An early type of post-medieval toothbrush?

Abstract

A recent pilot project has begun to establish a dated classification for post-medieval toothbrushes, using as a starting point examples from MOLA excavations in London. These objects have received very little archaeological study, despite being a potential source of dating information, as well as indicators of certain health and hygiene practices in an era when personal grooming became increasingly important. Barbara Mattick’s valuable toothbrush study based on North American finds has established a terminology for different features. On discovering that several of the London examples did not fit easily within the groups she defined, the decision was made to develop an independent London toothbrush classification, with comparison to Mattick’s typology remaining as a future aim. This note introduces a group of five morphologically distinct brushes that were recorded as part of this project. Context spot dates for these items are in the range 1730–80, pre-dating the style of toothbrush invented by William Addis in 1780, a brush which seems to have established a standardized form which is still used for toothbrushes today (Fig. 1: 1). References to the early, pre-Addis, use of toothbrushes in Europe, and Britain specifically, do exist. The concept of brushing teeth to clean them appears first to have been introduced to Europe from China around the mid 1600s, and a French documentary source of 1728 makes reference to the use of toothbrushes. In Britain, a newspaper advert of 1752 offers for sale ‘brush and powder to continue them [the teeth] in perfect order’, after the teeth had been ‘professionally’ cleaned by the advertiser. There is no indication, however, what form these brushes took. Definitively identifying the early London brushes as toothbrushes is complicated by the fact that nail brushes of the 18th century are also held to have shared the same shape. The means by which the two can be told apart are not entirely clear. Using the relative proportions of tooth and nail brushes as a method to distinguish them has been proposed by Deagan, following Mattick. The metric criteria given are that toothbrushes had handles of about twice the length of the head, whereas the head and handle of a nailbrush are approximately equal. It is interesting to note that the measurements taken for the 19th-century toothbrushes assessed as part of the rest of the project suggest that those brushes follow a similar formula. Of the complete 19th-century toothbrushes measured, most have heads of approximately one-third or less of the total length. Elsewhere, 18th-century toothbrushes are also described as generally having two or three columns of drill holes, with their bristles being packed more loosely than in later toothbrushes. However, the lack of surviving bristle material means it is not possible to comment on the latter observation. With one exception, published examples of nail brushes to provide comparison have not been found by this author. The example excavated from Ferry Farm, Fredericksburg, Virginia, has been laser scanned for inclusion in a virtual museum. The caption beneath the image states that this object ‘resembles a tooth brush but its size and late 18th century date indicate that it is a nail brush’.