Archaeology Magazine - May/June 1979 - 49

^Zonsidered alone, the total ceramic evidence
from HMS Orpheus suggests an average date of
manufacture of 1750, which initially seems invalid
since HMS Orpheus was not commissioned until 1773
and sank in 1778. It should be recalled, however,
that a number of other objects from the frigate,
including cannon and armaments, were
manufactured prior to 1760 and some date as far
back as 1746. The earliness of so many of the
artifacts implies that the ship may not have been
as fashionable or as up-to-date as its timespan
would suggest. Although the Revolution without a
doubt stretched the resources of Great
Britain, this fact alone may be only part of the
explanation for the outmoded contents of this
vessel. It is probable, for example, that military
equipment left over from the recent Seven Years'
War with France may have been employed at the
beginning of the new outbreak. And perhaps the
officers themselves brought aboard some of their
own older table settings and mugs, among other
personal belongings, while the crew probably used
wooden table furnishings called treenware.
The indicated mean date of 1750 for the
ceramics, at any rate, should not be too surprising
since HMS Orpheus was a ship of the military, not of
the merchant class. Fashion was primarily a
concern of the merchants, while the major
occupation of the Royal Navy was protection and
defense. Eighteenth-century naval sojourns from
England lasted for months and even years. It
would have been difficult, and probably
impossible, for even a most stylish seafaring
individual or crew to stay abreast of the many
rapid developments in the ceramics of Josiah
Wedgwood and other innovative British potters of
this period. Ceramics from the frigate also provide
important clues to the extent of trade relations
and the general pervasiveness of English

mercantilism. Under the Navigation Acts, all royal
subjects were required to purchase British
products and only those foreign goods which were
legally imported and taxed. Chinese porcelain,
which is sparsely represented* most probably was
obtained through England's lucrative trade with
ports in the East Indies. A portion of the
Westerwald-type stoneware suggests that it is of
British manufacture, although more is of the type
produced in the Rhineland primarily for export to
England. Most of the red earthenware seems to be
of British origin, but several sherds of
medium-coarse ware, common in domestic
contexts, resemble ceramics made by late
eighteenth-century potters in Massachusetts,
Rhode Island and other New England colonies.
For the most part, however, the ceramics
unquestionably represent the output of English
kilns, the remaining few typifying popular
imported wares of the day.
In a modest wáy, this underwater archaeology
project has helped to clarify details and
supplement both the historical accounts of the
Battle of fthbdê Island and the descriptions of
standard military accoutrements of the era. A
bonus was that the analysis of ceramics from HMS
Orpheus would add to a more specific knowledge
of daily routine and life aboard a British frigate
household of the Revolutionary War Period.
These specimens have afforded a glimpse of
activities which were so ordinary and habitual that
they usually went unrecorded. Furthermore, as
one component of the total artifactual assemblage,
this class of artifact helps to portray HMS Orpheus
and its equipment as a thoroughly British
product - one which even now serves as masterful
testimony for Britannia's ability to organize and
integrate the many segments of society and
technology during a period of great stress.

For Further Reading on underwater
archaeology: George F. Bass, Archaeology Under
Water (New York 1966), a readable and
informative introduction to the field of
underwater archaeology.
On the Battle of Rhode Island: Paul F.
Deardon, "The Siege of Newport," Rhode Island
History 29 (1970): 17-35, the events surrounding
the loss of HMS Orpheus are given historical
perspective; Frederick Mackenzie, The Diary of
Frederick Mackenzie (Cambridge 1930), an
eye-witness account of the Battle of Rhode Island
and the sinking of HMS Orpheus.
On British ceramics: G. Bernard Hughes,
English and Scottish Earthenware , 1660-1960 (New

York 1960), authoritatively treats the major trends
of British ceramic technology.
On Colonial ceramics: J. Jefferson Miller and
Lyle M. Stone, Eighteenth-Century Ceramicsfrom Fort
Michilimackinac (Washington 1970), a technical
study of finds from a contemporary land-based
military site; Ivor Noel-Hüme, A Guide to the
Artifacts of Colonial America (New York 1970), a
general handbook on artifact identification,
including a good section on ceramics; Stanley
South, "Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in
Ceramic Analysis in Historical Archaeology,"
Conference on Historic Site ArchaeologyPapers 6
(1972):7 1-116, a specialized study on the value of
ceramic types as indicators of chronology.

49
Archaeology Magazine - May/June 1979

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - May/June 1979
