The Prolonged Fight for Prestige and Power
Material Culture Analysis of 18th Century Probate Inventories from York County, Virginia
By Katelyn Briscoe
“The entire history of mankind is, in any case, nothing but a prolonged fight to the death for the conquest of universal prestige and absolute power.”
This quote from French-Algerian author Albert Camus, though a reflection on the grand narrative of human history, resonates deeply with the study of material culture. Material culture—though not always easily defined—offers critical insights into the ways identity, society, and power are shaped by the consumption, possession, and curation of objects. Even something as seemingly mundane as probate inventories can reveal profound patterns about the motivations and social dynamics of a people. Henry Glassie–a professor of folklore for Indiana University and specialist in oral narrative, folk art, vernacular architecture, and material culture–notes that ethnographers, much like historians, use material culture to understand art as a vital component of the shared human experience.[1] In 18th-century Virginia, probate inventories—appraisals of a deceased person’s possessions—serve as powerful documents that reflect Camus’ assertion about the human struggle for power and prestige, manifesting literally in the objects that Virginians left behind.
An analysis of probate inventories from Colonial Williamsburg offers a window into the lives and values of those who lived and died in York County, Virginia. An inventory refers to a detailed list of all assets owned by a deceased person at the date of their death, used to determine the estate’s total value and any debts or taxes owed by the deceased. While also helpful in managing the estate, identifying assets, and ensuring they are distributed appropriately to beneficiaries, the materiality recorded in these inventories most importantly functions as both artifact and evidence of history, outlasting the lives of their owners. By examining the patterns that emerge through these objects, we gain insight not only into individual lives but also into the broader social structures and cultural meanings of the time.[2] As Glassie suggests, material culture can be categorized into three distinct areas: creation, communication, and consumption. These categories help illuminate how objects reflect the lives of their creators, communicate social messages, and define the practices of consumers.[3] A lack of community and collective production, Glassie argues, reduces individuals to “mere consumers of goods that bring wealth to a privileged minority.”[4]
Jules David Prown–an American art historian and professor at Yale University–further develops this understanding by defining material culture as the “manifestation of culture through material production,” with its study providing a portal into the values, ideas, and assumptions of a particular society.[5] Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi–Hungarian-American psychologist and professor at Claremont Graduate University–similarly, emphasizes the interdependent relationship between humans and objects,[6] arguing that artifacts are not just products of human intentionality but serve as extensions of self, reinforcing personal identity and psychological continuity. Through this lens, artifacts become symbols of power—objects of desire that speak to the status and self-perception of their owners. Csikszentmihalyi also asserts that the home, as a “symbolic ecology,” represents the intersection of personal and societal change, where material objects reflect both individual life trajectories and larger shifts in social power.[7]
Material culture, then, functions as a bond between the individual and society, creating aesthetic connections that reinforce social status and group identity. The selection of objects, particularly those that signal gentility, communicates one's place within a broader social hierarchy.[8] This paper will analyze 31 probate inventories from York County, Virginia, categorized by wealth, to explore the material culture of colonial Virginians across class lines. Despite the incomplete nature of these inventories—since they were not conducted for every individual—patterns emerge that reveal the underlying metaphors and cultural beliefs surrounding inclusivity and exclusivity. These patterns demonstrate the ongoing struggle for power and prestige, as individuals sought to establish and maintain their social standing through the acquisition of material goods associated with genteel society. The 31 inventories have been grouped into six different categories by wealth: Inventory Group 1 analyzes estates worth less than £100, Inventory Group 2 catalogues estates worth between £101 and £250, Inventory Group 3 catalogues estates worth between £251 and £500, Inventory Group 4 catalogues estates worth between £501 and £750, Inventory Group 5 catalogues estates worth between £751 and £1000, and Inventory Group 6 catalogues estates worth more than £1000. Ultimately, the probate inventories of Colonial Virginia offer valuable insights into the ways in which wealth and material culture were inextricably linked to the assertion of social dominance and power within the broader context of colonial society.
Different objects from colonial America served as indicators of genteel values, making the image of gentility, as opposed to an easily definable list of what it meant to be genteel. Gentility, or politeness, was a means of establishing between the “us” and the “them” through a sensus communis, or community of taste. Particularly in the case of Native Americans, for example, colonists’ perceptions of indigenous peoples as barbaric inspired the consumption of different objects in opposition of their perceived barbarism. Jennifer Van Horn–assistant professor of art history at the University of Delaware and material culture scholar–argues these displays were, rather, manifestations of the colonists’ fears of their own savagery.[9] One object that perpetuated an “us vs. them” dynamic amongst colonists and Native Americans were the production and popular consumption of long views, also known as town prospects. The consistency and formula of these prospects led to their popularity, particularly among the elites.[10] The landscape of colonial America was seen as aesthetically unpleasing and dangerous for politeness. The “wilderness”—the natural habitat for indigenous people and slaves—was depicted as an overpowering and ominous force that colonial cities had to be carved from.[11] Considering the target audience of prospects and the fact that prospects were a way of celebrating the building of cities in America as a result of deforestation, it can be argued that these prospects, which were often displayed in colonial Americans’ homes as evidence of their gentility, can retrospectively be viewed as symbols of imperialism and an imbalance of power.
The role prospects serve as a means of celebrating the imbalance of power and delineation between cultures is supported by the anger polite society felt as masks and the masquerade culture blurred those lines between race and class, even challenging the values of polite society. After all, Native Americans were not the only group excluded from political society; women were also not welcome.[12] Masquerades were seen as particularly threatening to civility by pulling women to dangerous sexuality.[13] Lawrence E. Klein–specialist in the cultural history of eighteenth-century Britain and fellow at Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge–connected the third earl of Shaftesbury’s philosophical writings about the “culture of politeness” and how its connections to power express and help “legitimate the goals of a particular political persuasion…”[14] Further in his article on Tom Bell, Steven Bullock–associate professor of history at Worcester Polytechnic Institute–asserts that Bell’s career as an “actor,” or confidence man, suggested that the development of politeness in America was political—constituting and sustaining elite authority. Through reshaped representations of themselves and their social roles, practices of gentility could be seen as attempts for elites to reclaim authority.[15] Tom Bell and his “mumping,” as he was accused of, tie back to the concept of the masks of the masquerade in its role in blurring lines of social class within society when in 1739, he caused havoc under the ruse of Gilbert Burnet, the son of a late governor, later admitting to the ruse but denying harm caused. Eventually, Bell became a deliberate deceiver, acting like a gentleman and fitting into polite society, making a fool of elites through his swindles and eventual success in theater. While some called him a “universal comedian,” others saw him as a “parasite.”[16] It is likely those who saw him a parasite were angered by his challenge of 18th century elites’ ideas of themselves and the society that they sought to dominate.
Another example of 18th century American material culture that distinguished gentility were courtesy books. The aim of courtesy books was the redefinition of the body through creating an immaculate body for the purposes of polite conversation, and to isolate one body from another.[17] Particularly notable through these courtesy books, gentility never lost the mark of its origins in royal courts.[18] Being printed, and representing the interests of the elites, these materials were clearly targeted for specific groups, such as the aristocracy or those who had enough privilege to read or have connections to members of the upper class. Courtesy books, like many other elements of the culture of politeness and gentility, show how objects can contribute to the development of in-groups and out-groups. Realizing the role of gentility as a maintenance of power for elites is critical in understanding the patterns and tastes of communities through the analysis of 18th century inventories in York County, Virginia. The role of objects in this prolonged fight for prestige and power is evident in the inventories of colonial Virginians.
The first group of inventories catalogues estates worth less than £100. In this group, evidence of aspirations for gentility in York County, Virginia, between 1755 and 1770 emerges, with some individuals innovating ways to afford items associated with genteel society, suggesting that even those with modest estates were engaging in a struggle for social prestige through material culture. The first example comes from Elizabeth Williamson’s 1757 inventory. Valued at £54.17.2, her inventory is indicative of her desires to touch the hem of gentility’s garment. Some of the items from her inventory that suggest an aspiration for gentility would be the six silver tablespoons and a silk handkerchief.[19] Williamson’s inventory also accounted for a silk bonnet and a silk hood. Silk, a fine fabric associated with gentility, was at the center of a culture that allowed men and women on both sides of the Atlantic to “assert their right to participate in imperial politics.”[20] Silk was one object that a culture of shared taste and aesthetics formed around the creation and consumption of luxuries like silk.[21] The presence of a tea board, some China cups, saucers, and a bowl with a cover[22] show her interest in the tea-drinking culture of genteel society, notably providing a semblance of community amongst women of higher social classes. Richard L. Bushman–American historian and history professor at Columbia University–explains how the purchases of looking glasses and tea services suggest that gentility motivated people to cross the lines of social class and strive for elevation, rather than subordination.[23] Not surprisingly, Williamson’s inventory also noted a broken looking glass.[24]
Also notable, Williamson’s inventory catalogued three glister pipes,[25] which were used to smoke tobacco: another activity important to genteel society. In her book, Sacred Gifts, Profane Pleasures: A history of Tobacco and Chocolate in the Atlantic World, Marcy Norton explores the intricate narratives surrounding tobacco and chocolate, revealing how these commodities served as markers of cultural identity and power during the colonial era. While many objects within the material culture of 18th century colonial America do distinguish genteel society from the rest of society simply through consumption, further purporting the wealthy as the only members of society who hold power, tobacco is an object with a much deeper colonial connection. Tobacco, in particular, was used as a way to distinguish between Europeans and the “savage” indigenous peoples in the Americas who partook in the evil ways of tobacco, but then also was a material good that distinguished rank in Mesoamerican culture.[26] After realizing the medicinal properties of tobacco, Nicolas Monardes “sanitized” it by distinguishing the “proper European use:” medically.[27] Originally, tobacco was perceived by Europeans as symbols of otherness and depravity, yet deeply embedded in the spiritual and social practices of indigenous peoples.[28] This appropriation of tobacco by a European man that reshaped the narrative surrounding tobacco also raises questions about how appropriation not only strips marginalized groups of their cultural significance but also allows dominant cultures to redefine and sanitize these practices for their own purposes. Within the context of these conflicting views, tobacco’s role within Mesoamerican culture as a tool of identity and status, easily manipulable by European self-interest, taps into greater conversations about the imbalances within the fight for prestige and power. Through the presence of glister pipers in Williamson’s inventory, the implication that she partook in smoking tobacco and the understanding that tobacco smoking was seen as a genteel activity provides an insightful look at the underlying values (or lack thereof) that were shrouded by other superficial practices of consumption that demarcated genteel material culture. While the glister pipes in Williamson’s inventory cannot conclusively prove her values in regard to colonization and appropriation, the use of tobacco signals the deeper values and complicity in colonial America and its consumers, regardless of their willful ignorance or naivety.
Looking at George Wilkinson’s 1768 inventory, valued at £68.8, there is also evidence of his aspirations for gentility. One of the first items listed in his inventory is a pair of silver buckles, a stock buckle, and a pair of steel knee buckles.[29] T.H. Breen–American professor and expert on the colonial history of the United States–explores the importance of knowing the language of the 18th century British Atlantic American material culture in his article “Baubles of Britain,” and buckles are one of the items that fall into this category.[30] Breen explains that women discussing soap paralleled men’s discussions of shirts, buckles, and teas. The politicization of tea in response to the Stamp Act in 1765 was representative of the transformation of “…private consumer acts into political statements” in response to Constitutional crises.[31] In line with values of polite society, it is surely no coincidence that the politicized object would be one discussed in conversations held by men. Mr. Wilkinson’s inventory also had a gold ring, a silver toothpick case, a silk pocketbook, and a silver watch.[32] Gold, silver, and silk were all valuable materials in 18th century colonial America. Particularly, Wilkinson’s silver watch was worth the same price that his horse was valued: £5. Despite it not being terribly expensive, chocolate was a peculiar find in Wilkinson’s inventory. Chocolate, like tobacco, was also another aspect of material culture in colonial America with Mesoamerican roots. Marcy Norton–associate professor of history at George Washington University–also associates chocolate as a means of social stratification, associating chocolate with courtly refinement and erotic titillation. Bernal Diaz del Castillo, a soldier accompanying Hernan Cortes in his military campaigns in central Mexico, found the role of tobacco and chocolate in Mesoamerica as one that “concretized and the notion of rank and caste stratification.”[33] At the same time, Diaz found that chocolate also spoke to the Mesoamerican cultural homogeneity of chocolate through the example of an enslaved woman bringing chocolate to the Mexican capital, as chocolate-making was exclusively women’s work, and being adept at chocolate making was grounds enough to change a woman’s fate if they were skilled enough.[34] Serving as both ways to cement bonds and celebrate cohesion, chocolate, like tobacco, was a way of temporarily disrupting conventional order. Perhaps chocolate, in the case of Wilkinson’s inventory, can serve as a symbol of hope or desire for this disruption of conventional social order.
John Jeggitts’ 1769 inventory, valued at £74.3.3, had a wider variety of items he owned, but a few of the items still point to his hopeful participation in consumption of genteel goods. Jeggitts’ ownership of a tea table, tea chest, tea kettle, and coffee pot are all examples of objects of gentility listed in his inventory.[35] Jeggitts also owned a plan book and a dictionary, atypical of his social class, but indicating an interest in expanding his vocabulary and his knowledge of city planning, both behaviors and skills that he may have hoped could propel him out of his social class. His ownership of drawing instruments also bridges a connection to the plan book as a possible interest in prospects, a process that required the hiring of an artist to sketch from a high point, maintaining as much detail as possible. George Heap, known for his “East Prospect” of Philadelphia, stemmed much of his exactness as a prospect artist from his experience surveying,[36] a field notably adjacent to city planning. These objects from Jeggitts’ inventory show his participation in polite society and suggest his wishes to climb higher socially.
William Davenport’s 1770 inventory, valued at £83.10.8, provides evidence of his consumption of items of gentility. A soap jar, as mentioned earlier, could be indicative of a woman in his home who participated in genteel conversations.[37] His inventory also showed his ownership of a tea kettle, a sign of gentility motivating him to cross the lines of social class and strive for elevation.[38] He had multiple different items that suggest different careers or fields he may have been involved in like the barber supplies and the ownership of a vise, which was a tool that a blacksmith could use to make farm equipment. He also owned various livestock, along with a milk house, four milk pans, and a steelyard. The most intriguing item of Davenport’s inventory, however, might be the ink stand.[39] One aspect of genteel society was the power of networking via letters.[40] The ink stand Davenport owned suggests, at the very least, he participates in some form of written communication, a skill useful in genteel society, particularly by merchants. An example of the use of letters as communication of one’s power and social standing is evident through portraiture like Joseph Blackburn’s, indicative of the ability that an object like letters may have in assembling social networks.[41]
Barbary Goosley’s 1764 inventory, valued at £87.16.6, was one of the few that noted ownership of a dwelling house and a stable, which amount for most of Goosley’s ownership.[42] When compared to other inventories from this social class, there are far less objects of gentility, which were likely forgone in favor of owning a house. Colonial Americans who sought to climb in social class, particularly those of lower social class, purchased material goods associated with genteel society when they could not afford a home, but it appears here Goosely could. With the money left, though, he did not refrain from consumption of goods of gentility, fitting an old tea kettle into the budget.[43]
Joseph Pullet’s 1767 inventory, valued at £83.13.6½, the final inventory of this socioeconomic grouping, may be the most fascinating. Pullet’s impressive collection of mahogany furniture, for his wealth, included a mahogany desk, a mahogany four-foot table, a mahogany corner table, a mahogany side table, and nine mahogany can[torn].[44] The majority of his other furniture was made of walnut, which was the preferred wood prior to mahogany’s rise in popularity,[45] including a large, walnut oval table, a small walnut oval table, two square walnut tables, and a walnut card table, as well as a ½ dozen open black walnut chairs with hair bottoms, and a ½ dozen plain walnut chairs with hair bottoms.[46] Pullet also owned, according to his inventory, three nondescript China items, two tea pots, two coffee pots, two tea boards, a sugar canister, and two silver teaspoons, indicative of his participation in tea-drinking practice of gentility. His high-class drinking habits did not stop with tea, in fact a large portion of his inventory shows his purchase and ownership of objects related to wine drinking: three decanters, five dozen “of wine and bottles,” eight dozen “of empty bottles,” and a jug with some wine.[47] Wine was seen as a drink of refinement, associated with rituals like toasting that were reserved for those of higher social status.[48] Peter Thompson–historian of the Atlantic World in the Age of Revolutions and history professor at the University of Oxford–provides an example of this in his article, “’The Friendly Glass:’ Drink and Gentility in Colonial Philadelphia,” where members of the working class were left outside while “refined” members of genteel society were allowed into the city building to celebrate, drinking wine together.[49] With limited evidence of items Pullet may have owned for his career, perhaps the calendar and writing desk might suggest his role as a local merchant as an explanation for his ownership of such a wide variety of genteel items. Rare examples like Pullet symbolize the hope other members of lower social classes may have sought after: the chance that gentility might provide for climbing the social ladder, or even the chance to make a mockery of the values of the elite classes who maintained power based purely on wealth and status.
The second group of inventories catalogues estates worth between £101 and £250. In this category, an increase in wealth allows for greater acquisition of items that signal power and status, such as spinning wheels, livestock, and slaves, marking the beginning of a shift where material goods not only reflect aspirations to gentility but also the capacity to command labor and influence. Lydia Charlton’s 1761 inventory, valued at £126.5.1, however, represented an anomaly for this social group, noted at the top of her inventory that she owned no slaves.[50] She did, however, own many other objects of gentility. Four wine glasses, three small, old China bowls, five China cups and seven saucers, and a cracked China tea pot, a flowered stone (possibly a tea pot?), two tea kettles and a sugar box all indicate her drink following genteel values.[51] Again, her inventory indicates a desire to elevate her social class through her ownership of tea-drinking items, as well as a gilt looking glass. Other items of gentility listed in Charlton’s inventory are a walnut desk, a large black walnut chest, a black walnut table, a walnut table, a large black walnut table, a square black walnut table, with walnut being the previously preferred wood by members of higher social class. Other items that indicated Charlton’s interest in genteel society were a silver pepper box, a little cabinet or spice box, and most notably, a dressing table.[52] Van Horn discusses the dressing table within 18th century colonial America in the context of the art of concealment, with the dressing table being seen as the pivot point between private and public, employing them as means for women to project themselves into their social roles as wives and mothers, positions given new political importance in the republic.[53] In the new republic, women were valued in relationships for the domesticity that they brought, but it is important to note that this only referred to white women. As members of polite society that were also having masquerade portraits of themselves made, women were able to have skin in the game and advance their personal relationships into webs that extended beyond the polite society of their own city (in Van Horn’s example, Charleston).[54] Although it appears at times the dressing table was a means of empowering American women of elite status, the dressing table was still an emblem of the gendered material culture of eighteenth-century British America. Dressing tables were applauded for their role in beautifying and concealing women, as long as their concealment was not so much that it altered their persona.[55] These realities expose the male gaze and the gendered power imbalance at play: that women should be concealed and civilized enough, but not to the point that it interferes with the contributions of reproduction that women should be making to the new nation. The duality of empowerment and concealment rings true again in Charlton’s ownership of two soap jars[56], possibly indicative of her role in conversing amongst other women of genteel society: an unfortunately deflated sense of agency for women due to soap’s lack of political potential compared to men’s discussions surrounding tea.[57] A final indication of Charlton’s desire for agency lies in her ownership of bed curtains,[58] signaling a desire for privacy that was paralleled by other members of genteel society in York County, Virginia at this time.
Like Ms. Charlton, Thomas Crease’s 1757 inventory, valued at £166.4.3, also catalogued bed curtains and a bible, an inconsistent but emerging artifact pattern amongst this social group.[59] Crease’s inventory also showed many books and pamphlets. Particularly intriguing was the two copies of “Instruction for the Indians.” This, coupled with his ownership of six slaves (Tom, Moll, Sarah, Anthony, Sarah, and Patty) [60] may corroborate the hypothesis that Crease felt a sense of superiority over other races, including but not limited to Native Americans and enslaved peoples. Two pewter tea pots, a pair of silver shoe buckles, and a pair of gold sleeve buttons all point towards an appreciation for gentility and, like George Wilkinson’s shoe buckles, a point of entry into genteel conversations.[61] Wilkinson was also the inventory from the first group that possessed chocolate, another item adjacent to Mr. Crease’s ownership of a chocolate pot.[62] A third object of gentility that Mr. Wilkinson’s inventory and Mr. Crease’s inventory share are the ownership of a silver watch valued at £5.The final genteel indicator worth noting in the Crease inventory is his possession of three prints. The increased consistency and formula of prospects (aforementioned) led to an increase in the popularity of prints amongst the elite class. In 18th century America, prints were not only growing in popularity, but they also grew in physical size,[63] a trait characteristic of colonial prints that set them apart from prints in London. Though only three, owning prints was a behavior of the elites, one that Mr. Crease was surely aspiring to emulate.
Similarly, Reginald Orton’s 1757 inventory, valued at £175.3, also tapped into the pool of gentility’s crafted materials. Featuring one large picture,[64] one can assume this might be a portrait painting intended for family use, or a large prospect, depending on the definition of “picture” shared by the appraisers. Associating Orton with a higher social class, his inventory logs five slaves: Kate, Rose, Frank, Grace, and Hannah. Future inventories will, with few exceptions, correlate an increase in social standing with a greater quantity of slaves owned. While most did not own slaves from the first grouping of inventories, most in this second grouping own a few with Orton owning the most in his category. Other signifiers of his aspirations of gentility are shown through his ownership of a tea table, two tea pots, a China dish, nine ounces of silver spoons, pewter dishes, and two objects of gentility that begin to emerge throughout this grouping are bed curtains and a pair of scales and weights.[65]
James Crandall’s 1765 inventory, valued at £180.11.6, also shows evidence of desired gentility. Unlike some of the other inventories in this second group, the pursuit of gentility through material culture in Crandall’s inventory is expressed through items such as two looking glasses, a square walnut table, 20 gallons of soft soap, 108 pounds of hard soap, two spinning wheels, and tobacco.[66] While Williamson’s inventory contained three glister pipes that suggested her use of tobacco, Crandall’s inventory contains the actual product, or at least noted what it had been sold for.[67] While the looking glasses suggest a desire to elevate Crandall’s status, the walnut table might be indicative of the wealth barriers from inclusion as a member of genteel society. However, with soap being an object of gentility discussed by women and the large portion of it in Crandall’s inventory, the presence of the two looking glasses, and two spinning wheels might suggest an interest in gentility by a woman who lived in Crandall’s home, especially a wife. Ann Smart Martin–Professor and Director of the interdisciplinary Material Culture Program and Department of Art History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison–argues in her article “Tea Tables Overturned: Rituals of Power and Place in Colonial America,” that the ownership of spinning wheels in 18th century colonial America could serve as a gendered object, distinguishing a good wife from a bad wife: good housewives own spinning wheels, while bad ones owned tea tables.[68] Perhaps the interest in gentility was never Mr. Crandall’s at all. The attraction of gentility is power, and the ownership of only one slave woman named Lucy, not a male slave to help tend to the large quantity of livestock he owned (five cows, wo two-year-old cows, one one-year-old cow, two calves, 30 hogs young and old, three sheep, one mare and colt, two mares, and a young horse)[69] suggests less of a desire for the complexities of prestige and power, but more of a humble, simple living, contented with what they own.
With similar simplicity, Adueston Rogers’ 1763 inventory, valued at £184.13.6, reveals a different approach with a contrasting admiration for the culture of consumption in 18th century colonial America. Being owed various outstanding debts valued at £13 and half of a canoe in a partnership, these examples show Rogers’ adept ability to navigate the new culture of credit, rather than being tantalized by the possibilities of genteel materiality to elevate social status and accruing debts of his own.[70] Compared to Crandall’s one slave named Lucy, valued at £50, Rogers owned two slaves (a boy named Sam and a woman), both valued at £75. Like Reginald Orton, Rogers also owned money scales and weights, as well as a spinning wheel, like James Crandall. Rogers’ inventory is one of the few that gives limited insight into his career but does show some of his aspirations of gentility.
John Coulthard’s 1756 inventory, valued at £212.2.9, shows a much stronger desire for the elevation offered through association with genteel society. His inventory reveals his ownership of various genteel items, such as a small looking glass, a large looking glass, a parcel of China, a waiter and tea board, a dozen teaspoons, and an inkstand.[71] The most impressive genteel items in Coulthard’s inventory were his possession of six mahogany chairs, and six maps. Like Pullet, the quantity of mahogany he owned is not characteristic of his social class. With Pullet’s inventory, the calendar and writing desk served as possible evidence that Pullet may have been a localized merchant, which could help explain how he got his hands on that much mahogany. Similarly, the presence of six maps and inkstand in Coulthard’s inventory could back the argument that Coulthard also was a local merchant, dually explaining his access to mahogany despite his lower social standing. Though not conclusive, patterns indicate meaning, and the two inventories that have thus far stood out among their social classes both have hints at a career in “merchandising.” A field that may keep a local merchant close by and one of the main catalysts in the ubiquitousness of mahogany across social classes, cabinetmakers played a critical role in in the culture of mahogany.[72] Utilizing their experiential knowledge to expand options for less affluent consumers,[73] cabinetmakers played an important personal role in their communities and in their customers’ lives. In her book Mahogany: The Costs of Luxury in Early America, Jennifer Anderson–associate professor at New York University–makes the claim that artists and cabinetmakers in the 1760s-1770s were so crucial in their communities that they helped their patrons to shape their identities.[74]
Like chocolate, tobacco, and silk, mahogany is another item appropriated from indigenous cultures that was transformed into a symbol of class distinction and exploited by colonizers under the guise of “improvements.”[75] Refinement, defined in Anderson’s book as the distancing of a raw material from its natural state,[76] buttresses her assertion that colonial Americans’ associations with mahogany overshadowed its dark history which greatly impacted enslaved Africans and indentured servants who were responsible for the production of mahogany, eventually becoming a source of international conflict and a political bargaining chip.[77] Despite its controversy, polished mahogany’s satin effect and general aesthetic qualities of the wood aligned with Anglo concepts of beauty, gentility, refinement, and modernity, leading to its desirability as a status symbol among the elite in eighteenth century America.[78] Understanding the rich historical context of mahogany and other materials with dark histories provides a far more interesting narrative, in addition to being further corroborative evidence that Mr. Coulthard and Mr. Pullet very well may have been merchants. Cabinetmakers’ roles in distributing mahogany across all classes could indicate that a solid relationship with a local cabinetmaker may have earned Pullet and Coulthard access to mahogany purchasing options. What is certain, though, is that an increase in inventories’ worth correlates with an increase in the consumption and covetousness of these items that mask their sinister histories and maintain their image of gentility and refinement, indicating the power these objects held at this time.
The third group of inventories catalogues estates worth between £251 and £500. This group illustrates a heightened interest in genteel material culture, with individuals owning more refined objects and expanding their possessions in ways that reflect a consolidation of social status; however, slave ownership remains limited compared to higher estate values, emphasizing the complexity of wealth and power dynamics at this level. James Martin’s 1767 inventory, valued at £292.12.9, illustrates one of the anomalies from this inventory group, possessing no slaves, but a wide variety of objects of gentility. Walnut and mahogany furnishings comprise a large portion of Martin’s inventory: a dozen black walnut chairs, two square black walnut tables, a mahogany card table, a walnut table, a dozen black walnut chairs, a black walnut cupboard, a mahogany oval table, a mahogany tea table, a mahogany candle stand, a mahogany desk, two mahogany tea boards, and mahogany waiters.[79] Two separate looking glasses and a small looking glass, depict an aspiration for gentility, along with the mahogany tea table, tea chest with cannisters, 12 tea spoons, and tongs, mahogany tea boards, glass sugar dish, a tea kettle, three earthen tea pots, and 14 China cups. The 18 wine glasses, two tumblers, two-quart decanters, and the four dozen and eight bottles of wine indicate some connection to genteel society. The lack of slaves owned suggests Martin has no use of them, and the 18 wigs he owns at £35 a piece makes up a big portion of his worth, not to mention the various kinds and parcels of hair for wig-making. Without a need for slaves to tend land or the home, Martin made the most of his worth, amassing quite the collection of genteel objects.
In contrast, John Lester’s 1767 inventory, valued at £314.6, has less variety in genteel materials, likely due to his contributions towards his livestock and slaves: two draught steers, five cows, one bull, one steer, two sows, five shoats, one horse, and eight slaves, including Sampson, Peter, George, and Judy.[80] With the larger possessions of slaves and comparison of slave ownership across class lines, the variance in the value attributed to slaves is vast. With less money than Martin had available, Lester’s consumption of objects of gentility was more limited: a spinning wheel, two pairs of money scales, a pair of large money scales, a tea kettle, and 2 more spinning wheels. This phenomenon is one that will continue into some of the upper-class inventories.
John Cary’s 1764 inventory, valued at £378.2.11, shows his possession of those items Breen argued were main topics of men’s genteel conversations: seven shirts, a pair of silver knee buckles, a pair of silver shoe buckles, 11 silver teaspoons, and a pair of tongs, to name a few.[81] Aside from his six slaves (Lettice, Ausey, Moody, Lemmon, Quash, and Kate), the more expensive possessions he had were a silver watch, five gold rings, and 12 silver tablespoons. Cary’s collection of books and magazine, however, is one of the more impressive ones of the past three inventory groups, collecting magazines like Prideaux Connections, Guardian, and Spectators, along with books like a dispensatory and a dictionary. His ownership of a book on book-keeping might suggest his career or an interest in a career outside of his current social standing.
Similarly, Robert Thurmer’s 1758 inventory, valued at £386.0.3, also showed his possession of seven unnamed books, as well as four volumes of Arabian Nights Entertainment.[82] Most of his wealth went towards his 11 slaves (Milly, Joan, Patt, Joan, Dilly, Sarah, Frank, Harry, Robin, Will, and Abram), but his inventory also showed his possession of multiple mahogany pieces: two mahogany waiters, and a mahogany tea table. What was striking about Thurmer’s inventory was the eight pictures and one dozen small pictures in his inventory. Though not terribly expensive, more information could help explain what kind of pictures these were, and whether they were painted portraits or prints, possession of either was synonymous with genteel society.
James Mills’ 1763 inventory, valued at 473.2.1½, nears the tops of group three’s price point, and his genteel possessions illustrate his reaching to elevate outside of his social class. A third example from this category, Mills’ possessions held six London magazines bound for the years 1755-1760, indicating a larger focus on entertainment as members of society are seen as more genteel. Compared to Thurmer’s pictures valued at £1.4.6, Mills’ 22 prints are worth much more, valued at £13.15.[83] Possessing many mahogany pieces, Mills’ inventory notes a large mahogany table, a small mahogany table, a small round mahogany table, a mahogany tea chest. Rather than owning more slaves, Mills also opted for more objects of gentility, notably a dozen ivory knives, 17 wine glasses, two-quart decanters and one pint decanter, and a clock valued at £8. These, among other items in Mills’ will illustrate the wider object variety that wealth affords.
Along the same vein, Sarah Green’s 1759 inventory, valued at £338.17.2, was one example of an inventory that separated objects based on the rooms they were found and appraised in, indicative of a multi-room home and higher social class.[84] A large portion of Green’s wealth went towards the various silver items found in the hall: a large silver mug, two small silver mugs, a large silver tea pot, six silver teaspoons, and a pair of tongs, which all are evidence of the emphasis placed on entertainment of guests within a culture of gentility. The two mahogany tea boards, three silk chair bottoms, historical picture of Rachel & Leah, 12 pictures of the seasons, and three old maps of the world were all in the hall, where she likely hosted her guests for tea. Only having a chest of drawers listed in the Upper Chamber, it is likely Green’s home had not been renovated to reflect genteel values with an open, decorated stairway, and it would have been considerably shameful for her to bring guests up a narrow stairway.[85] The role of entertainment and importance of owning the proper objects to host guests becomes increasingly important with higher classes, as we will see in the following inventory groups.
The fourth group of inventories catalogues estates worth between £501 and £750. As wealth continues to grow, this category reveals an increase in both the quantity of slaves and the variety of genteel possessions, such as books, prints, and religious texts, which reflect the importance of cultural refinement in asserting dominance, alongside a growing reliance on enslaved labor to manage agricultural production. For the final three categories, rather than listing items of gentility, possession of items suggestive of an aspiration for gentility should be assumed, if not mentioned, to focus on the new patterns of each social grouping.
In Elysson Armistead’s 1758 inventory, valued at £536.18.0, the curious objects of this inventory were four large maps, 12 volumes of Tillostone’s Sermons, Dr. Tilloston’s book Life, and a chocolate pot. The majority of Armistead’s wealth was dedicated to his nine slaves (Peter, Gift, Jenny, Nell, Hannah, Charles, Lucy, Cate, and Philadelphia) and his various livestock (6 oxen, 8 steers, 20 cows, 15 young cattle, 41 sheep, one old horse, one horse, one mare and colt, two horses and a mare, and 21 hogs).[86] As previously mentioned, the more livestock a person owned, often the more slaves they owned to help tend to it.
Simon Whitaker’s 1767 inventory, valued at £602.13.2½, serves as an exception to this rule, owning 11 slaves but no livestock.[87] Some of the unique items Whitaker owned were the two kilns and multiple other kiln-related equipment were mutilated. This illustrates the first example of inventory objects indicative of a skilled artisan, in this case a potter.
Appreciation for artists and artisans were less hard to come by in the upper social classes, evident in Hugh Orr’s 1764 inventory, valued at £637.12.6. Orr’s six views with gilt frames, and 21 large prints and maps were emblems of his aspirations for gentility.[88] Characteristic of this category and indicative of the view genteel society held for the role of entertainment, Orr also had many various books and magazines. Like John Cary, Orr also had multiple volumes of Guardian, and Spectators. Additionally, Orr had volumes of Dean Preadeau, Farriery, Free Thinker, and Bates.
Benjamin Catton’s 1768 inventory, valued at £639.9.3, drifted away from different patterns of this category, but noted some intriguing possessions. Among the more interesting items, Catton’s inventory listed two boxes of surgeon’s instruments, a smoking chair, and a slave named Casar valued for the steep price of £265.[89] The surgeon’s instruments and valuation of Casar suggest skill specialization, balanced out with an element of genteel society: a smoking chair.
Anna Maria Thornton’s 1761 inventory, valued at £663.13.6, represented another example of a large quantity of livestock with slaves to help tend. What stood out in Thornton’s inventory was four gold rings, two mourning rings, two silk gowns, and a pepper box.[90] Each of these items were material items of gentility.
Similarly, Francis Mennis’ 1761 inventory, valued at £729.5.2, also possessed a pepper box.[91] Some of the more interesting possessions from this inventory were 14 yards of Russian linen, eight yards of Virginia cloth, eight pounds of brown sugar, and 19 ½ pounds of soap. The sheer quantity of these items not only indicates connections with local ports but also could indicate a culture of overconsumption in the upper classes.
The fifth group of inventories catalogues estates worth between £751 and £1000. In this category, the possession of both genteel items, such as mahogany furniture, bibles, pictures, and maps, and more socially revealing furnishings like dressing tables and parlors signals the growing identification with and participation in genteel society. These items not only reflect the owners’ aspirations to refined taste but also suggest their desire to host and engage with other members of elite society, further solidifying their social status. Here, a balance emerges between the accumulation of genteel items and agricultural assets, with the increasing presence of slaves signaling not just social aspirations but also the entrenchment of power through both cultural and economic means.
For example, Edward Moss’ 1758 inventory, valued at £752.11.0, showed that a greater possession of livestock correlates with a greater possession of slaves (13 slaves in total).[92] Some of the notable items were ivory knives and an ivory comb, indicative of an aspiration of gentility. Moss’ inventory also had a book of devotions, a steel-hilted sword, and 3 yards of Irish linen.
Matthew Shield’s 1766 inventory, valued at £779.11.9, was separated by room like Sarah Green’s inventory was. Of note, Shield’s inventory, unlike Green’s, showed a walnut table and a bed with other bed necessities upstairs, indicative that Shield’s staircase and upper chambers must be more suitable for entertaining guests,[93] an important component of genteel society.
In William Waters’ 1769 inventory, valued at £810.16.8, had multiple examples of the visual material culture characteristic of genteel society. With six colored prints in frames, seven maps, two pictures, and 12 small pictures framed,[94] Waters’ guests could also expect to be entertained properly, in accordance with standards of gentility, likely in front parlors. Other unique objects found in the inventory that show an aspiration for refinement were the pewter inkstand, Japanned breadbasket and tea board, a mahogany dressing table, and books, including Husbandry and an attorney's pocket companion, likely indicating Waters’ career.
William Hunter’s 1761 inventory, valued at £892.18.5, the last of this group, was also organized like Mathew Shield’s and Sarah Green’s: by room. Hunter’s inventory provides a clear example of objects indicative of genteel forms of entertainment provided for guests of refined society.[95] In the parlor, Hunter’s inventory catalogues 12 mahogany chairs (two of which were armed), a square mahogany table, two card tables, a round table, a tea chest, and various forms of visual material culture, such as 19 prints with glass in frames, displayed for the entertainment of guests. This inventory also outlines the items that were upstairs, including but not limited to a large mahogany table, a bed curtain, a dressing table, and seven prints in frames. Notably, items retrieved from Hunter’s office reveal far less genteel items than were in his home, indicative of the nature of entertainment expected in the home as a member of genteel society.
The final group of inventories catalogues estates worth more than £1000. In this highest category, wealth is directly tied to the ability to exert control and power, as evidenced by the substantial ownership of enslaved people, including skilled laborers, whose value highlights the role of material wealth in both sustaining and manifesting social and economic dominance.
James Moss’ 1763 inventory, valued at £1298.0.9, owned at least 17 slaves, many that were valued very high.[96] For perspective, Moss owned at least three slaves valued at £100 each, while Thomas Crease’s entire 1757 inventory was valued at £166.4.3, and he owned six. One of the highest-valued slaves in Moss’ inventory is referenced as “Shoemaker Ben,” suggesting that this slave was a shoemaker. This could provide evidence that slaves who were valued higher offered more skilled labor. While there are many other examples of Moss’ expression of gentility within his inventory, the value and quantity of his slaves illustrate the direct link between wealth and privilege, and ultimately power.
Captain Thomas Reynolds’ 1762 inventory, valued at £1588.6.5, showed his ownership of 16 slaves that were not valued as steeply as those in Mr. Moss’ inventory, but there were still some like Abraham £70, Jack £50, and Harry £70,[97] whose price would have equated almost half of the first inventory group’s wealth. Some of his other possessions point towards other power dynamics of genteel society. The many bed curtains he owned, which were means of privacy but also signifiers of separation; a chocolate pot and various mahogany items he owned, indicative of his power and privilege to own these items of appropriation and exploitation, not to mention his ownership of many slaves; and lastly the dressing table, a gendered object of material culture that represented the art of concealment expected of women. Reynolds was no exception to the rule as a member of the upper class, utilizing his wealth to maintain and exert dominance.
Joseph Royle’s 1766 inventory, valued at £2068.8.8¾, indicated his representation as the epitome of power and prestige, although he did not own many slaves. His consumption of a wide variety of mahogany furniture along with multiple prints and a map of Virginia displayed in his home demonstrated his role within genteel society.[98] Subtle nods to his refinement like ivory knives, a smoking chair, and a chocolate pot, show how luxury affords leisure and entertainment, largely unattainable by members of the lower class. The biggest indication of Royle’s mastery of gentility was through his ownership of ½ of the stock in partnership with William Hunter, Infant at the Printing Office in Williamsburg including an account of books, stationary, printing materials, and two enslaved men named Matt and Aberdeen, valued at £1265.12.10¼.[99] Additionally, Royle had various outstanding debts owed to him valued at £261.10.10. What Royle symbolizes is an early example of the reward of power and ease that wealth affords, and the idea that true mastery of the system—in this case the refinement of colonial America—results in the system rewarding the wealthy. At a certain level of opulence and prestige, one is no longer fighting for power but fighting to maintain it.
The probate inventories from 18th-century York County, Virginia provide valuable insight into the material practices of a society where power, prestige, and identity were closely tied to the objects one owned. Far beyond simple possessions, these items—ranging from mahogany furniture and fine silks to bibles and tobacco—were key symbols in the ongoing struggle for social and economic dominance. As wealth grew, so did access to objects of gentility that signified not only cultural refinement but also control over labor, particularly enslaved people. This study highlights the way material culture functioned as a marker of both aspiration and actualized power, with objects often acting as both tools of distinction and instruments of exclusion.
For individuals across all wealth brackets, owning genteel objects was more than an expression of taste; it was a way to claim a space within a rigid social hierarchy. The inventories show that even those with modest means aspired to gentility, with efforts to acquire refined goods signaling a desire for upward mobility. However, for the wealthiest colonists, material culture was tied directly to maintaining dominance—through not only the ownership of elegant goods but also the control of enslaved labor, which was necessary to sustain their wealth. Objects like mahogany, imported silk, and tobacco were commodities that embodied these power dynamics. They were products of exploitative labor systems, the consumption of which perpetuated the inequality of colonial society. Likewise, goods such as chocolate, which became increasingly popular among elites, were linked to colonial economies built on forced labor and imperial expansion.
These objects were more than just passive symbols; they were active participants in the construction of social identities and power structures. As the inventories reveal, material culture was a tool for asserting and negotiating status, whether through the display of refined taste or the acquisition of economic power via enslaved labor. The very objects that signified gentility also served to reinforce the power dynamics of the time, making them both markers of personal prestige and evidence of the darker histories that underpinned their production and consumption.
Ultimately, the probate inventories from colonial Virginia demonstrate the profound role material culture played in maintaining and challenging power structures. The objects Virginians chose to own—and the ways they displayed them—were not only a reflection of personal taste but also a means of navigating the social and political hierarchies of the time. In a society defined by stratification, material culture became both a battleground and a symbol of the larger struggle for power and privilege.
[1] Henry Glassie, “Material Culture,” Material Culture, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999, 67.
[2] Henry Glassie, “Material Culture,” Material Culture, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999, 47.
[3] Ibid, 58.
[4] Ibid, 72.
[5] Jules David Prown, “The Truth of Material Culture: History or Fiction?” American Artifacts: Essays in Material Culture, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2000, 11.
[6] Mihaly Csikszentmihlyi, “Why We Need Things,” in History from Things: Essays on Material Culture, London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993, 25.
[7] Mihaly Csikszentmihlyi, “Why We Need Things,” in History from Things: Essays on Material Culture, London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993, 25.
[8] Jennifer Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017, 11.
[9] Jennifer Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017, 21.
[10] Ibid, 42.
[11] Ibid, 55.
[12] Jennifer Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017, 22.
[13] Ibid, 233.
[14] Steven C. Bullock, “A Mumper among the Gentle: Tom Bell, Colonial Confidence Man,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 55(2):1998.
[15] Ibid, 235.
[16] Steven C. Bullock, “A Mumper among the Gentle: Tom Bell, Colonial Confidence Man,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 55(2):1998, 257.
[17] Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities NY: Vintage Books, 1992, 41-42.
[18] Ibid, 36.
[19] Inventory Estate of Elizabeth Williamson, York County Virginia, August 15, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[20] Zara Anishanslin, Portrait of a Woman in Silk: Hidden Histories of the British Atlantic World CT: Yale University Press, 2016, 304.
[21] Ibid, 11.
[22] Inventory Estate of Elizabeth Williamson, York County Virginia, August 15, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[23] Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities NY: Vintage Books, 1992, 29.
[24] Inventory Estate of Elizabeth Williamson, York County Virginia, August 15, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[25] Inventory Estate of Elizabeth Williamson, York County Virginia, August 15, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[26] Marcy Norton, Sacred Gifts, Profane Pleasures: A History of Tobacco and Chocolate in the Atlantic World NY: Cornell University Press, 2008, 15.
[27] Ibid, 119.
[28] Ibid, 60.
[29] Inventory Estate of George Wilkinson, York County Virginia, July 18, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[30] T.H. Breen, “’Baubles of Britain’: The American and Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth Century” in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century (Perspectives on the American Revolution) VA: University of Virginia Press, 1994, 454.
[31] Ibid, 456 and 462.
[32] Inventory Estate of George Wilkinson, York County Virginia, July 18, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[33] Marcy Norton, Sacred Gifts, Profane Pleasures: A History of Tobacco and Chocolate in the Atlantic World NY: Cornell University Press, 2008, 15.
[34] Ibid, 16.
[35] Inventory Estate of John Jeggitts, York County Virginia, June 19, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[36] Jennifer Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017, 47.
[37] T.H. Breen, “’Baubles of Britain’: The American and Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth Century” in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century (Perspectives on the American Revolution) VA: University of Virginia Press, 1994, 454.
[38] Inventory Estate of William Davenport, York County Virginia, May 21, 1770. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[39] Inventory Estate of William Davenport, York County Virginia, May 21, 1770. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[40] Jennifer Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017, 8.
[41] Jennifer Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017, 8.
[42] Inventory Estate of Barbary Goosley, York County Virginia, June 18, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Inventory Estate of Joseph Pullet, York County Virginia, June 15, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[45] Jennifer L. Anderson, Mahogany: The Costs of Luxury in Early America, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, 19.
[46] Inventory Estate of Joseph Pullet, York County Virginia, June 15, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[47] Inventory Estate of Joseph Pullet, York County Virginia, June 15, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[48] Peter Thompson, “‘The Friendly Glass’: Drink and Gentility in Colonial Philadelphia,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 113(4):1989, 551.
[49] Ibid, 554.
[50] Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, March 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[51] Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, March 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Jennifer Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017, 297.
[54] Ibid, 254.
[55] Jennifer Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017, 286.
[56] Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, March 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[57] T.H. Breen, “’Baubles of Britain’: The American and Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth Century” in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century (Perspectives on the American Revolution) VA: University of Virginia Press, 1994, 454.
[58] Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, March 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[59] Inventory Estate of Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, March 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[60] Inventory Estate of Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, March 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[61] T.H. Breen, “’Baubles of Britain’: The American and Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth Century” in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century (Perspectives on the American Revolution) VA: University of Virginia Press, 1994, 454.
[62] Inventory Estate of Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, March 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[63] Jennifer Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017, 42-43.
[64] Inventory Estate of Reginald Orton, York County Virginia, August 15, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[65] Inventory Estate of Reginald Orton, York County Virginia, August 15, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[66] Inventory Estate of James Crandall, York County Virginia, May 20, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[67] Inventory Estate of James Crandall, York County Virginia, May 20, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[68] Ann Smart Martin, “Tea Tables Overturned: Rituals of Power and Place in Colonial America,” Furnishing the Eighteenth Century: What Furniture Can Tell Us about the European and American Past, 2010, 173.
[69] Inventory Estate of James Crandall, York County Virginia, May 20, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[70] Inventory Estate of Adueston Rogers, York County Virginia, February 21, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[71] Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, June 17, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[72] Jennifer L. Anderson, Mahogany: The Costs of Luxury in Early America MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, 40.
[73] Ibid, 46.
[74] Ibid, 58.
[75] Ibid, 24.
[76] Jennifer L. Anderson, Mahogany: The Costs of Luxury in Early America MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, 50.
[77] Ibid, 26.
[78] Ibid, 13.
[79] Inventory Estate of James Martin, York County Virginia, March 16, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[80] Inventory Estate of John Lester, York County Virginia, June 15, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[81] Inventory Estate of John Cary, York County Virginia, March 19, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[82] Inventory Estate of Robert Thurmer, York County Virginia, July 17, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[83] Inventory Estate of James Mills, York County Virginia, July 18, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[84] Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, May 21, 1759. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[85] Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities NY: Vintage Books, 1992, 120.
[86] Inventory Estate of Ellyson Armistead, York County Virginia, February 20, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[87] Inventory Estate of Simon Whitaker, York County Virginia, May 18, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[88] Inventory Estate of Hugh Orr, York County Virginia, March 19, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[89] Inventory Estate of Benjamin Catton, York County Virginia, November 21, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[90] Inventory Estate of Anna Maria Thornton, York County Virginia, May 18, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[91] Inventory Estate of Francis Mennis, York County Virginia, November 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[92] Inventory Estate of Edward Moss, York County Virginia, May 15, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[93] Inventory Estate of Matthew Shield, York County Virginia, July 21, 1766. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[94] Inventory Estate of William Waters, York County Virginia, August 21, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[95] Inventory Estate of William Hunter, York County Virginia, November 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[96] Inventory Estate of James Moss, York County Virginia, February 21, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[97] Inventory Estate of Captain Thomas Reynolds, York County Virginia, June 21, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[98] Inventory Estate of Joseph Royle, York County Virginia, June 16, 1766. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
[99] Inventory Estate of Joseph Royle, York County Virginia, June 16, 1766. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Page last updated 4:24 PM, June 24, 2025