Objects of Status

Material Culture and Gentility in Early America

By Miranda Adams

Probate inventories offer a fascinating glimpse into the material lives of 18th-century colonial Americans, revealing not just what people owned but what they valued. Probate inventories are detailed documents which list the possessions and assets of an individual post-mortem. These documents offer more than just a ledger of goods; they reflect the economic structures, social hierarchies, and cultural aspirations of the time. From modest estates worth under £100 to luxurious properties exceeding £1000, the material possessions listed in probate inventories illustrate the ways in which colonial Americans used objects not just for survival.

Probate inventories in mid-18th-century colonial America reveal that material possessions were central to signaling gentility and navigating social hierarchies. Gentility refers to a set of cultural ideals centered around refinement, impeccable manners, and taste, often expressed through the ownership and display of certain material goods that signaled adherence to elite values and an inherent rise in social class.

The consistent presence of genteel items across all wealth levels demonstrates their importance and role in allowing lower classes to aspire toward respectability and enabling the upper classes to emphasize their cultural and social dominance through the ownership of increasingly luxurious possessions.

Category One

The first group of probate inventories, known as category one, includes probate inventories which range from £0-£100. Mann Bryan’s inventory, despite its modest value, highlights the importance of material symbols, illustrating how even those with limited resources sought to project gentility.^[1] Taken February 21, 1757, Bryan’s inventory was bare, only amounting to slightly above £78. A large portion of Bryan’s estate was tied up with his slaves; he owned two which were estimated to be worth £70 altogether. Bryan appears to have been living alone, owning one pair of shoes, one coat, and one silver teaspoon. Living a life of bare necessity, the most expensive item Bryan owned was his bed, worth £2.

Notably, despite the otherwise mundane inventory, Bryan owned three wigs. Aligning with Bryan’s probate inventory date, the rise of gentlemen wearing wigs in America occurred during the early stages of the eighteenth century.^[2] While the wearing of wigs in other countries, particularly in England, was a signal of social class, it was an indicator of wealth, not class, in America. Calvert explains, “Anyone with discretionary funds enough could choose to spend their money on fashionable clothing.”^[3] Obviously, Bryan was not a man of discretionary funding. Either he valued being seen as genteel high enough that he spent a significant amount of his money on wigs, or he had a job which required the use of a wig.^[4] It is difficult to tell from his inventory what his occupation may have been.

Lucy Hansford’s inventory demonstrates the blending of practicality with aspirations for gentility in the lower classes.^[5] Hansford’s inventory is dated to December 15, 1760. Slightly more diverse than Bryan’s, this probate inventory amounts to £86. Hansford, similarly to Bryan, had most of the estate’s wealth tied to her slave, nearly seventy percent of the estate’s worth. Hansford owned a small, but larger than Bryan’s, amount of furniture, two bed sets, a table, and five chairs. It can be speculated Hansford either lived alone alongside her slave or with one other person, as she only owned two plates.

Despite only owning two plates, Hansford owned two teapots, one earthenware and one of unspecified material. Tea drinking was widespread in colonial America, initially limited to those who could afford it and later - during the mid-eighteenth century - it was enjoyed by the majority of Americans.^[6] Roth writes, “In the eighteenth century tea-drinking was an established social custom with a recognized etiquette and distinctive equipage…”^[7] Speaking of the proper tea-drinking equipment, Hansford also owned one large silver spoon and four silver teaspoons. In comparison to the rest of the inventory, a large portion of money was spent on these items. According to Krill, “Owning silver … was a prerogative of the wealthy throughout the colonial period. However, by the 1760s even some middling households owned silver.”^[8]

Joseph Cocke’s inventory further reveals the interplay of necessity and gentility within limited means, with his investments in woodworking items and silver teaspoons.^[9] Taken on the 21st of May, 1764, this inventory totals £67. The estate contained no slaves, but did house an abundance of woodworking supplies. The items of most worth within Cocke’s inventory are a set of joiner's tools, amounting to £30. It seems not a stretch to infer that Cocke was employed as a carpenter or something akin to it. There was also a cupboard listed, an interesting fact when you acknowledge that only 21% of Americans owned cupboards in the 1760’s.^[10] Lastly, Cocke owned pewter plates, earthenware dishes, a coffee pot, and three silver teaspoons. It is notable that Cocke invested the most money into teaspoons, while spending less on items which would be used more. Furthermore, despite owning teaspoons, it seems that Cocke did not own the remaining equipment to produce tea.

Mary Steel’s inventory demonstrates a shift toward entertainment, with furniture and tea equipage, and an attempt to host genteel gatherings.^[11] Taken in July 21, 1767, Steel’s inventory was summed up to be worth a total of £87. However, this is excluding the worth of her eight slaves, which amount to £255. Steel owned a significant amount of livestock, £57 in total. It appears that - unless these items were also used by the slaves - Steel did a lot of entertaining, or had a large family. Steel owned twelve chairs and three tables, along with a dozen plates, three dishes, and an unspecified amount of cups and saucers. Unlike the other inventories of this category, Steel had a majority of the equipment necessary for a socially acceptable tea time. Steel owned a tea board, a waiter, and a teapot.

When viewed alongside one another, these inventories reveal that even the lowest class in colonial America placed significant value on material goods not just for their practical uses, but also as a means to signal aspirations toward gentility and participation in cultural rituals which defined respectability. Although Bryan’s inventory showed a definite poverty, his owning of wigs displays an attempt to fit into the social construction of gentility. Hansford’s inventory, still meager, shows that Hansford worked hard to obtain the tea equipment, with the tea supplies making up a large portion of the estate’s worth. Cocke’s inventory offers an interesting look into this category. Owning black walnut furniture, a rare cupboard, and silver teaspoons demonstrates that people would buy items which were more for social standing than for utility. Lastly, Steels’ inventory, alongside Hansford’s, displays the importance of the tea ritual to these colonial Americans.

Category Two

Category two assesses the probate inventories which range from £101-£250 in worth. Reginald Orton’s inventory reveals a growing focus on luxury items, with things like clocks, suggesting a shift toward material comforts with this new category.^[12] Taken on August 2nd, 1757, this inventory’s worth totals £175, £132 of which is allotted to the worth of the five slaves at the estate. The most expensive item owned by Orton was his clock, worth £5. Krill emphasizes that, “In colonial times, clocks were a luxury.”^[13] Orton also owned a quantity of items necessary for serving tea: a tea table, a dozen chairs, two teapots, silver spoons, a milk pot, and a kettle. Orton also owned a picture, which is something of a luxury, priced at 5p. Pictures and paintings are interesting items to find in inventories, especially of the poorer classes, as they had practically no resale value and were relatively expensive to purchase.^[14]

Thomas Crease’s inventory highlights his dedication to emulating genteel customs, as seen in his investments in fine clothing, jewelry, and his collection of books, suggesting a desire to project wealth and sophistication through his material possessions.^[15] Taken on March 21, 1757. Crease’s inventory amounts to a total of £166, £111 of which is the worth of the six slaves at the estate. The most expensive items Crease had in his possession at the time of his death were his clothes, worth £9. This displays the value Crease put on quality clothing. In addition to quality clothing, Crease also invested in quality jewelry. He owned a silver watch, worth £5. This conveys that Crease placed a lot of value on looking put-together, more than likely attempting to emulate the fashion styles of the genteel.

Furthermore, a sizable portion of Crease’s estate value was tied up in tea-drinking equipment. He owned two pewter teapots, ten cups and saucers, a slop bowl, a milk pot, a teaspoon boat, two sugar dishes, a canister, a tea kettle, six teaspoons, two tea tables, and a pair of sugar tongs. Although these items were not all silver, more than likely far out of his monetary reach, the fact that Crease owned all of this equipment displays his desire to indulge in the genteel tea ritual as best as he could imitate. In addition to this, Crease possessed three prints, items which, as discussed, had virtually no resale value. Lastly, he owned nine books. According to Bushman, in colonial America, “No single item was more essential to a respectable household than a collection of books…”^[16] From this inventory, it is evident that this man placed a great deal of value upon genteel customs, rituals, and values.Mrs. Lydia Charlton’s inventory reveals a household which engaged in genteel practices, demonstrated by her collection of furniture, tea equipage, and luxury items.^[17] Taken on January 27, 1761, the total worth was valued at £126, with the estate including no slaves. It can be assumed that the Charlton estate either housed a very large family or entertained quite a number of people regularly. It housed six tables, twenty-nine chairs, four stools, and ten beds. Additionally, it seems that Charlton was knowledgeable in the tea-drinking ritual, owning five china cups, seven china saucers, one cracked china teapot, a sugar box, a copper kettle, two tea kettles, one red stone teapot, a silver teapot, and a silver canister. Given that the Charlton’s had the means to own multiple teapots of various materials emphasizes their increased wealth in comparison to the previous category, and the value which they placed tea-drinking upon. Furthermore, the fact that the china teapot was cracked demonstrates that these people used their teapots regularly. Not only did the Charlton estate own the necessary equipage for tea drinking and entertaining, they had the superfluous items as well. Charlton’s estate housed a clock worth £5 and two pictures worth 2p - reflecting the discussion on portraits as previously discussed.

Thomas Burfoot’s probate inventory suggests a practical approach to spending, especially when compared to the previous inventories.^[18] Valuing £143, of which, £46 accounts for the two slaves housed at the estate, the estate was measured on August 21, 1758. The most expensive item Burfoot possessed at the time of his death was a walnut desk, worth £4. Amounting to £6, Burfoot also owned six silver spoons, six silver teaspoons, and silver tongs. In addition, there was a china bowl, five china cups, and three china saucers, a teapot, a sugar canister, and a tea kettle. Compared to the previous inventory, this estate possessed far less of the superfluous entertainment items. It is predominantly dishware and livestock, with livestock being the majority of the value of the estate.

The probate inventories of Orton, Crease, Charlton, and Burfoot reveal the deep interconnection between material culture, social aspirations, and economic priorities in mid-18th-century society. While the ownership of enslaved individuals underscores their economic centrality, the presence of clocks, tea-drinking equipage, and art highlights the pursuit of gentility and status. Items like clocks and tea sets symbolized refinement and order, reflecting Enlightenment values and the social significance of genteel rituals. Together, these inventories illustrate how possessions shaped and expressed identity within the rigid hierarchies of the period.

Category Three

Next is category three, which includes inventories ranging from £251-£500. The inventory of Jas. Mills represents a significant shift toward leisure and luxury items, highlighting the wealth possessed by the Mills family and inclination to purchase items which displayed their means.^[19] The inclusion of valuable possessions, such as multiple prints, maps, a silver-hilted sword, and a Pinchbeck watch, suggests not just financial means but a genteel lifestyle centered around the pursuit of leisure and class. Taken July 16, 1763, This inventory, worth £473, shows a distinct veering off from the previous category in terms of spending habits. There is a significant shift in the amount of necessary items versus items for comfort. For example, Mills owned four maps, eleven prints, a silver hilted sword, a brass-hilted sword, twenty-two more prints, and six magazines. Additionally, the Mills estate housed a safe, marking the fact that the Mills’ had items which were valuable enough to necessitate a safe. Impressively, Mills also possessed a Pinchbeck watch, worth £5. These watches were first-of-their-kind, with musical and astronomical abilities, King George III of England even owned one of these watches. These facts demonstrate an ability for leisure activities, such as reading magazines, and for frivolous spending, such as the first-of-its-kind watch.

The inventory of John Cary continues the pattern set by Mills.^[20] This estate was appraised on March 19, 1764, totaling a worth of £378. This inventory includes items which are not seen as often, or at all, within the previous inventories. Cary owned a bookcase and desk, worth £5, as well as more than fifteen books. Additionally, Cary also possessed a silver watch, £5.5, and gold rings, £3.15. It is a striking comparison to contrast the worth of the bookcase and desk against the worth of a silver watch. Furthermore, Cary’s inventory displays a new aspect of spending: fashion. This estate housed five wigs, two pairs of silk hose, two hats, and a waistcoat worth £2.5. This was not even the full extent of the clothing listed, but the articles of fashion which displayed the most spending. Either Cary worked as a doctor or judge, or some other occupation which necessitated a wig, or he was trying to emulate the fashion of the genteel.

The estate of Sarah Green presents an intriguing mix of items.^[21] It includes expensive items, but also items which are deemed old or outdated. This combination suggests that while Green has the means to invest in luxury goods which signaled gentility, she also balanced these purchases out by investing in practical items. Taken in May 21, 1759, this estate was estimated to value £338. While the estate doesn’t have an influx of items, most of the items which it housed were of higher qualities than seen in the previous inventories. For example, Green owned twelve leather walnut chairs, six leather chairs, two mahogany tea boards, three silver mugs, a silver teapot, a pair of silver tongs, and six silver teaspoons. However, despite the luxury of some of the items, the estate also had items such as an old - according to the appraisers - black table, very old sheets, very old tablecloths, old books, and an old chair. This duality marks the tension between social aspirations toward gentility and being financially pragmatic.

James Martin’s estate is notable for its possession of expensive and extravagant items - marking a genteel estate.^[22] Appraised on March 16, 1767, the value of this estate was estimated to be £292. Of note, some of the most expensive items in this inventory are as listed, sixty bottles of wine valued at £5, eighteen wigs valued at £31, various wig making tools valued at £6, and a silver watch and timepiece case valued at £5. It can be surmised that Martin certainly acknowledged the genteel standards for the equipage needed for teatime, owning a tea chest with canisters, twelve teaspoons, tongs, fourteen china tea cups, fourteen china saucers, a glass sugar dish, three earthen teapots, three milk pots, two mahogany tea boards, two mahogany waiters, and a tea kettle. Additionally, this estate housed a large amount of mahogany furniture, one of the highest-quality wood types for furniture building. Lastly, Martin possessed a dozen prints and fourteen pictures by the time of his death.

The probate inventories of James Mills, John Cary, Sarah Green, and James Martin reveal a shift in the 18th-century consumption habits among the rising gentry. While these individuals did invest in luxury items and social status symbols, such as fine furniture, watches, and fashionable clothing, there was also a recognition of practicality, as evidenced by the continued use of functional possessions. The contrast between old and new items in these estates reflects the balance between societal expectations of gentility and the practical realities of life. Overall, these inventories provide a window into a culture increasingly defined by material wealth, leisure, and the pursuit of social status.

Category Four

Category four analyzes the probate inventories which have a value between £501-£750. Simon Whitaker’s inventory reflects a focus on practical assets and a general lack of investment in genteel or decorative items.^[23] Taken on May 18, 1767, Whitaker’s estate was valued to be worth £602. Of the total value of the estate, £395 was valued to the slaves. The most expensive item owned by Whitaker at the time of his death was an Italian chair and harness, worth £15. This inventory, in terms of dishware or decorative items, remained relatively similar to what was found in the previous category’s inventories. However, there was a large number of livestock and livestock-related items listed. Interestingly, only a few pieces of silver were mentioned - six silver teaspoons.

John Glass’s probate inventory reflects a similar sentiment to the previous estate.^[24] Taken on February 21, 1763, the estate amounted to £609. In similarity to the previous estate, the large majority of the value comes from the slaves, £479 in total. Aside from eight beds, various chests, a desk, fifteen old chairs, various parcels of pewter and teaware, and a few boxes, there is no mention of furniture, dishware, or clothing. Excluding the slaves, the rest of the value predominantly stems from the livestock and other items used for tending to the animals. The most expensive item listed is a horse, valuing £5.

Samuel Hill’s inventory continues the pattern set by the previous estates.^[25] Taken on May 21, 1770 the estate was appraised to be worth £634. Following the trend of the previous inventories, a large percentage of the value comes from the slaves, amounting to £525. The most expensive item listed was a riding chair, worth £8. Most of the furniture listed is of basic types and referred to as being old, such as the chests and tubs. A significant amount of the inventory are items which have been crafted or are to be eaten, soap fat, spinning cotton, and sugar, being examples. Lastly, in line with the previous inventories, the rest of the estate is livestock.

Susanna Fontaine’s estate further impounds the focus determined by the previous inventories of this category.^[26] Taken on September 20, 1756, the estate’s worth was valued to be £750, with the slaves making up for £618. The most expensive item on the estate was an old four-wheeled chaise with a harness for two horses, worth £12. Continuing the pattern, £56 of the estate was tied up in the livestock. Some of the remaining items are, two old spinning wheels, pewter plates, an old corner drawer, a broken set of china, old chairs, a copper tea kettle, and an old box. Clearly then, the emphasis of this estate was on their slaves and livestock and what they were producing, not the fashionability of items which they kept at their homes.

In contrast to category three, category four represents a more agricultural and labor-based form of wealth. Despite category three’s visual and opulent wealth displayed within their homes, category four’s wealth would not have been seen within the home but in their production. The probate inventories of Simon Whitaker, John Glass, Samuel Hill, and Susanna Fontaine show that the majority of estates within this value range stemmed from the ownership of slaves and livestock, highlighting the importance of agricultural production and labor force in sustaining these estates. While some luxury items like Italian chairs, tea sets, and riding chairs are mentioned, the real wealth is tied up in the human labor and the resources they produced and maintained. These inventories reflect a focus on self-sufficient and production, where the goods of leisure and display are secondary to the economic benefits produced by slavery and farming.

Category Five

Category five, with values between £751-£1000, begins with William Hunter’s probate inventory which marks a distinct shift toward higher quality and quantity of household goods, particularly in the realm of furniture, artwork, and tea equipage.^[27] The presence of valuable items such as landscape paintings and Japanned furniture signals an increase in wealth and, consequently, an increase in social status. This reflects a growing commitment to gentility. Taken on November 16, 1761, the total value of the estate was valued to be £892, of which, two slaves were accounted for, amounting to £155. With this category, we immediately identify a rise in the quality, amount, and prices of furniture and other household items. For example, in the parlor alone Hunter possessed twelve mahogany chairs, a mahogany table, two card tables, a round table, a tea chest, a carpet, a painting of the sea, and nineteen prints in frames. Not only is the amount of quality items in this singular room impressive, the appearance of a landscape painting is striking.

It was very out of the ordinary to own a landscape painting, the majority of Americans bought paintings to commemorate milestones - such as weddings - and found the spending of money on something like landscapes to be unappealing. Krill emphasizes this point, plainly stating, “They [Americans] did not buy landscapes…”^[28] Furthermore, as mentioned previously in this paper, paintings were a luxury not just for their beauty or rarity, but also because of their price. Paintings would cost, “... that of a silver tankard or a teapot, or nine weeks’ wages for a skilled journey-man artisan.” and invariably be impossible to resell.^[29] Not only did Hunter own one landscape painting, but he owned two.

Notably, there was also a large collection of books which were estimated to be worth £28. In terms of items for tea-drinking, Hunter possessed a tea chest, a book tea chest, eight china teacups, eleven china saucers, two teapots, one milk pot, one sugar dish, two mahogany waiters, two mahogany tea boards, four Japanned waiters, seven silver teaspoons, sugar tongs, a strainer, six tea napkins, and a tea kettle. The possession of Japanned items is telling, Japanned furniture began being shipped to America in the early colonial period, furniture decorated with exotic landscapes by the medium of paints and gessos.^[30] This style, given its rarity, was initially only enjoyed by the genteel - the upper class - and was intended to, as Krill notes, “... [I]mpress guests…” due to the owner’s ability to afford such a exotic piece.^[31] With this evidence, it cannot be a stretch to assume that with the rise in wealth within this category, came a rise in gentility.

William Walters’ inventory reflects a continued pattern of luxury and elegance found in the previous estate.^[32] Taken on August 21, 1769, the estate was valued to be worth £810, £117 of which was attributed to the slaves. This estate was likely a large house, as it contains the longest list of household objects out of the previous estates. As mentioned in the previous inventory, there is the appearance of Japanned items. There are a number of books included in this estate, as well as an abundance of mahogany furniture and calico fabrics. Silver and pewter dishware is listed, however nothing notable from the previous inventory. Aside from a riding chair, the most expensive item at this estate was a large copper kettle, worth £4.

Lastly, Matthew Shield’s inventory stands out for its modest collection of genteel items.^[33] Dated June 16, 1765, this inventory was worth £779, £515 of which was allotted to the value of the slaves. Despite this inventory being in the second-highest category, the items possessed by Shield at the time of his death were not exorbitantly expensive. In fact, the majority of the furniture in the home was referred to as old, an old chair in the hall, an old walnut table upstairs, and three old chairs in the cellar. In regard to tea-drinking, Shields only owned a tea kettle and two tea canisters. Interestingly, this is the only inventory yet which has listed an instrument; the fiddle, valuing it at £1.

In surmise, the estates in category five reveal a growing stratification in wealth and leisure within the gentry. While all estates reflect a level of material comfort, William Hunter’s estate exemplifies the trend toward conspicuous consumption and cultural display, with items like landscape paintings and a significant collection of books. In contrast, while Waters also possesses books, his collection is less extensive, and Shield’s estate includes none. This difference highlights the variation in cultural capital within the same wealth bracket.

William Walters strikes a balance between luxury and practicality, and Matthew Shield shows a more modest approach to wealth, with a focus on functional items rather than cultural or leisure pursuits. Hunter’s estate, with its mahogany furniture, silver teaspoons, and extensive tea-drinking equipage, reflects a high degree of leisure and comfort. Walters, while wealthy, has fewer items dedicated to leisure, and Field’s estate is most modest, with fewest luxury items and a focus on functionality.

Category Six

Lastly is category six, assessing all inventories worth more than £1001. William Prentis’ estate exemplifies the wealth and gentility found within this category, demonstrated by the sheer number of rooms and homes included in the inventory.^[34] This estate was valued at £2318, £978 of which was amounted to the slaves. Despite being in the top category, the estate of Prentis still contains a number of items which have been seen in most of the previous categories. However, this estate does include some pieces of furniture which have not been seen before in any of the previous inventories. For instance, Prentis owned a couch, worth £10, and a double chair, valued at an astounding £15. Prentis’ main home was, presumably, very large, with over fifteen rooms. He also had an additional three houses included in the estate, two of which were slave quarters and another being a store. The staggering amount of rooms demonstrates the ability to entertain, a key focus of gentility.

The second, and last, inventory that I examined was the estate of Joseph Royle, valued at £2068, £130 of which was the value of the slaves.^[35] Compared to the previous estate, far more of the value stems from items - not slaves. There is a clear separation of class when comparing the items of this estate to the items of the previous categories. For example, only looking at tea equipment, Roye’s estate included a mahogany tea table, a set of china, a Japanned tea board, a large Japanned tea board, five waiters, a painted sugar canister, a mahogany tea chest, three teaboards, and a copper tea kettle. It is evident the Royle’s entertained with nine tables and twenty-five chairs being listed in the inventory. Furthermore, Royle owned sixteen framed portraits, amounting to a luxurious £12.

Although the inventories of Prentis and Royle are worth the most of all of the estates examined, they include the least amount of genteel items - and items in general. The worth stems from slaves or from owning lower quantities of higher quality items. Krill addresses this, “... [T]hrough the end of the eighteenth century most families owned little “moveable” wealth. In the Chesapeake, 40 percent of landowners still owned less than £50 worth of consumer goods… Although ownership of expensive, fashionable, substantial pieces of furniture was limited, knowledge of fashion was not.”^[36]

Comparison Between Categories

Category one illustrates that even the lowest class sought to engage with material culture as a means of signaling respectability and aligning with cultural ideals, despite limited resources. Next, category two highlights an emerging focus on gentility, with the introduction of items like clocks and art, demonstrating the importance of participation in genteel rituals such as leisure and class. Furthermore, category three balances practicality with gentility, suggesting that material refinement had to be tempered by the need for functional, everyday items. Category four shifts toward agriculture and labor-based wealth, emphasizing economy over gentility. Category five reflects an increased stratification between classes, where the accumulation of luxury goods such as Japanned furniture and books underscores the emphasis on leisure and gentility. Lastly, category six stands apart from the previous categories showcasing wealth through status and power over material display. Despite the differences within categories, items which reflect gentility are found at all levels of wealth. Furthermore, these items are almost always consistently the most expensive items found in the inventories, highlighting the universal value of these items. Consequently, this demonstrates that genteel items did come in varying levels of luxury, allowing for the lower classes to reach for gentility and the upper class to reach even higher.

Lower classes used these items to project refinement and gentility while wealthier individuals used them to consolidate their social standing. Even as the nature of wealth shifted from practical assets in some categories to extreme luxury in others, the cultural significance of genteel items remained steady. This dynamic underscores the extremely powerful role of material culture and gentility in shaping identity and class in colonial America.

In conclusion, probate inventories from mid-18th-century colonial America reveal a nuanced relationship between material culture and social identity. Across every wealth category, from the humblest households to the most affluent estates, genteel items appear not merely as possessions, but as deliberate symbols of aspiration, refinement, and social participation. Even the poorest sought to align themselves with popular cultural ideals, stretching limited means to acquire objects that projected respectability. Meanwhile, the wealthy used increasingly luxurious versions of the same items to reinforce and elevate their social standing. This consistent valuation of genteel goods, often the most expensive items listed regardless of estate size, highlights their universal cultural importance. Ultimately, these inventories underscore the powerful role of material culture in constructing and communicating class identity in colonial society, where gentility functioned as both a personal aspiration and a public performance.

Works Cited

Category One:

Inventory of Mann Bryan, York County Virginia, February 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory of Lucy Hansford, York County Virginia, December 15, 1760. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory of Joseph Cocke, York County Virginia, May 21, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory of Mary Steel, York County Virginia, July 21, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Category Two:

Reginald Orton, York County Virginia, August 2, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, March 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, January 27, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Thomas Burfoot, York County Virginia, August 21, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Category Three:

Jas. Mills, York County Virginia, July 16, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

John Cary, York County Virginia, March 19, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Sarah Green, York County Virginia, May 21, 1759. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

James Martin, York County Virginia, March 16, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Category Four:

Simon Whitaker, York County Virginia, May 18, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

John Glass, York County Virginia, February 21, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Samuel Hill, York County Virginia, May 21, 1770. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Susanna Fontaine, York County Virginia, September 20, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Category Five:

William Hunter, York County Virginia, November 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

William Walters, York County Virginia, August 21, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Matthew Shield, York County Virginia, June 16, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Category Six:

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

Joseph Royle, York County Virginia, June 16, 1766. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Secondary Sources

Bushman, Richard L. The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, and Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.

Calvert, Karin. “The Function of Fashion in Eighteenth-Century America,” in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century. Edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994.

Krill, Rosemary Troy. Early American Decorative Arts, 1620-1860. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2010.

Lovell, Margaret. Art in a Season of Revolution: Painters, Artisans, and Patrons in Early America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.

Roth, Rodris. Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage. Google Books. DigiCat, 2022. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Tea_Drinking_in_18th_Century_America_Its/ns1zEAAAQBAJ?hl=en.

Sweeney, Kevin. “High-Style Vernacular Lifestyles of the Colonial Elite,” in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century. Edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994.

^[1] Inventory of Mann Bryan, York County Virginia, February 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[2] Karin Calvert. “The Function of Fashion in Eighteenth-Century America,” in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century. Edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994. 263.

^[3] Calvert, “The Function of Fashion in Eighteenth-Century America,” 257.

^[4] Karin Calvert, “The Function of Fashion in Eighteenth-Century America,” 265.

^[5] Inventory of Lucy Hansford, York County Virginia, December 15, 1760. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[6] Rodris Roth. Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage. Google Books. DigiCat, 2022. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Tea_Drinking_in_18th_Century_America_Its/ns1zEAAAQBAJ?hl=en. 442.

^[7] Roth, Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America, 457.

^[8] Rosemary Krill. Early American Decorative Arts, 1620-1860. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2010. 155.

^[9] Inventory of Joseph Cocke, York County Virginia, May 21, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[10] Kevin Sweeney. “High-Style Vernacular Lifestyles of the Colonial Elite,” in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century. Edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994. 264.

^[11] Inventory of Mary Steel, York County Virginia, July 21, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[12] Reginald Orton, York County Virginia, August 2, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[13] Krill, Early American Decorative Arts, 113.

^[14] Margaret Lovell. Art in a Season of Revolution: Painters, Artisans, and Patrons in Early America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. 9.

^[15] Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, March 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[16] Richard L. Bushman. The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, and Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1992. 282.

^[17] Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, January 27, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[18] Thomas Burfoot, York County Virginia, August 21, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[19] Jas. Mills, York County Virginia, July 16, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[20] John Cary, York County Virginia, March 19, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

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

^[22] James Martin, York County Virginia, March 16, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[23] Simon Whitaker, York County Virginia, May 18, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[24] John Glass, York County Virginia, February 21, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[25] Samuel Hill, York County Virginia, May 21, 1770. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[26] Susanna Fontaine, York County Virginia, September 20, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[27] William Hunter, York County Virginia, November 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[28] Lovell, Art in a Season of Revolution, 8.

^[29] Lovell, Art in a Season of Revolution, 9.

^[30] Krill, Early American Decorative Arts, 55.

^[31] Krill, Early American Decorative Arts, 41.

^[32] William Walters, York County Virginia, August 21, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[33] Matthew Shield, York County Virginia, June 16, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[34] William Prentis, York County Virginia, October 21, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[35] Joseph Royle, York County Virginia,  June 16, 1766. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[36] Krill, Early American Decorative Arts, 69.