Following the review of historical sources and archaeological studies, hypotheses were proposed and a decision was made to test these hypotheses using a collection of Colono Ware. Dr. Leland Ferguson recommended for study a collection held at the South Carolina Institute of Anthropology and Archaeology. This collection, known as the Mepkin collection, was considered a good choice for study because of the variation found among the vessels in form, shape, color, and other attributes. In addition, items in the Mepkin collection were gathered from an underwater context, and as such remained relatively whole. A large number of nearly complete vessel forms were represented, as opposed to the severe fragmentation found in many collections recovered from terrestrial sites.

This Colono Ware collection was recovered from the West Branch of Cooper River, near Mepkin plantation, in Berkeley County, South Carolina. Mepkin, now an abbey, was originally a plantation owned by Henry Laurens, a prominent South Carolina political figure and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Laurens bought the plantation in 1762 from John Colleton (Chesnutt et al. 1994:xxxi). John Colleton was the second son of Landgrave John Colleton, who, according to historical documents, did not reside in South Carolina, but "kept up...in the cultivation of his plantations at Mepkin, Mepshew, and Wadboo, with his slaves--always having a manager or agent at Wadboo" (South Carolina Historical Society 1900:331). Although the meaning of this passage is unclear, it seems to imply that Colleton kept slaves at Mepkin. However, no documentation could be located which showed that his son John Colleton lived at the plantation or kept slaves there before he sold it to Laurens.

Laurens spent much of his time away from Mepkin; at one point he owned as many as eight plantations in South Carolina and Georgia (Hamer et al. 1968:xv). His brother-in-law, John Ball, managed Mepkin plantation for him. The presence of African American slaves at Mepkin is well documented. In 1763, Laurens wrote his overseer at Mepkin, James Lawrence, sending him 25 slaves, five of whom were women and three of whom were female children (Hamer et al. 1972: 203). In 1764, he sent 11 slaves to Mepkin, at least five of whom were women (Wallace 1915:79). Laurens also mentioned the construction of slave quarters at Mepkin (Hamer et al. 1972: 203, 204). By 1766, Laurens owned a total of 227 slaves, 65 of whom lived at Mepkin; 79 lived at Wambaw and 70 at Broughton Island (Hamer et al. 1972:182). Unfortunately, the origins of Laurens’ slaves are not known; however, Laurens himself preferred Gambia slaves, and thought Gold Coast and Angola slaves valuable. He thought those from Calabar were prone to suicide and did not want them (Wallace 1915:76).

Unfortunately, Laurens’ records give few details regarding the daily lives of his slaves. In 1763, he wrote of provisioning his slaves being sent to Mepkin with clothes, rice, and a large iron pot, and told the overseer that they would need additional supplies of corn and peas (Hamer et al. 1972:203). He told the overseer to have Cudjoe, presumably a slave already in residence at Mepkin, assist him in the building of additional slave quarters. As the overseer had previously informed him that there was enough housing for 40 slaves, the implication is that there were at least 40 slaves present at Mepkin in 1763 (Hamer et al. 1972:203-204). Later that month, he sent two dozen hoes and two dozen axes for the slaves’ use at Mepkin (Hamer et al. 1972:205).

Likewise, references to the health care of slaves at Mepkin (or at any other plantation, for that matter) are few. In January of 1763, he told his overseer that two of the slave women he was sending to Mepkin were in the late stages of pregnancy and that the overseer should "be very careful of them & employ a proper Woman if any in the neighborhood or agree with Dolly Hayes to take care of them until they can go about" (Hamer et al. 1972:203). Several times later that month, he referred to his fears that the slaves might have been exposed to smallpox, but gave no instructions as to the course of treatment if indeed they were infected (Hamer et al. 1972:205, 208). A few letters that do address sick slaves "contain directions concerning doctors for his negroes and refer to large quantities of sugar, rum, medicine, and delicacies for the sick" (Wallace 1915:73).

Some of Laurens’ letters hint at the tension that existed between the African American slaves at Mepkin and himself. He referred to one woman, Rinah, as a "sullen Slut but easily kept down if you exert your Authority" (Hamer et al. 1972:205). He referred to another, George, as "a Cunning, Quarelsome [sic], Young fellow" (Hamer et al. 1972:203). He eventually dismissed his overseer at Mepkin in 1763 because of his overseer’s "familiarity with Hagar [a female slave] which besides being wrong and unwarrantable in itself must be extremely offensive to me & very hurtful to my Interest, as it must tend to make a good deal of jealousy & disquiet amongst the Negroes" (Hamer et al. 1972:248).

The main house at Mepkin was burned by the English while Laurens was imprisoned in the Tower of London (Wallace 1915:423). Laurens retired to the property in 1787 and lived temporarily in an overseer’s house while rebuilding the plantation home. He died in 1792 and was cremated on the bluff at Mepkin "while the terrified servants quaked at the weird spectacle" (Wallace 1915:458).

The underwater collection was obtained by sport divers in the mid 1970s. Most of the Colono Ware was recovered near the dock structure, and the Colono Ware was but a small portion of the total artifacts found. Many of the artifacts, including other pieces of Colono Ware and prehistoric Native American ware, were subsequently returned to divers after being inspected and photographed by the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.

The underwater context of artifacts presents a few problems. First, provenience information was not noted by the divers; therefore, it is difficult to determine if the artifacts are from one site (Mepkin) or were washed down the river from one or more other sites, although the river is fairly slow-moving and gentle. It is probably safe to assume, however, that at least some of the Colono Ware was made, used, or discarded by people living at Mepkin plantation. Geological processes such as weathering have been found to diminish, remove, or otherwise change the appearance of soot deposits (Smith 1993:163-171). If the Colono Ware from Mepkin did erode from a land site near the river, this activity could have occurred.

The presence of Colono Ware in the river could be attributable to several factors. One interpretation is that some vessels, especially marked pieces, were thrown into the river for ritual purposes. Water was sacred in many West African cultures, and some African Americans continued to hold it as such. For example, in 1741 a slave woman on a plantation was seen "singing a spiritual at the water’s edge" (Frey 1993:37). The use of a ritual bath to symbolize the rebirth of initiates in some West African societies (Frey 1993:29) parallels the use of rivers to baptize African Americans. The vessels could have been in transit to Charleston or another city for trade in a canoe or boat that capsized (Crane 1993:131), or they could be from terrestrial sites that have eroded into the river. The fact that most are broken might signify they were discarded into the river deliberately.

When examining the use of Colono Ware for medicinal and religious purposes, the scholar has several options for analysis. In archaeological deposits found in undisturbed or dateable contexts, the researcher may use many more options. One option, unfortunately underutilized in historical archaeology, is the use of flotation methods to determine plant materials present in the surrounding soil. One such study (Gardner 1983) examined samples of ethnobotanical material from trash pit features associated with the slave quarters at the Yaughan and Curriboo plantations in South Carolina, occupied circa 1740-1800 and 1740-1820, respectively (Wheaton and Garrow 1985:242).

Gardner (1983) was able to positively identify a small range of plant materials associated with the trash pit features. Because flotation is more likely to recover carbonized remains that have been exposed to high heat, plant materials used in and around the hearth area are primarily discovered (Gardner 1983:G5-6). Gardner found evidence of several plant materials such as peach, walnut, gourds, sumac, and various wild grasses and herbs. A cursory review of the literature concerning African American medicine suggests that all of these substances could have been used in medicinal preparations. For example, an infusion of peach leaves was often used historically as a sedative, a laxative, and a medicine for asthma, whooping cough, and menstrual difficulties. Other parts of the peach such as the bark, flowers, and kernels were also used in infusions to relieve various ailments (Morton 1974:118). Both the flesh and seeds of gourds such as the pumpkin were also used for infusions (Morton 1974:162). Walnut, sumac, Polygonum (a wild grass), and bramble, all identified through Gardner’s testing, were also used historically in medicinal preparations (Morton 1974:85, 126-127, 115, 129). Certainly researchers using ethnobotanical samples must take into account the medicinal properties of plants they identify, as well as the food uses traditionally accepted.

Other options open to researchers are aimed at identifying the residues left in ceramics. These techniques, used to identify a range of elements and organic substances, work best on earthenware because of its porosity but are fairly expensive and difficult to perform. Fats and oils are the most commonly identified substances by use of "infrared absorption, mass spectrography, gas chromatography, and, less frequently, proton magnetic resonance spectrometry" (Rice 1987:233). These techniques identify "specific fatty acids, lipids, cholesterol, triglycerides, and other components of organic materials" (Rice 1987:233) and can also be used to identify drugs and poisons found in residues (Marcil 1993:57). Gas chromatography has also been used successfully to identify oils and resins such as olive oil, milk, butter, and marine animal fat (Rice 1987:234). Such analysis was unfortunately beyond the scope of this thesis, although it is hoped that information presented here will aid in future research of this complexity.

Finally, the obvious option open to researchers is to look for evidence of medicinal and ritual use on the ceramic artifacts themselves. Based on historical and ethnographic evidence and studies by Ferguson (1992a, 1995) and Marcil (1993), hypotheses were developed regarding the use of Colono Ware for medicine and ritual and corresponding ceramic attributes of form, size, surface treatment, thickness, charring, wear, and markings.

Researchers have generally found that Colono Ware in South Carolina comes in two main forms. The most common is the bowl form, and the second most common is the jar form. Other forms such as pans, plates, teapots, jugs, toys, and figurines exist, but are found much less often (Ferguson 1991, 1992b; Lewis and Haskell 1980; Zierden et al. 1986). Rice (1987:216-217) has dealt with the problem of classifying form, and it is noted that the two forms examined in this thesis, bowls and jars, were classified on the basis of shape and not of imputed function.

Colono Ware bowls from South Carolina are usually small, averaging about seven centimeters in height (Ferguson 1995:2), and round with gently curving sides, an unrestricted orifice, and have slightly rounded, flat, or ring bases. The orifice (rim) diameter ranges from 9.7 cm to 32.4 cm, with an average of 19.15 cm (Ferguson 1992b:138-139, 142). Jars by definition average a little more than twice the height of bowls (Ferguson 1995:2), and usually have globular bottoms, a restricted orifice with a neck, and sometimes have handles. The major vessel diameter (as jars usually feature a restricted orifice, this is not the same as the orifice diameter) ranges from 13 cm to 24.8 cm, with an average of 17.1 cm (Ferguson 1992b:140-141, 143). Ring bases are also found on a small number of jars (c.f. Wheaton et al. 1983:227, Figure 73); one in the Mepkin collection had a ring base.

The size of Colono Ware is important in relation to its function. Ferguson (1992b:97) first postulated that the small size of Colono Ware bowls and jars fits in well with African American foodways. The small bowls and jars would have been well suited to cooking and serving sauces to accompany a starchy main course such as corn or rice, which were likely cooked in large iron pots (Ferguson 1992b:97-98, 103-104). The small bowls were also probably used for eating stews and meals, or drinking liquids (Ferguson 1992b:106). Later, relying on ethnographic analogy, Ferguson (1992a, 1995:3) expanded his interpretation to state that "many, perhaps most at some times, of these vessels from South Carolina were used for preparing and administering African-style medicines." In Africa, earthenware vessels used for medicine are usually small. In addition, earthenware vessels in Africa used for personal hygiene, for example by women during their menstrual periods, are also small (Ferguson 1995:6, 9-10). Thus, it was expected that in the Mepkin collection, bowls and jars would conform to this small size. Vessels were measured for height in centimeters, although some specimens were too highly fragmented to be able to obtain these data.

Ferguson (1995:6) also found that bowls and jars used for medicine and personal hygiene in Africa were plain and undecorated. He believes that this is due to the personal nature of medicine, as "most medicines are prepared for, and tailored to, individuals and their problems..." (Ferguson 1995:6-7). Thus, the lack of decoration on Colono Ware vessels would seem to support their use in medicine and personal hygiene; decoration on vessels in the Mepkin collection was noted and recorded.

In the area of ritual use, however, markings are somewhat more common. These marks are usually in the form of a cross or X, sometimes with a circle surrounding it, and represent a BaKongo-influenced cosmogram, or pictorial representation of the real and spirit world (Ferguson in press; 1992b:110-113). These are usually found on either the inside or outside base of Colono Ware bowls, and are made either before or after firing. They are found more often on bowls with ring bases, even though those bowls are less common than those with plain bases. These marked bowls were likely used as containers for sacred "charms" or medicines used for ritual purposes, which were often deposited in rivers that acted as a barrier between the "corporeal and spirit worlds" (Ferguson in press; 1992b:115). Ferguson (in press:Table 1) found that out of 22 marked bowls from South Carolina, 17 were discovered in underwater contexts (10 of these were examined in this thesis).

If the marked bowls in the Mepkin collection were made to be used and then thrown into the water, it might be likely that they would be more simple, coarse, and more quickly made than bowls to be used in public spaces, such as bowls for cooking or eating. The Mepkin collection was therefore examined for the quality of vessel construction by measuring the variation in wall thickness.

The vessel attribute with perhaps the most potential to inform about medicinal uses of Colono Ware is that of charring. Researchers such as Ferguson (1992b:106) have assumed that bowls were used mostly for serving, and less often for cooking, because they show little or no charring. Jars were assumed to be used for intensive cooking because they usually show charring (Ferguson 1995:2).

Historical evidence and ethnographic analogy can give several clues as to the types and amounts of charring that would occur on Colono Ware used for medicinal purposes. As previously discussed, there are four methods of medicine preparation that would potentially affect ceramic vessels; two of these would have implications for charring. First, the creation of decoctions, or teas, require that herbs, plants, leaves, roots, bark, or even animal materials be boiled in a liquid that can be either imbibed or topically applied. The preparation of decoctions in Colono Ware would result in charring on the outside of the vessel being used to cook the medicine. Ferguson (1995:17, 20) has found that in West Africa, medicines are most often cooked in jars, and the evidence from South Carolina indicates that more jars than bowls show charring. Morton (1974:17) found that decoctions were the most popular form of medicine among her African American informants in South Carolina.

Second, the ethnographic and historical evidence also shows that seeds, leaves, and roots were sometimes charred or roasted in earthenware vessels, or upon earthenware sherds that acted as hearths (Harvey 1981; Morton 1974; Traoré 1983). This activity would clearly leave evidence of heavy charring on the inside of vessels, or on the inside of sherds, which would not normally occur in normal cooking. The presence and location of all charring, interior and exterior, were measured in the Mepkin collection, although again it is cautioned that the underwater context of the collection may have caused changes in the amount, appearance, and location of charring.

A third common method of preparation, infusions, would not likely leave traces on the Colono Ware vessels. Infusions were evidently very popular in Africa (Traoré 1983) and in the historical and present-day South (Goodson 1987; Harvey 1981; Morton 1974; Wood 1978; WPA 1945). As infusions call for plant or other material to be steeped or soaked in water without heat, no charring would occur. As earthenware vessels without surface treatment such as burnishing or coatings of resins or other plant materials do not hold water well (Rice 1987:231), it is also possible that burnished vessels were more popularly used for infusions. This would satisfy any "prescriptions" that the vessel must be earthenware (cf. Ferguson 1995:13-15), yet would aid in water retention and prevent loss of the infusion through the porous earthenware surface.

The fourth method of medicine preparation that would be evident on Colono Ware is the pounding, grinding, crushing, or otherwise mixing of the leaves, seeds, roots, stems, and pits of plants and fruits (cf. Goodson 1987; Harvey 1981; Morton 1974; Traoré 1983). These procedures could have also been done on other surfaces such as grinding stones or mortars and pestles (Ferguson 1992b:98-99) but the amount of material to be ground would probably be too small to be performed in these large containers. These grinding stones and mortars and pestles appear to have been used mostly for corn and rice. An earthenware pot, especially one favored for cooking, steeping or imbibing medicine, would be a convenient and perhaps mandatory choice for use as a mortar and pestle. At any rate, this activity would cause wear on the inside of bowls from grinding that would be easily observable. The Mepkin collection was examined for this kind of wear, in addition to possible utensil wear.

Finally, the most intriguing method of analysis that could offer vast amounts of specific information about the plants used in the preparation of medicine is residue analysis. As discussed previously in this chapter, methods such as mass spectrography and gas chromatography can be used to determine the chemical composition of substances found in earthenware pots, and aid in the identification of their contents. However, such analysis is costly and rarely performed; it has not yet been performed on Colono Ware (Crane 1993:161-162). Archaeological excavations such as the ones at Yaughan and Curriboo have uncovered Colono Ware with amounts of interior residue that would lend themselves well to such testing (Thomas R. Wheaton 1995, pers. comm.; Wheaton et al. 1983:232, 340). Residue remaining in the vessels of the Mepkin collection (despite their underwater provenience) was noted but examined only with the aid of a hand lens.

After mending some of the Colono Ware fragments in the Mepkin collection (most of which had been previously done by the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology), a total of 127 vessel fragments were identified and examined. Only those sherds large enough to provide diagnostic information were included, and most were either rim or base sherds. Some of the vessels were quite complete, with few broken parts, and a minor number were very small fragments. Each sherd was examined using a hand lens and measurements were taken using calipers, rulers, and a rim diameter chart. For the purposes of this thesis, attributes measured included: vessel form; type of base (whether rounded, flat, or ring); surface and interior treatment; presence and location of wear; location and amount of charring; location, amount, and type of residue; vessel height; rim and ring base diameter; average wall thickness; the variation in wall thickness (an indicator of skill); and the presence, type, and location of markings or decoration. Total results for the analysis are found in Appendix A.

The first hypothesis was that if the Mepkin collection were representative of a typical Colono Ware assemblage, more bowls than jars would be represented. The Mepkin collection consisted of 88 bowls and 33 jars, or 73 percent bowls and 23 percent jars. Of the 6 vessels that could not be positively identified, 3 were most likely bowls and 3 were most likely jars. The total proportion of bowls to jars matches proportions found on other archaeological sites and in other collections from South Carolina (Anthony 1986:7.39; Drucker and Anthony 1979:64; Eubanks et al. 1994; Ferguson 1992b:104; Kennedy et al. 1994; Lewis and Haskell 1980:102; Wheaton et al. 1983:246).

The second hypothesis was that if the Mepkin bowls and jars were used for medicine or personal hygiene, they would typically be small (as medicine vessels in Africa are small). The average height of the 22 bowls in the Mepkin collection for which height could be obtained was 6.37 cm with a standard deviation of 1.65 cm; the average height of jars in the Mepkin collection was 12.45 with a standard deviation of 1.73, although there were only 4 jars with a measurable height. This matches closely the range found by Ferguson (1992b:142-143) in the South Carolina collection he studied (which included 4 of the vessels examined in this thesis). In his collection, the average bowl height (n=42) was 6.72 cm with a standard deviation of 1.70; the average jar height (n=16) was a bit larger than the Mepkin collection at 14.73 cm with a standard deviation of 2.86 cm.

Ferguson compared Colono Ware vessel height to three African collections: one from Nigeria, one from Zaire, and one from general Sub-Saharan Africa. In general, the bowl and jar heights for the African collection were much larger than the South Carolina collections, with a greater range of sizes. However, for African vessels specifically identified as being for medicine, the size difference was much smaller. The average height of the Nigerian medicine vessels (n=4) was 13.13 cm, with a standard deviation of 5.05 cm, while each of the medicine vessels (n=2) from Sierra Leone were 6 cm tall (Ferguson 1995:Table 2).

The other size variable, rim diameter, also showed that the bowls and jars in the Mepkin collection were relatively small when compared to the three African collections from Ferguson’s (1995:Table 1) study. The average bowl rim diameter of the Mepkin collection (n=65) was 16.45 cm, with a standard deviation of 3.44, while the average jar rim diameter was 11.31 cm with a standard deviation of 1.77 cm. In Ferguson’s South Carolina collection, the average bowl rim diameter (n=42) was slightly larger than that of the Mepkin collection, at 19.15 cm with a standard deviation of 4.57 cm. Ferguson did not measure rim diameter for jars but rather maximum body diameter. Such measurements were difficult on all but three of the Mepkin vessels. These three vessels had an average body diameter of 17 cm with a standard deviation of 2, which closely matched Ferguson’s (1992b:143) diameter of 17.10 cm with a standard deviation of 3.35 cm (n=16).

In short, the Colono Ware vessels in the Mepkin collection, when compared to the total range of African vessel size, were relatively small, and of comparable size with other South Carolina Colono Ware collections (cf. Anthony 1986:39, 41; Drucker and Anthony 1979:64; Ferguson 1992b:138-143; Lewis and Haskell 1980:102). Thus, based on historical and ethnographic analysis, these small bowls and jars would have been the preferred size for cooking and consuming medicines, and for use in personal hygiene. Judging from the size of the Mepkin vessels, it is possible they were used for this purpose; other information gained from the analysis supported this interpretation.

As previously discussed in this chapter, markings on Colono Ware ceramics can also aid in identifying the function of vessels. Most Colono Ware vessels in South Carolina are absent of decoration (Ferguson 1992b). In his study of medicine vessels in West Africa, Ferguson (1992a, 1995) found that medicine vessels often bore little or no decoration. Thus, it was hypothesized that if the vessels in the Mepkin collection were used to prepare and administer medicines, decoration would be rare. The analysis supported this; out of 127 vessels, 29 had decoration (apart from cross markings, which will be discussed in the next paragraph). Thirteen vessels had decorated rims, including two that had "piecrust" rims, three that had fluted rims, two that had scalloped rims (similar but not exactly like the "piecrust" rims), and six that had vertically notched rims. Eleven vessels had incised lines on the body, varying from obviously intentional series of parallel lines to perhaps accidental "scratches." Six vessels had punctate designs, one of which appeared to be a "roulette" type design. However, all decoration, when present, was minimal and appeared only on small parts of the vessel (e.g., just under the collar). In addition, some of the decoration appeared near the break-off point of sherds, so identification as decoration on some vessels was shaky.

As previously discussed, bowls with cross or "X" markings are more likely to be found in underwater than terrestrial contexts (Ferguson in press:8), although some terrestrial sites have yielded proportionately high numbers of marked bowls, such as the Bonny Shore Slave Row site in Beaufort County, South Carolina, where three out of 18 analytical vessels bore such marks (Eubanks et al. 1994:67). In the Mepkin collection, eight of the 88 bowls (nine percent) bore cross or "X" marks, some of which were fragmentary, on or near the base of the bowl. Five of these eight bowls also had ring bases. Four of the crosses were located on the exterior of the bowl, three were on the interior, and one bowl had crosses on both the exterior and interior base.

The hypothesis was presented that bowls with crosses may have been made for one-time, personal use for holding charms, and meant to be thrown into the river. Thus, these bowls with crosses might be expected to be of poorer quality or more coarse construction. In the Mepkin collection, of the eight bowls that had cross marks, four had smoothed exteriors and interiors, and four were highly burnished on the exterior and interior. All had only very slight variations in wall thickness and were basically uniform in feel, which is a desired quality in pottery and attests to the skill of the potter. Five of the vessels appeared to be deliberately sand tempered, as opposed to having sand contained in the clay.

That the marked vessels showed little variation in wall thickness, were well-crafted, and that four of the vessels were burnished (a time-consuming process) does not agree with the hypothesis that these bowls would be more simple, coarse, and made for one-time, throw-away use. That some appeared to be sand tempered suggests that the potter was deliberately attempting to make the vessel stronger. It could be that the vessels for ritual use were meant to be well-crafted because of their sacred purpose, no matter if they were to be thrown into the river or not.

Several hypotheses about charring were formulated based on the ethnographic and historical evidence concerning medicine preparation. First, it was suggested that the preparation of decoctions using Colono Ware would result in charring on the exterior of the vessel being used to cook the medicine. The burning of plant materials inside Colono Ware would result in charring on the interior of the vessels. Ferguson (1995:17, 20) noted that based on analogy with West African medicinal practices, medicine may have been cooked mostly in jars; therefore, we would expect that jars would proportionately show more charring than bowls.

In the Mepkin collection, 16 of the 88 bowls, or 18 percent, showed some evidence of charring. Four of these bowls were heavily charred, three showed medium amounts of charring, and the rest showed light amounts of charring. However, as stated before, charring could have been affected by the underwater context of the artifacts. Still, a proportionately large number of bowls were without charring. Ferguson (1992b:138-189) found that only 3 out of 42 bowls from his South Carolina collection were charred (seven percent). Marcil (1993:71) found that a higher proportion of bowls in her sample were charred: 46 percent of her bowls (n=50). The discrepancies in charring can likely be explained by the fact that Ferguson "was much more conservative in his notation of charring, counting charring only when there was a relatively thick deposit" (Marcil 1993:71). Crane (1993) found that out of a sample of 308 Colono Ware bowl sherds, 39 showed soot, or charring. Out of 79 jar sherds, only 16 showed charring. He states that his statistical calculation "suggests that there is not necessarily an association between any particular vessel form and the presence of soot on the exterior" (Crane 1993:261).

Most of the jars in the Mepkin sample, however, showed charring. Twenty-two of the 33 jar forms, or 66 percent, showed charring (19 had external charring and 3 had internal charring), and two of the unidentifiable forms that were likely jars showed charring, one with exterior charring and one with interior and exterior charring. Seventeen of the vessels showed heavy or medium charring. Ferguson (1992b) found that only 56 percent of the jars (n=16) in his South Carolina sample were charred; Marcil (1993:69) found that nine of the 10 jar sherds she examined were charred. However, these are both very small samples, and Ferguson was more conservative in his notation of charring, so the greater proportion of jars with charring in the Mepkin collection is not very surprising.

These findings would seem to support the hypothesis that Colono Ware jars were used for preparation of medicinal decoctions and to burn plant materials, as they do show large amounts of charring. The use of jars for food preparation, however, should certainly not be discounted; no doubt food was prepared and served in jars. The fact that most jars show charring and most bowls do not could suggest that if Colono Ware was used for medicine, jars were used mainly to prepare decoctions and bowls were used to prepare infusions (which would not leave charring). Certainly bowls were also used to serve food or to eat from, which would not produce charring. That a higher number of bowls are generally found and that these bowls do not show charring may suggest infusions were more popular or consumed on a daily basis, but more information is necessary to fully evaluate this assumption.

If Colono Ware vessels were used for pounding, grinding, or crushing plant material, this activity would leave wear on the interiors of vessels. However, no such wear was observed in the Mepkin collection; only one vessel showed evidence of interior wear in the form of marks that appeared to be made with cutlery. The lack of wear may be due to the researcher’s inexperience in identifying signs of wear. At least three of the vessels showed definite signs of exterior and interior erosion of the clay; this erosion could have masked the signs of wear. The erosion could have been caused by terrestrial weathering, or could be evidence that the vessels held urine or similar contents containing salts that crystallized and caused exterior flaking (Leland Ferguson 1995 pers. comm.; 1992b:53).

Perhaps also due to the underwater context of the collection, surprisingly few vessels showed residues. One bowl had heavy encrustations of a resinous material (perhaps pine rosin) on the interior middle and upper body under the rim. This could have been used as an infusion to seal the vessel and make it retain water more efficiently, or it also could have been evidence of medicinal use. For example, as discussed previously, pine rosin pills, prepared from raw pine rosin, were used alleviating for aches and pains by Europeans as well as by African Americans (Savitt 1978:161). Another vessel, probably a jar, contained medium to heavy encrustations on the interior near the base. The residue was bumpy, and contained what appeared to be some sort of carbonized grain or seed, but was otherwise unidentifiable.