield, York County Virginia, June 16, 1770. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[37] Ibid.

^[38] Ibid.

^[39] Inventory Estate of James Mills, York County Virginia, July 18, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[40] Ibid.

^[41] Inventory Estate of James Martin, York County Virginia, March 16, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, May 21, 1759. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[42] Inventory Estate of Captain Ellyson Armisted, York County Virginia, February 20, 1758, August 21, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[43] Ibid.

^[44] Inventory Estate of Robert Crawley, York County Virginia, February 18, 1760. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[45] Ibid.

^[46] Inventory Estate of Hugh Orr, York County Virginia, March 19, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[47] Inventory Estate of Hugh Orr, York County Virginia, March 19, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[48] Inventory Estate of Benjamin Catton, York County Virginia, November 21, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[49] Ibid.

^[50] Inventory Estate of Anna Maria Thornton, York County Virginia, May 18, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[51] Ibid.

^[52] Inventory Estate of Frances Mennis, York County Virginia, November 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[53] Inventory Estate of Frances Mennis, York County Virginia, November 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[54] Inventory Estate of John Coke, York County Virginia, February 5, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[55] Ibid.

^[56] Inventory Estate of William Waters, York County Virginia, August 21, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[57] Ibid.

^[58] Inventory Estate of William Waters, York County Virginia, August 21, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[59] Inventory Estate of William Hunter, York County Virginia, November 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[60] Ibid.

^[61] Ibid.

^[62] Inventory Estate of James Bates, York County Virginia, July 17, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[63] Inventory Estate of James Bates, York County Virginia, July 17, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[64] Ibid.

^[65] Inventory Estate of Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, April 10, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[66] Inventory Estate of Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, April 10, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[67] Inventory Estate of Joseph Royle, York County Virginia, June 16, 1766. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[68] Ibid.

^[69] Inventory Estate of William Prentis, York County Virginia, October 21, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[70] Ibid.

^[71] Inventory Estate of Captain George Wilkinson, York County Virginia, July 18, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of Julius Kirk, York County Virginia, March 21, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[72] Inventory Estate of James Martin, York County Virginia, March 16, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of Captain Ellyson Armisted, York County Virginia, February 20, 1758, August 21, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[73] Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, May 21, 1759. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[74] Inventory Estate of Hugh Orr, York County Virginia, March 19, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[75] Inventory Estate of John Coke, York County Virginia, February 5, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of William Prentis, York

County Virginia, October 21, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[76] Inventory Estate of James Bates, York County Virginia, July 17, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of William Prentis, York County Virginia, October 21, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[77] Inventory Estate of Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, April 10, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[78] Inventory Estate of Samuel Roberts, York County Virginia, August 15, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.