Salem Village Assessment:
1681
Name | Tax | Petition | Sort |
Adams, John | 22.5 | NoS | 1 |
Aires, Nath'l | 24 | NoS | 2 |
Andrew, Daniel | 119.25 | Anti-P | 3 |
Bayly, Tho | 13 | NoS | 4 |
Bishop, Edward | 48 | Anti-P | 5 |
Boys, Joseph | 3.25 | NoS | 6 |
Brabrook, Sam | 16 | Anti-P | 7 |
Brown, John | 61.5 | NoS | 8 |
Buckly, William | 24 | Anti-P | 9 |
Burroughs, John | 30 | NoS | 10 |
The 1690 tax list provided a snap shot of Salem Village's economic structure just prior to the witchcraft outbreak. The list by itself cannot, however, indicate whether economic relationships were changing over time. In Salem Possessed, Boyer and Nissenbaum contend that supporters of the 1692 witch hunt were in the process of economic decline while the economic fortunes of their anti-Parris opponents were advancing. The concepts of economic advance and decline are dynamic and cannot be evaluated with evidence from one moment. Fortunately, it is possible to trace the economic standing of Salem Villagers over a span of time. Village records contain a number of tax assessments, beginning in 1681. Comparing the tax lists of 1681 and 1690 can test whether the economic standing of the pro- and anti-Parris factions were changing in the decade before 1692.
Like the 1690 tax list, the 1681 Tax Data Set contains four columns of information:
- "Name" lists in alphabetical order those villagers who were assessed for the year 1681. It does not record rates for anyone outside the village's bounds.
- "Tax" records the taxpayer's assessment in shillings. (Since the village's revenue needs changed, the total assessment, which was divided among taxpayers, could differ from one year to another.)
- "Petition" indicates whether the taxpayer signed either the pro- or anti-Parris petition in 1695. "NoS" (no signature) indicates no signature on either petition.
- "Sort" permits data to be easily restored to their original order after a statistical manipulation.
To explore Salem Village's economic landscape during the 1680s, click Next.