Thomas Kays

ANTH-101

Reading Response 3

12/7/15

Chenoweth 2006: Quakers and Taverns

The article, ““What’ll Thou Have”: Quakers and the Characterization of Tavern Sites in

Colonial Philadelphia” documents the archaeological findings and conclusions from a plot of

land in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This plot was discovered to be the site of a low-class tavern

on Quaker-owned land from 1780-1781. The reasoning for excavating this site was that Quakers

disapproved of alcohol, so it was a surprise that a tavern was established on Quaker-owned

property. What’s more puzzling is Melchior Neff, the owner of the pub, was denied the renewal

of his tavern license, and was forced to close one year after he opened.

The article tells the story of how Ebenezer Robinson, the landlord of that plot, was a

respected member of Quaker society, but the fact that a tavern was built on his property

conflicted directly with his beliefs. Neff was allowed to open the tavern in 1780, under the

watch of Robinson. Research was conducted to reexamine Quaker attitudes towards liquor, and

it was concluded that Quakers were not disapproving of alcohol, but rather the effect of it on

their population if not consumed in moderation. Even Quakers such as William Penn saw the

social and economical benefits of taverns if regulated properly.

So the question remains, “Why was Neff’s tavern closed?” Excavation was done on the

site and it was found that a large portion of artifacts were cheap, red earthenware, indicating a

low-class tavern. Research was also conducted in determining whether eating, drinking, or
“living” was the main function of several nearby taverns by comparing the number of eating-

related, living-related, and drink-related items. They concluded that Neff’s tavern was primarily

a tavern meant for drinking, which conflicts with Quaker standards. This perhaps may be the

reason why Neff was denied a tavern license renewal, in that his tavern was not handled

according to contemporary tavern regulations. His pub was deemed to bring vice upon the

Quaker community, and was subsequently shut down.

I believe that this is a very good explanation for the swift rise and fall of Neff’s tavern in

a Quaker society. The archaeological findings support Chenoweth’s theory that Neff did not

handle his pub properly and was considered a danger to the community. The number of drink-

related artifacts in comparison to other non-drink-related artifacts reflect that Neff’s pub was

indeed a pub meant mainly for the consumption of alcohol. The claims Chenoweth made were

well supported by reasonable deduction, but more importantly the physical evidence that the

CRM firm, Kise, Straw, and Kolodner (KSK) discovered. Even though a portion of the one million

artifacts they discovered were most likely insignificant, it is still a large amount of material

acquired. I am not quite sure if they did or not, but a more in-depth examination of the other

taverns and comparison to Neff’s would have been helpful. The other taverns are mentioned,

but only in the form of number and percentages. Perhaps a little bit of backstory on one or two

taverns would have given us more insight as to how taverns were ran at the time, rather than

just Neff’s.

This reading is important to anthropology, specifically archaeology, I believe because it

illustrates how theories made by anthropologists need to be backed up with hard evidence.
Without the artifacts and material remains at the site, Chenoweth’s theory would be just

speculation and based on his own educated guess. Further insight into how Quaker society

operated during the colonial times and its complex relationship with alcohol is also shown. The

article also shows how much information and detail is needed when forming a theory. As

information-packed as the article was, it was needed to show what they excavated, why they

excavated it, and how they got to their conclusions. Without this, many holes could be made in

the article due to lack of detail. Or perhaps the reader could be confused as to how the

researcher was able to draw their conclusions from the limited information they gave. I think

this reading can be used as a good guideline if some other researcher wanted to publish their

findings. What was left unresolved for me was what happened between the closure of the

tavern in 1781, and the construction of the National Constitution Center. The article mentions

that the cleanout of the tavern appeared to be more like eviction due to the disposal of a nearly

complete bar set, however nothing else is said after that. More information should have been

presented about Melchior Neff as well. He did not abide by the standards the Quakers had set,

but why? If he was living in a Quaker society, what made him not want to abide by the

regulations enforced on his tavern? The article does its job in explaining what had happened

and the response of the community to it, but not why the events ever happened in the first

place. Other than that, it is a great article and it presents strong evidence for what Chenoweth

claims had occurred.