THE QUESTION OF ANOMALIES IN SLAVE ARCHAEOLOGY:
EVIDENCE FROM AN ANTEBELLUM INDUSTRIAL SITE
by
Jennifer Lee McNiven
B.A., Oswego State University, 2003
A thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology College of Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities The University of West Florida In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
2014
© 2014 Jennifer Lee McNiven
The thesis of Jennifer Lee McNiven is approved:
______Ramie A. Gougeon, Ph.D., Committee Member Date
______Robert C. Philen, Ph.D., Committee Member Date
______John E. Worth, Ph.D., Committee Chair Date
Accepted for the Department/Division:
______John R. Bratten, Ph.D., Chair Date
Accepted for the University:
______Richard S. Podemski, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School Date
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to give my heartfelt gratitude to my committee members- Dr. John Worth,
Dr. Robert Philen, and Dr. Ramie Gougeon. Your guidance has not only led me to the conclusion of my graduate research, but prepared me over the last several years for a life in the field that I love. Each of you has contributed to raising the level of discourse at UWF and creating an environment which facilitated my education both academically and professionally. To Dr.
Gougeon I owe a special thanks, for stepping in at the last minute and taking on the rather
Herculean task of reading my complete thesis without complaint. Of course, my work at Arcadia would not have been possible if it wasn't for the dedication of John C. Phillips to the scholarship and preservation of the site. You were always my cheerleader, and I feel that without your confidence I may not have believed myself capable of contributing a meaningful narrative to the
Arcadia story, thank you.
My research also benefited greatly from the expertise and cooperation of Jan Lloyd,
Norine Carroll, Karen Mims, Cindi Jackson, and Adrianne Sams, all of whom provided me with time and answers when I needed them. I will be forever grateful to those who came before me and dedicated themselves to discovering Arcadia's history. Without the work of people like Brian
Rucker, Bill Lees, and Brian Mabeltini my research would have been an uphill battle. My time under the Florida sun did not have to be the joyful, enlightening, and affirming experience that it turned out to be, and for that I thank my 2011 and 2012 field school teams- especially Lindsay
Cochran for being the kind of leader we all strive to become. Personally, I would like to thank my family and my husband, Lee Damon, for their never-ending support and love.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv
LIST OF TABLES ...... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii
ABSTRACT ...... x
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
CHAPTER II. HISTORY...... 6 A. Southern Industrialization ...... 6 B. Slavery in the Industrial South ...... 17 C. Arcadia Mill Industrial Complex ...... 21 1. Arcadia Mills ...... 22 2. The Forsyth and Simpson Saga...... 32 D. The Arcadia Slaves ...... 50 1. Demographics ...... 50 2. Conditions at Arcadia ...... 53 3. Relationships and the Fate of a Community ...... 55 E. Arcadia's Impact on West Florida ...... 58
CHAPTER III. THEORY ...... 64 A. Early Perspectives on African-American Archaeology ...... 64 B. Themes in African-American Archaeology ...... 65 1. World Systems Theory ...... 66 2. Marxism and Political Economy ...... 69 3. Practice Theory and Symbolic Interactionism ...... 74 C. Synthesis of Theoretical Interpretation at Arcadia ...... 79
CHAPTER IV. METHODS ...... 85 A. Introduction ...... 85 B. Methodological Framework ...... 86 C. Site Selection and Early Investigations ...... 89 D. Data Collection at Area A ...... 91 1. 09V and 10V Archaeological and Laboratory Methods ...... 91 2. 11B Archaeological Methodology ...... 93 3. 11B Laboratory Methodology ...... 111 E. Research Design ...... 112 1. Archaeological Analysis ...... 113 2. Historical Methodology ...... 115
v F. Summary ...... 117
CHAPTER V. RESULTS ...... 118 A. Material and Data Analysis ...... 122 1. 11B Block 2 ...... 123 2. 11B Block 3 ...... 125 3. 11B Block 4 ...... 128 4. 11B Trench 2 ...... 130 5. 11B Trench 3 ...... 132 6. 11B Trench 4 ...... 141 7. 11B Trench 5 ...... 143 8. 11B Trench 6 ...... 148 9. 11B Single Units ...... 149 B. The Simpson Lot ...... 151 C. Summary ...... 159
CHAPTER VI. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 161 A. Material Correlations and Disparities ...... 161 B. Identities and Life in the Arcadia Community ...... 192 1. Area A ...... 192 2. The Simpson Lot Activity Area 4 ...... 196 C. The Question of Anomalies in Slave Archaeology ...... 202 D. Summary ...... 205
REFERENCES ...... 207
APPENDIXES ...... 219 A. 11B Area A All Artifacts ...... 220 B. 12B Activity Area 4 All Artifacts ...... 231 C. 11B Block 2 All Artifacts ...... 239 D. 11B Block 3 All Artifacts ...... 243 E. 11B Block 4 All Artifacts ...... 249 F. 11B Trench 2 All Artifacts ...... 255 G. 11B Trench 3 All Artifacts ...... 260 H. 11B Trench 4 All Artifacts ...... 269 I. 11B Trench 5 All Artifacts ...... 274 J. 11B Trench 6 All Artifacts ...... 278 K. 11B Single Units All Artifacts ...... 281 L. 11B - 12B Nail Breakdown ...... 285 M. 11B Mean Ceramic Date ...... 287 N. 12B Mean Ceramic Date ...... 289
vi
LIST OF TABLES
1. 11B and 12B Activity Area 4 Total Artifact Group Comparison by Count ...... 165
2. 11B and 12B Activity Area 4 Total Artifact Group Comparison by Weight(g) ...... 165
3. 11B and 12B Activity Area 4 Kitchen Ceramic Assemblage by Type...... 167
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Santa Rosa County Census Occupations, 1850 and 1860 ...... 20
2. Santa Rosa County Census Demographics, 1850 and 1860 ...... 20
3. Joseph Forsyth ...... 33
4. Slaves transported into Pensacola by James Forsyth, 1823-1845 ...... 36
5. Joseph Forsyth's slave holdings, 1840 ...... 38
6. Joseph Forsyth's slave holdings, 1850 ...... 38
7. Ezekiel Ewing Simpson ...... 40
8. Forsyth and Simpson slave breakdown, 1840-1860 ...... 43
9. Joseph Forsyth's will, 1855 ...... 56
10. Feature 324 in Test Units 29 and 33 ...... 96
11. Feature 326 in Test Unit 55 ...... 97
12. Feature 329 in Test Unit 64 ...... 98
13. Map of Feature 322 in Trench 3 ...... 99
14. Feature 321 in Test Unit 19 ...... 100
15. Feature 323 in Test Unit 44 ...... 101
16. Feature 330 in Test Unit 68 ...... 102
17. Feature 339 in Test Unit 101 ...... 105
18. Feature 335 in Test Unit 89 ...... 106
19. Feature 336 in Test Unit 93 ...... 106
20. Feature 325 in Test Unit 51 ...... 108
viii 21. Feature 332 in Test Units 80 and 82 ...... 109
22. Feature 341 in Test Unit 102 ...... 110
23. Feature 342 in Test Unit 104 ...... 111
24. Area A proposed structure and Feature 322 ...... 135
25. Light olive green improved pontil bottle base ...... 144
26. Clothing iron ...... 146
27. Frog gig ...... 146
28. 11B Arms artifacts ...... 147
29. Simpson Lot Activity Areas ...... 152
30. Historic photograph of the "slave cabin" located on the Simpson Lot ...... 153
31. 12B Structure 1 Pier 2 ...... 155
32. 12B Structure 1 Pier 3 ...... 156
33. Area A Kitchen Ceramic frequency by count ...... 172
34. Utensil handle from Area A ...... 176
35. Area A Architecture frequency by weight(g) ...... 177
36. U.S. Navy officer's button, 1830-1852 ...... 187
ix
ABSTRACT
THE QUESTION OF ANOMALIES IN SLAVE ARCHAEOLOGY: EVIDENCE FROM AN ANTEBELLUM INDUSTRIAL SITE
Jennifer Lee McNiven
Arcadia presents an example of the many non-agricultural antebellum slave contexts often overshadowed by plantation studies. This thesis asks how these anomalies are to be approached within the larger paradigm of African-American archaeology. From this follows an analysis of the Arcadia Mill Village focused on identity and material evidence of socioeconomic dynamics at the industrial complex. The author compares historical and archaeological data from two possible slave components at the site for functional similarities and differences. This is then considered alongside evidence from both plantation and non-traditional slave sites to determine what the most appropriate basis for material and theoretical comparison is. The author concludes that ethnic, occupational, and economic evidence points to the occupation of the Arcadia Mill
Village by industrial slaves, while a higher level of economic freedom could indicate a domestic slave presence at the Simpson Lot cabin. The author recommends that archaeological analysis of non-plantation slave sites focus on the economic limitations experienced by their inhabitants as indicative of social dynamics and power structures. This not only reflects the capitalist world system's effect on labor group relations, but the impact of agency on the negotiation of socioeconomic influence independent of variables like race, status, or ethnicity.
x CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
During the 19th century, rapid change both progressive and destructive came to the developing United States and was reflected on both nation-wide and regional scales. Economic and industrial growth along ecological boundaries shaped unique social systems and landscapes throughout the burgeoning territories of the American North, South, and Mid-West. The products of these systems introduced many new challenges to the socioeconomic structure of the nation as well as its very unity; at the heart of these struggles lay the question of how to build a prosperous country through the integration of new technology in a rapidly changing society. The Arcadia
Mill Industrial Complex of Milton, Florida, provides a glimpse into this world. Between 1828 and 1855, the mills at Arcadia grew from a dream of progress into one of the largest and most successful industrial ventures in all of Florida. It played a large role in the development of the local community, providing a model for local business, environmental interaction, and socioeconomic structures relating to labor and race relations. As for its role in the changing
South, Arcadia became an example of success esteemed by those who hoped one day for
Southern political and economic independence.
The Arcadia community encompassed several groups from varying cultural and economic backgrounds. These included entrepreneurs from middle/upper-class white families both northern and southern, Anglo American laborers and industrialists from middle to lower-class families, and lower-class enslaved African-Americans from several different parts of the country.
One of the most intriguing aspects of investigations at Arcadia is the differentiation of their enslaved work force from plantation slaves through positions as semi-skilled industrial laborers.
1 This thesis is focused primarily on determining whether the archaeological assemblage from
Area A of the Arcadia Mill archaeological site (8SR384) represents the African-American community at Arcadia, and what information can be gathered on their lives and roles in the socioeconomic structure of Arcadia based on material culture in conglomeration with the historical record. Larger theoretical and methodological goals include an examination of material correlations within African-American archaeology focused on occupational differences between slave populations, aimed at answering the larger question of how we treat “anomalies” like
Arcadia, which represent non-traditional sites under the larger paradigm of African-American archaeology.
All research within this thesis is based on an in-depth understanding of local and regional antebellum history, because no meaningful interpretation can develop without an examination of the context in which the Arcadia slaves found themselves both at Arcadia and within the evolving world of industrial labor. Chapter 2 provides a multi-scaled historical background based on the impact of the American Industrial Revolution on economic and social systems in the
South, the role of industry in Florida and slavery in Southern industry, and the development of
Arcadia industrial complex itself. The Arcadia slaves represent a dynamic but largely nameless faction of the local community, so attempts to develop a better understanding of their identities, organization, and impact were based on the study of primary and secondary documents that provided new insight into demographics and daily life for these individuals.
Interpretation of the Arcadia Mill Village (Area A) remains the centerpiece of this thesis, but I believe a firm basis in the application of pointed study to wider theoretical questions should be the goal of all anthropological research. So in Chapter 3, a literature review of major contributions to current and past scholarship in the fields of African-American and industrial
2 archaeology is undertaken to provide a direction for theoretical discourse on Arcadia. There are
many scholarly avenues applicable to the study of slavery and labor-based social systems, so the particular goal of identifying material evidence which illuminates the lives of Arcadia's slaves
within the socioeconomic systems of the industrial complex as well as the “peculiar institution”
of Southern slavery remained foremost in all theoretical considerations.
Several theoretical schools of thought raise questions requiring further examination with
regard to Arcadia. One approach often applied to studies of disenfranchised groups is Bourdieu's
(1977) practice theory, which describes how humans internalize the structural order of their
world through day to day activities. The individual agent has power in the creation and
reproduction of these behaviors and the resulting habitus, which is why patterns reflecting the
underlying organization and identity of a culture can be viewed archaeologically in ways both
indicative of the group and the individual (Lightfoot et al. 1988:201). Practice theory can be used
in African-American archaeology to assay details about group and individual identity, as well as
resistance efforts in the material record. While the majority of this thesis will focus on site-
specific investigation at Arcadia, the author recognized the need for a bridge to connect practice
theory at Arcadia to wider questions of power and social structure within the economic systems
of industry and institutionalized slavery in the Antebellum South. Therefore, some effort was
given to examining the integration of practice theory with the sociological theory of symbolic
interactionism (SI).
The basic premise is that human behavior stems from the symbolic meaning created by
the individual as a result of their interactions with others and society at large. SI posits that it is
essentially the interpretive process of interacting with things and people that creates cognitive
meaning and informs the actions and emotions of the individual. While early writings on SI
3 focused on the individual and day to day life, more recent applications of the theory indicate that
the relationship between certain variables affecting people's interactions, such as power and
suppression, can lead to large scale societal roles and rules being reinforced both within and
between cultures (Blumer 1969; Morris 1962; Musolf 1992:173-180). Due to its modern focus
on both the individual and the larger social institutions at the center of human interaction, the
concept of agency is often used in SI to connect individual practice to overarching
socioeconomic structures. For this reason it is also a fitting perspective for the study of Arcadia's slave population, and how the institutionalized power differentials experienced between different
groups at Arcadia influenced everyday interaction and the internalization of social organization
through daily practice and agency.
Following the theoretical discussion is a summary of archaeological investigations at
Arcadia, and the methodological frameworks used in examining both the material and historical
record during the research for this thesis. Chapter 4 also contains information on the physical
setting and background of Area A, as well as strategies employed in survey and data collection
during the 2011 excavation season. The resulting collection (11B), and the following season's investigation of the land parcel directly surrounding owner Ezekiel Simpson's antebellum home
(12B), are the only assemblages consulted in-depth during the analysis of data for this project.
South's (1977) functional artifact group typologies are a tool often used in the comparative
analysis of residential structures and can reveal patterns tied largely to the materials and activities at a site. By utilizing this model a slew of observations can be made about the inhabitants’ living conditions, lifeways, identities, gender, status, and many other cultural traits.
The comparison of such variables was a particular goal of research on the Area A assemblage, and so artifact frequencies were calculated in South's (1977) groupings for comparison to the
4 12B recovery as well as other contemporary Southeastern slave sites. To maintain a holistic
research model which made the historical record an important tool in the study of Arcadia and its
material record, the author relied on a critical interpretive approach based in ethnohistory as the cornerstone of all methodologies.
The results of the material and spatial analysis of Area A utilizing database queries, computer spatial modeling, and historical research and contextualization are contained in
Chapter 5. Also summarized are South's (1977) artifact groups and frequencies for the 11B and
12B assemblages, and an analysis of the ceramic collections present including vessel type
frequencies and mean ceramic dates. Chapter 6 contains interpretations and conclusions based on
the material and historical investigation of the Arcadia Mill Village. As stated previously, the goal of this thesis is to examine whether the material evidence supports the theory that the residents of Area A represent the enslaved African-American population of Arcadia, and if so,
what information can be gathered about their lives and roles in the socioeconomic structure of
the Arcadia industrial complex and community. This analysis can then be applied to the
examination of correlations between antebellum African-American slave populations with
different occupations, such as agricultural labor, to Arcadia. Conclusions regarding differences in
the material record relating to socioeconomic variables allow the question of how to address
"anomalies" or non-traditional sites within the larger field of African-American archaeology to
be addressed.
5 CHAPTER II
HISTORY
Southern Industrialization
In the early 19th century, Southern landscapes began changing rapidly from the model of the previous 200 years. Improved textile machinery stemming from the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney in 1794, the transition from draft to water power, and the railroad boom all acted as catalysts for the adoption of new industry and the mass production of sale goods for the first time in the South. This was not only a time of changing economics and business; these developments had deep social implications as well. Not all of the agricultural community experienced profound change, but for those venturing into cities for the first time or experimenting with new industries, the cultural structures of their ancestors had to be re- negotiated within evolving spatial and socioeconomic parameters. As Cassell and Stachiw
(2005:7) put it, "the history and development of industrialization can be witnessed at small and large scales, in local and global realms, in rural and urban settings, and everything in between."
As for changing social systems, in the North where the slave trade had not been particularly
active, from the late 18th through mid-19th century there was a steady influx of European
immigrants desperate for work and somewhat prepared for the rigors of the factory from the
already booming industrial revolution of Northern Europe. While most middle and upper-class
Americans of the North recognized the unfortunate position of the immigrant, they deemed them
the ideal candidate for lower-class labor jobs in industry due to their class, not their color.
Because of this, labor jobs, whether they were in the field or the factory, remained the province
of lower-class Anglo-Americans no matter what, and any change in demand for one or the other
6 affected only the training of these individuals and did not question their role in either position
(Hansen 1929:544-546).
There was, to a certain degree, an amount of geographic determinism stemming from old
ties between America and European countries involved in the international trade industry which
brought specific groups to different parts of the county based on their relationship to the timber,
cotton, tobacco, textile, fur, and coffee trades (to name a few). This is why many pockets of
cultural groups exist throughout the country: Germans in Cincinnati, Bremeners in Baltimore,
French in Canada and Northern New England, Scandinavians in the Mid-West, and Italians,
Irish, and Jewish in New England and New York. There were pre-existing links between many
immigrants and the kind of work they ended up doing in America. This made social acceptance
of their groups (at least where employment was concerned) somewhat easier within the industrial
community (Berlin and Gutman 1983:1176).
On the other hand, in the South, immigrants made up only 5% of the population, and
Africans usually between 30-50%. While immigrants were a plausible source of labor, they also
presented business owners with the paradox of being both wage earners and consumers in the
local economy. While industrial and agricultural products were part of the market in which all
white consumers contributed a share of profit, their role as wage laborers also demanded they be
paid a portion of those profits. A business owner employing a small number of wage laborers would have to balance this output of profits through increased production and revenue, but in
unstable markets such as industry, this ability is an uncertain factor in the projection of cost and
revenues. Also, the dwindling presence of immigrants in the South throughout the 17th and 18th
centuries made them another uncertain factor in the plans of businessmen trying to copy the
7 model of successful northern industry (Wilson 2005:587-592). What was needed to expand the growth of Southern economy was a large, reliable, and cheap source of labor.
The slave trade provided such a source, along with what was considered the added benefit that the African race could be exploited for no wage and in harsher conditions than white wage laborers. Their near absence from the commodity circuit was largely balanced by their notably less expensive cost for living as full time laborers who reproduced more laborers for free.
Southern agriculture benefited inextricably from the practice of slave labor, which allowed for more production and greater profit. The near silence of the African community in the social systems associated with markets and consumption also reflected what was perceived to be the natural order. The business circle was much more willing to deal with lower-class and immigrant whites when their role was restricted to that of the consumer rather than face the African poised with even a small amount of power over the market from the same position. Money was a symbol of upward mobility, and it reinforced racist views of the time that if any group should be given increased access to both social and economic growth, it should be the people benefiting from the labor of the African community and not the community itself (Wilson 2005:587-592).
Still, in the early 19th century, Southern industry was no match for the profit and power of
Northern industrial production. The North was in the process of streamlining technology that required fewer workers who could be hired from the growing pool of desperate lower-class and immigrant populations and paid very little to do dangerous factory work. Their products were generally more expensive and spread throughout more of the world markets than Southern commodities. A majority of Southern manufacturers remained more focused on creating a competitive industry which would give the South more control over its own resources and break from their dependence on Northern manufacturing rather than growing a world market economy.
8 Throughout the Mid-Atlantic and South, a very different industrial system was developing from that of the Northeast. Mills, factories, and metal works were more often family run operations with smaller work forces and less widespread domination of urban areas (Shackel
2009:32-34). Northern industrial landscapes had grown in some areas far beyond the control of corporate officials and taken on a life of their own which grew more chaotic and unpredictable as these industries expanded. To understand the order behind Southern industrial systems more thoroughly, it is necessary to examine the Northern contexts they evolved from to some extent.
Beyond that and the reach of this report is the birth of industry and western capitalist economy known as the British industrial revolution. Suffice it to say that before there was Lowell, there was Liverpool.
The work of American scholar Paul Shackel (2004, 2006, 2009) provides an excellent background for the study of industrial landscapes both within historical and archaeological contexts. Though the discipline is often overshadowed by technology based studies, in the forefront at present is a push to rediscover the lost history of American labor struggles through the study of industrial workers. While this has influenced work in both the South and West, the majority of labor and industry studies remain focused on New England--the birthplace of
American industry. The first mill communities grew up in New England after the technology was introduced in the late 18th century. As an early center of trade and transport stemming from the area's long ties to England and easy access to both international and East coast shipping routes,
New England was endowed with the perfect support system for manufacturing industries.
Atlantic bays and estuaries litter the coast and meet with major waterways like the Hudson and
St. Lawrence rivers. And when enterprising gentlemen anxious to put their "Protestant work ethic" to good use discovered that the power of water could be harnessed into energy, it was not
9 long after the revolution that they began building a new economic platform for American growth on the banks of New England river systems.
The first cotton mills in America were built in Massachusetts and Rhode Island in the
1780's and 1790's. While the Beverly Cotton Manufactory of Beverly, Massachusetts began producing cloth in 1787 by horse powered machinery, the first man to bring water-powered technology to the U.S. and apply it to cotton production was Samuel Slater, who had been an overseer in a British textile mill. Though Great Britain was attempting to keep their manufacturing and technological achievements secret from other developing nations, individuals like Slater could not be stopped from recreating the machinery he worked with so closely at his former employ. Completed in 1790, he built the first “Arkwright" water frame and opened the
Slater Mill in 1793 with what would be known as the "Rhode Island system" of waterwheel technology. Soon after, water-powered mills began opening throughout New England (Shackel
2009:23). The Slater Mill took cotton and spun it into yarn which was still used by most households in the country to weave their own clothing and textiles. This remained the norm until
Francis Cabot Lowell created the first power loom in 1814, and cotton mills were able to turn their yarn into textiles on a large scale.
The spread of "Waltham system" technology throughout the Northeast produced several changes in successful milling areas. First, the power loom required many more hands to operate and there was not a large enough pool of laborers in many areas to fill the new demand for labor.
With many Northern men working outside of urban areas with the logging industry and fur trade, it was actually difficult for factories to find workers for the growing textile industry; they needed to look to a new source of labor. Second, the family labor structure was changing. With textiles available on the market, there was less need for women and children to stay at home. The
10 majority of colonial families were living meager existences, and with a demand for low-wage workers experienced in a domestic trade like weaving, there was finally an avenue for multiple streams of income within a family.
The mills expanded to create room for textile production and began hiring women and children as the majority of the textile work force. As output and returns increased, the corporation began replacing all means of individual production and procurement of goods for their employees by creating entire milling towns around the factory--complete with boarding houses or tenements where their workers continued to exist under the watchful eyes of overseers and "mill lords." Through making the entire family part of the corporate system, mill lords could enforce basically whatever rules or moral objectives they wished, and their subjects were practically powerless to fight them. With little connection to the outside world, there was no support for individual rights, needs, or concerns except from inside the work force. Factories notoriously exploited "mill girls" and children by paying them much less than men for the same jobs, and keeping them from complaining about dangerous working conditions, poor treatment, or unfair pay through intimidation and the emphatic preaching of Christian values like diligence, hard work, and modesty. It is no secret where the corporate industrial system adopted in New
England during this time came from; many business owners modeled their factories after those in the poor industrial towns of England (Shackel 2009:23-28).
The mid-19th century saw an influx of immigrants from Ireland and Europe throughout the
Northeast which created a new market of potential laborers. Beaudry (1989:19-21) emphasizes that at the time there was a distinct threat of the pre-existing work force organizing and demanding more pay and better conditions after toiling in the factories and devoting their lives to the boarding house for almost fifty years. The more of a community a group forms, the more
11 energy they may devote to ensuring each other's mutual well-being. Moreover, a transient and unorganized work force is better suited to accept their place in an unbalanced relationship of power and status. Affording for this situation to provide them with the most profit for the least cost, Beaudry (1989:20) states that "the corporation saw the advantage of replenishing the work force with Irish immigrants who arrived impoverished and anxious to work after escaping the famines at home." The constant shake-up of the work force with the firing of mill girls and children and the hiring of the poorest immigrants created an environment where the company could create a pattern of paternalism over its subjects that prevented their ability to organize and recognize the injustice of their situation, as they might if they were left to their own devices and means of production (Beaudry 1989:21).
Much documentation of this system has been done in New England, but none more so than the Boott Cotton Mills of Lowell, Massachusetts. Opened in 1835, it was one of the largest industrial complexes in New England, employing over a thousand workers and producing over
9,000,000 yards of cloth a year in 1842. By 1868 there were 1,020 women and 310 men working to produce over 14,000,000 yards of cloth annually. Lowell was an entirely industrial town, and
Boott Mills was a large part of that- as they provided an all-encompassing system of labor and living for all of their employees.
An account of life as a mill girl in Lowell written by Harriet H. Robinson (1898:13-17) describes in great detail what life was like among the lower-class laborers in a textile factory.
What comes across very clearly is the delineation of status and power at the mill based on position and ethnic background. She documents four distinct classes existent in the mill in 1832, each with detail as to income, living conditions, appearance, and behavior. The first class was the agents or owners of the corporation. Aristocrats were paid a fair wage, lived in large houses not
12 too near the factory, and did not often concern themselves with the lower classes. She states that the daughter of one of these deceased agents now made $600 a year from the company profits.
Second were the overseers, the gentry who had risen through the ranks as mill-hands and now lived in special housing at the end of the boarding house with their former "mill girl" wives who were now too good to acknowledge those lowly creatures with whom they had formerly been associated. Overseers made $2.00 a day and were often charged with maintaining an eye on the workers outside of the factory walls as well as within. The third class was the operatives, or mill
"girls" or "men." They were mainly lower-class Anglo-Americans who had left their homes or been sent away to earn money for their families. They lived in boarding houses or tenements for which they paid $1.25 a week, and answered for their behavior in and out of work to the overseers or the church. They made between $6.00-10.00 a week, although her excitement over the possibility of making ten dollars a week indicated that Harriet was not among those receiving this generous wage.
Then, finally, she describes the fourth class, a group consisting of immigrants called "the acreites," named so for the shanty village in which they lived on the outskirts of the complex, known as "the acre." The men performed manual labor for the company and were responsible for building all of the mills and housing at the complex. Their wives and "many" children stayed in the acre and lived off of their meager wage, which was not shared, but by comparison may have been lower than $.050 a day. She describes them as a chaotic, violent community made up of rival gangs of Irish and Eastern European Gypsies whose children were a constant threat to the mill girls and boys. This was years before the larger periods of immigration which undoubtedly replaced the operatives of Harriet's day with the men, women, and children of "the acre"
(Robinson 1898:13-17).
13 For many mill girls being displaced by immigrant work forces in the mid-19th century, there was no recovery from their former state of existence. They had the reputation of being ill- used by their overseers, as sexual abuse in boarding houses was a fairly common occurrence.
Most former mill girls were tainted for life and grew into spinsters who lived very sad lives after leaving the factory with less than they had when they entered it. The poor immigrants of New
England reproduced the system of paternalism and exploitation of Northern factories for another fifty years; it wasn't until the late 19th/early 20th century that industrial laborers began organizing in the struggle for better working and living conditions, fair pay, and equal treatment
(Shackel 2009:32-33).
The history of industry in New England is important because of the influence it had on the way that Southern industry developed. While the North and mid-Atlantic region had a complex economic relationship with England and Europe which provided them with an impetus for the mass production and distribution of goods, the South had relatively underdeveloped economic and trade systems which suffered from the instability of Spanish, French, and British control.
What they did have was land, and where Northern agricultural development failed to provide them with a cash crop with which to power their expanding industries, the South had an abundance of land capable of growing cotton, for which the North paid generously. England's businessmen and entrepreneurs were also largely located in the Northeast, which is where most of their ideas for industry were developed. Still, the first Southern cotton mill was established in
1789 (almost simultaneously with the North), which shows that though it is often assumed that the South experienced a retarded industrial development in the early 19th century due to lack of available technology and workers, there were some Southerners involved in the early days of
American industry. However, the early days of manufacturing in the South were not as profitable
14 as was experienced in the North and mid-Atlantic (Bateman and Weiss 1975:183,199). It seems plausible that a region rich with cotton fields would be as profitable as the places they were providing cotton to, but they were not. Why is this?
The most relevant answers are size and labor force. Northern textile factories grew very quickly into large establishments, which is what many of their proprietors and work force had experienced in Great Britain. The roles for owners, overseers, and laborers were already well established in Northern European culture and faced little challenges in assigning sociocultural roles to a new industrial society. A larger middle class and pool of immigrant and lower-class laborers made adapting established industrial systems to the North easy, whereas in the South a very different sociocultural system existed. The middle to upper class was more varied, with more Central Europeans who were not as well established in the culture of the industrial revolution. Populations were more rural and that made it hard to access a large available pool of laborers. Of course, there was already a large pool of lower-class laborers living in the South, but they were largely tied up in the juggernaut of plantation agriculture. One of the most common excuses used for Southern industrial failings is that the African-American slave population was considered "unsuitable as an industrial work force," though the repeated and widespread use of
African-Americans in manufacturing and industry throughout the country testifies to the false nature of that assumption (Bateman and Weiss 1975:186-200; Shackel 2009:66-67).
Still, there was resistance to the wholesale adoption of slave labor within Southern industry, so there remained a smaller general population of laborers available for skilled and semi-skilled labor. Either way, perhaps due to their lack of experience in big business or their preference for agricultural pursuits, in most cases Southerners did not enter into large scale industry. Mills and textile factories were much smaller, with little work forces and less output. Similar patterns can
15 be seen in mining and ironworks of the mid-Atlantic region, but with consumers and
manufacturers paying more for their products than textiles, it took less output and manpower to
gain the same profit. They were also more connected to shipping and trade routes to Europe
(Shackel 2009:32-34). By the mid-19th century the South was manufacturing more and opening more mills and factories, but the plantation economy was a diversion for labor and capitol, and their resistance to re-creating the mill towns of New England prevented them from producing at the scale necessary to catapult them into a major industrial boom. The South did not fail at industry by any means, but the preindustrial economic and social systems functioning within
Southern landscapes did not provide the necessary breeding grounds for large scale corporate industry as was the case in the North.
At its peak Arcadia Mills was the most successful industrial complex in the state of
Florida; between 1817 and 1855 its existence was essential to the development of the surrounding towns of Milton and Bagdad. To better understand Arcadia's place in Florida history it should be considered in the context of the expanding technological innovations of the early
19th century. The steady rise in industrial growth throughout the North took some time to reach the Southern coast. When the British Period began in 1763, the Pensacola region was considered depressed and underdeveloped. Plans were made for the transformation of the area into a mercantile and agricultural center worthy of joining the rest of the expanding British Empire
(Fabel 1988:214-236).
In the late 18th century, there were already an abundance of gristmills for producing grain
in Florida, some automated and complex, but most small and powered by a simple water wheel
(Evans 1850). The Spanish began exploiting the area for timber in the 1740's, but it wasn't until
the British Period that lumber mills began springing up throughout the region (Gober 1956:104).
16 In 1766, the Governor wrote of the area, "innumerable are the runs of water for sawmills. The
man who can first establish this machine... must make an imperial fortune" (Johnstone 1766).
The Pensacola area has always been especially well endowed when it comes to the natural
features necessary for the development of lumbering. The vast forests of yellow pine and the
snaking estuaries of the Blackwater River provided the primary elements needed for the supply
of natural resources and the reliable flow of water essential to a successful mill seat (Leffel
1881). Thus, it seems a natural evolution that as Pensacola's commercial development began to expand, the lumber industry grew rapidly and mills started to litter the rivers of Northwest
Florida. It is within this context that young enterprising businessmen, such as Arcadia founders
Joseph Forsyth and the Simpson brothers, began flocking to the area in hopes of benefiting from
its growing niche in manufacture and the lumber trade.
Slavery in the Industrial South
Between the 1790's and 1850's many planters expanded their businesses through the
addition of mills and textile manufacturing equipment operated largely by their slaves in the
hours after sunset. Some installed looms directly into slave cabins to maximize the time they had
available for weaving, and often those who weren't as effective in the fields were given textile
jobs. Mandy McCullough Cosby (cited in Miller 1981:473), an ex-slave, gave this account of
plantation mill work: "My mother was a loomer. She didn't do nothin' but weave. We all had
reg'lar stints of spinnin' to do, when we come from the fiel.’" She added that they spun every
night until ten o'clock because there were spinning wheels in every cabin. In this way early slave
use for textile manufacture was treated by many as an extension of plantation work, and was not seen as a profound change from the traditional system of agricultural slavery. So despite the attention given to the intended use of slave labor at the Arcadia industrial complex upon its
17 conception, the idea of an independent mill functioning by these means seems a natural extension of the precedent set by many Southern planters in the previous 40 years.
In fact, by the 1830's many of those involved in Southern milling extolled the use of slaves
in mills and factories due to their ability to perform comparably to white laborers with
consistency, less bother, and for less money. Granted the cost of trained industrial slaves was slightly higher, and the effort to train field hands to mill work was considered a nuisance, many still preferred the use of slaves to paid white laborers (Miller 1981:475-476). By the 1850's
between 160,000-200,000 Southern slaves were working in industry, and most of them were
owned directly by industrial business owners (Starobin 1970:131-132).
Despite the occasional outcry to hire white labor on principle, the economic advantage of
slave labor convinced many industrial companies to purchase their own workers or rent them
from large slave owners. Some who insisted on mixing free and slave laborers to provide jobs for
poor white men eventually abandoned the idea when they realized they were often paying two to
three times more to their white employees than the cost of hiring, or buying and maintaining
slaves for the same positions. Starobin (1970:136-143) claims that the average cost of owning or
renting an industrial slave came out to around $100 a year, while the annual cost of paying and
supervising a free laborer was around $335. The economic advantage was not only seen by
private businessmen; most Southern public building projects were performed by slave workers.
Projects like railroad construction, canal digging, gold and coal mining, steam boat operation,
and infrastructure creation were largely carried out by slaves because it was known that returns
larger than 8% could usually be expected.
When a comparison could be made, it usually was, and the principal of using white laborers was often pushed under the rug when numbers clearly showed that the cost difference was
18 substantial. In 1855, the State Engineer of Louisiana reported his findings that slave labor was much less expensive than free labor (Debow’s Review 1855:193-195). There was also a lively discussion between members of the South Carolina Railroad whether to switch from free to slave labor for future projects, largely due to the fact that they had recently calculated they were using twice the men and paying over two times more for white laborers in the city of Charleston than they were for slaves laborers in the country (Starobin 1970:145).
Throughout the British (1763-1781) and Second Spanish Periods (1781-1821), the
Pensacola area incorporated slavery as an important part of the labor system of wealthy estates and plantations; but the prominence of wetlands and river areas meant that traditional Southern patterns of economic production did not always apply (Rosborough 2004:26-41). Florida most likely started used slaves for labor in factories and mills early on in the 19th century due to the rapid growth of these industries throughout the state. In Pensacola Bay, there was also a need to stay competitive with neighboring New Orleans as their population grew and trade related maritime activities boomed. On the Spanish census of West Florida taken in 1820, there were
380 free whites and 73 slaves reportedly working in milling and agriculture in the area (Spanish
Census of1820 cited in Rosborough 2004:46). There were also a growing number of immigrants settling on the banks of the Escambia River to farm, and they became an important support network for the growing industrial communities surrounding Pensacola. So why didn't Florida incorporate its immigrant population into the industrial labor force in the same pattern as
Northern industry?
Immigrants faced a demand for labor jobs throughout the South that they could not fill. In truth, they only made up about 5% of the population of the South prior to the Civil War, and 1-
2% of the population of Santa Rosa County between 1850 and 1860, even though labor and
19 industry jobs made up 50-77% of the economy (Figures 1 and 2). Employers desiring a white
work force had fifteen native born men to hire for every immigrant, and those more concerned
with their pocket books turned to slavery to save money and ensure a more profitable business.
(United States Bureau of the Census 1850a, 1860a; Berlin and Gutman 1983:1176).
1850 1860 Labor Labor 2% 6% Farming 3% Farming 16% 7%
42% Industry Industry 8% 11% 28% Construction Construction 14% 63% Merchant Merchant Misc
FIGURE 1. Santa Rosa County Census Occupations, 1850 and 1860
1850 Demographics 1860 Demographics
1% 1% 2% 0% Free White Free White 25% Slaves Slaves 26% Immigrants Immigrants 72% Free Blacks 73% Free Blacks
FIGURE 2. Santa Rosa County Census Demographics, 1850 and 1860
Certain patterns of nationality and occupation developed in the 19th century which limited the free work force even further. While some native farmers and industry men became successful operating their own businesses, young men of the Southern countryside fell victim to the allure
of growing urban areas nearby. Cities were expanding fast, and a larger proportion of jobs in
urban areas were available to free whites than they were in the country. Agriculture and labor
20 were considered by many to be slave work, so some native white men who would otherwise have worked in those industries chose to become small businessmen and artisans in bigger towns and cities. A large number of city clerks were young single men, formerly of small towns, who aspired to management positions. These jobs, as well as skilled craftsmen and professionals, were usually filled by native born men. Immigrants often took the unskilled positions left by the disappearance of lower and middle-class Southerners in both urban and rural places (Berlin and
Gutman 1983:1191-1192).
The general lack of historical consideration for the impact of immigrants on Southern economy and culture during the Antebellum period is possibly a result of the lack of enthusiasm many had for the influx of foreigners throughout the South, as well as the fact that the proportion of slaves to immigrants was so great that the overshadowing of immigrant labor by slavery is unavoidable. There were still immigrant laborers and some lower-class whites performing the same jobs under similar conditions as slaves working in industry, and often side by side with them. Still, as economic and labor systems developed in the South which relied on slavery to fill the demand for masses of cheap labor, so did the labor systems of Northwest Florida both agricultural and industrial.
Arcadia Mill Industrial Complex
The town of Milton, Florida was built up as the result of a milling boom in the early
Antebellum Period. Several Santa Rosa County towns became established as mill communities grew and incorporated new settlers to farm and keep livestock nearby (Phillips 1998:143;
Rosborough 2004:57). Several of these mills have been re-discovered and archaeologically documented including Arcadia, David Taitt's Perdido Bay sawmill, James Bruce's Carpenter's
Creek mill, and the "Old English Sawmill" on Spanish Mill Creek. Milton was no exception; the
21 growth of Arcadia Mill and its subsequent Bagdad location provided the foundations for a strong,
labor-based community to grow and eventually thrive throughout the area.
The vast forests of yellow pine that covered the mainland of West Florida and grew
throughout the snaking estuaries of the Escambia and Blackwater rivers ensnared entrepreneurs
from very early in the region's historical development. The Spanish began cutting and shipping
yellow pine to Cuba in the 1740's, which would have remained a beneficial arrangement until
Cuba was lost to the British during the Seven Years' War (Rucker 1988:147). While there are no
recorded mills in operation during the Spanish Period, their interest in the industry is clear.
Perhaps they lacked the infrastructure to support such a large undertaking, or feared permanent establishments outside of the safety net of Pensacola Bay where occasional raids by hostile
Native Americans were reported. The fact remains that areas thought to have been connected to
early Spanish logging and settlement were later developed by millers during the British and
Second Spanish Periods. While limited, pursuits into water-powered industry did increase under
the British, who constructed at least four sawmills near Pensacola. Further growth was seen
during the Second Spanish occupation when six sawmills opened. The end of Spanish Florida
and early days of the Territorial (or Early American) Period became, without a doubt, the
beginning of West Florida's logging boom (Phillips 1998:3-4).
Arcadia Mills
The area around Arcadia was first recognized as a potential mill site by prominent
Pensacola politician Juan de la Rua, who moved to the area in 1791 and managed to embed
himself in polite society through an advantageous marriage to Margarita Bonifay in 1810
(Rucker 1988:147). The aspiring businessman and manufacturer acquired a land grant for the
tract upon which Arcadia would be developed in 1817. The area was located three miles up Pond
22 Creek from the Blackwater River and twenty-five miles from Pensacola proper. It encompassed
800 arpents of land, and as an arpent equates to 0.85 acres the tract was roughly 680 acres
(American State Papers 1789-1838:181). Rua scouted and began clearing an area of fast moving waters along Pond Creek; construction may have begun during this period, but his position in the
Spanish army and election as mayor of Pensacola kept him distracted. After having some problems with Native Americans in the area, and difficulties keeping dependable labor, he sold the site to Joseph Forsyth in 1828 (King 1972:28).
Forsyth was a northerner whose family moved to New Orleans and later Pensacola to take part in the growing industries of the Gulf Coast. His father was captain of a vessel that transferred goods and slaves between the port cities. After opening a general goods store in
Pensacola in 1824, Forsyth was eager to expand his business interests by getting involved in the logging industry. He was only 26 years old when he bought Juan de la Rua's land in what would become Santa Rosa County, and began planning the erection of Arcadia sawmill on Pond Creek.
Arcadia's success was heavily influenced by Forsyth's ability to invest in its construction, so he entered into a partnership with Ezekiel and Andrew Simpson in order to fund its development.
The young entrepreneurs’ father was a sawmill owner and built Woodbine mill on Escambia Bay some years earlier, which he left to two of his other sons, John and James Simpson. Ezekiel and
Andrew meant to continue in the family business, so they took their plans to Forsyth and the partners went to work.
By 1830, Forsyth and the Simpson brothers completed construction of the first sawmill and the dam that formed the mill pond at Arcadia. This segment of Arcadia's development was a massive undertaking. It included quarrying tons of local ironstone to build a fifteen feet high dam which formed a mill pond and diverted the creek's channel toward the sawmill; this also required
23 a new portion of river channel to be dug. To transport pine trees from the northern woods, a log
flume (Elliott's flume) expanding as far as eighteen miles was built to bring the logs cut and
prepared by lumbermen from their original location to the sawmill for processing; another
(Twitchell's flume) was built for local transport. The mill itself required a large waterwheel to
turn the quick-flowing waters of the creek into power to run the saws which turned logs into
lumber. From there the lumber required transport to Pensacola where it could be shipped throughout the Gulf Coast (Rucker 1988:149-151).
At this point another important figure in Arcadia's development became invested in the project. Timothy Twitchell moved to Pensacola from New Hampshire after Florida was acquired by the U.S. in 1821. He hoped to establish himself as a businessman in the port city, and had his eye on investing in the production and transport of cotton (Rucker 2006:4-5). After meeting
Forsyth and the Simpsons he purchased a quarter of the Arcadia tract to set up his own portion of
the business which soon included a sawmill, shingle mill, and the Arcadia Pail Factory (Santa
Rosa County Deed Book A-1:12-13 cited in Overman 1939; Pensacola Gazette 1838, 1842).
Over the next few years the construction at Arcadia continued and was often chronicled by local papers such as the Pensacola Gazette. By 1835 they had at least two lumber saws capable of producing over 250,000 feet of lumber a year. The complex soon expanded to include dwellings for its growing work force, a gristmill, a blacksmith's shop, and planing and lathing machines
(Pensacola Gazette 1835, 1837).
1835 was also the year that Twitchell, Forsyth, and Ezekiel Simpson formed the Pond
Creek and Blackwater River Canal Co. They received $10,000 of capital for the building of a large canal for transportation from Pond Creek to the mouth of the Blackwater. One of the
Arcadia log flumes was used to connect their two mill ponds and provided additional water-
24 power to Twitchell's mill (Rucker 1990:23). All of the hopes entertained by these men upon
entering the emerging world of lumbering in West Florida seemed to be coming to fruition as
demand for yellow pine increased, and their impressive output began providing the returns
necessary to invest in the expansion of the business.
When a railroad was proposed for construction between Pensacola and Columbus,
Georgia, the Arcadia owners were thrilled to hear that it would pass right by Arcadia and provide
ground transportation for goods and materials to and from the complex. Forsyth invested in the project to get involved in the growing textile manufacture business, so not long after the railroad project went forward he decided to construct a textile mill at Arcadia (Pensacola Gazette 1835;
Phillips 1993:35).
As plans for the textile mill went forward, the Escambia Manufacturing Company was incorporated in 1835 to build the necessary structures to produce cotton and textiles. Its original members Joseph Forsyth, Andrew and Ezekiel Simpson, George Willis, and Henry Ahrens were granted $60,000 of capitol stock to get the project running (Laws of the Territory of Florida 1835 cited in Rucker 1988:153). For a period of time plans did not go forward as expected or desired.
A financial panic spreading through the area in 1837 killed many local development projects and spread fear among investors. The Bank of Pensacola which supported much of the local land speculation closed as a result in June of 1837. The Canal Co. still planned on building a large canal to connect Pond Creek with the Blackwater River in hopes of increasing their ability to move lumber and textiles more efficiently. But even with the $10,000 initial capital, the project was abandoned by 1838. Also abandoned was the Pensacola to Georgia railroad project (known as the Alabama, Florida, Georgia Railroad), to the dismay of Forsyth who had been heavily
25 invested. Coincidentally, so had the Bank of Pensacola (Dodd 1929:45-46; Rucker 1988:153-
155).
Presumably, at this point in time Arcadia's owners were experiencing some financial setbacks. In late 1835 they put the sawmill up for sale in hopes of raising money for the textile mill, but with no bites, they took it off the market by 1836 (Pensacola Gazette 1836). In 1838 they proposed a change in direction for the Canal Co.; it was renamed the Arcadia Railroad
Company and began construction on a three mile long mule-powered rail and cart system connecting Arcadia to the mouth of the Blackwater. The railroad also created opportunities for the exploitation of natural ironstone deposits around Arcadia. Numerous quarries were created for the mining of stone for sale to local businesses. The Pensacola Navy Yard purchased almost
$30,000 worth for the construction of harbor defense forts in Pensacola Bay. Still, the Arcadia
Railroad was only operational between 1838-1840, transporting processed lumber and ironstone to the Blackwater for shipping (King 1972:28; Pensacola Gazette 1840,1841).
Though production was high at Arcadia and Twitchell's mills and shingle factory, in 1838
Forsyth and Simpson were considering major changes to the complex. The recent introduction of steam power to Pensacola forced them to consider the benefits of switching from water to steam- powered mills (Rucker 1990:18). In addition, the railroad was functional but often slow and troublesome. Forsyth proposed moving their lumber activities to a new steam-powered mill at the end of the railroad, on the Blackwater River, with the hope of creating a more efficient and profitable business. The new sawmill was constructed swiftly and named after its location in the town of Bagdad. Forsyth hired several professional millers to build and run the Bagdad mill including James Creary of New York, Richard Bushnell of Connecticut, and Benjamin Overman of North Carolina. All three joined the Forsyth and Simpson Company shortly after and became
26 intricately involved in the running of the business (Overman 1939 cited in Rucker 1988). Their expertise was extremely beneficial to the company, and by 1842 the mill was producing over
$100,000 worth of lumber a year due to its more efficient power supply and direct access to shipping routes on the Blackwater (Pensacola Gazette 1842).
Around the time that Forsyth and Simpson moved to Bagdad, Twitchell began experimenting with silk production. Proponents of silk manufacture had been pushing the South to adopt the practice for some time, and the prospects seemed good for the local economy and those producing the exotic fabric (Williams 1937:109-110). Twitchell planted 8 acres of mulberry trees and purchased 400,000 silk worms, which he housed in a two story state of the art
"cocoonery" (Pensacola Gazette 1841). Though he put great effort into establishing his silk business, the supposed silk boom never came to Pensacola. The financial crisis in 1837 instigated an economic downturn, and by 1839 the collapse of the American silk industry was complete
(Wyckoff 1883:37-42). Twitchell had barely moved the silkworms into their spacious accommodations when the market dried up and he was forced to re-evaluate his future at
Arcadia. In 1841 he briefly put his property and mills up for sale and planned on leaving the area. This was in the same brief period when Forsyth and Simpson moved practically all of their production to Bagdad, and Arcadia was all but abandoned (Rucker 1990:334-335; Pensacola
Gazette 1841).
Had a buyer come forward, Twitchell would most certainly have left, the fate of his mills uncertain. But none came, and Twitchell decided to stay in Florida and expand his business. He built the Arcadia Pail Factory in late 1841, with an adjoining blacksmith's shop. According to
Pensacola shipping manifests (Rucker 2006:20), Twitchell's water-powered machinery assembled wooden buckets using juniper and white cedar wood. His machines were so effective
27 they could turn out 6 juniper pails in 30 minutes. The factory was manned by only four workers,
both free and slave, and the products were received with admiration from the press (United
States Bureau of the Census 1840; Pensacola Gazette 1841, 1842). Twitchell did not have to wait
long for production to resume at Arcadia. The economic downturn resulted in a major decrease in
the cost of cotton, and in response the textile industry began to grow throughout Florida (Griffin
1962:261-263). Forsyth finally saw his opportunity to take part in the coming textile boom, so in
1845 he ordered machinery and looms from Rhode Island, and began construction on a two-story
water-powered cotton factory at Arcadia. After a small delay in the shipping of their materials,
the factory was up and running by April of 1846 (Pensacola Gazette 1845, 1846).
The Escambia Manufacturing Co. changed its name to the Arcadia Manufacturing Co. in
1845, and garnered significant local and regional attention by the time its textile mill was in
operation (Laws of the State of Florida 1845:139; Griffin 1962:264). This attention reflected not
only Southern attitudes toward its place in the economic and industrial configuration of America,
and the need for the South to become independent of Northern industry, but Southern opinions
on slave labor outside of the plantation. From early in their operations and construction, Forsyth
and the Simpsons used slave labor to build and run the successful industrial complex. Arcadia's
reliance on slave labor was a divisive subject in the region, which can be seen in the virtual media circus that surrounded the hiring of forty skilled female slaves to work at the textile factory (Greensboro Patriot 1845; New Orleans Daily Picayune 1845; Tuscumbia North
Alabamian 1845; Pensacola Gazette 1841, 1846). Details about the Arcadia slaves will be discussed later in this chapter. As for the textile mill, it was quickly and efficiently producing
6,000 yards of yarn and cloth a week for sale and shipment to New Orleans. In the beginning it operated 960 spindles and 24 looms, and was estimated at a total investment of $60,000
28 (Pensacola Gazette 1846, 1848). Their initial success prompted Simpson and Forsyth to purchase more machinery and slaves (now numbering 100 in the factory), and by 1850 they were
producing almost double the amount of cloth a week, with the mill's total investment up to
$80,000 (United States Bureau of the Census 1850c). By 1853, Arcadia was making 624,000
yards of cloth annually, making it the largest cotton factory in Florida (Debow’s Review
1853:329).
While the company seemed to be prospering, the capital necessary to provide the textile
mill with raw cotton, machinery, and slaves was practically equal to the profit they were getting
from selling the product. Their rate of return in 1850 was only about 5%, compared to 100% at
the Bagdad mill. By 1852, they were going into debt (Escambia County Circuit Court Records
1853). Soon after, a tragedy befell the company. At this point there were male and female slaves working in the textile mill under the supervision of three experienced white women brought in from factories in New York. Unfortunately, in 1853 a yellow fever epidemic hit Pensacola and two of the overseers died. They were the Dennison sisters from Newburgh, N.Y. Though there are conflicting reports on this matter, it is most likely that they are the same sisters from New
York that had recently married locally to James Creary and James Hanley. Overman (1939:16) reported their identity as the Dennison sisters, but claims that they married James Creary and
Ezekiel Simpson. The 1850 Census does not, however, show Ezekiel married to a younger woman from New York. The Pensacola Gazette's report of the sister's deaths also lists them as
Mary Creary and Ann Hanley (Pensacola Gazette 1853; United States Bureau of the Census
1850a). Another woman from New York, Sarah West (35yrs), is shown living in E.E. Simpson's house in the 1860 census (United States Bureau of the Census 1860a). It is possible that she may be the third factory supervisor. By that point the two young daughters of Forsyth were living
29 with the Simpsons, and it is possible that after her job at the factory no longer existed she stayed
on as a caretaker for the girls in the wake of their father's death.
Nevertheless, production continued at Arcadia between 1853 and 1855, but under
growing financial strain. By this point, Twitchell had already closed all of his operations in the
wake of his brother's death. His property was sold to Henry Ahrens (an Arcadia stock holder) and
he moved back to New Hampshire in 1851 (Rucker 1990:361; Santa Rosa County Deed Book
R:91-92 cited in Overman 1939). This somewhat soured the success of the Arcadia Cotton
Factory, as Simpson and Forsyth had for so long enjoyed a partnership with Twitchell. Interest in
the Arcadia Complex began to wane. Unfortunately, in 1855 Joseph Forsyth fell ill and
preparations were made for E.E. Simpson to take over the company upon his demise. He passed
away on March 10; his shares in Forsyth & Simpson Co. were sold at auction and the company
was renamed the E.E. Simpson Co. (Forsyth Papers 1805-1855; Pensacola Gazette 1855).
In another string of tragedies, the Arcadia Cotton Factory burned to the ground two
months after Forsyth's death; it was followed a month later by the burning of the Bagdad "Sash
and Door" factory also operated by the firm. In the face of these setbacks, many of the Arcadia
slaves were sold, including 25 of Forsyth's and those of the shareholders, with an offer for thirty to forty more if they weren't sold privately (Pensacola Gazette 1855). The company voted not to
rebuild the textile mill and in February 1856 Arcadia was put up for sale (Pensacola Gazette
1856). Simpson continued with his successful business at Bagdad, but never sold the Arcadia property, and so it remained part of the Simpson family estate. From this point, knowledge about what became of the mills and the mill community is less clear. Apparently, some of the inhabitants remained there and continued working for the Simpsons. After the Civil War hit
Florida in 1862, the dam complex was damaged by actions, presumably by Lieutenant Colonel
30 William K. Beard's 1st Florida Regiment, to destroy the remaining mill features so as to prevent
the Union from manufacturing lumber for their campaign. The massive gap left in the mill pond dam by Confederate explosives is still very much present today. The regiment also reported
damaging Simpson's Bagdad mill, as well as his house in their attempt to destroy all mill activity
between Pensacola and Milton.
Over the next two years several other incidents were reported around Arcadia, including
one skirmish that resulted in the death of a Confederate cavalryman. According to personal and
company records, both Union and Rebel soldiers made use of a house/cabin near Pond Creek
which was reportedly nearby some slave quarters. Whether these were indeed the Arcadia slave
quarters or perhaps an undocumented overseer's cabin can only be speculated (Mabeltini and
Phillips 2012:4-6; Rucker 1988:163-164). After this period the Arcadia complex was most likely
abandoned and quickly reclaimed by the forest. Simpson's lumber mill in Bagdad became an
international supplier of yellow pine, and continued after his death in 1875. Massive
deforestation finally led to its closing in 1939 (King 1972:29-33; Overman 1939:Part 1). Despite
the Arcadia complex collapsing, Simpson and his descendants continued to live nearby, and the
site of his house which stood until a fire felled it in the 1930's has recently been investigated by
the University of West Florida (UWF). The surrounding grounds known as the "Simpson Lot"
were surveyed and underwent targeted excavations in 2012.
The legacy of Arcadia's founders has loomed large in the community, and their
contribution to Northwest Florida remains a vital piece of early industrial history. Local interest
in reclaiming the site of Florida's first water-powered industrial complex led to the rediscovery of
the site in the largely undeveloped and overgrown woodlands west of Milton proper by historian
Warren Weekes in 1964. In 1987-1988 Arcadia was added to the National Register of Historic
31 Places and much of the land tract was purchased by the University of West Florida in order to
preserve and investigate the site as a valuable part of regional heritage. The first archaeological
testing occurred in 1988 and was followed by excavations under the University of West Florida
in 1990 and 1991.
The Santa Rosa Historical Society was able to obtain a state grant to construct a visitor
center, boardwalk, and trails that allow visitors to tour the site and learn about the archaeological
and historical components of Arcadia being brought to the forefront through ongoing
investigations. The development of public archaeology at Arcadia has continued to advance as
guests now have the chance to experience guided tours which feature informative panels
complete with artist renderings, photos, and maps throughout the site (Beck and Lees 2009:9-
11). The visitor's center has been turned into a museum which offers public events, lectures, and
volunteer opportunities for those interested in getting involved with excavations through the
University of West Florida's Archaeology Institute--which has continued to investigate new
aspects of the site through field schools every summer since 2009.
The Forsyth and Simpson Saga
Joseph Forsyth (Figure 3) and Ezekiel Ewing Simpson built an empire on the banks of the
Blackwater River. It seemed that enterprise was in their blood, as each was able to build on the success of their fathers, both active in the Pensacola markets. Their partnership was so successful that the Arcadia and Bagdad mills they operated not only produced goods sold around the world, but created an economic center which led to the development of the towns of Milton and
Bagdad. In fact, many of their descendants still live there to this day. But what was the road to success like for these bright young men and what happened after the Arcadia mills closed?
32
FIGURE 3. Joseph Forsyth. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
Joseph Forsyth was the elder of the two (by a year) and the shorter lived (by twenty), but he was considered the pioneer of the Forsyth-Simpson Company. It was his idea to buy the land from Juan de la Rua in 1828 and push forward construction on the sawmill and surrounding earthworks. This business venture would have complimented the work his father was involved in, running a transport schooner called "Elizabeth" between the ports of Pensacola and New
Orleans. The late 1820's and 1830's saw many new settlers moving into Louisiana and Texas that needed building materials and labor. This was a large source of business for exporters throughout
Northwest Florida, as well as shipyards and shipping. James Forsyth (1775-1866) was capitalizing on this boom through the transport of lumber and slaves out west, and the movement of slaves from the active markets of New Orleans back to Pensacola (Appleyard 2006:4;
National Archives and Records, New Orleans Slave Manifests 1807-1860).
33 The Forsyth's were from Connecticut, but in 1815 James moved the family to New Orleans
to start his lumber transport business. His brother Dr. Gideon Forsyth came along and became
the first quarantine physician of New Orleans (Biographical and Historical Memoirs of Louisiana
1892:383). James was married to a woman named Betsey Lee, with whom he had children
Joseph Sill (born May 26, 1802 in New London, Connecticut) and Adelia (born c. 1810) (United
States Vital Records). Joseph relocated to Pensacola around 1825 under suspicious
circumstances. Appleyard (2006:4) states that he was involved in a dispute with a Frenchman in
New Orleans that ended in the Frenchman's death at Forsyth's hands. Fleeing for his life, he set
off for Pensacola in a dugout canoe with nothing but a compass to make a fresh start in the
territory of Florida. The validity of this story is somewhat questionable though, as Rucker
(1988:149) and Overman (1939:16) refer to it as an unsubstantiated legend. Either way, he did
arrive in Pensacola and shortly attained a job working at John Hunt's brick yard with materials
for the Pensacola forts and Navy yard. He also opened a general store in town. But it was not
long until he set his sights on milling and entered into a partnership with Ezekiel and Andrew
Pickens Simpson.
What else is known of Forsyth from this period? He was still a young man, and appeared
ambitious and willing to try out different avenues to success. He would not marry for many more years, so it is quite possible that he was still living with his parents. The 1830 census lists two
males between 20 and 30 living with James Forsyth in Escambia County, as well as a woman
(presumably his wife Betsey) between 40 and 50, and two girls under 20 years (one is likely his
daughter Adelia). Even though he was born and raised for some time in the free state of
Connecticut, it is clear that his father had little scruples about the practice of slavery, since in
1830 he owned four slaves and had been working in the transport of slaves for at least seven
34 years (United States Bureau of the Census 1830; National Archives and Records, New Orleans
Slave Manifests 1806-1860). Joseph would become one of the largest slave owners in West
Florida over the next two decades (Rivers 2000:71), so it seems appropriate to investigate what
influence his father's dealings with the slave trade had on Joseph and whether this can provide any insight into the acquisition and use of slaves at Arcadia Mills.
Between the years of 1823 and 1845 James Forsyth moved at least 170 enslaved individuals between Pensacola and New Orleans aboard his schooner the "Elizabeth," and of
these, 91 were bound for Pensacola. Slave manifests available through the National Archives
reveal the names and ages of these people, though Forsyth rarely ever recorded who he was
transporting them to, so following their journey past the shores of their destination is difficult.
Still, certain aspects of his job are inferable from these documents. James made many of these
trips with only one or two passengers, and aside from one passage with over 40 slaves, he never
traveled with more than fifteen. The majority of slaves he brought into Pensacola were teenagers,
but the majority of slaves he brought to New Orleans were men in their 20's or 30's. Also, it
seems probable that several of the manifests have recorded the sale of whole families that are
traveling together, as well as women traveling with their infants (National Archives and Records
Administration, New Orleans Slave Manifests 1807-1860).
Whether these patterns are indicative of the domestic slave trade in the Gulf is unknown.
But there is no doubt that the slaves James Forsyth was taking into Pensacola in the 1830's and
1840's would have been largely compatible with the age and sex ratio of the expanding Arcadia
work force. Is it possible that any of these slaves were being transported by James to a new home
at Arcadia under the ownership of his own son? With projections based on given age and sex for
each of James Forsyth's passengers from the time of transport prior to 1840, there is a good
35 amount of compatibility with the slaves listed on the U.S. Slave Schedules under the ownership
of Joseph Forsyth that year (Figure 4). Of the 34 male slaves Joseph Forsyth owned at the time,
22 of them are in compatible age ranges to those brought to Pensacola by his father. And of his 5
female slaves, all 5 are potential matches to his father's charges. The style of the 1840 census
does not allow for exact comparison unfortunately, due to its slave listings registering individuals
only by an age range and with no names or familial indicators.
FIGURE 4. Slaves transported into Pensacola by James Forsyth, 1823-1845. At the time of the 1850 census, each slave was listed individually along with age and race,
though again without names. A direct comparison of the 166 slaves Joseph Forsyth owned that
year, with the sexes and projected ages of the 91 slaves his father transported into Pensacola
between 1823 and 1845, resulted in 16 directly compatible males and 10 directly compatible
females (United States Bureau of the Census 1840, 1850b; National Archives and Records, New
36 Orleans Slave Manifests 1807-1860). Nevertheless, without names attached to the matched
slaves listed under Joseph Forsyth on the 1850 census, there is no way to positively identify if these are any of the same individuals without further documentary evidence. Still, there is a
strong possibility that of the 53 matches between 1840 and 1850, some of these could be slaves
delivered to Joseph Forsyth by his father James.
To be clear, 19th century census records are notoriously inaccurate when it comes to age,
especially so when it came to slave records. The recorded ages of any of the individuals ferried
by James Forsyth or owned by Joseph could have changed from census to census depending on
several factors. It was often only an estimation or guess in the first place, so to put too much trust
in manifest or census record ages for enslaved African Americans would be foolhardy. Also,
judging by the fact that Joseph was living at home in 1830 and his household only lists four
slaves at the time, it is most likely that none of the slaves transported by James before 1830 can
be considered for potential cross-overs. This removes seven from the total number for
comparison. However, Rucker (1988:151) does mention that around 1830 the partners purchased
a number of slaves to work in the mill, so the possibility for slaves being brought over around
1830 does increase.
The best evidence probably comes from a demographic examination of the two
populations. In the 1830's when Arcadia was first expanding, it primarily used male laborers for
construction and sawmill operation. This is reflected in Joseph Forsyth's slave ownings in 1840,
where the largest proportion of his slaves (and 67% of the total number of slaves owned between
Forsyth, E.E. Simpson, and Timothy Twitchell) were young men between the ages of 24 and 36
(Figure 5). During this period James Forsyth was delivering more enslaved men in their twenties
to Pensacola than he had in the 1820's or would in the 1840's, which would have matched the
37 kinds of slaves Forsyth was purchasing for Arcadia. Later, when the lumber activity moved to
Bagdad and the cotton factory had begun, there was an increase in young women working at
Arcadia. The local papers reported that Joseph Forsyth bought forty skilled female workers in
Virginia, and by 1850 he owned 101 female slaves, the majority of whom were between the ages of 11 and 15 (Figure 6). That is an increase of 96 from the 5 he owned in 1840. Besides the forty from Virginia, it is possible that some of the other 61 women/girls he owned came from the New
Orleans markets. During the mid-1840's his father transported more teenage girls into Pensacola than any other group, so it is possible that some of these girls ended up being the other factory workers at Arcadia (United States Bureau of the Census 1840b, 1850b; National Archives and
Records, New Orleans Shipping Manifests 1807-1860; Pensacola Gazette 1846).
Of course this analysis operates under the assumption that the slaves Joseph Forsyth owned were the Arcadia work force, which is probable but not entirely substantiated. Surely, a small number were domestic servants who did not operate any of the Arcadia or Bagdad mills and may have lived separately from the rest of the laborers at Forsyth's own residence. Also, the number of children under the age of 10 owned by Forsyth rose from 3 in 1840 to 18 in 1850, and while
Forsyth 1840 Forsyth 1850
25 30 20 25 20 15 Men Men 15 10 Women 10 Women 5 5 0 0 0-5 6-10 11- 16- 21- 31- 41- 0-10 10-24 24-36 36-55 15 20 30 40 50
FIGURE 5. Joseph Forsyth's slave FIGURE 6. Joseph Forsyth's slave holdings, 1840. holdings, 1850. 38 they were a part of the Arcadia community, they (along with the mothers of the youngest and perhaps several caretakers) would not have been involved in operations at the site and may have been housed separately (United States Bureau of the Census 1840b, 1850b). So the total number of Forsyth's slaves actually working at Arcadia at any given time would have to be at least 20 less than his total number of slaves in 1850.
There is also the question of corporate over personal ownership. It was common practice in slave-states for businesses to barter in slave ownership between partners and shareholders. While partners might bring their personal slaves in to be used by the company, they might then be considered property of both the individual and the corporation. This might result in confusion when it came to record keeping, census taking, or compensation upon the demise of the business or partnership. It also calls to question whether any individuals owned by the Simpsons or their primary shareholders could have been utilized as labor at Arcadia. Personal records pertaining to these individuals might lend to our understanding of their roles in the company, but in lieu of these the U.S. Census and court records may provide some information that could be used to estimate their involvement. An examination of Forsyth's most trusted partner and friend, Ezekiel
Simpson, may provide a context for best understanding his involvement in Arcadia as both an owner and slave holder.
Forsyth and the Simpson brothers forged a lasting partnership in Arcadia's early days, one which would eventually see the Forsyth & Simpson Company become one of the largest businesses in the region. Business matters were always seemingly split among Forsyth and
Ezekiel (Figure 7), with the latter taking almost complete control of the company after the former's death. In 1830 when Ezekiel and Andrew decided to partner with Forsyth, he made a point of transferring half of his interest in the land and original sawmill to the brothers. Of the
39 two, A.P. seems to have been less involved with day to day operations at Arcadia, as he ended up
moving to New Orleans in 1834. He continued his work in lumbering (including moving lumber
for the company) and married Joseph Forsyth's younger sister Adelia. It is not at all surprising
that the Simpsons were so adept at industrial business; the Simpson family was involved in lumbering before they moved to Florida. In fact, they were considered "lumber barons" in their
former home of South Carolina (Appleyard 2006:4).
FIGURE 7. Ezekiel Ewing Simpson. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
The family made an advantageous friendship with revolutionary war hero Andrew Pickens,
for whom the fort on Santa Rosa Island in Pensacola is named. Pickens married his daughter Ann
(1770-1846) to John Simpson (1768-1823) after her first husband's death. She had a son named
Robert Dowdle from that marriage, and had at least seven more children with John Simpson:
40 Andrew Pickens or "A.P." (1792-1857), John Allen (1801-1863), Ezekiel Ewing or "E.E." (1803-
1875), James Edward (1807-1871), Jane, Rebecca, and Leah. John Simpson Sr. appears to have encouraged his sons towards careers in industry. His own father, John, was a Presbyterian minister, so whatever catalyst brought him to lumbering is a mystery.
The family moved to Pensacola sometime around 1814 to take part in its growing industry. A.P. served in the War of 1812 and spent time in Savannah and parts of Florida, so perhaps he learned of the growing West Florida economy during his travels (United States Vital
Records of South Carolina and Florida, 1800-1890; Biographical and Historical Memoirs of
Louisiana 1892:383). There was also a very prominent businessman in Pensacola prior to their relocation named William Simpson. He was a member of Panton, Leslie & Co., a group of merchants based in Pensacola that traded throughout the Southeast and the Bahamas during the late 18th and early 19th centuries that was based in Pensacola (Panton, Leslie &Co. Papers).
Though there are no records indicating that they were relatives; if they were then perhaps
William invited them to join him there prior to his death in 1813. Regardless, the Simpsons of
Abbeville, South Carolina set up roots on the Blackwater River that have remained there ever since.
John Simpson wasted little time upon their arrival in Pensacola starting his own lumber mill at the head of Escambia Bay. It was running by 1820 and the mill, named Woodbine Mill, was operated largely by his sons John and James, to whom he left the business when he died in
1825 (Rucker 1988:150). Ezekiel and A.P. chose to continue the family business when they bought in to Arcadia in 1830. Whether John Simpson used slave labor in Woodbine Mill is in question, as industrial slave labor was gaining popularity at the time, and his sons would rely heavily on the practice in their own mills. It seems likely, but cannot be confirmed at this time.
41 After his death, Anne Simpson retained 9 slaves, and was likely still living with most of her children (none of her sons were listed as the head of their own households that year). So, if the
Woodbine Mill was using slave labor from the Simpson's own servants, it would have had to be a very limited number, and nothing like the number of slaves seen by the large mill owners of the area like Joseph Forsyth, and eventually Ezekiel Simpson after his partner's death (United States
Bureau of the Census 1830).
It is clear from future census records that of the potential Arcadia laborers owned by the partners and shareholders in the Escambia Manufacturing Co. and later Arcadia Manufacturing
Co., including Timothy Twitchell, that not until after Forsyth's death did any of them own enough slaves to provide a comparable work force to the one Forsyth could have provided. But any potential work force should still be examined. Figure 8 shows the breakdown of slaves owned by Forsyth next to those owned by Simpson between 1830 and 1860.
In 1840 Forsyth owned 39 to E.E.'s 13; in 1850 he had 166 to E.E.'s 31, with three listed under the pair as Forsyth & Simpson Co. Interestingly, Forsyth listed 60 as his personal property and was listed as an "Agent" for the 106 others. The majority of his personal slaves were men and the majority of the "Agent" slaves were women. Perhaps his Bagdad work force consisted of his personal slave holdings, while the cotton factory workers were a collection of women owned by Forsyth and the stockholders--for which he was considered their proprietor as an agent of the company. Judging by the demographics of Simpson's slaves at the time, it is a good indicator that he purchased a large number of men to work in the Bagdad Mill between 1840 and 1850 as well
(United States Bureau of the Census 1830, 1840, 1850b, 1860b).
42
FIGURE 8. Forsyth and Simpson Slave Breakdown, 1840-1860.
The combined strength of Forsyth and Simpson's work force close to 200 in 1850 seems
sufficient for the running of their Arcadia and Bagdad operations. Still, perhaps the slave
holdings of their major shareholders should be considered alongside the owners as a possible
supplemental work force through Arcadia and Bagdad's history. In 1840, Ezekiel's brother A.P.
had 4 slaves, and his brother John Allen (operator of the Woodbine Mill) had 13. Timothy
Twitchell was reported to be using a small number of slaves in addition to his white labor force
to run his mills, and accordingly lists only 5 slaves in the census. In 1850, Ezekiel's other brother,
James, had 6 slaves; business partner Henry Ahrens had only 1; and mill overseers Benjamin
43 Thompson and Benjamin Overman had 15 and 3 respectively. As prominent families in the
community it may be expected that all of these men retained several domestic slaves for their
own households, so with the exception of perhaps the slaves owned by Thompson, they should
not be considered potential Arcadia/Bagdad laborers. Also, unlike Forsyth and Simpson, who
have several groups of slaves listed living in different locations, all of the other investors/overseers have them listed in one location only. This may support their use as domestics living and working only at the owner's residence (United States Bureau of the Census
1830, 1840, 1850b, 1860b).
The only major change in slave investment for the Forsyth & Simpson Co. appears after
the death of its biggest slave owner: Joseph Forsyth. His interest in the company, along with 1/3
of the slaves he considered "company negroes" had an estimated value of $25,000. His 5/12
share of the stock was sold at auction, along with some of his slaves. His will placed the value of
the slaves sold at that time as $241.85 and that of their clothing $110. The Pensacola Gazette
(August 11, 1855) reported that after his death all of the stockholders slaves, as well as 25 of
Forsyth's own were sold, with a promise of up to 40 more should a buyer come forward.
Comparing the value his will assigned to the slaves he left his wife Cordelia, which places a price of $300 on an adult woman named Harriett, and $150 on a male infant, the price of $241.85 for the slaves sold at auction cannot be referring to the 25 noted by the paper, so they must have been sold at a later date than the estate auction. His total slave property equaled $42,550.00. His
1/3 share of "company negroes" probably went to Simpson, as ownership in the company transferred to him in both capital and name (the company was renamed E.E. Simpson & Co.). He also bequeathed 14 of his slaves to Cordelia, and arranged for four others to be sent to a free state and provided for in their new life (University of West Florida Archives, Joseph Forsyth Papers).
44
Forsyth's death came with the destruction of the Arcadia cotton factory, making the
presence of the factory girls largely unnecessary, though there may have been some work for
them in Bagdad or as domestics for Simpson or other stockholders. After the dust cleared, it was
evident by the 1860 Slave Schedules that most of the mill girls had been sold. E.E. Simpson was
now the biggest slave holder in the firm, with 66 males and 9 females. His brothers James and
John had 11 and 18 slaves respectively. Then there were the overseers Forsyth brought in who
remained with the company and would eventually become partners: James Creary, who had 3;
Richard Bushnell, who had 4; Benjamin Overman, who had 29; and Benjamin Thompson, who
had 47. The majority of E.E Simpson, Overman, and Thompson's slaves were men in their prime,
so it would seem that these three might have taken ownership of their share in the company
slaves formerly listed under Forsyth, and were all contributing the work force necessary to run
the Bagdad mills in the wake of the total closure of Arcadia. The 1860 census also lists 31 slave
houses between them as opposed to the 7 listed in 1850 between Forsyth and Simpson, so it is
probably fair to say that there were several areas created during this period in Bagdad and
possibly Arcadia designated for the living areas of these individuals. It may be plausible to
estimate general locations based on Slave Schedule entries, but there can be no certainty of
where these villages were without further archaeological and historical investigation (United
States Bureau of the Census 1850b, 1860).
The fate of the Arcadia/Bagdad slaves is shrouded in mystery from this point on. The
Civil War caused chaos and destruction throughout the area, and after its conclusion the slaves owned by Simpson and his partners were emancipated and free to do as they pleased. What little is known comes from newspaper articles and military records. E.E. Simpson was also well
45 documented during this period due to his involvement with the war and the secession of his adopted state. He represented Santa Rosa County in the Florida Secession Convention (and was reportedly the wealthiest delegate present, worth an estimated $2.5 million) and fully supported leaving the Union (Clark 2000:31), he also contributed monetarily to the war effort. When a cavalry company was organized in Milton in 1861 it was named the Simpson Mounted Rangers in his honor. They were mustered into service as Company E of the 15th Confederate Calvary. As a 58 year old man Simpson did not fight personally, but remained committed to the cause. Still, when it was clear that the Union would be campaigning in Florida, the majority of Bagdad's residents fled with their families to Greenville, Alabama, Simpson most likely among them.
In Alabama, the refugees operated a plantation to support themselves, no doubt off of the labor of the slaves they brought with them. Some of Simpson’s and the partners’ slaves would have surely gone along, but just how many is unknown. Some may have stayed in Milton or
Bagdad under the supervision of James Creary, who remained behind to watch over the company's interests there. Unfortunately, when the Union came through Bagdad on March 11,
1862, they burned not only the Bagdad mill, but also homes owned by Simpson, Bushnell,
Overman, and other mill workers. Creary was taken prisoner by Federal troops and briefly imprisoned, but was eventually set free (Appleyard 2006:17). Further losses to the Arcadia landscape ensued when Confederate troops destroyed the Arcadia mill and part of the dam that formed the mill pond, in hopes of foiling any plans by Union troops to use the abandoned mill to support their entrenchment in Pensacola. When Simpson returned, he had to rebuild not only his own businesses, but the towns of Milton and Bagdad as well.
Though the war was traumatic for the residents of the South, especially those involved heavily with agriculture and industry, life seemed generally positive for Ezekiel Simpson in the
46 years directly preceding and following the event. His diligent planning for the financial stability
of his company by investing in Northern banks prior to the war meant that he had the capital to
rebuild and even expand his businesses. He built a larger mill in Bagdad with cutting-edge
equipment, and soon constructed another on an island in the Blackwater river called the "Island
Mill." He also ran the Bagdad shipyard that Joseph Forsyth purchased shortly before his death.
Between all of his ventures he employed most of Bagdad, and became one of the most prominent
leaders in the town (Appleyard 2006:18-20).
Personally, E.E. had come through quite a lot prior to his great successes. He married his
first wife, Sophia Allen of Boston, on July 30, 1840. It was a good marriage for E.E., although he
was twenty years older than Sophia, who was only 17 at the time of their wedding. They didn't
have a child (or at least none that survived) until the arrival of E.E., Jr. in 1847, by which time the original E.E. was already 44 years old. Unfortunately in the same year, perhaps from complications after childbirth, Sophia passed away. Her mother, Mrs. Allen, came to live with
E.E. to help take care of the baby, which is attested to in the 1850 census. There is also the possibility of a short marriage to Ann Dennison (the factory supervisor from New York) at some point between 1850 and her death in 1853, but as previously stated the evidence of this is not forthcoming. Finally, E.E. married Susan A. Overman in late 1853. She was 19, he was 50. Susan was the daughter of one of the millers brought in to build and run the Bagdad mill, Benjamin
Overman. In the 1850 census the Overmans appear to live conveniently two doors down from
E.E. and his son. Their close contact and his partnership with her father undoubtedly led to the match. Susan and E.E. had at least 12 children between their marriage and his death in 1875
(United States Bureau of the Census 1850a).
47 The Simpson house was always quite full after their marriage. In the 1860 census they are
living with five children (including E.E., Jr. from Ezekiel’s first marriage to Sophia Allen), along
with a woman named Sarah West from New York (possibly the third factory supervisor), and the two young daughters of Joseph Forsyth, Mary (14 years) and Josephine (6 years), who had lost their father in 1855 and their mother Cordelia in 1858. Joseph and Cordelia were married within a year of the 1850 census and had two other daughters, Elizabeth and Isabel, but they were both deceased by 1852 (United States Bureau of the Census 1850a, 1860a).
Cordelia's maiden name was either Creary (a relation of the shareholder James Creary) or
Love, and after Joseph's death she remarried to George Denison in 1857 and had a son named
William. Presumably from complications after his birth, she passed away not long after he was born. Joseph provided well for his wife and children in his will, where he left Cordelia his estate,
and each of his daughters $25,000. As an executer of his will, Ezekiel took care of the girls'
inheritance and took them in when they were orphaned. Neither of them were living with him in
1870. Mary Lee married in 1868 to John Black of Escambia, and Josephine moved into the house
of a lawyer named B.D. Wright in Pensacola. She later married Augustus McCutchon and, like
her sister, had a son she named Joseph Forsyth after the father they barely knew (United States
Bureau of the Census 1850a, 1860a, 1870, 1880).
During this period the Simpsons remained busy building their family despite E.E.'s advancing age, and by 1870 had 10 children, three of which were born during the Civil War
(1861-1865) when they were likely living in Alabama. Emancipation may have provided the opportunity for all of their slaves (75 as of 1860) to relocate and pursue other lines of work, but it was common for ex-slaves to remain as domestic servants and laborers for their former masters.
The 1870 census lists four black domestics living at the Simpson residence that could represent
48 ex-slaves of the family that were kept on and were finally able to be recognized by name on the
official census records. These individuals were Adelia Jarvis, 35, originally from Alabama; Laura and Sarah Harmon, 30 and 15, from Alabama and Florida respectively; and Harmon Gaskens (or
Gaskens Harmon if the census taker mistakenly recorded his given name first), 70, of Virginia.
All four were illiterate and can be assumed, in the case of the Harmon's, to be related in some manner (United States Bureau of the Census 1860b, 1870). A family of the size and considerable fortune of the Simpsons would have most likely relied on a cook, maid, butler, and baby nurse for the children, so perhaps that was why these individuals were all living with them at the time.
The family dynamic no doubt changed dramatically after the death of Ezekiel Ewing
Simpson on April 3, 1875. Susan had just delivered a baby girl and had two other toddlers under the age of 5 at the time. E.E., Jr. had been working as a book keeper (perhaps for Simpson &
Co.?) in 1870, upon his father's death he was 28 years old and had left home, perhaps to marry and run his own household. The eldest daughter, Kate, was 18 and had probably left home to marry as well. Susan must have had had to rely heavily on the next oldest children, Joseph (20) and Clara (17), to see to the care of their younger siblings Annie (15), Frank (14), Horace (13),
Richard (12), Charles (8), Arthur (4), Ida (2), and the newborn Ellen. With five boys ranging from 8 to 15 to take care of, it can be presumed that they had their hands full. It is possible that their domestic servants left upon Ezekiel's death, since in 1880 none of them remain in the
Simpson's house. There is only one servant, a black woman named Eliza Garisson, 30, of
Alabama, living with them at the time (United States Bureau of the Census 1870, 1880).
Even after the deaths of Forsyth and Simpson their business remained a staple of the
Milton and Bagdad communities. These "mill towns" provided employment for hundreds of people and continued to be a staging ground for the integration of white and African-American
49 workers. The Bagdad mill complex and lumber yard continued to be successful long after
Simpson & Co.'s end. It was eventually sold to a Chicago syndicate that renamed it Stearns &
Culver Lumber Co., then finally the Bagdad Land & Lumber Co in 1912. Though ownership
changed hands yet again after this the name remained the same until the Bagdad mills closed for
good in 1938 (Appleyard 2006:19-20). Forsyth and Simpson are remembered as powerful and
influential members of the community, and their contribution to the development of the region remains an important chapter in the heritage of Santa Rosa County to this day.
The Arcadia Slaves
Records concerning the Arcadia slaves are virtually silent on their identities and histories.
But through deeds of sale and census records it is possible to track the development of the slave community and its general size and demography. Joseph Forsyth's will provides further information about the fate of the Arcadia work force. Other ways in which a more detailed history and sense of impact on the surrounding community can be developed come from the examination of newspaper articles chronicling the areas reaction to the presence of skilled slave labor at Arcadia, and the personal memoir of a family relation which may provide possible insights into the daily lives and work of the Arcadia community.
Demographics
In the early years of growth at Arcadia the Forsyth & Simpson Co. probably utilized a number of slaves in the building of its earthworks and logging mill. They most likely also had male slaves working the mill under a white overseer. A similar story seems to have been the case for Twitchell's early operations at his mill and shingle and bucket factories. The 1830 census shows that Twitchell had 18 slaves, 12 of which were working age males. Information on E.E.
Simpson from the same year only comes from the census of his family home, listed under his
50 mother Anne Simpson, who had 9 slaves, 7 possible working age males and 2 girls. Joseph
Forsyth was living with his father James on the census and so the 4 slaves owned by the
Forsyth's are listed under the family's name (United States Bureau of the Census 1830). Some of these slaves are presumably household servants. Judging by the reasonably small number of slaves owned by Forsyth and Simpson at the time, it is possible they were renting or borrowing slaves from relatives or shareholders for extra manpower at the mill. This practice would not have lasted for long; Forsyth purchased a number of slaves shortly after, and by 1840 he owned
39 slaves. About 29 of them were working age males, with several women and children. Simpson only had 5 men and 2 women, so it is more likely that Forsyth was providing the work force for the mill at this time (Escambia County Courthouse, Deed Book C: 475; United States Bureau of the Census 1840).
By this time the Arcadia slaves were living in a small community (or several) somewhere near the Arcadia site and establishing families, as can be seen by the increase of women and children alongside the large male work force. While more laborers were needed as operations at
Arcadia grew, Twitchell's business was being downsized along with his labor force. By 1840 he owned 5 slaves and was only operating his pail and bucket factory which was worked by a handful of slaves and white overseers (United States Bureau of the Census 1840). Soon after, he sold his property to Henry Ahrens and moved back north; the deed records from that sale will most likely reveal whether his slaves were sold with the property or not. Throughout the rest of the 1840's, Arcadia continued to increase in number. The most drastic impact on the community came in 1845 when Forsyth traveled to Virginia to purchase 40 skilled female slaves to work in the new textile factory. They were all young, between the ages of fifteen and twenty, and became a large component of the Arcadia community (Pensacola Gazette 1846, 1848). They were joined
51 in 1849 by 60 more slaves, both male and female, who rounded out the labor force used by
Forsyth and Simpson at their various mills and factories (Pensacola Gazette 1849). The influx of female slaves in this period most likely required the building of new dwellings at Arcadia, but whether the slaves were separated by sex or occupation is as yet unknown. Regardless, it is certain that relationships were formed and families were raised at Arcadia throughout the 1840's and 50's. The number of slaves under the age of 10 owned by Forsyth and Simpson rose from 3 in 1840 to 26 in 1850. The slave community itself grew from 46 in 1840 to 169 in 1850 (United
States Bureau of the Census 1840, 1850b).
In the 1850 Slave Schedules it is clear that Forsyth owned the majority of the slaves at
Arcadia. While E.E. Simpson has only 31 at the time, Forsyth has 135. They are listed under six different sections in the census, which might be reflective of where they were housed as the census taker traveled from dwelling to dwelling. It is not certain that their numbers were taken in person by the census taker, since Forsyth might have just informed him of their numbers and ages. He is listed as an "agent" for 87 of his 135 slaves; about 80% of those 87 are female. These are most likely the factory girls and might, in fact, reflect the entirety of the textile workers since there were some men working there at the time as well. Logging operations were still carried out by a large number of male slaves. One of the Forsyth listings (40 individuals) is made up entirely of males between the ages of 20 and 50, who are likely mill workers at either Arcadia or Bagdad.
There is also a listing of a single male (50yrs) and female (35yrs) living alone in one dwelling under Forsyth; the reason for their separation is unclear but it is possible that they were his household servants, or that he granted the couple a house of their own. These distinctive listings make sense if his slaves were separated by occupation and listed according to dwelling locations.
52 Most of his groupings were listed next to or near each other and those of E.E. Simpson, which
would make sense if they were all living at or near Arcadia.
Conditions at Arcadia
One important question that the 1850 Slave Schedule raises is whether the working and living conditions at Arcadia were bad enough to cause slaves to run away? In the census, Joseph
Forsyth has two slaves listed as "fugitives from the state;" one was a 50 year old man and the other was a 22 year old male mulatto. The situation surrounding their fugitive state is unclear, but this was most commonly a reference to slaves that fled for the North. In fact, it has been argued by Starobin (1968:111-115) that comparatively, industrial slavery often produced more runaways than plantation slavery. Conditions in factories and mills were dangerous, especially in the last half of the 19th century. Many industrial workers and loggers lived in constant fear of losing limbs in machinery, and in many cases overseers had to be extremely harsh in order to keep men at their positions. They often worked longer hours than field worker since machines could be run after the sun went down.
The possibility of resistance through refusal to work or the demand of better conditions did exist, and many of these slaves found themselves in a better position to negotiate with their owners and overseers due to the increase in their net worth after they were taught a skill. Still,
appeasement was not always the response these efforts produced. Some overseers in mills and
factories became notoriously cruel to incite fear that overpowered any urge to resist or slack on
the job (Starobin 1968:115-116). Whether this was the case at Arcadia is not known, and
certainly reports of the treatment of the textile factory girls would suggest otherwise (Pensacola
Gazette 1846; Dorr [1864]), but the fact that two of Forsyth's male slaves had probably run away
does raise questions as to why they would risk the consequences to leave Arcadia behind.
53
A personal memoir written by the niece of E.E. Simpson's first wife, Sophia Allen, relates some pertinent information about the industrial practices at Arcadia as well as the lives of the slave community. Anna Worcester Dorr wrote this account at some point after 1864, though no exact date is given. She can be assumed to have some connection to Arcadia through her Aunt's widower and her cousin E.E., Jr., though whether this connection brought her many opportunities to visit Arcadia from her home in Pensacola is unclear. Her account is a personal document, not an official record of fact. Given that, in her memoir she paints a picture of a happy and well cared for community of slaves. The young slave women liked their work and produced good products, having been taught the art of weaving by Northern white spinners. They were presided over by white foremen, and worked from 6 am to 6 pm, with an hour off for lunch where they ate in groups of 12 (Dorr [1864]:17).
The health of Arcadia's slaves and their families appeared to have been a high priority to
Forsyth and Simpson, who according to Dorr ([1864]:17) had a doctor and hospital appropriated for them either on the grounds or nearby. She recalls a nursery on the property where several older women watched all of Arcadia's babies during the day, and where nursing mothers were allowed to visit and feed their children. In general, things seemed fair but very structured when it came to work at the factory and supposedly the mill as well. Perhaps a different story can be told of life after work at Arcadia Village.
There was a tradition on plantations of allowing slaves small plots of land near their housing where they could supplement their rationed diet with a garden, perhaps even giving them an opportunity to sell or barter for money or other goods. The same appears to have been happening at Arcadia. Dorr ([1864]:17) states that the slaves had their own gardens and even
54 chickens which provided them a small income, along with wood from the Arcadia plot which they sold to Simpson. With their savings she reports the men bought a cow or horse, and the women bought fine goods. If Dorr's account is correct then certain aspects of life in the slave village can be extrapolated. It would seem that though they worked hard and were held to strict standards during the day, they had more freedom in their own spaces at night. They could supplement their diet with home grown vegetables, and perhaps poultry, dairy, and cow, and use money from their sale to purchase fineries or other necessities. The information in Dorr's memoir can be compared to the archaeological record and the material and spatial analysis performed for this thesis in hopes of revealing whether any of these reports can be supported with evidence.
Relationships and the Fate of a Community
Evidence of Forsyth's personal relationship to his slaves is puzzling in some cases. The best example happens to coincide with his death in 1855. This must have been a period of great turmoil for the Arcadia slave community. After Forsyth's death some of his slaves were sold at auction; it is certain that after the textile factory burned down most of the girls who had been bought in Virginia to work the factory were sold, along with some the shareholders' slaves and possibly 30-40 others that were being offered for sale due to the downsizing of the company. The rest went to E.E. Simpson, and possibly shareholders Thompson and Overman, for continued operations at Bagdad (Joseph Forsyth Papers; Pensacola Gazette 1855). The number of slaves owned by Forsyth and Simpson went from 169 in 1850, to 75 in 1860 (United States Bureau of the Census 1850b, 1860b). Undoubtedly, many of the families and friendships that had been formed at Arcadia were split up as almost 100 members of the community were sold. The best example of this in the records demonstrates the conflict at the heart of owning slaves as a commodity and dealing with them on a personal level. In Forsyth's will (Figure 9) he stipulated
55 that many of his slaves and their clothing be sold at auction, but he took great care to single out a slave woman and her family for special treatment. He wrote:
I direct that my girl Eliza with her three eldest children be sent to a free state and that six thousand dollars of my estate be set apart in the hands of my executor for the maintenance and education of said children (Joseph Forsyth Papers)
FIGURE 9. Joseph Forsyth's will, 1855. (Courtesy of the University of West Florida Archives, John C. Pace Library, Pensacola, Fl.)
Joseph Forsyth decided to free four of his slaves before his death. Later in his will he made
arrangements for E.E. Simpson to take them to New York and set them up with a place to live
and a stipend. Needless to say, whoever Eliza was, Joseph was very fond of her. Because names
are not recorded for slaves in any census, it is hard to tell exactly what she was doing or where she lived, although manumitting was most often done to household servants who had developed long and lasting relationships with the owner's family. Some slave owners freed women they had been in relationships with, along with the children that came with those unions, who would have been born into slavery despite their father's race and status. The evidence for this type of relationship between Forsyth and Eliza from the will is compelling when taken along with mention of Forsyth's long-term relationship with a "loyal" slave woman in a collection of papers by Ellen Simpson (E.E's youngest child), called "Tales Our Mother Told" (Ellen Simpson
Collection 35-45). Ellen never knew Joseph, but the fact that there was at least mention in the
56 Simpson family of this rumored relationship does tend to support the notion that the two were
romantically involved.
Rivers (2000:154) states this as fact. Alongside Forsyth in the annals of West Florida
owner/slave relations, he names two contemporaries in local industry whom Forsyth would have
undoubtedly known: Jackson Morton and John Hunt. Morton was a mill owner like Forsyth, who
became a senator and represented the county in the Secession Convention alongside E.E.
Simpson. One of the other largest slave owners in Santa Rosa county, he allegedly fathered
numerous mulatto children with different female slaves. John Hunt owned the Bagdad brickyard
where Joseph Forsyth got his start working in industry; he was a very influential man who also served on the territorial council. Upon his death in 1851 he freed a slave woman thought to be his mistress along with their five children. The precedent for interracial relations between owners and slaves was well established in Florida at the time, and within the circles of Santa Rosa and
Pensacola's industrial elite the practice would not seem to have made one a pariah, so the social and historical contexts do not suggest the impossibility of such a relationship at Arcadia. No matter what the details of their relationship were, it is clear that the special care Forsyth shows
Eliza and her eldest children does indicate that they were all important to him.
Despite the apparent concern Forsyth showed for Eliza and her three eldest children, one has only to read further in his will to discover a decision that seems to contradict his concern for the future happiness of Eliza's family. As for the general slave population at Arcadia, it is unknown if any effort was made to keep families together as many of them were sold in the coming year. But there is evidence that Eliza's family was split apart. As Forsyth's will lists
57 assets and personal property to be awarded to his friends and family, he specifies at least 14
slaves that he wishes to be given to his wife Cordelia. They are listed as:
Old Ford and Zib Nan and her children and William her husband Nelly and her two children (John and Patsy) and Patsy the infant and Daniel- Nelly's husband Harriet Eliza's infant son and Sam Ware (Joseph Forsyth Papers 10).
Their total value is listed as $8,050, with most of the adult slaves valued at $300 each. Eliza's
infant son is valued at $150. It is almost certain that this is the same Eliza that Forsyth has set
free, as he did indicate that she and her "eldest" children would be sent to New York, leaving a
younger child behind. With the decision to free her came the decision to separate her from her
infant son, who would remain a slave at Arcadia with Cordelia and the Simpsons. This fact confuses what would otherwise have been an indicator that Forsyth was a caring owner who
attempted to keep families together, as is indicated by the families (most likely household
servants) that he passed to his wife intact. Why he would choose to keep an infant that would be
a financial burden requiring the energy of other slaves or servants to raise is puzzling, thought
there is a possibility that it was his illegitimate son. What is evident is that when Eliza left her
life at Arcadia behind the parting was bittersweet, because she was also leaving her son.
Arcadia's Impact on West Florida
The many newspaper articles devoted to developments at Arcadia give the perception that
the surrounding region was very interested in their operations and the benefit Arcadia could
provide West Florida as one of the most successful producers of textiles and timber in the region.
Support for the project was palpable, as one Pensacola Gazette editorial put it: "the time is fast
58 coming when the slumbering South must be awakened to the unwelcome truth, that she must manufacture her own clothes and raise her own provisions, or her people must become the bond slaves of the north and west" (Pensacola Gazette 1841). The mill also planned to purchase some raw cotton materials for the textile factory from local farmers which would also stimulate the regional economy. The only hitch in their plan was, of course, the hiring of skilled slave labor.
The decision was called an "experiment" by a naïve reporter from the Pensacola Gazette;
DeBow’s Review states a response to the gentlemen, "the application of negroes to cotton manufacture is by no means new, as the Pensacola paper seems to think. They have long been used in parts of Georgia and Montgomery” (Pensacola Gazette 1846; Debow’s Review
1847:256). And indeed they had, as many parts of the South and even the state of Florida were at this time beginning to rely more heavily on slave labor for projects ranging from industry to construction and mining.
Regardless of how commonly slaves were used for industrial labor, there were most likely mixed feelings in the area regarding their use at Arcadia. The Pensacola Gazette editor cited the main reason for the use of slaves at Arcadia was financial, as they could be worked longer and harder with less recourse and did not require a salary be paid. Also, he seemed to think there was a shortage in local white laborers, and if they were hired they might "become dissatisfied and leave their work" (Pensacola Gazette 1845). This might have been a comment on the working conditions or the pay, but either way it is possible that the work force they imagined necessary to run Arcadia would not be found in the local community. In 1850, laborers made up 42% of the employed population of Santa Rosa County, 2nd Division (where Arcadia was located), but this was still only 205 men, and the Census Manufacturing Schedule indicates that at the time Arcadia was employing at least 95 people (including slaves) in their operations
59 (United States Bureau of the Census 1850c). If they were to rely on the local work force, they
would require about half of all the free laborers in the division, leaving a shortage of laborers for the other mills and logging operations in the area. The decision to use slave labor may have been both practical and economical considering the local labor supply and the scale of Arcadia's production at this time, though not everyone saw it that way.
While the local papers showed support for Simpson and Forsyth's decision to hire 40
skilled slave girls from Virginia for the cotton factory, the editor of the Southern Journal in
Tallahassee expressed concern that should the use of slaves at Arcadia prove a success, it would
invalidate the belief that African Americans were not capable of such advanced training. He
believed they would replace white workers, and that the farming economy the South depended
on would collapse as farmers took their slaves and opened cotton mills instead of plantations
(cited in Griffin 1962:265-266). To the charge that Arcadia's cotton workers should not be employed in the position of white laborers, the editor of the Gazette responded "to suppose as
many have pretended to do, that they are not equal to white girls in a factory is ridiculous
nonsense, it is to suppose that the manipulation depends on the color of the fingers” (Pensacola
Gazette 1846).
This debate is echoed by the two proprietors of Union Iron Forge (later Buffalo Forge) in
Virginia around mid-century. Dew (1994:36,106) follows the pair as they entered into a drawn
out legal debate over the ownership of the slaves they employed in the furnaces. While Weaver
preferred white labor because "slaves were not as good workmen and do not take as good care or
as much pains as good white workmen," Mayberry complained that white workers drank too
heavily and often quit suddenly, making slave labor much more consistent and agreeable. The
60 quality of goods produced by slaves seemed very much the substance of most concerns, as well as the principle of using white workers.
Apparently this debate continued in Pensacola, as the Gazette's editor was again prompted to defend the Arcadia slaves in 1848 when he stated:
Then as to the "problem" of adequacy of slave labor, it is now about as well settled as is the problem whether two things, each equal to a third, are equal to one another. It is no problem, and it never has been a problem. Doubtless you cannot make a good factory hand out of a grown woman who has been reared in a corn field, any more than you can make a good hand out of a white woman of the same description...The thing is next to impossible; but with the native skill and ingenuity of mere labor- the labor of hands- the negro is just as richly endowed as the white (Pensacola Gazette April 8, 1848).
The reports from the Gazette on the Arcadia slaves are unabashedly positive. This might also be a reflection of the prestige that Arcadia's owners had built up in the Pensacola area. Certainly the paper would not want to discredit them or their business, as Arcadia was becoming a huge success and bringing money and work for the cotton and logging industries into the region.
Forsyth and Simpson also had two of the highest valued estates in the county (Morris 1985:48;
Wooster 1958:375). Their influence calls into question whether a publication in the local area would be so bold as to criticize them or their operations at all. This might call for the reports on the Arcadia slaves to be taken with a grain of salt, as they might be more representative of a need for the actual conditions of slaves to be glossed over in an effort to justify the institution to the public or present powerful local businessmen in the most positive light. There is an often quoted article in the Gazette that claims the Arcadia factory girls are "as happy and contented with their vocation as it has been our lot to see anywhere; they are comfortably lodged, well fed, well clothed and kindly treated" (Pensacola Gazette 1846).
61 While newspaper accounts on the treatment of slaves are hardly credible, the memoir of
Simpson relation Anna Worchester Dorr (1864) regarding the Arcadia slaves points to the
possibility that they were treated decently and allowed to build bonds with each other and their
masters. Forsyth's own relationship with his slave girl Eliza (whatever its true nature) emphasizes his desire to help her and three of her children in the period following his death.
Whether this represents the normal sentiment of slave owner for slave at Arcadia or the exception is difficult to tell, except that while Eliza was given her freedom and a living in the
North, the rest of the Arcadia work force, including Eliza’s youngest son, continued in enslavement. The fact remains that slave life came with a set of unique and difficult challenges that the Arcadia community was not immune to.
The fate of the Arcadia slaves after emancipation is largely unknown. Many probably stayed at or near Arcadia and Bagdad, where they could continue working in the industry as paid employees instead of forced labor. Future census research may reveal if any of the free black families living in Milton or Bagdad following the war were at one time Arcadia slaves. The town that once had a shortage of laborers, maybe causing Forsyth and Simpson to seek slave labor for
their mills, had an overabundance of laborers in the latter decades of the 19th century. In 1860,
laborers made up 63% (381 total) of the free working population, with 25% of the total
population made up of slaves. By 1870, it appears that almost 100% of the now free blacks in
Santa Rosa were laborers or household servants. It is likely that a large number of the Arcadia
and Bagdad slaves were among them. Milton continued to grow into an industrial town, as the
percentage of farmers steadily fell between 1840 and 1870 and the percentage of laborers grew
steadily from 1840 to 1870 (United States Bureau of the Census 1840, 1850a, 1860a, 1870).
62 Arcadia Mill was a large part of this transition, and Simpson's Bagdad mills remained a large
employer of white and black labor after the Civil War and the emancipation of the slaves.
Forsyth and Simpson provided these towns with a labor force capable of supporting the
growth of industry necessary for the success of the region. The slave community at Arcadia received nation-wide attention, and demonstrated to the local area that African Americans could
bring just as much skill and dedication to their job as any white person. Their presence had a
lasting effect on the community, which perhaps experienced an easier transition from slave state
to free after the war. Their ability to recover was probably influenced by the fact that they were
already accustomed to having skilled black laborers working alongside white ones. The
referential treatment given to them and Arcadia Mill by the Pensacola Gazette may have made
the transition easier for the slaves themselves too. Their experience at Arcadia was fraught with
turmoil surrounding their positions in dangerous jobs and the likely separations they faced as
many of their friends and family were sold following Arcadia's demise. But they created a
community and a body of significance in the local conscience whose memory lasted long after
the mills of Arcadia closed.
63 CHAPTER III
THEORY
The field of African-American archaeology in North America has only developed over the last few decades; during this time it has incorporated a variety of theoretical schools and directions. One of the biggest challenges to the academic community has been approaching the African-American experience within the larger sphere of North American history, as their story has never been as forthcoming as that of the European. Many early archaeologists in the field began performing material studies focused solely on plantation life, in an effort to bring the pre-industrial African experience to light. Coming out of the Civil Rights movement, the reverberating historical image of the African
American was that of the noble servant in “Gone with the Wind,” or Bill “Bojangles” Robinson tap dancing with Shirley Temple. The country was ready for that to change. As scholars like Fairbanks,
Deetz, and Otto began telling the stories of American slavery, the country finally began to see how woefully inaccurate its knowledge of African-American history was.
Early Perspectives on African-American Archaeology
The study of African-American archaeology in North America has been largely linked to the system of enslavement which controlled the fates of a large portion of the community up to the mid-
19th century. Those not entangled in the economic side of this world were rarely immune to the social and cultural boundaries promulgated by it within society at large. Therefore, from its earliest inception, theory associated with African-American archaeology has been intrinsically linked to class and race.
While other important variables have become part of the general study of both African-American anthropology and slavery, these have remained at the forefront through every shift in the paradigm.
Today, archaeologists working on African-American sites from a wide variety of settings both slave and free, pre-emancipation and post. The overwhelming bond between this research is a largely positivist approach based on comparative methodology and material culture studies. This is due to the
64 early definition of research objectives and strategies for African-American sites by several influential archaeologists, most notably Charles Fairbanks, James Deetz, John Solomon Otto, and Theresa
Singleton. Each contributed to the field by framing their investigation of African-American sites around the determination of material patterns associated with slave life, based largely on ceramic assemblages and cultural identifiers indicative of an African presence. Each of these pioneers was able to incorporate complex cultural variables into their research while maintaining a processual approach which allowed strong correlations to be made between methodology and material record. This has served as the basis for most research on African-American sites since, with several movements within the field examining new directions of theoretical discourse.
Themes in African-American Archaeology
The introduction of Africans to the new world took place over a long period of time and across a wide expanse of territory. Of course there was not “one” African culture arriving in North America, but individuals from many cultural groups throughout the African continent. Thus, when approaching the study of the African American in archaeology there can be no single theory as to the identification and interpretation of African sites. For this reason, a guiding platform for many research projects has been the recognition of processes of cultural change indicative of African acculturation within Colonial
American society. This strategy allows for variation in the material and behavioral traits of a people's origin, while using deviations from the material culture of European and Native American groups as a guide to understanding how different African groups adapted to their new surroundings and changed as a result of their interactions and boundaries. Through this method, comparisons can be made of what in an assemblage may best indicate the presence and activities of African peoples in early America.
Many of the most influential studies incorporating this perspective came out of projects based on early plantation life in the Mid-Atlantic and southeastern coast, mainly in South Carolina and
Coastal Georgia (See Adams and Boling 1989; Ascher and Fairbanks 1971; Deetz 1977, 1993;
65 Fairbanks 1984; Kelso 1984; Joseph 1989; Otto 1977, 1984; Singleton 1980, 1985). Typical research goals in these investigations revolved around either proving or disproving assumptions about slave life as a way of pinpointing what can and cannot be said about the material culture of new world slaves at a basic level. From there several material patterns emerged that became commonly associated with either slavery or the presence of African culture, and these were used to interpret sites of both slave and free- black inhabitancy. The presence of “Africanisms” found in slave contexts, and continuity in behavioral traditions uncovered in the archaeological record became indicative of both African-American and
“slave” identity. Researchers also began speculating about processes of identity formation through approaches such as cognitive archaeology; sometimes on a larger scale incorporating African diaspora studies (DeCorse 1999; Ferguson 1980; Singleton and Bograd 1995).
World Systems Theory
Many of the theoretical models used in the study of New World slavery (a distinct form of enslavement to the “classical” and “asiatic” models) rely in some aspect on the relationship between economic, labor, and social systems (Padgug 1976:24). Wallerstein's (1974) world systems theory provides an explanation for the rise of the capitalist world economy, and the effects it had on cultural systems, in particular, on core/periphery relationships and the disparity between peoples and economic systems based on both agricultural and industrial production and control. This basic concept is at the heart of understanding the socioeconomic conditions into which the capitalist labor system developed, and how those circumstances led to the specific experience of African and Native American labor exploitation that became so entrenched in the history of early America.
Wallerstein (1974), along with the work of French anthropologist (and structural Marxist)
Claude Meillassoux (1991) on the anthropology of slavery, became extremely influential to scholars working on African-American archaeology during the last two decades. This is because the practice and products of slavery have implications for practically every aspect of society, and archaeologists
66 studying slave sites are keenly aware of the need to uncover how disenfranchised groups like African
Americans contributed to the threads which have made up the tapestry of Western culture over the last few centuries. The study of material culture is a powerful tool in that process, because the slave operates as a conduit for the distribution of resources throughout local, regional, and sometimes world economies. They produce commodities that facilitate power relationships between people and nations.
As Orser (1992:97) states, “commodities embody social labor, or labor in service to society...like all material things, [they] carry social meaning and have socially relevant values.”
Ascribing value to slaves based on the services they provided and commodities they produced also created an environment wherein all attributes of the slave could be assigned value and status. This connected the value of the African American within the American labor system to their value within socioeconomic systems, where variables such as race, gender, and culture could also influence their evolving status in America. Perry and Paynter (1999:300) point out that the problem for archaeologists is how we view the materials associated with African culture in slave settings. If we are looking for
“Africanisms” such as cowrie shells, colonoware, blue beads and such, are we actually seeing the presence of African-American culture, or the character of a people that has been given these associations through a socially constructed identity?
Some scholars (Harrison 1995; Sanjek 1994; Wolf 1994) argue that referring to the concept of race in relation to material studies is a way of masking what should be a conversation about power and economic inequality with a construct that makes the interpretation of sites feel more personal, as it is linked to a people's identity instead of their position in the capitalist world system. Whatever interpretation one takes, it remains true that all theoretical discourse on African Americans as part of the institution of slavery is based on some part on the labor and economic systems that provided the structure for their everyday life and made them a part of the capitalist economy of the Western world.
67 Questions regarding the identity of the Arcadia slaves as relative to their representation in the
Pensacola Gazette, or the recollections of those associated with the proprietors of the industrial complex (Dorr [1864]), bring several points to the discussion of economic and social value. No primary documents exist from the Arcadia slave community; therefore all accounts of them are secondary in nature. Furthermore, all descriptions of these individuals and their lives at Arcadia are glowingly positive. The Pensacola Gazette (August 15, 1846) went so far as to declare them “as happy and contented with their vocation as it has been our lot to see anywhere.” This, along with the general tendency to consider slaves trained in specific niches outside of field agriculture as more “valuable,” suggests that the Arcadia slaves were considered “high status” by their owners and the local community.
Does this, in fact, reflect the reality of slave life or identity for the Arcadia work force? This author does not believe so. This is not because it seems so unreasonable to assume the owners of a large number of slaves would treat them well, but instead due to the propensity for those commenting on Arcadia to align the importance of the economic role they played with their public appearance.
Arcadia was located in the periphery of several major trade harbors, and this relationship allowed for its commodities to be sold to the world market. Forsyth and Simpson were also popular and influential figures in the region, meaning that Arcadia's success was important for not only those in the burgeoning towns of Milton and Bagdad, but the wider Pensacola area. The impetus for portraying the Arcadia slaves as happy, well treated, and high status regardless of reality is tied to their role in the continued prosperity of the region as a part of the capitalist world system. Whether or not this is a fair portrayal is hard to tell. The identity constructed for the public could be due to the need to make Arcadia look good, but even if these are accurate accounts, they do not begin to capture the perspectives or realities of life for the individuals who made up the Arcadia slave community. The role of archaeology in this investigation is to uncover what material truth exists behind the facade.
68 Marxism and Political Economy
The capitalist system is often associated with Marxism in discussions on labor groups and class struggles. Often alongside African-American history in the dialogue about labor in America is industrialism, which is why Marxism plays heavily into both Industrial and African-American archaeology. As with a world systems approach, variables such as race, class, and identity often figure in anthropological discussions on the effects of capitalism on labor groups. Paul Shackel (2000, 2004,
2009; Shackel and Palus 2006) has written extensively on the history of industrialism in America and the development of an Industrial Archaeology that focuses on the cultural effects of industrial landscapes on labor groups.
The worldview developed by Marx and Engels (1848), largely inspired by Lewis Henry
Morgan's theory of social evolution, provides explanations for the infrastructural nature of class struggles based on modes of production and distribution related to capitalism. Social and cultural theory based on Marxist themes has gone through several phases, beginning with structural Marxism and leading to today's political economy. This approach became popular during the radical political climate of the 1960's and 70's, and has often been applied to the effects of capitalism on those in the peripheries of powerful economic centers. Ethnographers still employ political economy in non- western cultures that have experienced profound change as a result of their involvement as producers or suppliers of resources for the world market. These changes, perhaps in kinship structure, social stratification, technology, or ideology, are considered drastic enough in some cases to cause the
“de-tribalization” of entire cultures (Wolf 1982). What influences the process of change for these groups? And what role does capitalism play in the genesis of new traits and behaviors? This is what political economy theory seeks to understand in both modern and past cultures.
Throughout several decades of compelling research on plantation archaeology, theory has often focused on the aspects of social status that reverberate through the material and historical record. The
69 social dynamics of plantation sites have often provided the perfect grounds for the comparison of status, since planters, overseers, and slaves are all commonly represented in the archaeology. Despite this, Marxist perspectives such as political economy are not often applied to plantation settings.
Perhaps this is due to the recent call for the identities of disenfranchised peoples to be rediscovered in our history, which has driven approaches to be more culturally than economically based. Perhaps it is because issues of class struggle have not branched out from the purview of industrialism to the sphere of agricultural labor. Either way, there are sound reasons demonstrated by Orser (1988a, 1988b) as to why the interpretation of status on plantations without an emphasis on the Marxian model of economic power structure cannot provide the best lens for viewing the interactivity of all variables influencing slave life and in turn the archaeological record.
Orser's main argument against relying too heavily on non-economically defined factors in the interpretation of slave settings is the weakness that pervades the definition of common variables in the field. Too often scholars use the term status without proper explanation, assuming one's interpretation will most likely reflect the general tendency to ally status with social class. In slave studies it is also often implied that status is a reflection of race and ethnicity, without an in-depth explanation of what that means (Orser 1988b:736-739). Status, in reality, is a much trickier term to pin down than many archaeologists concede. Otto's research on status at Canon's Point Plantation (Otto 1975, 1977, 1980,
1984) has been extremely influential on African-American studies, and the methodologically of this thesis. He demonstrates the need for better specification of status by separating it into three kinds: legal status, social or occupational status, and elite/subordinate status. They are not always equal between people of the same race, ethnicity, social class, or culture, and can have differing effects on their way of life and the material patterns resulting from it. Otto demonstrated that the tapestry of each of these elements can provide a fair assessment of hierarchical patterns, or “status,” that better illuminates the relationship between cultural and racial variables on plantations (Otto 1984:105-107).
70 Orser takes his work one step further, recognizing that while Otto was on the right path, he sometimes went too far in his reliance on racially based status models. Otto (1975:10-14) felt so strongly about the influence of race on status in plantation studies that he introduced the idea of a caste system operating in antebellum southern society. While he believed there were nominal levels of status in the midst of each caste, at the most basic level there was a line of separation based solely on skin color. Besides the fundamental differences between the traditional Indian caste system and the one Otto proposed, Orser (1988b:736-739) points out that the concept uses a blanketed definition of both race and status that only confuses the matter instead of pinpointing the real basis for social dynamics on plantations.
First, we must consider the term “race” as it is used by Otto and many others. Race is purely a social construct, being defined subjectively in the mind of the individual. Even when talking about the same person, two observers may have differing opinions on said person's race (or races) which may also differ from the individual's own views. Race is also historically contingent, as racial concepts may change according to ideological shifts through time. In African-American society there has often been a distinction made between light and dark-skinned people; pre-emancipation this may have even influenced a person's legal status, placing them in a different class or “caste” (according to Otto) based on a racial category that they may not themselves associate with. The problems with drawing a line in the sand which distinguishes material culture and status based on this concept of race are many; therefore you cannot summarily categorize any group of people according to “race.”
Also, the association of race (based solely on skin color) and legal status cannot be proven archaeologically. If you are investigating slaves then technically those individuals were considered black because no whites were enslaved in the American context, but does that necessary preclude slaves from holding positions of leadership, or free blacks and whites from laboring next to them and living lives of comparable quality (Orser 1988b:739)? In these situations, materials alone may not
71 support the correct interpretation of social dynamics or legal standing based on the concept of race representing a prescribed status or class.
Status is often used to refer to the relative social positions of associated groups of people. It can also be subjective and dependent on situations and the identities of the individuals. The white antebellum perspective on status within slave society was based on occupation, gender, and relevance to the planter's needs. From that perspective there was often a status differential recognized between field slaves and domestic slaves, with male positions directly serving the owner garnering the most prestige. Slave women with the most influence over the planter's family were also considered higher in the chain of power. The important distinction in this case is from whose perspective the judgment is taking place. Slaves realized these distinctions were made by white society, but they recognized a completely different system of ranking. African-American cultures had different barometers for weighing prestige and social position, and in these systems those who waited on the needs of the planter's family were often on the bottom of the social ladder. Those who provided the most service to the slave community were valued more, so healers, teachers, preachers, and entertainers were usually esteemed most by slave society (Orser 1988b:740).
Orser's assessment of the failure of race and status definition makes more of an impact when applied to the material record. Consider Otto's (1977) hypotheses at Canon's Point Plantation, which ascertained that his three categories of status could be determined through distinctive ceramic patterns.
Each argument is based on the kinds of ceramics found in slave, overseer, and planter settings. These determinations were a reflection (in Otto's view) of race and occupation, as each of these factors were extremely influential in the class system of the wider southern social world. While Otto realized that differences in access to ceramic styles or shapes were a reflection of power differences between the three groups, he relied more heavily on notions of power as a reflection of social status based on race and occupation than economic relationships. The problems with this are not only the previously stated
72 weakness of “race” and “status” by definition, but that the reality of slave contexts is seldom so easily defined. Not all planters and overseers were white, not all occupations were segregated between white and black, free and slave. This was especially the case in industrial manufacture, where free blacks, lower class whites, and slaves often worked side by side performing the same jobs. If differences in their material consumption were not always a reflection of race or occupational differentiation, then what is the defining factor for the interpretation of material correlations to status in these settings?
Power based on economic position seems to be the most objective indicator of social dynamics in contexts involving stratification based on capitalist production models. This provides the possibility for application on plantation sites, industrial sites, or any context heavily influenced by labor or servitude. With political economy's focus on production, and the influence of power (based on labor exploitation) over economic capacity, any persons regardless of ascribed race or status would be regarded culturally and materially as a product of socioeconomic limitations. This allows for the unique expression of cultural traits and identity through interaction with the material record independent from social constructs.
Several factors influence socioeconomic limitations, such as the capacity for resource acquisition by the “planter” based on supply and demand, and their influence over the producers of these commodities. According to Orser (1988b:741), this is what creates the basis for power dynamics on plantations which ultimately results in the amount of economic control an individual has with which to influence their own material consumption and resultant cultural traits. The author would also argue that Orser's reasoning may be applied through political economy theory to the aforementioned contexts of industrial production and domestic servitude with similar archaeological implications.
The residential nature of Area A and the Simpson Lot make the application of Otto's ceramic distribution model possible at Arcadia. With the addition of Orser's political economy interpretation, the material record may become a reflection of how power and economic dynamics affected material
73 consumption. This, in turn, may allow for a more accurate assessment of how the socioeconomic system of Arcadia affected the lives of the slave community, rather than blaming a more subjective categorization such as “status” based on race and occupation. Comparison to plantation assemblages may also reveal what differences in the material record, if any, reflect variations in the socioeconomic power structure of non-agricultural slave settings.
Practice Theory and Symbolic Interactionism
Power dynamics and social class are often associated with practice theory, which is based on the influence of the individual in defining and reinforcing, or renegotiating, the structure of everyday life.
According to Ortner (2006:3), the development of social theory must involve “[restoring] the actor to the social process without losing sight of the larger structures that constrain (but also enable) social action.” This relates in many ways to the interpretation of cultural processes within labor structures, where power is negotiated through agency, and the agent is thereafter subject to the socioeconomic boundaries of this relationship. To incorporate the political economy of agricultural/industrial production with practice means to add a level of complexity to the structure of economic dependence which does allow room for the influence of variables like race and ethnicity (as was often the case in industrial labor) on social interaction in these contexts. It is to separate what Otto had deemed an inextricably linked system of social and economic status, and allow for individuals to negotiate for power (both symbolic and material) outside the influence of society at large.
In Outline of a Theory of Practice, Bourdieu (1972:56-61) emphasizes the self-perpetuating cycle of habitus and class. The concept of habitus refers to the day to day activities and behaviors of an individual that are both constructed and limited by their previous experience. The structures that inform habitus are based on social norms that have been defined by society through practice, the influence of an individual's decision to repeat, change, or reject the behaviors of those around them. In this way people are both influenced by their surrounding social structure, and influence that social structure as
74 well. Class can be viewed as an institution reinforced by the likelihood that people within that group will be exposed to the same situations and more often decide to act in solidarity with others in their social group, creating a set of social norms and shared common choices. These actions create and continue to define the social structure of a “class” both within itself and in relation to others.
The basic political economy approach to plantation studies (which the author suggests be applied to industrial and servile contexts as well) suggests that the archaeological record is a result of both the external power of the planter to acquire materials, and the internal power of the planter to control how materials were distributed. The planter's power in both cases is influenced by the economy stemming from production, which creates supply to meet external demand, and results in revenue. All those under the control of the planter, either as employees or slaves, live within the economic limitations created by the planter's ability and decision to provide them with monetary wealth or material goods. These limitations, or structures, are not necessarily defined by variables such as race or status; thus no status can be attributed to an assemblage of materials based solely on the association to economy. The material record of an individual or group should reflect the economic capacity of the planter to provide them with materials or currency, and their willingness to do so. Both of these factors are decided upon based on the negotiation of power between planter, slave, or overseer, as agents in the constant evolution of social structures or habitus within the capitalist production system.
There are many ways in which agency can play a part in the planter's ability to acquire materials and will to distribute them. Reliance on overseers and slaves' performance is at the heart of a manufacturer's ability to acquire materials, as they must produce enough commodities to cover the cost of maintaining the plantation plus extra for the purchase of everyday goods. Should the planter profit, they are more likely to procure luxury items, and perhaps provide employees or slaves with bonuses.
Only if the labor force has provided the planter with a profit will they obtain the power to purchase and distribute materials at will to their subordinates which will influence the artifact distributions seen by
75 archaeologists (Moore 1985: 156). The planter's will was often determined by his subject's behavior and personal usefulness, but his ability was at the mercy of the laborer's will to provide their service to the production of commodities. The planter has often been seen as the top of a pyramid, providing structure to those beneath by asserting power over them. However, the planter's very power source
(production) is dependent on the cooperation of those “beneath him.” So the power structure of the plantation is, in reality, more cyclical than often recognized.
The lives of slaves, laborers, and servants in agricultural, industrial, and domestic contexts, provided opportunities on a daily basis for the negotiation of power and identity with their owners or bosses. Refusal to work was a common strategy used to show defiance, force better treatment or benefits, or call attention to personal needs. Resistance studies in African-American and industrial archaeology often show evidence of sabotage or theft by those working with machinery, while domestics may attempt to befriend the bosses and their families to garner favor in treatment or materials (Genovese 1974:587-589). Some individuals ran away, some quit, some prevailed, and some gave in. Owners and employers' reaction spectrum could include physical punishment, deprivation, monetary or material reward, special treatment, or sale (Genovese and Fox Genovese 1983:124). None of these behaviors were fixed by race or class; in reality, they are processes in the development of the socioeconomic structure of the production system. These practices all affect the “planter's” ability and willingness to acquire and distribute materials, and thus the material limitations of each party are defined through the process of these negotiations.
The other side of the coin in the discussion of agency and slavery is the theory of symbolic interactionism (SI), most often used in sociology. Practice theory can provide a model for how behaviors influence power structures in slave settings. SI can provide a better understanding of the impetus for these behaviors, and the entrenchment of ideals, feelings, and traits within institutionalized slavery or servitude that bear serious influence over the structures of the entire system. This perspective
76 focuses on the interpretive process of interacting with people that creates cognitive meaning and informs the actions and emotions of the individual. The subjective meaning derived from social interaction can then be imposed on others through the institutionalization of belief systems, which can cause discordance not only between individuals, but social groups that have internalized differences in interpretation (Musolf 1992:173-180). Cognitive dissonance can lead to power struggles and social strife, both reflected in the social structure of the Antebellum South and the plantation.
Symbolic interactionism was developed from the work of both Max Weber and George H. Mead
(1934) in the early 20th century, though it was Herbert Blumer (1969) who coined the phrase
“symbolic interactionism” and developed the theoretical perspective recognized today. Though the theory has been criticized for focusing too heavily on the individual and not societal processes, many people (Cooley 1922; Goffman 1959; Rosenberg and Turner 1981; Musolf 1992; Scheff 2005) have quite successfully applied SI concepts to social structures and institutions, such as slavery.
Understanding social behavior and how our interpretation of self affects the larger dynamics of society is essential when these dynamics affect laws, or the institutionalized differentiation of treatment based on identity.
Cooley's (1922) theory of the “looking-glass self” helps define how one influences the other.
According to Cooley, humans are constantly monitoring themselves through the point of view of others; this self-consciousness causes powerful emotions of shame and pride based on our conception of judgment by the people we interact with. Goffman (1959) added that this shared awareness causes embarrassment and the need to manage or avoid that emotion. Social bonds are threatened by differences in the amount of deference individuals have for one another, so one seeks always to avoid the embarrassment of these discrepancies through monitoring our behavior by the social standards of others (Scheff 2005:147-151).
77 Heath (1988:137) states that “embarrassment and its potential play an important part in sustaining the individual's commitment to social organization, values, and convention.” So in other words, we conform to convention to avoid what we interpret as judgment from others within our social group. This concept has very real application to the practice of slavery and the promulgation of racist ideologies. Goffman (1959) inferred that actors don't accept feelings of shame or embarrassment passively, but turn to avoidance behaviors such as denial to cover them up. This might actually lead to an increase in actions that cause feelings of shame in an individual or group, as they attempt to deny the knowledge that they should be judged harshly for them (Scheff 2005:160).
This seems a fitting explanation for the spread and acceptance of a practice, such as the subjugation of other human beings which is pursued despite the underlying feelings of shame that it might cause when viewed from the minds of others. The course may still be followed despite the individual's self-awareness due to the group's collective denial and rationalization. Money, power, success, and competition fuel the reinforcement of these behaviors until they have become ideologies or precepts of institutionalized actions. These motivations also influence practice and the creation of social norms shared between cultural groups.
Scheff (2005:155-156) proposes another contributing factor in the development of avoidance behaviors and the denial of shared awareness in the Western world. The “modern industrial society” of imperialist Europe and America viewed shame as a taboo word/emotion, subscribing rather to the notion of the self-contained individual. Feelings such as shame require dependency on a group's perspective which violates the principle of the individual as master of their own domain. The concept of the “looking-glass self” emphasizes that the individual is bound in both thought and behavior to the group through their ability to understand the others' perspective. While this is quite a common mindset in other parts of the world, it is largely rejected by the individualism of Western culture.
78 What then can be ascertained about the relationship of slave owners/overseers and slaves from this point of view? The agent as a slave owner/overseer would enter the situation in a position of power which might cause feelings of pride due to the way they believe others in their group will esteem them.
Though, in the interaction of the owner with slaves they might also experience a natural empathy for their subjects through the shared human awareness of their suffering, causing them to feel shame or embarrassment for their perceived role in the interaction. The construct of racial superiority that reinforces those behaviors among the owner's social group supports the rejection and denial of the shame experienced from these interactions which creates a habitus where slavery is accepted as part of the social structure of the owner's culture.
Perhaps, due to the perception that the slave is judging the owner and the rejection of this shared awareness, there may even be a motivation for the owner/overseer to overcompensate in the suppression of shame through overly prideful or aggressive behaviors. There may also be shared feelings of pride in the slave mindset from the group awareness of the owner's shame and over- corrected behavior due to this which could cause defiant or rebellious behavior as a way to express the injustice of their situation and their owner's denial. Explanations for behavioral traits documented in situations of slavery, servitude, or industrial labor may all stem from the conscious and unconscious internalization of self-assessed judgments as part of the shared awareness of society.
Synthesis of Theoretical Interpretation at Arcadia
What then can be ascertained about the interaction of agents, economically based power dynamics, and the influence of the “looking-glass self” on social structures and behaviors at Arcadia?
Utilizing the influence of political economy, the two basic aspects of economic limitation on the inhabitants must be addressed. First, did the industrial complex provide the ability for the owners to acquire goods and redistribute them to those under their influence? Second, can there be any determination of how the owner's willingness to distribute materials affected the Arcadia community?
79 As to the first issue, Arcadia's logging and cotton mills were considered a success for most of their producing life. Logging at Arcadia proved to be not as lucrative as necessary to support the complex
(Forsyth and Simpson had other financial setbacks in the mid-1930's that compounded the situation), but by 1842 the company was producing over $100,000 worth of lumber a year at the Bagdad mill
(Pensacola Gazette 1842). A decade later, they were running the largest cotton factory in Florida, producing over 624,000 yards of cloth annually (Debow’s Review 1853:329).
Still, the returns at Arcadia were never as profitable as Bagdad, and the last few years of the cotton mill are presumed to have been operating under some financial strain. When it burned down after Forsyth's death in 1855, the company did not rebuild and production at Arcadia stopped
(Pensacola Gazette 1856). The fact that the mills were highly productive but the company still had financial setbacks during their use provides evidence that perhaps the complex was not as profitable as the numbers would have one believe. Though, the Bagdad mills were more productive than Arcadia, and Forsyth and Simpson were still comfortably lodged and considered two of the wealthiest men in
Milton (Morris 1985:48; Wooster 1958:375). This most likely indicates that even through investment troubles and decreased profit from the Arcadia mills, the duo was still making enough money in their other ventures to be prosperous. They could at least provide for the basic needs of their employees and enslaved work force, and possibly provide extra monetary or material incentives to them as well.
As for whether Forsyth, Simpson, or any of the Arcadia overseers had the will to control aspects of material distribution to the community, it is speculation to say how much, but some regulation of consumption was most definitely practiced. Judging by the production numbers stated above, the slave community at Arcadia performed their jobs well and produced a more than adequate amount of commodities in comparison to other manufactories in the surrounding community (United States
Bureau of the Census 1850c). It seems fair that with a work force cooperating to the degree necessary for this amount of job success, the proprietors of that work force would be more apt to provide well for
80 them, or even reward them for their duties. Of course, though no mention of cruelty or discipline has been associated with the Arcadia's slaves, another method of inducing production in slave settings was by the abuse and intimidation of workers by owners or overseers. The fact that two of Joseph Forsyth's slaves were reported missing in the 1850 census does cause a moment of pause (United States Bureau of the Census 1850b). As there can be many explanations for the disappearance of enslaved individuals, this incident alone does not condemn those in power over the slave community.
Perhaps the best indicator of whether the productive success of the Arcadia slaves was possibly prompted by incentives, or forced through discipline, is the archaeological record. I posit that an abusive and domineering labor system may be less likely to reward good behavior with monetary or material bonuses, while one in which positive reinforcement is used as a strategy to enhance labor productivity would more likely reward individuals with money or higher value material goods. If this is accurate, then the material culture of a slave community under strong disciplinary control may appear merely adequate or even neglectful in comparison to one in which subordinates are encouraged through positive incentives. Individuals in the latter group may acquire fineries or more expensive wares, pipes, food, or drink with money paid to them for exemplary work, or been given these sorts of materials as a reward by their owners.
The success of the Arcadia work force may have been a good motivation for Forsyth and
Simpson to be more generous in their material distribution, just as their generosity could have been a good motivation for the slave community to work hard and cooperate, for the success of the business and the benefits to their personal treatment. Should the archaeological evidence indicate that the cabin excavated in the Simpson Lot (from the 12B assemblage) reflects a living provided with higher value goods than the mill village (of the 11B assemblage), then potential support of economic differentiation between groups working at Arcadia would be evident. Whether this is indicative of status or race would
81 remain difficult to determine, but it would prove that power dynamics did influence material distribution at Arcadia.
How the Arcadia community transformed their influence over the industrial might of the business, and its owners, into an identity within the social structure of the complex, is found in the material remains of practice and habitus at the site. Regardless of whether the mill village and Simpson lot residents were loggers, cotton factory hands, overseers, domestics, black or white, the behavioral and material patterns that made up their daily lives were limited by the economic capacity of the business to provide for them. Besides materials provided, they were also limited in what they could use to supplement their lives by the amount of money or materials they could acquire to purchase or harness other forms of food and goods. How they managed the materials and the activities necessary for daily life were in some manner a result of their interactions at Arcadia, as this could have influenced what and how goods or money were given to them, and regulations as to what behaviors they had control over and what they did not.
Cooley's (1922) theory of the “looking-glass self” could be applied to Arcadia speculatively, though the cognitive process is arguably silent in the archaeological record. If we suppose that every agent at Arcadia operated through the subjective interpretation of their interactions, and the management of emotions of shame or pride stemming from the judgments of others, then there are several assumptions that can be made. Namely, those in positions of authority over others presumably understood the power of their position. Interactions with subordinates might produce a conscious or unconscious understanding of their feelings about being in an “inferior” position. The judgment of subordinates for their superiors, despite pleasant veneers, will likely reflect the negativity associated with being in some aspect under the control of someone else. The shared awareness of these feelings may cause shame in those with more power in each situation.
82 Though there is no way of confirming whether this was experienced by any of the Forsyths,
Simpsons, or Arcadia overseers, the archaeology may confirm whether the response to whatever feelings motivated them led to a more generous distribution of materials or not. Scheff (2005:159-160) posits that the reinforcement of denial behaviors in cultural groups contributes to patterns of social inequality such as racism. While this may lie at the heart of the institution of slavery, surely not all individuals who conformed to the social norms of the time and took part in the practice had the same reactions or interpretations. While it is likely that some people felt shame and took out their denial through the abuse of those who “caused” the emotion, the management of shame may have also resulted in feelings of acceptance and responsibility over those who provided the impetus for judgment.
In these instances, perhaps better treatment rather than worse accompanied the shame of the superior.
Documentary evidence at Arcadia has always supported this possibility. Certainly, the relationship between Forsyth and his “girl” Eliza provides proof that he related on a personal level to at least a few of his slaves, and responded to whatever feelings their interactions created through an increase in attention and care. It seems difficult to conform the ideals of denial through discipline to denial through grace, therefore the likelihood is that a man capable of manumitting slaves would be more likely to treat other slaves positively. The “looking-glass self” remains a process of constant evaluation though, so while reactions may tend to follow a trend, the motivations of every person are constantly being renegotiated through individual interactions. Eliza's treatment may indicate the possibility of a more positive power dynamic between master and slaves, but this does not discount the chance of a wider margin of disparity between subordinates and superiors based on their individual relationships.
The assemblages of each component should reveal the general structures within which materials informed life for the inhabitants, and how this reflects the level of economic freedom they had to develop the routines and activities of everyday life. These behaviors also hold the possibility for agents
83 to express identity and power, to subvert or support their boss/owner's endeavors, to pursue what level of independence and happiness were in their reach, and to form bonds with their fellow laborers. This power belonged to every person under the auspices of the Arcadia industrial complex, and the evidence remains in the form of how they used materials to shape their lives. Due to this commonality, the interpretation of material culture at Arcadia should not be seen as a reflection of the separation of one group or another by status or race, but the remnants of peoples who were bonded by shared dependence on a system which defined the structures of life for all of them.
84 CHAPTER IV
METHODS
Introduction
This chapter will examine the methodological considerations involved in determining goals and frameworks for both data collection and analysis in this thesis. A largely ethnohistorical approach informed how the interpretation of both historical and quantifiable data, using a variety of methodologies, could best assess the questions conceived of for the purposes of this research. Mainly, what does the material record of the Arcadia Mill Village tell us about the lives and identities of its residents? Also essential to understanding Arcadia within the context of African-American anthropology is what type of comparison can be made between the Arcadia slaves and other antebellum slave populations in the Southeast? The answers to these questions may have larger theoretical implications related to the treatment of non-traditional sites within larger paradigms in the field, and the examination of complex variables such as status and ethnicity through the material record.
Various aspects of the research project required the implementation of multiple methodological approaches. Site selection and survey were heavily dependent on historical research and reports relating the potential location of cultural features from the Arcadia Mill Industrial Complex, along with traditional field methods of survey and sampling. Data collection followed along those lines, also complying with the standards of site documentation and investigation set out by the University of West
Florida, Anthropology Department, and Site Director John C. Phillips. Data analysis relied heavily on the examples set by influential scholars in the fields of African-American and Early American archaeology such as Fairbanks, Deetz, Otto, Orser, Singleton, and South. While site-specific dynamics and spatial modeling were incorporated using an Access database and ArcGIS, a major focus of this research is comparative; consequently, a pattern based examination of economic conditions and related
85 social constructs was particularly important for the study of this site as it relates to the material remains of previously documented plantation slaves, white overseers, and planters from the Antebellum
Southeast.
Finally, methods of applying anthropological theory to the material remains of African-
American sites lack epistemological clarity. Therefore, this chapter will also examine the limitations of research on Area A, as the common use of Southian pattern recognition methodology to identify and interpret slave sites is based on plantation models that might not be as easily applicable to sites not within the traditional agricultural structure. This appears to be an area where current discourse on non- plantation sites remains murky. In these cases, how do we deal with anomalies such as industrial slavery within the larger framework of African-American studies?
Methodological Framework
Approaching research at Arcadia Mill required the careful consideration of many interacting components present at the dynamic complex, as well as how best to include and interpret them as part of a holistic analysis of the Arcadia Mill Village archaeological site. Historical research, documentation, and previous investigations of the area were vital in the designation of cultural impact areas at the complex of both industrial and residential natures. The ecological setting of Area A provided both terrestrial and maritime elements to be considered in the interpretation of life-ways for the population under study. Knowledge of the site’s history provided insight into the community at
Arcadia and distinguished at least three occupational groups (operator, overseer, laborer), potentially separated by race and gender, of potential presence in the material record. The study of occupational differentiation at Arcadia could lend to current understandings of social and economic systems in the
Southeast relating to several variables such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender, and legal status.
A basic examination of the material remains at Area A could provide not just an understanding of the
86 conditions and identity of its inhabitants, but create an opportunity for comparative analysis of Arcadia within the larger context of said systems. Also to be considered was the methodology of fields within the larger sphere of antebellum society and manufacturing enterprises. A clear need to examine research in the fields of industrial and African-American archaeology was evident. Yet, no one methodology would provide the tools to shoulder the heavy task of such broad research goals, so a critical interpretive perspective was applied in all areas through interdisciplinary methods based in ethnohistory.
Ethnohistory as a methodological approach did not become prevalent until the 1970’s, but in its early development was described by Dobyns (quoted by Euler 1972:201) in 1959 as: “An advancement of the understanding of culture or cultural processes by analysis of human group behavior through time using protocols of an historic nature.” A clear emphasis on the interdisciplinary nascence of ethnohistory based both in history and archaeology is reported as early as 1909 by Baerreis (1961:49).
The consensus of both Trigger (1986) and Lange and Handler (1985) is that modern ethnohistorical approaches combine many forms of anthropological and historical data to create a more holistically informed understanding of the human experience. Some of these forms of research include historical documents and oral histories, folklore and folk practices, linguistics, and archaeological data.
The particular focus of ethnohistoric study has long been based in culture change resulting from the interaction of indigenous cultures (primarily Native American) with European society. However, in the last two decades there has been a considerable effort to expand the approach to processes of change impacting all major immigrant groups, including the enslaved African-American population of the New
World (Stoffle and Shimkin 1980:2). The union of documentary and archaeological evidence in the study of disenfranchised groups has led to the common use of ethnohistory in the comparative analysis of sites in North America and the Caribbean, wherein the coalescence of different sources at some sites
87 can serve as a model for the extrapolation of more obscure data from others based on pattern recognition (Lange and Handler 1985:16).
This was a tool used in the field of African-American archaeology during pioneer studies comparing plantations at sites along the Southeast Coast. Fairbanks (1974; 1984), Otto (1975) and
Singleton (1980) performed extremely influential investigations targeting the material remains of plantation slave settlements, some of which were corroborated by documentary and oral evidence, allowing those sites of known slave habitation to serve as archaeological models for the application of material patterns from documented sites to undocumented. Interpretation of these sites was also heavily influenced by the incorporation of both historical and anthropological data which was able to begin a new dialog in the field based on the interactive and adaptive processes of slaves within New World social and economic systems. Both this development, as well as pattern modeling, are rooted in the practice of ethnohistorical research. The background of ethnohistory as a methodology both within and outside of African-American studies supports its application to the investigations at Arcadia Mills, where the incorporation of historical and archaeological techniques remains to this day the cornerstone of research at the site.
Another important aspect of research at Arcadia is the multi-scale nature of investigations at the site. At a base level, the material analysis of this thesis is based on household archaeology pertaining to the structures and communal areas of Area A and thee Simpson Lot. Household archaeology has been a popular approach in historical archaeology since the 1970’s, owing largely to the work of Flannery
(1976). Focusing on the household and its associated living and activity areas allows for the project to be broken down into small units of analysis based in material studies which can often reveal much about not only the relationships between individuals at the site, but how the group functioned within their closed social system and society at large. When broadening the scope of the research to a larger socioeconomic network than the immediate structures encompassed, it becomes not simply a household
88 analysis, but an approach based on both the household and community. The enslaved work force at
Arcadia has often been referred to as a community, and any research regarding this group must diffuse beyond their back yards to the layered social and organizational complex within which they existed For this reason the synthesis of household and community scales has been extremely successful in the study of plantation archaeology; its use at Arcadia must focus on using both archaeology and historical research to examine the material, spatial, and social dynamics of the community living in Area A as part of the Arcadia Mill Complex and even the wider region. Inspiration for the multi-scale approach can be found in Brandon and Davidson (2005), Greene (2011), and Heath and Gary (2012).
Site Selection and Early Investigations
Archaeological investigations at Arcadia Mill began in 1988 and have continued intermittently to the present. The site (excepting the Simpson residence) was lost to history in the years post-Civil
War after its abandonment, becoming part of the lush swampland on which it stood. Local historian
Warren Weekes rediscovered what remained of its industrial features in 1964, and took on the role of steward as he watched over the site and provided tours to local citizens. After 34.5 acres of the site was acquired by the Santa Rosa Historical Society and added to the National Register of Historic Places in
1987, they collaborated with the University of West Florida Archaeology Institute in the first mapping and archaeological survey of the site in 1988. Major excavations began in 1990 and focused on the earthworks and industrial features associated with the mills located on Pond Creek. Reports on these investigations can be found in Little et al. (1989) and Phillips (1993). Since then, ownership of the
Arcadia parcel has passed to the University of West Florida, and along with UWF’s West Florida
Historic Preservation, Inc. they have turned the site into an ongoing public archaeology project including a museum, boardwalks, exhibits, and public outreach and educational programs (Phillips
2009).
89
The search for the Arcadia Mill Village began in 2009, with systematic survey and evaluation of the property performed by the Archaeology Institute/West Florida Historic Preservation, Inc. field school under the direction of Principal Investigator John C. Phillips. Physical survey utilizing shovel testing and test excavation focused on the northern uplands owned by UWF yielding historic artifacts during the 88A investigations. Sampling was supplemented by soil resistivity and magnetic anomaly survey. All investigations were undertaken in conformance with the Cultural Resources Management
Standards Operational Manual published by the Florida Division of Historical Resources
(http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/preservation/compliance/manual), in accordance with regulations designed to protect and preserve historical and archaeological resources on state-owned lands. The 2009 season’s goal was to locate residential areas related to mill operations in an effort to expand the body of information at Arcadia to include the lives, ethnicity, social structure and community organization of its labor force. The scope of the survey also planned to provide archaeological data for the cultural resource management report on the Arcadia parcel. All investigations were performed under the 1A-32
Archaeological Research Permit from the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (Phillips 2009).
Recovery from the 2009 survey revealed a large area in the uplands north of the Pond Creek lumber mill which contained a large number of household artifacts and architectural features indicating structural foundations. This portion of the site was designated as “Area A” and appeared to have the most significant collection of cultural materials recovered from the survey area. As such, limited test excavations were performed late in the summer to flesh out the nature of the archaeological deposits encountered during shovel testing at Area A. Historical artifacts ranging from imported ceramics, glass, and utensils to local handmade antebellum bricks, cut nails, and sandstone pier supports were documented. The University of West Florida archaeology laboratory catalogued and now stores the
90 collection (Phillips 2010). Based on these findings, preliminary interpretations pointed toward Area A as the Arcadia Mill Village associated with the work force at the industrial complex.
This exciting revelation inspired two more seasons of UWF field schools (2010 and 2011) which expanded our understanding of the site tremendously, and provided the framework for the author’s current research. In 2012, investigations were moved from Area A to a parcel of land recently acquired by the University of West Florida, understood from documentation and oral histories told by local descendants of the Simpson family to be the site of Ezekiel Simpson’s manor house. Built around the same time as the first mill at Arcadia, this site, now known as the “Simpson Lot,” housed the
Simpson family as well as a potential combination of white overseer, and domestic and/or factory slaves. While the Simpson Lot is not the focus of this research, a portion of the recovery from the 2012
UWF field school will be analyzed for the comparison of material and spatial patterns to Area A.
Data Collection at Area A
The author’s involvement in the 2011 UWF field school at the Arcadia Mill Village (also known as “Area A”) will be the main source of information for this section, along with Phillips’ 2010 Research
Design and Methodology report for the University of West Florida Archaeology Institute. Expanded methodology from the 2009 field school can be found in Sams (2013), and thus only a brief overview will be provided in this chapter.
09V and 10V Archaeological and Laboratory Methods
The 2009 field school included survey of a large portion of the northern uplands through 20m transects with shovel testing at 20m intervals. Two sections of the upland parcel were delineated for this process: Area A and Area B. Shovel testing was performed using hand-held GPS units based on the
UTM NAD27 projection and coordinate system. All shovel tests were 50cm x 50cm and ranged from
0-100 centimeters below surface (cmbs), excavating in 20cm levels which were screened through ¼ in.
91 hardware cloth. Survey in Area A resulted in 13 positive shovel tests. Based on this evidence, in collaboration with shovel testing from the 1988 season in Area A (referenced as Area 4 in previous documentation), a 20m x 40m grid was set up in the portion of Area A south of the old road bed.
Systematic shovel testing at 10m intervals was performed over this area, resulting in 34 positive tests out of 56 (Sams 2013:67-71).
The location and historic nature of the artifacts recovered from this survey informed the opening of a total of 11 test units in an effort to delineate the boundaries of cultural activity at Area A and interpret the nature of these deposits. Several features associated with structural foundations were uncovered, leading to the delineation of Block 1, encompassing units 3-6. Due to time constraints, only
Level 1 (0-10 cmbs) was excavated. The presence of articulated bricks, sandstone blocks not native to
Area A but available in the nearby Arcadia quarry, and historic artifacts representing domestic activities led to the interpretation of the site as a residential area likely representing the mill village associated with the Arcadia industrial complex. A total of 13 features were documented during the 09V season.
The material record of 09V was analyzed by students and staff at the UWF archaeology laboratory, under the watch of lab director Jan Lloyd. All artifacts were cleaned and rough sorted, then classified by artifact type and sub-type, quantified, cataloged, bagged, and entered into the University's
Access database program. Analysis included weights and counts for all but fragmentary (less than ½ inch) brick and mortar, and scanned materials less than ¼ inch. Characteristics such as paste type, pattern, vessel type and size were recorded for ceramics. All materials were boxed and removed to a
UWF storage facility (Sams 2013:81).
The 2010 field school given the project code 10V continued largely where 09V left off. Block 1 was targeted for further excavation in hopes of further defining the boundaries of the suspected structure indicated by features associated with the Block. Test excavations were performed by shovel shaving in 10cm levels, beginning at the bottom of level 1, where the previous field school stopped.
92 Unit 3 was excavated to 40cmbs, Unit 4 was excavated to 80cmbs, Unit 5 was excavated to 90cmbs, and Unit 6 was excavated to 100cmbs. Unit 12, located at 3386868.97N 491993.72E, was added to
Block 1 and excavated to 60cmbs.
In addition to Block 1, four other test units were opened to investigate possible features and areas of cultural activity. These included Unit 13, 3386863.76N 491994.56E, which was excavated from level 1 to the bottom of level 4 (0-40cmbs); Unit 14, 3386863.76N 491995.6E, which was excavated from level 1 to the bottom of level 5 (0-50cmbs); Unit 15, 3386863.75N 491996.6E, which was excavated from level 1 to the bottom of level 6 (0-60cmbs); and Unit 16, 3386863.78N
491997.59E, which was excavated from level 1 to the bottom of level 6 (0-60cmbs). A total of nine new features were identified and documented (306, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 316, 317), and further excavation and documentation was attempted on four of the previous years' features (204, 205, 304,
305). Again, the procedures of laboratory analysis performed on the 09V collection were applied to the
10B assemblage and the resulting cataloged proveniences were bagged and stored at the UWF archaeological curation facility and added to the UWF Access database.
11B Archaeological Methodology
The 2011 UWF field school approached archaeological investigations at Area A from a new angle; whereas the previous seasons had focused largely on the study of Block 1, this year the goal was to open shovel tests, test units, blocks, and trenches over a much larger portion of the area and discover the extent of the antebellum occupation there. The desire to perform a more in-depth analysis of the community at the Arcadia village also posed the challenge of identifying structural boundaries, public and private spaces, activity areas, and evidence of specific groups within the site. Field methodology relating to the 2011 season resulted in the majority of the data analyzed for this research, and will therefore require a more detailed discussion than previous seasons.
93 Field work for the 2011 season (referred to by project code 11B) began with a systematic shovel test survey of several transects to the north and west of the area formally referenced as Area A. The residential area was presumed to be limited to the north by an old road bed, now sunken and acting as a boundary between Area A and heavier forest. Round 50cm x 50cm shovel tests, excavated in 20cm arbitrary levels to 100cm depth, were placed at 20m intervals along two transects running east to west, located north of the old sunken road. Over 50% of the shovel tests were positive, largely to the west of each transect, and recovery included historic artifacts such as ceramics, glass, metal fasteners, and sandstone. Three transects running east to west were also surveyed by the same techniques located in the dense forest to the west of the cleared Area A grid. Almost 100% of the shovel tests from this area were positive, and recovery included historic artifacts of a residential nature, similar to the northern survey. The higher concentration of artifacts recovered in the western transects prompted further investigation near the end of the summer which revealed several features in the area west of the original Area A boundary.
Test unit excavation began in several areas based on the results of previous shovel tests, geophysical survey, and ground probing. Units ranged from 0.5m x 0.5m to 1m x 1m and 1m x 2m and were excavated by shovel shaving and trowel in arbitrary 10cm levels and screening through1/4 in. hardware cloth. Once designated a feature, fill was screened through either 1/8 in. or 1/16 in. hardware cloth. All units used the southwesterly corner for a datum, unless stated otherwise. All cultural materials were recovered with the exception of several articulated brick and sandstone features left in situ. Artifacts were bagged by level, with features bagged separately. All units, features, and bagged artifacts were documented by the standards of the UWF archaeology institute. Units were photographed before excavation, then in plan view and profile at the end of excavation. Features were also photographed. Units and features were mapped in plan view by level and profile (when applicable to
94 features) at the end of excavation. All units were left open and covered until the end of field school at which time they were back-filled.
Unit 17 was the first opened in 2011; units were numbered from that point consecutively throughout the summer. A total of 87 units were excavated, most as part of a block or trench. Unit 17,
3386854N 491995E, was part of Block 2, which also included Units 24 (3386853N 491995E), 25
(3386853N 491996E), 26 (3386854N 491996E), and 37 (3386853N 491997E). Each was 1m x 1m, excavated in arbitrary 10cm levels, and screened through1/4 in. hardware cloth. Excavation ceased in
Unit 17 at 43 centimeters below datum (cmbd) once a sterile level was reached, with 40-43cmbd recorded as part of level 4. Unit 24 was excavated to 45cmbd, with 40-45cmbd recorded as part of level
4. Unit 25 was excavated to 32cmbd, with 30-32cmbd recorded as part of level 3. Unit 26 was excavated to the bottom of level 3, and Unit 37 was excavated to 42 cmbd, with 40-42cmbd recorded as part of level 4. No features were encountered during excavation of Block 2 or Units 17, 24, 25, 26, and
37.
Trench 2 included Units 18, 20, 23, 27, 29, 33, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 66, 67, and 103.
All Units were 1m x 1m, except for Unit 103, and excavated in 10cm arbitrary levels. Unit 18,
3386859N 491995E, was excavated to the bottom of level 3; Unit 20, 3386859N 491996E, was excavated to the bottom of level 2; Unit 23, 3386859N 491994E, was excavated to the bottom of level
3; and Unit 27, 3386859N 491993E, was excavated to the bottom of level 3.
Unit 29, 3386859N 491997E, was excavated to the bottom of level 4 when Feature 324 (Figure
10) was first encountered; the feature was excavated to 60cmbd and screened through 1/8 in. hardware cloth. It was also present in Unit 33, 3386859N 491998E, where it appeared only in level 3. The feature presented as a circular stain with handmade brick throughout, and was designated a likely post hole with a brick pier support inside. Excavation continued on Unit 33 through the bottom of level 4.
95
FIGURE 10. Feature 324 in Test Units 29 and 33. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, Fl.)
Work on Trench 2 continued as Unit 36, 3386859N 491986E, was excavated to the bottom of level 2; Unit 38, 3386859N 491987E, was excavated to the bottom of level 3; Unit 39, 3386859N
491988E, was excavated to the bottom of level 3; Unit 40, 3386859N 491989E, was excavated to the bottom of level 3; Unit 41, 3386859N 491990E, was excavated to the bottom of level 3; Unit 42,
3386859N 491991E was excavated to the bottom of level 2; and Unit 43, 3386859N 491992E, was excavated to the bottom of level 4. At a later point in the season Unit 43 was made into a 1m x 2m unit which joined Trench 2 with Trench 3, and the new excavations were screened through 1/8 in. hardware cloth.
Units 66, 3386860N 491998E, 67, 3386859N 491999E, and 103, 3386859.7N 491987.65E, were added to Trench 2 at a later time to trace the possibility of new structural features, though none were found. Unit 66 was excavated to the bottom of level 4, with a potential feature screened at 1/8 in, but the majority of the unit screened at 1/4 in. Unit 67 was excavated to the bottom of level 4, and Unit
103 (which was only opened as a 0.5m x 0.5m test unit) was excavated to the bottom of level 3.
96 Block 3 included Units 54, 55, 60, 63, and 64- all 1m x 2m test units. The location of the block was based on the suspicion of structural features discovered by ground probing. The resulting discovery of Feature 326 confirmed those suspicions, and the feature was chased through Units 54,
3386875N 491992E, 55, 3386876N 491993E, and 60, 3386877N 491992E. What appeared at first as amorphous staining with large handmade brick concentrations turned out to be two distinct brick pier footers associated with the foundations of a raised structure. Feature 326 (Figure 11) was discovered in level 2 of Unit 55; it was subsequently excavated to a depth of 45cmbd (with 40-45cmbd recorded as part of level 4) in all three units and screened with 1/8 in. hardware cloth. The remainder of Unit 54 was excavated to the bottom of level 4, Unit 55 was excavated to 36cmbd in level 4, and Unit 60 was excavated to the bottom of level 3.
FIGURE 11. Feature 326 in Test Unit 55. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, Fl.)
No features were designated for Unit 63, 3386874N 491990E, though the unit was opened from a 1m x 1m to a 1m x 2m and excavated to the bottom of level 4. Unit 64, 3386874N 491994, however,
97 yielded both Feature 329 and 337. Feature 329 (Figure 12) was recognized in level 1 as amorphous
staining with a handmade brick concentration, and was designated a collapsed brick pier after
excavation ended at 36 cmbd. Feature 337 was recognized at the bottom of level 3 as a dark circular
stain with a brick at its center. The feature was excavated to a depth of 55cmbd and screened through
1/16 in. hardware cloth. It was designated a post hole. The rest of Unit 64 remained at 30cmbd while
Features 329 and 337 were removed.
FIGURE 12. Feature 329 in Test Unit 64. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, Fl.)
Trench 3 was the largest space excavated in 2011, encompassing 21 units of both 1m x 1m and
1m x 2m dimension. While several features were encountered in Trench 3, a large sheet midden
classified as Feature 322 was chased through all of its units and accounted for the scale of excavation in
this area. Feature 322 (Figure 13) was present in the following units: 19 (3386861N 492000E), 21
3386860N 492000E), 22 (3386862N 492000E), 28 (3386863N 492000E), 30 (3386864N 492000E), 32
(3386865N 492000E), 35 (3386866N 492000E), 44 (3386866N 491998E), 45 (3386865N 492001E),
47 (3386865N 492003E), 52 (3386866N 492001E), 53 (3386864N 492001E), 56 (3386867N
98 492001E), 57 (3386863N 492001E), 68 (3386864N 492003E), 69 (3386862N 492001E), 70
(3386863N 492003E), 71 (3386862N 492003E), 72 (3386866N 492003E), 73 (3386867N 492003E),
78 (3386863N 492004E), 84 (3386862N 492004E), and 85 (3386861N 492001E). Units 84 and 85 were not part of Trench 3, but were opened outside the trench to see if the midden's boundaries could be further defined. F322 was encountered in levels 2-4 of Unit 84, which was excavated to level 5, and levels 1-4 of Unit 85, in which excavated ceased after the feature ended in level 4. Both units were screened with1/4 in. hardware cloth.
FIGURE 13. Map of Feature 322 in Trench 3. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
99 Feature 322 presented in plan view as an amorphous layer of grayish-brown loose sandy loam with a high density of early to mid-19th century artifacts. Because of the nature of artifacts being recovered, all levels/stratum suspected of being part of F322 were screened through either 1/8 in. or
1/16 in. hardware cloth. In profile, F322 appeared as its own strata, and was in turn excavated in several of the early units in Trench 3 by stratum and not arbitrary levels. These included Units 44, 45,
47, 52, and 53--where F322 is referred to as Stratum or Zone 2. Though, as the feature became more ephemeral it was decided all other units would be excavated in 10cm levels. The sheet midden appears to represent a shared activity area outside of one of the posited structures in Area A. As such, it is associated with several other features indicating cultural activities and nearby architectural remains.
These include Features 321 (Figure 14), 323, 327, 328, 330, and 331.
FIGURE 14. Feature 321 in Unit 19. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.) Feature 321 was discovered at the bottom of level 5 in Unit 19, and was excavated in total to the bottom of level 6 and screened through 1/16 in. hardware cloth. It appeared to be a dark circular stain with brick at its center and was designated a post hole. Feature 322 was documented in levels 1-3 of
100 Unit 19. Unit 21 was excavated to 56cmbd, mid-level 6, with F322 documented in levels 1-3. Unit 22
was excavated to the bottom of level 5, and documented F322 in levels 1-4. Unit 28 was excavated to
45cmbd (with 40-45cmbd recorded as part of level 4), with F322 documented in levels 1-4. Unit 30
was excavated to 43cmbd (with 40-43cmbd recorded as level 4), with F322 documented in levels 2-3.
Feature 322 was encountered in level 1 of Unit 32, and as excavation continued it became clear
that Feature 323 (Figure 15), which had been first recognized in level 3 and continued to level 8 of Unit
35, was also present in level 6 of Unit 32. The feature also continued into Unit 44, where it was present
between levels 5-8. This feature consisted of a brick and mortar basin over 50cm deep. It was recovered
in total and screened through 1/16 in. hardware cloth. Feature 322 also ran through both Units 35 and
44 in level 1. Excavation of the non-feature section of Unit 35 ended at the bottom of level 5, while in
44 it ended at the bottom of level 3.
FIGURE 15. Feature 323 in Unit 44. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
101 Unit 45 included both Feature 322 in levels 1-3, and Feature 328 in level 4. The presence of
F322 early on in the unit required screening through 1/16 in hardware cloth which continued into level
4 where the transition occurred between F322 and F328. Excavation ended at the bottom of level 5, after sterility was documented beneath F328. Feature 328 was recognized as amorphous red staining producing only compact burned clay; after it was discovered in Unit 45 it was chased into the neighboring Unit 53. It was excavated in each to 43cmbd in level 5 and all clay was removed for cataloging. Feature 328 was designated as the remnants of a fire pit. Unit 53 also featured F322 from levels 1-3.
In addition to Feature 322, which appeared in levels 1-3 of Unit 47 and levels 1-4 of Unit 68, two other features were documented in the borders of these neighboring test units. Feature 330 (Figure
16) was first recorded as a circular red stain encountered at the bottom of level 2 in Unit 47; it was then chased into Unit 68 at the same depth. The feature was pedestaled in Unit 47 as excavation of the
FIGURE 16. Feature 330 in Test Unit 68. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
102 surrounding matrix continued for 2 levels; the feature was excavated entirely from Unit 68 as to provide a profile for mapping. After the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the feature had been delineated and profile mapping completed, the remainder of F330 was removed from Unit 47; the feature was determined to be a clay cap.
During excavation of the matrix surrounding F330 in Unit 68, a dark amorphous stain was observed in level 4. This staining was chased into Unit 47 and designated Feature 331. To determine depth and provide a profile the feature was bisected in Unit 68 and the southern half was excavated by spoon from 40cmbd to 68cmbd. Following mapping and documentation of this process the remainder of the feature (measuring 1.16m in length and 84cm in width) was excavated from both Unit 68 and 47.
Though historic artifacts were recovered from the feature fill, the deposit was determined to be the result of root disturbance. Unit 52 also had a feature designated that appeared cultural at first but was deemed a natural phenomenon post excavation. Feature 327 was recognized at the bottom of level 5 as a dark circular stain containing charred wood; it was then bisected and the southern half excavated from 50-73cmbd. After the profile was mapped the rest of the feature was removed and the determination was made that this did not represent the remains of cultural activity, but a burned tree root. The matrix of Unit 52 was not excavated past 53cmbd.
The remainder of Units in Trench 3 did not contain features other than F322. F322 was documented in levels 1-4 in Unit 56, which ceased excavation after sterility at 45cmbd; levels1-3 in
Unit 57, which ceased excavation at 43cmbd; levels 1-3 in Units 69 and 70; levels 1-2 of Unit 71, and levels 1-4 of Unit 72, 73, and 78. Units 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 78 ceased excavation at the bottom of level 4 after sterility was documented.
Block 4 consisted of seven 1m x 1m units (75, 76, 77, 98, 99, 100, 101) and one 1m x 2m unit
(74). All units were screened through 1/4 in. hardware cloth, with the exception of the features present in Units 98 and 101. Unit 74, 3386870N 491986E, was excavated to the bottom of level 4. Unit 75,
103 3386871N 491985E, was excavated to the bottom of level 3. Unit 76, 3386872N 491985E, was excavated to the bottom of level 4. Unit 77, 3386872N 491986E, was excavated to the bottom of level
4. Unit 99, 3386869N 491987E was excavated to the bottom of level 3. Unit 100, 3386869N 491988E, was excavated to the bottom of level 2.
Unit 98, 3386869N 491988E, was at the bottom of level 3 when Feature 338 was recognized as a dark amorphous stain. The feature was excavated in its entirety from 30-86cmbd, and though recovery included charred wood and a Tallahatta quartzite flake, the feature was determined to be the remnants of a burned tree root. The surrounding matrix was left at 30cmbd. Feature 339 (Feature 17) was discovered just beneath the surface of Unit 101, 3386868N 491989.5E; it consisted of two large sandstone chunks deemed to be a structural support. The feature was left in situ while the surrounding matrix was excavated to the bottom of level 2.
Trench 4 consisted of eleven 1m x 1m units (31, 34, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97) and one
1m x 2m unit (89). All units were screened through 1/4 cloth though the three features excavated within the trench were screened through 1/8 inch. Units not containing features in Trench 4 included 31,
3386853N 491991E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 3; Unit 34, 3386853N 491990E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 3; Unit 88, 3386853N 491989E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 2; Unit 91, 3386855N 491989E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 2; Unit
94, 3386856N 491988E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 2; Unit 95, 3386856N 491987E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 2; and Unit 96, 3386856N 491986E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 2.
104
FIGURE 17. Feature 339 in Test Unit 101. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
Unit 89, 3386854N 491988E, and Unit 90, 3386854N 491987E, were being excavated separately when a dark circular stain with a handmade brick concentration was recognized at 10cmbd in Unit 89. Feature 335 (Figure 18) was then determined to extend into Unit 90. The excavation strategy included bisection of the feature and removal of the southern half. After a profile was documented the rest of the feature was removed and excavation ceased mid-level 3. The surrounding matrix was taken down to 30cmbd in both Units.
Feature 336 (Figure 19) was also present in Units 89 and 90; it was additionally shared by Units
92, 3386855N 491988E, and 93, 3386855N 491987E. Amorphous soil staining through the four units
105
FIGURE 18. Feature 335 in Test Unit 89. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
FIGURE 19. Feature 336 in Test Unit 93. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
106 was noted in level 2 and designated a feature. Excavations targeted the entire deposit and took it down from 20 to 86cmbd. Concentrations of articulated, charred brick fragments and carbonized wood lead to the determination that F336 represented the remains of a fire pit. The matrix in all units remained at level 3. Unit 97, 3386857N 491985E, was concluding excavations of level 1 when a circular stain was noted. The stain was designated Feature 340 and removed in full to a depth of 46cmbd. The feature is likely a post hole, or fill from a collapsed brick pier. The surrounding matrix of Unit 97 was not excavated past level 2.
Trench 5 consisted of four 1m x 1m units (46, 48, 49, 51) and three 1m x 2m units (50, 58, 59).
All units were screened through ¼ in. hardware cloth, with the exception of the features excavated from Units 51 and 59, which were screened through 1/8 inch. Units not containing features in Trench 5 included 46, 3386865N 491992E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 2; Unit 48, 3386866N
491992E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 2; Unit 49, 3386865N 491991E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 2; Unit 50, 3386863N 491992E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 2; and Unit 58, 3386865N 491989E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 3.
Units 51, 3386867N 491992E, and 59, 3386867N 491993E, contained Feature 325 (Figure 20), which was discovered in level 1 of each. The feature presented as a dark amorphous stain with a brick concentration, and was excavated from the beginning of level 2 to between 26-30cmbd. It was also located at the base of Feature 300, a large sandstone pier documented by the 10B field school. This, in addition to the fact that recovery included a concentration of brick and metal fasteners, led to the designation of F325 as a builder's trench for the sandstone pier at Feature 300. The surrounding matrix of both units was not excavated past level 3.
107
FIGURE 20. Feature 325 in Test Unit 51. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.) Trench 6 consisted of one 1m x 1m unit (65) and two 1m x 2m units (61, 62). All units were shovel shaved and screened through 1/4 in. hardware cloth. No features were recorded for Unit 62,
3386858N 491983E, or Unit 65, 3386855N 491983E, each concluding excavations at the bottom of level 3 after sterility had been reached. Unit 61, 3386856N 491983E, was mid-excavations on level 3 when a dark circular stain was recorded. This stain was designated Feature 343 and removed between
30 to 45cmbd, at which point it was determined to be a post hole. Excavation of the surrounding matrix did not continue past level 3.
The remainder of test units opened during 11B were not part of a block or trench. They consist of nine 1m x 1m units (79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87), one 0.5m x 0.5m unit (102), and one 0.5m x
1m unit (104). All units were excavated with shovel and trowel and screened through 1/4 in. hardware cloth, with any features screened through 1/8 inch. Units 84 and 85 were summarized previously for their inclusion in Feature 322. Units with no feature recorded include Unit 79, 3386865N 492016E,
108
which was excavated to the bottom of level 3; and Unit 81, 3386868N 492012E, which was excavated to the bottom of level 3.
Feature 332 (Figure 21) was located in Unit 80, 3386870N 492006E, and Unit 82, 3386870N
492007E. It was first recognized at 30cmbd as a dark circular stain with a large piece of sandstone in the center. It was bisected and the northern half excavated, followed by the remainder after the profile was mapped. Excavation of F332 was from 30 to 103cmbd, with the surrounding matrix left at the bottom of level 4. The feature was determined to be a collapsed brick pier.
FIGURE 21. Feature 332 in Test Units 80 and 82. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
Unit 83, 3386863N 492008.5E, had a distinctive light sandy deposit noted at 20cmbd, which was designated Feature 333. Bordering the sandy deposit was a root mat, and amidst excavation in level 3 a dark circular stain became evident. The feature was separated into Section A: the light sandy deposit, and Section B: the dark circular deposit. Upon excavation of Section A (to a depth of 36cmbd)
109 and Section B (to a depth of 55cmbd) it became clear that both sections of the feature were the result of
bioturbation, likely from a rodent, and not cultural activity. The matrix of Unit 83 was not excavated
past level 3.
Feature 334 was present in both Units 86, 3386857.5N 492003E, and 87, 3386857.5N 492004E.
It was first noted at 10cmbd in Unit 87 and chased into Unit 86 until the entire plan view was visible.
At this point the feature was bisected and the northern half excavated. At 51cmbd a large hole opened
up revealing a rodent burrow, and the feature was determined to be a result of this bioturbation. The
matrix of Units 86 and 87 were not excavated past level 3.
Near the end of the 2011 season several features were discovered near the surface through
probing; Feature 341 (Figure 22) was one of them. Once the presence of the feature was suspected,
FIGURE 22. Feature 341 in Test Unit 102. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
110 Unit 102, 3386861.3N 491989E, was opened over it to explore the nature of the feature. What was
revealed was a large sandstone slab, most likely a foundational pier for a raised structure. The matrix
surrounding the feature was excavated to the bottom of level 1, but when the sandstone was revealed to
be the only cultural component present, all further excavations ceased. The sandstone was left in situ
and recorded in maps and photographs. An identical feature consisting of large sandstone chunks was
discovered during probing nearby and designated Feature 342 (Figure 23). Unit 104, 3386862.5N
491985.8E, was an exploratory unit opened over the sandstone to determine its dimensions. The unit
was excavated around the feature to the bottom of level 1 and the sandstone was left in situ.
FIGURE 23. Feature 342 in Test Unit 104. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
11B Laboratory Methodology
All materials recovered from the 2011 field school at the Arcadia Mill Village site (8SR384)
were delivered to the UWF archaeology laboratory for preservation; all processing was conducted by
111 students at UWF under the supervision of lab director Jan Lloyd. Each bag was recorded and given provenience by graduate supervisors at the end of every excavation day, and was at that time boxed for sorting at a later date. As part of UWF's laboratory methods class the following fall, students began the process of rough sorting and cleaning all artifacts from 11B. Each provenience was sorted over a stack of hand screens of 1/2 in., 1/4 in., 1/8 in., and 1/16 in. size. All bricks larger than 1/2 in. were counted and weighed, while bricks under 1/2 in. were only weighed. Other artifacts were sorted into major categories such as ceramics, glass, metal, fauna, etc. When appropriate, the artifacts were cleaned and dried before being bagged for further processing.
A more detailed analysis of each provenience was then performed by archaeology laboratory staff. This included further categorization of artifacts into sub-types by design, material, production method, and so on. Extremely small fragmentary remains of materials such as metal shavings, mortar, charcoal, concretions, and scanned materials under 1/4 in. were only weighed and recorded, while all other items were counted and weighed. Measurements were taken of nails, pipe stem diameters, lead shot size, whole bricks, and plate/bowl rims, and definable characteristics such as vessel form, color, and style were recorded for ceramics and glass. Any other appropriate designation or observation was recorded for each group of like items, and they were labeled, re-bagged, and placed in university storage. All proveniences were entered into the laboratory's Access database.
Research Design
The goal of this thesis was to quantify data specific to Area A by material analysis and pattern recognition relative to activities, living conditions, and identity, for comparison within the larger field of African-American archaeology and the sub-field of plantation archaeology. This perspective is modeled on South's (1977) call for nomethetic approaches aimed at transforming from “surface” to
“deep” pattern recognition able to develop broader cultural models. South (1977:7) states “Small areas of archaeological sites contain patterned variability and regularity reflective of both site-specific
112 behavioral activity and broader cultural patterns;” in essence, this observation lies at the heart of all archaeological investigation. At Arcadia, the hope remains that research undertaken with this goal can be synthesized through sound material and historical methodology. This would lead to both a better understanding of a community of slaves working in an antebellum industrial complex in Northwest
Florida, and a potential model for the study of slavery within non-plantation settings through the indication of shared material patterning based on socioeconomic variables such as status, subordination, economic condition, and autonomy.
Archaeological Analysis
In order to accomplish these goals a variety of materials were consulted in the analysis and interpretation of this course of study. The material record of the Arcadia Mill Village (Area A) recovered during the 2011 UWF field school (11B) comprised the main body of artifacts for analysis, along with limited portions of the assemblages from the 2009 (09V) and 2010 (10V) seasons at Area A and the 2012 (12B) season at the Simpson Lot. For a deeper understanding of the contexts associated with these materials their UWF documentation from both excavations and laboratory cataloging was consulted.
Since the primary intent of material analysis was to provide frequency distributions for all major artifact groups and use them in concert with feature descriptions to delineate structural boundaries and activity areas, a large portion of this research revolved around querying the Access database for these collections and quantifying the results. Previous research of Area A indicated that the area was residential in nature and the presence of several architectural features and domestic nature of the 11B assemblage confirmed this assumption. Though a small number of artifacts may possibly indicate industrial activities at the site, the overwhelming majority of materials recovered were domestic. Once it was confirmed that Area A was residential, artifact types and sub-types were recorded by count and weight and separated into South's (1977) functional groups (kitchen, architecture, activities, arms,
113
tobacco, personal, clothing, furniture), and frequencies were determined for the site along with a mean ceramic date (South 1972).
One research question expressed by the author was whether the artifact distribution at Area A would reveal similarities, based on processes responsible for patterns reflecting social and economic status, to assemblages associated with other enslaved African-American populations. If this appeared to be the case, could Area A be plugged into pre-existing models based on and adjusted from Southian inter-site functional patterns for plantation sites? This research involved gathering insight from theoretical discourse on African-American archaeology both on and off plantation sites, as well as the process of studying archaeological variability in historical archaeology. Finally, data from comparable slave sites in the American Southeast was gathered, and it was deemed a static group comparison would serve as the best method for the interpretation of the Area A assemblage as a potential slave site.
The comparison not only considered the differentiation of slave patterning based on region but also occupation and status. In the tradition of Otto (1975, 1977), an analysis of ethnic markers, vessel forms, and decorative styles was also hypothesized to indicate general socioeconomic status and identity.
The most recent excavations at Arcadia also allowed deep patterns to be examined on an intra- site scale. The summer of 2012 provided UWF the opportunity to expand archaeological investigations to an area of the southern uplands known as the “Simpson Lot.” This large area encompassed the former grounds of E.E. Simpson's antebellum and postbellum home. Primary records and personal communications with Simpson descendants also confirmed the presence of outer buildings including a cabin possibly used by overseers and/or slaves. While the area understood by foundational remains to be the Simpson house was left undisturbed, the rest of the area was subject to shovel testing in 20m by
20m transects. Based on the results of shovel test recovery several test units were opened for more in-
114 depth excavation. Two distinct structures were discovered at surface level by the presence of foundational brick piers, and each was mapped and documented, but left in situ. For the purposes of this thesis, it was not possible to analyze the entire assemblage from 12B, so data from Activity Area 4 only was quantified and placed in South's (1977) functional groups for comparison to 11B. Frequency distributions were considered along with ethnic markers, vessel forms, and decorative styles as indicators of socioeconomic status and ethnicity.
The basic aim of archaeological analysis on the 11B collection was to examine functional patterns in the data along with evidence from features and significant artifacts. Through this process a better understanding of the spatial layout and daily activities of the village’s residents could be gained, as well as possible insight into more complex variables such as culture, status, and identity. Broad material patterns from Area A could then be compared to other components of the Arcadia archaeological site such as the “Simpson Lot,” as well as comparable slave sites from the Antebellum
South to reveal what similarities and differences appear to indicate about these populations. In particular, can delineations be made in the material record between plantation and industrial slaves based on occupation and socioeconomic status?
Historical Methodology
Primary and Secondary documents were relied upon heavily in the research of this thesis relating to both the specifics of Arcadia's history and the larger evolution of industrialism and slavery as economic systems in the Antebellum South. Several individuals have devoted years and copious amount of energy to creating a superb narrative of Arcadia based largely on primary records found in the archives of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Publications by John C. Phillips (1993; 1996; 1997;
2009), Brian Rucker (1988; 1990; 2005), and Richard W. Griffin (1962) contributed immeasurably to the author's knowledge of Arcadia's past.
115 Amongst the records consulted during the course of this research directly reflecting events at
Arcadia were government documents including deed books, court records, transportation and shipping logs, and U.S. census materials. The United States Bureau of the Census maintained schedules of pertinent information for individuals, slaves, and manufacturing organizations through the decades of
Arcadia's operations. These records became the cornerstone of demographic research concerning the
Arcadia slave population, the shareholders and owners of Arcadia along with their families, and the general population of Santa Rosa County in the mid-19th century. These sources provided many insights into the societal context within which Arcadia developed, the way the slave community changed over the years, and the background and motivations of the men behind Northwest Florida's biggest industrial complex.
Several other primary sources of a more personal or editorial nature were also used to gain a better understanding of how Arcadia functioned both from the inside and within the wider spheres of industrialism and labor. Not many personal or estate accounts from the Arcadia owners survive, but of interest for information into the running of the company and the personal stories of those involved is the last will and testament of Joseph Forsyth, whose death in 1855 had major reverberations for the company and those affected by its success. While primarily focused on matters of inheritance, the document is revealing about several aspects of the slave population owned by Forsyth. Somewhat less personal, but still revealing are the many publications mentioning development and slave labor at
Arcadia by local newspaper the Pensacola Gazette. By following the coverage given to the use of slave labor at Arcadia by several other southern newspapers and publications like DeBow's Review, it is possible to better appreciate the era of industrialization and changing social and labor patterns that
Arcadia is operating in the midst of.
General research into industrialization, and life and labor for the enslaved African-American populations of the south as well as immigrant populations in the north was conducted by finding a
116 combination of sources both theoretical and historical, as well as primary records and narratives. These insights into labor conditions, industrial landscapes, and slave/immigrant life provided a background for analysis of the Arcadia mill village as a small vestige of life skirting the boarders of several realms of human experience associated with economic and social developments of the 19th century. As this was, unfortunately, not an entirely unique position to be in, several authors (Starobin 1968, 1970; Dew
1995; Brandon and Davidson 2005; Shackel and Palus 2006) invested in the study of slavery within industrial systems were helpful in developing a more focused approach to studying these complex spheres at Arcadia.
Summary
This chapter describes the framework, research design, and methodology used in the analysis of historical and archaeological data for this thesis. A review of previous investigations at the site and literature informing the author's theoretical and methodological approaches was also provided as a background for what goals were hoped to be accomplished by what methods. Materials from the
Arcadia archaeological site were analyzed as part of an intra-site study of socioeconomic dynamics, and an inter-site study of material correlations within African-American archaeology focused on occupational differentiation between slave populations. The following chapter provides the results of the quantitative analysis of data from the 2011 Arcadia Mill Village archaeological investigations.
117 CHAPTER V
RESULTS
This chapter summarizes the results of archaeological excavations performed at the Arcadia
Mill Village (Area A) from the 2011 field season (11B), along with a limited assemblage from the
Simpson Lot excavations of the 2012 field season (12B). To assist with the comparative analysis performed in chapter 6, all materials recovered from 11B and 12B were sorted into South's (1977) functional groups (kitchen, architecture, furniture, arms, clothing, personal, tobacco, and activities) as a tool to better understand the residential nature of these spaces. This also allows for the wider comparison of Area A's inhabitants to slave communities from other varied contexts. By using the same system of artifact analysis as many of the pioneers of African-American archaeology, Arcadia can be compared for similarities and differences in functional group patterning that may reflect how changes in the socioeconomic dynamics of industrial slavery differed from those of the plantation. These results may also have implications for the analysis of other anomalous antebellum African-American sites.
Analysis of both 11B and 12B is focused on the domestic component of Arcadia, thus, artifact groups of particular significance to the understanding of these contexts are largely related to kitchen activities and architectural remains. Ceramic types and forms can have implications from dating, to diet, to economic scaling. These are all important factors in understanding the living conditions at Area
A and the Simpson Lot, and in turn contemplating whom amongst the community at Arcadia is likely to have occupied roles resulting in a comparable socioeconomic setting. A similar case can be made for the architectural remains specific to each space and its associated layout and structural style.
A wide variety of ceramic styles and classes were recovered from the 2011 and 2012 excavations at Arcadia, the majority of which are refined earthenwares, course earthenwares, and stonewares. Ceramics summarized in this chapter include many common table and utilitarian wares of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The largest variety is found in the refined earthenwares, comprised of
118 creamware, pearlware, whiteware, and yellowware. Refined earthenwares were first developed in the
Staffordshire region of England in the mid-18th century, largely by Thomas Astbury and Thomas
Wieldon. White salt glazed wares were winding down in popularity, and through experimenting with the addition of flint to the clay and a lower firing temperature, a new cream colored body was developed which, when dipped in glaze after firing, produced a finer finish than had previously been seen. Though the system of nomenclature affiliated with these wares over the next 150 years was never standardized, an archaeological typology has distinguished three major groups based on attributes and decoration (Hume 1969:123).
Creamware, the earliest, was used as table and tea wares through the 18th century but is rarely found later except in plain kitchen bowls, chamber pots, and bedpans. They are distinguished by their thin, cream colored paste (Hume 1969:123-124). Creamwares are also considered the lowest level of all price listings for the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which is why they are commonly associated with the lower economic class after the turn of the 19th century. Pearlware was developed under the heavy influence of Josiah Wedgwood in the late 18th century, likely as an attempt to copy the popular hard paste Chinese porcelain in the market at the time. The manufacturing method differs from creamware by the addition of flint to the body and cobalt to the glaze, creating a whiter paste and glaze with a bluing affect throughout the body which pools at the base. Pearlware is almost never entirely plain, and is often used as tableware, in several styles of decoration such as chinoiserie, annular/banded, edged, sponged and hand painted. Most of these minimally decorated styles, except for the transfer printed varieties, occupied the second and third lowest level of pricing and were common in the lower economic class (Hume 1969:123-129; Miller 1980:4-17).
There is no defined date for the first development of whiteware, because the lessening of cobalt in the production of pearlware over time resulted in the whitening of the ware's paste and appearance to the point where it was eventually recognized as whiteware. This change was influenced by the
119 introduction of white bone china to the market by Josiah Spode around 1800. Wedgwood also developed whiter wares by adding cobalt to the paste and removing it from the glaze. By 1820, whitewares were very popular as tablewares, and the transfer printed varieties occupied the highest level of pricing on the market- aside from porcelains. By the 1850's, decorated whitewares were decreasing in price and being replaced in popularity by plain ironstone (Hume 1969:123-129; Miller
1980:4-17).
Yellow wares originated in the United Kingdom in the late 18th century, but were produced in the United States from 1797, becoming common in the market from the late 1820's to the turn of the
20th century. Distinguished by their soft, yellow paste, manufacture included both refined and course earthenwares of decorated and undecorated variety, often in utilitarian vessel form (Gallo 1985:10-15).
The course earthenwares present in the 11B and 12B assemblages include lead glazed, alkaline glazed, faience, and redware. Some of these forms, such as redware and faience, were produced in different styles for at least a century before refined earthenwares entered the market, but maintained a presence in the household into the 19th century. Course earthenwares are generally low-fired, porous, and glazed, with bodies of white, buff, or red. Trends in manufacture over time produced varieties differing by paste content and glaze additives such as tin, lead, alkalines, and salts. Similar methods and materials produced the variation in stoneware types as well. By the late 18th and early 19th century, course earthenwares and stonewares were largely utilitarian and produced both in Europe and the
United States (Hume 1969:98-123).
Stonewares present in the 11B and 12B assemblages include albany slip, alkaline glazed, bristol slip, brown, brown-salt glazed, gray, gray-salt glazed, lead glazed, and porcelaneous. Stonewares found at Arcadia are all consistent with American made styles dating mostly to the 19th century (though, some salt glazed and lead glazed styles were made as early as the 17th century), and tend to be hard, high-fired, and non-porous (Hume 1969: 98-123; Steen 2011:21-29). Forms present in the material
120 record are all associated with utilitarian vessels like jugs, storage jars, and kitchen bowls. Stonewares and whitewares represent the majority of the ceramic assemblages at Arcadia, though there are also small amounts of porcelain present.
Chinese porcelain was made for centuries before the European ceramics industry was producing a comparable version in the late 18th century. Hard-paste porcelains are made through the high- temperature firing of kaolin based clay, producing a strong and vitreous ceramic. The soft-paste variety is a mixture of kaolin and ground glass, and is fired at a lower temperature producing a softer ceramic.
The majority of porcelains are decorated in underglaze white and blue chinoiserie motifs. Colonial and antebellum Chinese porcelains are hand painted, while the English variety are transfer printed (Deetz
1977:69-87; Hume 1969:137). Porcelains are most often seen in tea wares, though serving wares, toy dolls, and vases were also made. Porcelain occupied the highest ceramic pricing level of the 18th and
19th centuries, and is often associated with high economic status contexts (Miller 1980:4-8).
Mean ceramic dates calculated for the cream-colored (CC) wares of each component resulted in a date of 1852 for the 11B ceramic assemblage at Area A, and 1859 for the 12B ceramic assemblage at the Simpson Lot. While stylistically very similar, some important distinctions can be made between the two collections, and will be addressed in Chapter 6.
Kitchen glass provides another opportunity for diagnostic analysis. Primarily found in domestic contexts in the form of bottle and container fragments, traits like color, manufacture, finish, base, and decoration can be traced through time. The majority of identifiable bottles at Arcadia are dark or light olive green wine bottles, along with other bottles in aqua, amber, clear, and soda lime. Olive green wine, beer, and alcohol bottles are commonly found on European and American archaeological sites from the 17th-19th centuries. Aqua glass is commonly found in many varieties of bottle, most being storage containers from the early 19th century to the 1920's. Amber bottles are commonly used as beer and storage containers, and found in Europe and the United States through the 19th and 20th centuries.
121 Clear glass became common in the second half of the 19th century and is most often associated with storage, pharmaceutical, and alcohol bottles, as well as glassware. “Soda lime” as a color trait, is the result of the combination of raw ingredients used to make glass without any of the additives usually included to produce a desired color. Silica, soda, and lime allow for the stabilization of glass during production, and result in a green tinted glass (the result of iron impurities in the sand). Because it is the most basic glass product from this recipe, it was also the most plentifully produced glass prior to the
20th century. Soda lime bottles are commonly associated with kitchen consumables, storage, pharmaceuticals, and household items like ink (Lindsey 2014; Hume 1969:60-71).
Though the majority of glass recovered from Arcadia is indeterminate flat and curved clear or soda lime glass, a number of identifiable forms and manufacture methods are available for analysis, and will be described in detail in Chapter 6. Glass containers in the assemblage with distinguishable manufacturing methods include mostly bottles, jars, and glassware which have been either free blown or molded. Finishes for bottle specimens include applied string, fire polished, flanged, folded, tooled, improved tooled, threaded, and machine finished. The majority of these finishing methods are associated with mouth-blown bottles dating to the 19th century. Bases for bottle specimens in the assemblage include rough pontil, improved pontil, cup bottom, post bottom, and molded. The majority of these bases as associated with mouth-blown bottles dating to the 19th century (Lindsey 2014). Other forms of glass found at Arcadia include glassware, snuff bottle, pharmaceutical bottle, vial, vase, window glass, lamp chimney, ink bottle, marble, bead, tube, mirror, and doorknob. Information on other materials and artifacts included in the 11B and 12B assemblages will be provided, when appropriate, as they occur in the analysis to follow.
Material and Data Analysis
Area A (11B) is presumed to be entirely residential in nature, but an in-depth examination of the assemblage is still necessary to confirm this assumption. Excavations generally focused on areas of
122 interest revealed during GPR and surface survey, so a functional analysis of the blocks and trenches designated during excavation will further delineate how space and materials were used throughout the area. Artifact frequencies are used to reveal patterns about life and activities at the site, whereas specific artifacts and features allow for more personal insight into its residents. Each will be utilized in addition to the historical record to provide an interpretation of Area A that builds upon the previous two seasons of excavation at the site.
The 2012 field season at the Simpson's Lot component of Arcadia (12B) presented a challenge in that even though it was better documented, there had been less archaeological investigation of the land. During excavations, several activity areas were designated based on the implications of systematic shovel testing across the site. One of these parcels, Activity Area 4, is thought to be the location of an old slave cabin to the west of Ezekiel Simpson's family home. Details as to the true inhabitants of the cabin, which most likely changed over time, are not entirely certain. A comparison to the residents of Area A could shed some light on the identities and lifeways of the contemporaries who lived in the shadow of the mill owner's family. For this reason, artifact frequencies and features will be examined from the assemblage of Activity Area 4. Both similarities and differences in the material culture of Area A and the Simpson Lot may further our knowledge of identity and socioeconomic dynamics at Arcadia.
11B Block 2
Block 2 is located on the southern end of excavations at Area A, near the center of the east/westerly grid and directly to the east of a large tree. This block was one of the first areas opened to test excavation and consisted of 5 test units (Units 17, 24, 25, 26, 37). Block 2 was placed over a potential brick or sandstone feature detected during probing of the area by John C. Phillips, principal investigator of the project. Upon investigation no feature was detected and it was determined that the probe struck a root from the nearby tree. The Block 2 assemblage consists of 14.62% artifacts from the
123 Kitchen group by count, 75.38% Architecture, 0.77% Clothing, 1.03% Arms, 1.28% Tobacco, and 4.1%
Activities.
The Block 2 Kitchen group (57ct) consists largely of whiteware, with small samples of creamware and pearlware, along with several earlier redware and Native American sand tempered plain sherds. Utilitarian stonewares were also present, as were glass bottle fragments and 23.4g of oyster shell. Of the refined earthenwares the assemblage consisted of plain creamware (2), plain pearlware
(1), annular (3), hand painted (4), plain (16), sponged (4), and transfer printed (2) whitewares. Other ceramics included glazed redware (2), sand tempered plain Native American ware (1), and alkaline glazed (1) and brown (1) stonewares. Wine bottle fragments were all dark olive green (2), with light green (1) and soda lime (4) indeterminate bottle fragments as well. Other glass was indeterminate clear
(1), dark olive green (1), and soda lime (9). Vessel forms included hand painted (1) and sponged (1) whiteware bowls, hand painted (1) whiteware cup, and a hand painted (1) whiteware plate.
Architectural remains included structural elements such as handmade (474.7g) and indeterminate brick (1336.9g), cut whole nails (9), cut fragmentary nails (38), indeterminate fragmentary nails (88), an iron hinge (1), and soda lime window glass (68). Arms items include a brass escutcheon plate (1), lock plate (1), and priming flask (1), and lead shot (6.3mm). Clothing materials include brass hook & eye (1), iron button (1), and a pewter button (1). Tobacco items include only dark olive green snuff bottle fragments (5). Activities items include iron strap (2), container fragments
(1.4g), lead indeterminate object (2), and sandstone chunk (10). The total assemblage is consistent with a residential area including structural remains, activities such as pipe smoking and hunting, and daily lifeways. The majority of artifacts range from the early 19th to early 20th century.
124 11B Block 3
Block 3 is located on the northern end of excavations at Area A, near the center of the east/westerly grid. It contains three architectural features and a myriad of historic materials. This block encompasses Test Units 54, 55, 60, 63, and 64. Artifact count frequencies for these units consist of
14.16% Kitchen, 83.56% Architecture, 0.09% Furniture, 0.03% Arms, 0.19% Clothing, 0.12%
Personal, 0.15% Tobacco, and 1.67% Activities. The Block 2 assemblage is generally residential in nature, with some industrial materials present.
Feature 326 presented as an amorphous stain littered with large brick fragments. Excavation revealed what is believed to be two collapsed brick pier footers (labeled A and B), associated with the foundations of a raised structure. They measured 1.52m in length (north/south) and 1.14m in width
(east/west), and appeared to have once been intruded upon by a previous shovel test, likely from the
2009 season. Artifact frequencies for Feature 326 are 17.43% Kitchen, 80.67% Architecture, 0.11%
Arms, 0.22% Clothing, and 1.56% Activities.
The Kitchen assemblage consists of annular (6), plain (1), and shell edged (1) pearlware, annular (4), flow blue mulberry (2), hand painted (3), plain (21), shell edged (1), and transfer printed
(3) whiteware, plain yellowware (1), indeterminate refined earthenware (1), indeterminate porcelain
(1), brown (1) and brown salt glazed (1) stoneware, dark olive green wine bottle (4), aqua (21) and soda lime (34) indeterminate bottle, clear indeterminate glassware (4), aqua (10), clear (14), and soda lime (21) indeterminate glass, a cow's tooth (1), indeterminate bone (0.5g), and oyster shell (78.4g).
The Architectural assemblage consists of handmade brick (6754.3g), indeterminate brick
(11598.4g), unspecified mortar (3), cut whole nail (28), cut fragmentary nail (54), wire fragmentary nail (1), indeterminate fragmentary nail (47), soda lime window glass (50), and a doorknob (1). A brass percussion cap is the only Arms item. Clothing materials include brass hook & eye (1), and a porcelain
125 prosser button (1). Activities materials include iron container fragments (338.2g), wire (56.6g), indeterminate object (1), lamp chimney (6), and sandstone chunk (7).
Around 2 meters to the southeast of the brick piers (F326), excavators uncovered an amorphous stain in level 1 of Unit 64 which upon investigation was revealed to be another brick pier measuring
80cm (north/south) and 40cm (east/west). This pier was labeled Feature 329; recovery consisted of
36.96% Kitchen, 60.87% Architecture, and 2.18% Clothing. The Kitchen assemblage consists of plain
(3), sponged (1), and transfer printed (3) whiteware, indeterminate porcelain (1), light olive green wine bottle (1), and aqua (2), blue/green (1), and clear (5) indeterminate glass. The Architectural assemblage consists of handmade brick (3000g), indeterminate brick (711.6g), unspecified mortar (14.7g), cut whole nail (1), cut fragmentary nail (1), and indeterminate fragmentary nail (5). An iron buckle (1) is the only clothing item.
Located just to the west of Feature 329 is Feature 337, a likely post hole encountered in level 4 of Unit 64 as a dark circular stain. It measures 32cm (north/south) and 30cm (east/west), and was excavated to a depth of 16cm. Recovery was 20% Kitchen, 40% Architecture, 20% Furniture, and 20%
Activities. These items included flow blue mulberry whiteware (1), indeterminate brick (76g), cut fragmentary nail (1), an iron furniture tack (1), and sandstone chunk (1).
The architectural features in Block 3 indicate that this block is located over the foundations of a structure which is supported by the total collection of artifacts within Block 3. The Kitchen group
(459ct) consists mainly of whiteware fragments dating to the 19th century. These include annular (23), edge molded (2), flow blue mulberry (5), gilded (3), hand painted (20), plain (103), shell edged (7), sponged (5), sponged and hand painted (1), and transfer printed (26) styles. Pearlware and creamware are also present, consisting of gilded (2), hand painted (1), and plain (4) creamware, and annular (7), plain (5), shell edged (2), sprig earthentone polychrome (2) and transfer printed (1) pearlware. Other ceramics present are indeterminate refined earthenware (1), indeterminate porcelain (3), and
126 stonewares including brown (4), brown salt glazed (6), and alkaline glazed (4). Ceramic vessel fragments include bottles (2), bowls (26), cups (14), a jug (1), plates (18), and saucers (3).
The glass Kitchen assemblage consists of dark and light olive green wine bottle fragments (14),
81 other bottle fragments, drinking glass fragments (5), very thin glass (4), and 99 indeterminate glass fragments. Faunal remains include a cow's tooth, indeterminate bone (5), and 227.4g of oyster shell.
The Architectural assemblage consists of 14,594.7g of handmade brick, along with glazed and unglazed indeterminate brick (26,102.5g). Metal artifacts included whole cut nails (115), indeterminate whole nails (3), cut fragmentary nails (328), wire fragmentary nails (3), indeterminate fragmentary nails
(250), a hand wrought spike (1), cut spikes (6), an iron latch (1), soda lime window glass (269), and a clear glass doorknob.
The Furniture assemblage consists of brass (1) and iron (2) furniture tacks. The Arms group consists of a brass percussion cap (1). Clothing items consist of brass hook & eye (1), prosser buttons
(2), and an iron buckle (1), button (1), and snap (1). Personal items include clear mirror fragments (2), pharmaceutical bottle (1), and pencil lead (1). The Tobacco assemblage consists of a kaolin pipe (1), and dark green snuff bottles (4). Lastly, Activities items consist of copper wire (1), iron barrel band (1), bolts (2), container fragments, a nut (1), lamp chimney (6), vase (2), sandstone chunks (22), utilized chunk and Marianna chert flake (1), non-utilized flakes (2), and indeterminate worked shell (1).
Artifacts of diagnostic interest recovered in this collection include the prosser button, named so for its process of manufacture, also known as the “dust” process. Dating from 1840 to around 1909, prosser, or “china” buttons, began in England and soon moved to France and America. By the 1870's they were mass produced and flooding the market at a low enough price to be purchased by the lower economic class (Sprague 2002: 111-124). During the Arcadia occupation, these plain porcelain buttons may have been affordable to slaves with a small income, or by Forsyth and Simpson as they provided low-cost clothing to the slave population.
127 Also, as will be observed in every instance at Area A, when identifiable, cut nails outnumber wire and hand wrought nails by a large margin. Metal fasteners are often some of the most numerous artifacts found on historical sites, and can be observed changing in style and manufacturing techniques from their inception to this very day. Cut nails were first produced in America in 1790, by the slicing of sheet iron into alternating “V's” which were able to produce more per sheet. A more economical process than smithing individual nails, they quickly replaced the hand wrought variety. Spikes, however, were still produced in this manner for some time. Though this level of detail was not recorded in the 11B artifact laboratory, the author recalls that the head style and fiber direction on many of the cut nails at Area A are consistent with a later variety, widely used after the 1820's. Some wire nails were also recovered from Area A. The round-bodied, machine made wire nail was developed in the
1850's, but was not mass produced until the last quarter of the 19th century (Hume 1969:252-254).
While it is certainly possible that maintenance on the mill village in its later years could have incorporated this new product, it is consistent with an original construction date earlier than 1850 that the majority of nails at the site are cut rather than wire. For a breakdown of nails from the 11B and 12B assemblages see Appendix L.
11B Block 4
Block 4 is located in the northwestern quadrant of Area A, just west of Block 1, which was excavated during the 2009 and 2010 field seasons. It consists of test units 74, 75, 76, 77, 98, 99, 100, and 101. Block 4 was opened late in the season, after several architectural features in neighboring
Block 3 indicated that this area was likely associated with a structure, and more foundational remains might be found nearby. The only features designated in Block 4 were Feature 338 and 339. Feature 338 is located in Unit 98 and was excavated to a depth of 86cmbd when it was determined to be naught but a burned tree root. Artifacts recovered with Feature 338 include indeterminate brick (1.4g), indeterminate fragmentary nails (2), and non-utilized Tallahatta quartzite flakes (2).
128 Feature 339 is located in Unit 101, and was discovered just sub-surface by probing. After uncovering two large sandstone chunks, the feature was pedestaled to the bottom of level 1 and determined to be associated with the brick piers used to support the mill village structures. Feature 339 was left in situ; artifacts from the excavated matrix include historic ceramics, nails, brick fragments, and sandstone chunks.
The total Block 4 assemblage consists of 16.4% Kitchen, 67.87% Architecture, 0.19%
Furniture, 0.10% Arms, 0.43% Clothing, 0.48% Personal, 0.72% Tobacco, 13.76% Activities, and
0.05% Unspecified. Of the Kitchen artifacts, the majority are plain whiteware sherds (77). Other whitewares include annular (6), flow blue mulberry (1), hand painted (32), shell edged (7), sponged (5), and transfer printed (26). Creamware and pearlwares consist of gilded creamware (1), and plain (9), and shell edged (2) pearlware. Other ceramics include blue and white yellowware (5), indeterminate porcelain (1), glazed redware (1), and alkaline glazed (9), brown salt glazed (9), and indeterminate (1) stoneware. Distinguishable vessel fragments include bowls (8), cups (20), plates (16), saucers (3), and a platter (1).
The Block 4 Kitchen glass assemblage consists of dark (7) and light (18) olive green wine bottle and 39 other wine bottle fragments, very thin glass (2), and 76 indeterminate glass fragments. Other
Kitchen items include 36g of oyster shell, several knife fragments (3), and part of an iron lid. The
Architectural assemblage consists of handmade brick (1834.3g) and indeterminate brick (4501.8g), whole cut nails (64), whole hand wrought nail (1), whole indeterminate nails (3), cut fragmentary nails
(304), hand wrought fragmentary nails (2), indeterminate fragmentary nails (279), hand wrought spikes
(3), indeterminate spikes (3), an iron bracket (1), iron hinges (7), clear window glass (104), and soda lime window glass (203).
Brass Furniture items include a furniture tack (1) and escutcheon plate (1); iron items include a drawer pull (1) and escutcheon plate (1). The Arms items include a brass bullet, and a 9mm molded
129 lead shot. The Clothing assemblage consists of brass hook & eye (1), iron buckle (1), button (3), thimble (1), and a prosser button (1). Personal items include brass shoe hook & eye (1), and mirror glass in aqua (1), clear (1), and soda lime (7) glass. Tobacco items include kaolin pipe (1), dark (9) and light (6) olive green snuff bottle. The brass Activity items include a rivet (1); lead items include a stamped bale seal (1); iron items include a bolt (1), container fragments (29g), gear (1), machine parts
(6), nut (1), washers (2), and wire (1). Lithic Activity items include sandstone chunks (244), Tallahatta quartzite flakes (2), Marianna chert flake (1), and utilized flint chunk (1). Other items include a utilized clear glass flake (1) and fired clay (1).
The Block 4 assemblage is consistent with a living area and outer space where activities such as cooking, sewing, smoking, firearm maintenance, eating and drinking were taking place. The nature of the furniture and personal items recovered indicate this area was likely located under a residential structure. The presence of machine parts could mean that factory or mill hands/overseers may have been mending machinery or harboring parts of it in their housing. The lithic flakes discovered in Block
4 may be from earlier Native American activity at the site, though the presence of a utilized glass flake seems to intimate a later experiment with knapping. Overall, this space was likely related to both indoor and outdoor activities.
11B Trench 2
Trench 2 is located in the center of the east/westerly grid of Area A, slightly south of its center.
It was the first trench opened in the 2011 field season. Trench 2 consists of units 18, 20, 23, 27, 29, 33,
36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 66, 67, and 101. The only feature present in Trench 2 is Feature 324, which was discovered in level 3 of Unit 33 and is also present in Unit 29. It appeared as a circular stain filled with large brick fragments, and upon excavation it was determined to be a post hole also associated with a brick structural pier. The feature measured 45cm (north/south) and 38cm (east/west), with a
130 depth of 19cm. Recovery included plain (1) and transfer printed (1) whiteware, handmade brick
(2413.1), indeterminate brick (399.3), and sandstone chunk (1).
The Trench 2 assemblage consists of 15.14% Kitchen, 79.66% Architecture, 0.05% Furniture,
0.05% Arms, 0.43% Clothing, 0.59% Tobacco, 3.97% Activities, and 0.11% Unspecified. The Kitchen assemblage consists mostly of plain whiteware (62); other whitewares include annular (10), flow blue mulberry (1), hand painted (10), shell edged (5), sponged (1), sponged and hand painted (1), transfer printed (26), and wormy finger painted (1). Other ceramics include gilded creamware (1), hand painted
(1), plain (17), shell edged (1), transfer printed (3), and wormy finger painted (1) pearlware; annular (1) and blue and white yellowware (2); hand painted over glaze porcelain (1), alkaline glazed course earthenware (2), and albany slip (1), alkaline glazed (7), and brown (1) stoneware. The glass Kitchen assemblage consists of soda lime (2), dark (10) and light (5) olive green wine bottle, 22 other bottle fragments, clear tumbler glassware (1), and other glass in aqua (8), clear (18), and soda lime (54) glass.
Other Kitchen items include 18.4g of oyster shell, nuts (2), and a peach pit (1). Identifiable ceramic vessels fragments include bowls (3), cups (16), plates (9), saucers (4), a pitcher (1), and a pot (1).
The Architectural assemblage consists of handmade (5016.8g) and indeterminate brick
(5069.7g), whole cut nails (41), cut fragmentary nails (209), wire fragmentary nails (2), indeterminate fragmentary nails (389), hand wrought spikes (3), cut spikes (7), an indeterminate spike (1), an iron hinge (1), clear window glass (57), and soda lime window glass (393). The only Furniture and Arms items are a brass furniture escutcheon plate, and a 6.7mm lead shot. Clothing items include a brass hook & eye (1), and thimble (1), iron eyelets (5), and a prosser button. Tobacco items include kaolin (1) and stoneware (2) pipe bowl fragments, and snuff bottle (8). Activities items include iron container fragments (58.1), handles (2), a hardware ring (1), nut (1), pipe fitting (1), strap (1), washer (1), sandstone chunk (34), slate fragment (1), coastal agate flake (1), Marianna chert flake (1), and fired clay (92.1g).
131 Trench 2 stretches 14m across Area A, and likely represents a mix of inner and outer spaces associated with one or more mill village structures. The assemblage is consistent with activities such as smoking, sewing, eating and drinking, hunting/gun maintenance, and lithic knapping. It is possible the lithic flakes are associated with an earlier Native American presence at the site, and that the fired clay intimates a nearby hearth or fire. The architectural assemblage and Feature 324 are consistent with the structural remains found throughout the site, constructed with mid-19th century fasteners and locally made brick, and raised on brick and sandstone piers.
11B Trench 3
Trench 3 is located on the eastern side of the Area A grid, just south of its center and to the southeast of a large tree. Shortly after the trench was begun, a sheet midden was distinguished running through the first few levels of each unit. This feature was numbered 322, and additional 1m x 2m test units were opened to chase the feature. Feature 322 runs through every unit eventually opened in
Trench 3, though the outer extent is unknown. Its excavated dimensions are 8m in length (north/south) and 4.8m in width (east/west). Feature 322 was identified by a layer of loose sandy loam from 8 to
32cmbd with a Munsell designation of 10YR 5/2 grayish brown which consists of a high density of early to mid-19th century artifacts. Trench 3 and Feature 322 encompass units 19, 21, 22, 28, 30, 32,
35, 43, 44, 45, 47, 52, 53, 56, 57, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 78, 84, and 85. Other features present in
Trench 3 are Feature 321, 323, 328, 330, and 331.
The total Trench 3 assemblage consists of 20.1% Kitchen, 76.14% Architecture, 0.16%
Furniture, 0.33% Arms, 0.26% Clothing, 0.33% Personal, 0.75% Tobacco, and 1.92% Activities..
Refined earthenwares make up the majority of the Kitchen assemblage, with plain whiteware (567) the most numerous. Other whitewares include annular (71), decal transfer (1), edge molded (9), flow blue mulberry (4), gilded (1), hand painted (142), shell edged (32), sponged (113), sponged and hand painted (27), transfer printed (167), and wormy finger painted (4). Creamwares include gilded (6), hand
132 painted (5), and plain (17); pearlwares include annular (10), gaudy dutch (1), molded edge (3), plain
(48), shell edged (8), transfer printed (3), and wormy finger painted (10); and yellowwares include annular (9), blue and white (9), and plain (6).
Course earthenwares include alkaline glazed (7), lead glazed (17), indeterminate lead glazed
(2), ironstone (1), and glazed redware (14). Stonewares include albany slip (3), alkaline glazed (111), bristol slip (1), brown salt glazed (30), brown (7), gray salt glazed (7), gray (2), lead glazed (4), porcelaneous (2), and indeterminate (2). Other ceramics present are 5 sherds of indeterminate porcelain and one sand/grog tempered Native American ware. Identifiable ceramic vessel fragments include bowls (61), cups (127), plates (51), platters (5), pots (3), saucers (31), bottle (1), pitcher (1), teapot (1), and tureen (1).
The glass Kitchen assemblage consists of dark (122) and light (63) olive green wine bottle fragments, light olive green case bottle (1), and other bottle fragments in amber (12), aqua (24), blue
(4), brown (2), clear (23), flint (1), dark olive green (11), light olive green (8), and soda lime (151).
Glasswares include soda lime tumbler (1), indeterminate flint glassware (1), and indeterminate clear glassware (5). Other glass consists of clear (27) and soda lime (11) very thin glass, and indeterminate glass in amber (2), aqua (29), blue (8), blue/green (5), clear (148), flint (11), dark olive green (1), light olive green (2), soda lime (470), and white (1). Faunal remains include indeterminate mammal (1), indeterminate bone (2), 220.5g of oyster shell, snails (4), and indeterminate shell (4). Floral remains include peach pits (6), and seeds (4.7g). Metal Kitchen items include a cast iron kettle (1) and a spoon
(1).
The Architectural assemblage of Trench 3 was quite large, with handmade bricks (83293.8g) comprising the largest portion of artifacts. Glazed brick (19.2g), and indeterminate brick (58004.6), as well as finished (2812.9), finished and marked (420g), marked (4518.6g), and oyster shell (728.5) mortar make up the rest of the construction materials. Metal fasteners include whole brass nails (3),
133 whole cut iron nails (242), whole hand wrought nails (1), indeterminate whole nails (1), cut fragmentary nails (1169), hand wrought fragmentary nails (4), wire fragmentary nails (32) indeterminate fragmentary nails (1353), hand wrought spikes (11), cut spikes (4), machine made spikes
(1), indeterminate spikes (8), iron hinges (2), and latches (8). Window glass included clear (116) and soda lime (1936).
The Furniture assemblage consists of brass tacks both hand wrought (1) and indeterminate (2), and iron tacks both hand wrought (2) and indeterminate (3), as well as lamp chimney (2), lamp fragments (4), and vase fragments in blue/green (7) and soda lime (1). Arms items include brass shell
(1), bullet (1), and percussion caps (12), iron priming flask (2), copper percussion caps (2), dropped lead shot of 3.4mm, 3.7mm, 3.8mm, 3.9mm, 8.5mm, and molded shot of 7mm, and 8.2mm. Arms lithics include dark gray gunflint flakes (2) spall (1) and fragment (3), with light gray flint fragments
(5), and honey colored flint fragment (1).
The Clothing assemblage consists of brass hook & eyes (8), buttons (10), and pins (2); iron buckles (2), and buttons (5); a pewter button (1), bone button (1), prosser buttons (3), and both blue (1) and black (2) beads. Personal items include a brass earring (1), jewelry parts (2), shoe hook & eye (1), iron necklace chain (12), a vial (1), and mirror glass in aqua (1), clear (15), and soda lime (11). Tobacco items include kaolin pipe bowl fragments (18) and stem fragments of 4/64” (4), 5/64” (12), and 6/64”
(4), as well as stoneware (5) and course earthenware (3) pipes. Snuff bottle fragments are also present in dark (48) and light (7) olive green.
The Activities assemblage consists of brass rivets (3), copper hardware ring (1), rivet & rove
(2), and washer (1); iron chain (1), container fragments (383.4g), cotter pin (1), gears (2), handle (1), hardware ring (1), horse tack (2), machine parts (6), metal plate (1), nuts (2), screw (2), screw eye (1), shuttle tip (1), strap (8), washer (1), and wire (9). Glass items include marbles (2), utilized flake (4), and tube (1). Lithics items include sandstone chunk (157), jasper core (1), denticulate (1), slate
134 fragments (5), utilized flakes in coastal agate (1) and chert (1), utilized chunks in coastal agate (1), quartzite (2) and sandstone (1), and non-utilized flakes in coastal chert (1), chert (1), quartz (2),
Tallahatta quartzite (3), and sandstone (1). Other items include worked shell (2) and fired clay (2141g).
FIGURE 24. Area A proposed structure and Feature 322. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
135 The mapping of architectural features at Area A led to the proposal of the structure outlined in
Figure 24. Based in this rendering, Trench 3 is believed to be located directly behind the proposed structure in a shared outer space. The assemblage from Feature 322 contributed to this interpretation, as a wide variety of items resulting from activities often performed outdoors were spread across the sheet midden. Other associated features in Trench 3 also support the possibility of a shared activity area existing throughout most of the trench. The Feature 322 artifact assemblage (10,435) consists of
21.58% Kitchen, 74.99% Architecture, 0.06% Furniture, 0.34% Arms, 0.24% Clothing, 0.23%
Personal, 0.84% Tobacco, 1.69% Activities, and 0.03% Unspecified.
The ceramic Kitchen assemblage consists of gilded (4), hand painted (4), and plain (15) creamware; annular (10), gaudy dutch (1), molded edge (3), plain (40), shell edged (6), transfer printed
(2), and wormy finger painted (8) pearlware; annular (62), decal transfer (1), edge molded (9), flow blue mulberry (3), gilded (1), hand painted (120), plain (473), shell edged (28), sponged (91), sponged and hand painted (22), transfer printed (136), and wormy finger painted (3) whiteware; annular (10), blue and white (9), and plain (6) yellowware; indeterminate refined earthenware (7); indeterminate porcelain (3); alkaline glazed (7), broad floral hand painted (1), indeterminate lead glazed (2), lead glazed (12) course earthenware, and glazed redware (8); albany slip (3), alkaline glazed (83), bristol slip (1), brown salt glazed (7), brown (4), gray salt glazed (7), gray (2), indeterminate (2), lead glazed
(4), and porcelaneous (2) stoneware; and sand/grog tempered plain Native American ceramic.
The glass Kitchen assemblage consists of dark (101) and light (54) olive green wine bottle, other bottles in amber (10), aqua (30), blue (4), brown (2), clear (19), dark olive green (10), light olive green (8), and soda lime (138); soda lime tumbler glass (1), indeterminate drinking glass (4); clear (24) and soda lime (6) very thin glass; and indeterminate glass in amber (2), aqua (23), blue (6), blue/green
(5), clear (123), flint (10), dark olive green (1), light olive green (1), and soda lime (404). Other
136 Kitchen items include oyster shell (97.4g), snail shell (0.6g), peach pits (5), seeds (3.7g), and an iron kettle (1).
The Feature 322 Architectural assemblage consists of handmade brick (74,883.4g), indeterminate glazed brick (19.2g), indeterminate brick (40,105.1g), oyster shell mortar (11.4g), unspecified mortar (68.2), cut whole nails (184), hand wrought whole nails (1), wire whole nails (1), indeterminate whole nails (1), hand wrought fragmentary nails (5), cut fragmentary nails (942), wire fragmentary nails (32), indeterminate fragmentary nails (1160), hand wrought spikes (10), cut spikes
(3), machine made spike (1), indeterminate spikes (8), iron hinge (2), iron latch (3), clear window glass
(116), and soda lime window glass (1559).
The Feature 322 Furniture assemblage consists of brass (2) and iron (4) tacks. Arms materials include brass shell (1) and percussion caps (10), copper percussion caps (2), dropped (11) and molded
(2) lead shot, dark gray gunflint flakes (2), gunflint fragments in dark gray (2), light gray (4), and honey-colored (1), and dark gray gunflint spall (1). Clothing materials include brass hook & eye (8), buttons (7), and pins (2); iron buttons (3), and buckle (1); pewter button (1), prosser button (2), and black glass bead (1). Personal items include brass earring (1), shoe hook & eye (1), jewelry part (1), clear (13) and soda lime (7) mirror glass, and an indeterminate bead (1). Tobacco materials include kaolin pipe bowl (16), kaolin pipe stem in 4/64 (4), 5/64 (11), and 6/64 (4), stoneware pipe bowl (4), course earthenware pipe bowl (3), and dark (40) and light (6) olive green snuff bottle.
The Feature 322 Activities assemblage consists of brass rivets (2) and indeterminate objects (3); copper hardware ring (1) and rivet & rove (2); iron chain (2), container fragments (358.7g), cotter pin
(1), gear (2), handle (1), hardware ring (1), horse tack (2), machine part (5), indeterminate object (12), metal plate (1), nut (2), screw (2), screw eye (1), strap (3), and wire (7); lead indeterminate objects (3); lamp chimney (2), marble (1), tube (1), utilized flake (4), blue/green vase (4), worked shell (1),
137 sandstone chunk (95), core (1), denticulate (1), non-utilized flake (6), utilized flake (2), utilized chunk
(3), slate (2), fired clay (31g), and unmodified clay (52.4g).
The location and nature of Feature 321 presents the question of whether another structure may be intruding upon the southwestern corner of Trench 3. Feature 321 was discovered in level 5 of Unit
19 when a dark circular stain was distinguished during excavation. It was excavated down 7cm and determined to be a likely post hole with a diameter of 20cm; it contained only indeterminate brick
(47.7g), an indeterminate iron object (6g), concretion (5.7g), and carbonized wood (0.2g).
Feature 323 is located in the northwestern corner of Trench 3 along the proposed wall of the structure just west of the trench. It was discovered early in the excavation of the trench in level 3 of
Unit 35, though it was eventually found to run through Units 32 and 44. This feature was first identified by a large circular grayish brown stain in plan view, though revealed a deep basin (ending at 80cmbd) filled with brick and mortar upon excavation. The basin might have been related to some sort of heating or cooking element attached to the back of the cabin, filled as a midden at some point. The circular basin also contained a myriad of historic artifacts. Frequencies for this feature are 4.6% Kitchen,
92.57% Architecture, 0.15% Furniture, 0.30% Arms, 0.45% Clothing, 1.78% Personal, and 0.30%
Activities.
The Feature 323 Kitchen assemblage consists of plain (1) and shell edged (1) pearlware; hand painted (1), plain (1), and wormy finger painted (1) whiteware; clear bottle (2), indeterminate flint glassware (1), soda lime very thin glass (2), indeterminate glass in aqua (4), clear (2), flint (1), and soda lime (12), indeterminate bone (1), oyster shell (20.5g), and seeds (0.3g). The Architectural assemblage consists of handmade brick (4,597.3g), indeterminate brick (5,908.2g), finished mortar (2,812.9g), marked mortar (4,518.6g), marked and finished mortar (420g), oyster shell mortar (717.1g), unspecified mortar (5,239.4g), cut whole nails (9), cut fragmentary nails (21), indeterminate fragmentary nails (15), and soda lime window glass (29). A brass furniture tack (1) is the only Furniture
138 item, and iron priming flask fragments (2) are the only Arms items. Clothing materials include a blue
(1) and black (1) glass bead, and a bone button (1). Personal items include fragments of an iron necklace chain (12). Activities materials include an indeterminate iron object (1), a non-utilized chert flake (1), and unmodified clay (368.4g).
Feature 328 is located in the center of Trench 3 in Units 45 and 53. It was first recognized as an amorphous red stain producing a high density of burned clay through level 4 of the adjoining wall of the units. The larger pieces of burned clay appeared articulated upon initial excavation, and were pedestaled through the bottom of level 4. They formed an arc, though the material was unstable and much of it had likely crumbled into smaller fragments gathered with the surrounding matrix. After being recorded the remaining feature was excavated to the bottom of level 5, recovery included only fired clay (2110g). In total the feature measured 1.2m long (north/south) and 65cm wide (east/west), and was determined to most likely be the remains of a fire pit. This interpretation lends further to the theory that the majority of Trench 3 is an outer activity area.
Feature 330 is located on the eastern side of the trench in Units 47 and 68, and was first discovered in level 2 of Unit 47. Similar to Feature 328, this feature presented as a reddish circular stain producing large clay nodules. It was pedestaled in Unit 47 to provide a profile for mapping, and after total excavation the feature measured 70cm in length (north/south) and 90cm in width (east/west), with a depth of 8cm. The only historic artifacts recovered were indeterminate brick (23.8g) and clay nodules. The feature was determined to be a clay cap. Upon further excavation of these units a dark amorphous stain was recognized just under Feature 330 and designated Feature 331. This feature contains historic artifacts consistent with those of the sheet midden (Feature 322). After excavation the feature was determined to be the result of root push, but the original strata still appears associated with
Feature 322. In total it measured 1.16m long (north/south), 84cm wide (east/west), and 28cm deep.
139 The Feature 331 Kitchen assemblage consists of hand painted (1), plain (2), sponged (2), sponged and hand painted (1) whiteware, and soda lime indeterminate glass (1). The Architectural assemblage consists of handmade brick (715g), indeterminate brick (247.2g), whole cut nail (1), fragmentary cut nails (8), and fragmentary indeterminate nails (9). Soda lime mirror glass (1) is the only Personal item; iron container fragments (0.9g) are the only Activities items.
Trench 3 provided many potentially diagnostic artifacts for study. The slightly higher percentage of Arms, Tobacco, and Activities group artifacts along with the presence of Feature 328 suggest that perhaps this area was used by the village's inhabitants recreationally, and as a work area, surrounding a hearth outside one of their buildings. Refuse from this structure and daily activities in the outer space are likely what contributed to the deposit of the sheet midden across the area.
Undoubtedly one of these activities was tobacco smoking. Of the total number of pipe fragments in the 11B Tobacco assemblage (61ct), 42 of them were located in Trench 3 and Feature 322.
Tobacco was introduced to the English in the 16th century, and pipe smoking quickly became a way of life throughout the colonies. The mass manufacture of kaolin ceramic pipes by the English resulted in the availability of pipes to the general market at a very low price. This, along with the independent production of pipes by both Native and Colonial Americans, explains the high density of pipe fragments found on archaeological sites throughout North America from the 17th-19th centuries. Pipe bowl typologies based on maker's molds and bowl shapes were traditionally used to identify and date pipes. The discovery by Jean Harrington that the diameter of pipe stems decreased over time eventually provided a better diagnostic tool (Hume 1969:296-312). Of the measurable pipe stems at Area A, 5 measured 4/64”, 14 measured 5/64”, and 4 measured 6/64". According to Deetz (1977:28), this sets a date range of between 1680 and 1800.
140 11B Trench 4
Trench 4 is located in the southwestern portion of the Area A grid. It consists of Units 31, 32,
34, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, and Features 335, 336, and 340. The trench was expanded off of Units 31, 32, and 34 after probing indicated a possible structural feature located sub-surface to the west of the original units. This did indeed lead to the discovery of Feature 335, located in Unit 89. This feature, a collapsed brick pier, is located not far from another brick pier (Feature 340) and the remains of a fire pit designated Feature 336. The total assemblage frequencies for Trench 4 are 29.34% Kitchen,
66.44% Architecture, 0.51% Arms, 0.34% Clothing, 0.84% Tobacco, and 2.53% Activities.
The ceramic assemblage of Trench 4 is made up mostly of plain whiteware (20) sherds. Other whitewares include annular (3), hand painted (12), shell edged (2), sponged (1), and transfer printed
(9). The only creamwares present are hand painted (1) and plain (1); pearlwares include annular (3), hand painted (1), plain (4), transfer printed (1), and wormy finger painted (1). Kitchen glass is comprised of wine bottle glass in dark (9) and light (4) olive green, and soda lime (1), as well as other bottle glass in aqua (2), clear (2), and soda lime (6). Glassware and other glass includes indeterminate drinking glass (1), very thin glass in aqua (27), and soda lime (7), and indeterminate glass in aqua (10), blue/green (1), clear (7), and soda lime (38). The Kitchen assemblage also includes 45.9g of oyster shell and 0.2g of indeterminate seeds. Identifiable ceramic vessels include bowls (5), cups (2), and a plate (1).
The Architectural assemblage consists of 2148.4g of handmade brick, 1.5g of glazed brick,
1501.8g of indeterminate brick, cut whole nails (28), cut fragmentary nails (92), indeterminate fragmentary nails (36), cut iron spikes (2), clear (1) and soda lime (81) window glass, and cut sandstone (2). The Arms assemblage consists of a brass percussion cap (1), a pewter priming flask (1), and light gray gunflint flake (1). The Clothing assemblage consists of a brass shoe lace tip (1) and iron buckle (1). Tobacco items include a stoneware pipe bowl fragment (1) and snuff bottles (4). The
141 Activities assemblage consists of iron barrel band (1), container fragments (58.4g), fence wire (1), screw eye (1), and indeterminate objects in iron (1) and lead (2). As well as a utilized glass flake in aqua (1), blue/green vase fragments (2), sandstone chunk (4), fired clay (54.4g), and non-utilized chert flakes (2).
Feature 335 was first identified as a dark circular stain in the plan view of level 1 of Units 89 and 90. It was bisected for a profile, and then excavated in full. The feature was determined to be the remains of collapsed brick pier measuring 50cm long (north/south), 60cm wide (east/west), and 15cm in depth. It is center point is 3386854.6N 491988.12E. The Feature 335 assemblage consisted of
36.36% Kitchen, 61.82% Architecture, and 1.82% Arms. Kitchen materials include dark olive green (1) and soda lime (1) wine bottle, very thin glass in aqua (3) and soda lime (2), and indeterminate soda lime glass (13). Architecture materials include handmade brick (1,154.4), indeterminate brick (151.3g), cut stone (1,650g), whole cut nail (4), fragmentary cut nail (11), and soda lime window glass (8). The only Arms item is a light gray gunflint flake (1). Fired clay (57.4g) was also recovered.
Feature 336 was first recognized as amorphous soil staining running through level 2 of Units 89,
90, 92, and 93. It was excavated in its entirety and determined to be the remains of a fire pit, with a center point of 3386855N 491988E, measuring 1.08m long (north/south), 83cm wide (east/west), and
66cm in depth. The total assemblage consists of 33.33% Kitchen, 41.67% Architecture, 8.33% Arms, and 16.67% Activities. Kitchen items include light olive green (1) wine bottle, aqua bottle (1), indeterminate aqua (1) and soda lime (1) glass. Architecture items include indeterminate brick (31.3g), whole cut nail (2), fragmentary cut nail (1), fragmentary indeterminate nail (1). Arms items include a brass percussion cap (1). Activities items include non-utilized chert flake (2).
Feature 340 first presented as a circular stain in the plan view of level 1 in Unit 97. It was excavated in its entirety and determined to be either a post hole or fill from a collapsed brick pier, with a center point of 3386857.4N 491985.8E, measuring 68cm (length--north/south) by 40cm (width--
142 east/west), with a depth of 36cm. Recovery included hand painted pearlware (1), annular whiteware
(1), indeterminate brick (106g), fragmentary cut nail (2), and fragmentary indeterminate nail (1).
Trench 4 appears to represent a residential area, potentially indoor and outdoor. The assemblage is dominated by Kitchen (174) and Architectural (394) items, and is consistent with activities common throughout Area A, such as smoking, eating/drinking, hunting/gun maintenance, and knapping. It is possible the chert flakes relate to earlier Native American activity at the site, but the aqua glass flake indicates later experimentation with knapping. The presence of clothing, structural elements and fasteners, storage barrels and containers are also clear. The artifacts generally point to an occupation date in the early to mid-19th century.
11B Trench 5
Trench 5 is located near the center of the Area A grid. It includes Units 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 58, 59 and Feature 325. This trench was opened just below Block 1, where the 2009 and 2010 field schools identified several architectural features. One of them, Feature 300, a sandstone pier, appears to be associated with the builder's trench uncovered in the excavation of Trench 5 and labeled Feature 325.
This feature was first recognized in level 1 of Unit 51 as a dark amorphous stain, and found to continue into Unit 59. Upon excavation to a depth of between 26-30cmbd, length of 80cm (north/south), and width of 1.64m (east/west), it was determined to be an antebellum builder's trench. Since Feature 325 is located just at the base of Feature 300, it is likely a builder's trench for that pier.
The Feature 325 assemblage (224) consists of 12.05% Kitchen, 81.7% Architecture, 0.89%
Tobacco, and 5.36% Activities. Kitchen items include plain (3) and transfer printed (1) whiteware, alkaline glazed stoneware (1), light olive green wine bottle (1), other wine bottle (3), indeterminate glass in blue/green (3), light olive green (2), and clear (13), and 42.8g of oyster shell. The Architectural assemblage consists of handmade brick (4784.2g), indeterminate brick (2058.8g), cut whole nails (3), cut fragmentary nails (17), indeterminate fragmentary nails (24), cut iron spike (1), indeterminate iron
143 spike (1), and clear window glass (20). The only Tobacco items were dark olive green snuff bottle
fragments (2). The Activities assemblage consists of iron container fragments (5.1g), and sandstone
chunk (12).
The Feature 325 assemblage is consistent with an antebellum residential area, associated with
structural remains. Though some items are related to activities such as smoking and eating/drinking, the
majority of the feature is architectural. Items of interest include an almost complete light olive green
wine bottle (Figure 25) with an improved pontil base, dating roughly from 1840 to 1870, and
concurrent with the occupational period presumed to align with Arcadia Mill Village.
FIGURE 25. Light olive green improved pontil bottle base. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
The total artifact assemblage from Trench 5 consists of 7.13% Kitchen, 84.05 Architecture,
0.14% Arms, 0.20% Clothing, 0.20% Personal, 1.97% Tobacco, 5.91% Activities, and 0.41%
Unspecified. The majority of Kitchen items are plain whiteware sherds (18); other whitewares include
annular (2), edge molded (1), hand painted (8), shell edged (4), sponged (2), and transfer printed (11).
Plain (4) and wormy finger painted (5) pearlware are also present, as well as alkaline glazed (1) and
brown (1) stoneware. Kitchen glass includes wine bottle in dark (1) and light (6) olive green, other
bottles in clear (4), dark olive green (1), light olive green (3), and soda lime (1), and indeterminate
144 glass in blue/green (3), clear (16), light olive green (2), and soda lime (11). Flora and Fauna include oyster shell (154.9g) and seeds (0.1g). Identifiable vessel fragments include bowls (2), cups (6), plates
(10), platters (2), saucer (1), and stoneware storage jar (1).
The Architectural assemblage consists of handmade brick (13856.4g), indeterminate brick
(12610.2g), indeterminate mortar (2.6g), cut whole nails (40), cut fragmentary nails (236), indeterminate fragmentary nails (309), cut spikes (5), indeterminate spike (1), clear window glass (102) and soda lime window glass (91). Arms materials include an iron priming flask (1), and 7.3mm lead shot (1). Clothing materials include an iron button (1) and porcelain prosser buttons (2). Personal materials include iron blade fragments (2), and an indeterminate comb (1). Tobacco materials include kaolin pipe bowl (2), and dark olive green snuff bottle (27).
The Activities assemblage consists of brass hardware ring (1), iron container fragments (59.2g), harpoon gig (1), clothing iron (1), nut (1), washer (1), green glass marble (1), utilized flake (1), blue/green vase (3), sandstone chunk (67), and fired clay (44.9g). Several of Trench 5's artifacts provide clues to the domiciliary nature of life in and near the Arcadia village structures. The presence of marbles in both Trench 5 and Trench 3 creates the impression that in their free time the inhabitants took part in games and non-work related entertainment; it could also indicate the presence of children.
Personal care for clothes and appearance can be seen in the presence of a comb and a clothing iron
(Figure 26). Food preparation and procurement is evident by the many firearms related items spread across the site, and in this case, the presence of a harpoon gig (Figure 27) and iron blade.
While the majority of cultural remains at the mill village are vestiges of structures and daily lifeways contained in the Architecture and Kitchen groups, by examining the assemblage's outliers a more complete picture of the moments not spent working, eating, and drinking can begin to emerge.
Some private time in the Arcadia Mill Village was likely spent performing activities contributing to the
145 supplementation of the inhabitants' diet by hunting, fishing, and gathering. Evidence of both flintlock and percussion lock firearms are present at Area A (Figure 28), and support this theory.
FIGURE 26. Clothing iron. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
FIGURE 27. Frog gig. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
The flintlock mechanism was developed in the 17th century, and though still present today, was largely replaced by the percussion lock system in the mid-19th century. The percussion cap itself was invented in 1822, but was not widely used until the 1840's. Each firing method was developed for pistols, muskets, and rifles, and were present in both military and domestic settings for either protection
146 or hunting. Both the flintlock and percussion lock also used round lead shot, though the percussion lock was adapted to the bullet in the 1850's. Smaller shot, such as the majority of those recovered from Area
A, is associated with small game hunting rather than home defense (Hume 1969:211-221).
Several gunflints and spalls were uncovered at Area A, in both light (6) and dark (6) gray, and honey-color (1). The most numerous colonial gunflints were honey-colored and associated with French manufacture (usually dated 1720-1820) which transitioned to the dark gray/black British variety
(1780+) after the War of 1812. Light gray flints are often associated with the Dutch, which in actuality were produced in Denmark but distributed by the Dutch, and date to between 1650 and 1780 (White
1975:65-71). Though, the continued use of Dutch and French gunflints and spalls has been documented due to the proliferation of British and French military supplies in the market for some time following the Revolutionary War (Hanson 1971:111).
FIGURE 28. 11B Arms artifacts. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
147 Other firearm parts and accoutrements in the 11B assemblage include a lock plate (1), escutcheon plate (1), and priming flasks made of iron (3), pewter (1), and brass (1). Both pistols and muskets were manufactured with lock plates as part of the firing mechanism, and decorative escutcheons in a variety of designs. These features are still present on modern rifles. The priming, or powder flask, was utilized as a storage container for gun powder before the invention of the inclusive powder and percussion cartridge in the late 1870's in England, though it did take some time to work its way to the American markets (Riling 1992). An analysis of firearm materials and manufacture is consistent with the presence of flintlock and percussion lock pistols, musket, or rifles at Area A.
11B Trench 6
Trench 6 is located in the southwestern part of the Area A grid. It consists of Units 61, 62, and
65. There were no features present. The total artifact assemblage (384) consists of 7.81% Kitchen,
84.64% Architecture, 0.52% Clothing, 1.30% Tobacco, and 5.73% Activities. Kitchen materials (30) consist of plain pearlware (1), whiteware in annular (2), hand painted (1), plain (4), shell edged (3), sponged (1), and transfer printed (4), dark olive green wine bottle (2), other bottle in aqua (1), indeterminate glass in aqua (2) and soda lime (7), 0.3g of seeds, and iron fork (1) and pot (1) fragments. Identifiable ceramic vessel fragments include an annular whiteware bowl, and plain (1) and shell edged (2) plates.
The Architecture assemblage (325) consists of indeterminate brick (2976.5g), cut whole nails
(7), cut fragmentary nails (37), indeterminate fragmentary nails (126), and soda lime window glass
(47). Clothing items include an iron buckle (1), and porcelain prosser button (1). Tobacco items include course earthenware pipe bowl fragments (2), and snuff bottle in dark (2) and light (1) olive green.
Activities materials include iron container fragments (13g), indeterminate object (1), and file (1), light olive green ink bottle (1), sandstone chunk (18), and a utilized quartz flake (1). The Trench 6 assemblage is consistent with an antebellum residential area, with both domestic and architectural
148 remains present. The Kitchen remains include a fork and pot, indicating both cooking and food consumption. Clothing items are indicated by a button and buckle, and the potential for writing on the site is introduced by the presence of a light olive green ink bottle.
11B Single Units
The remainder of test units opened in the 2011 season was not part of blocks or trenches, and has been analyzed together as a cross-section of the Area A grid. These units include 79, 80, 81, 82, 83,
86, 87, 102, and 104. Features found in these units are 332, 333, 334, 341, and 342. The total artifact assemblage for the single units (617) consists of 18.64% Kitchen, 74.23% Architecture, 0.49%
Personal, 1.46% Tobacco, and 5.19% Activities.
The Kitchen assemblage (115) consists of hand painted (1), plain (6), shell edged (1), and transfer printed (1) pearlware, annular (1), edge molded (1), hand painted (5), plain (33), sponged (5), and transfer printed (7) whiteware, alkaline glazed stoneware (1), dark (3) and light (3) olive green wine bottle, clear (1), dark olive green (2), light green (2), and soda lime (5) other bottle, very thin aqua glass (1), indeterminate glass in aqua (4), blue (2), clear (5), dark olive green (1), and soda lime (24), oyster shell (40.2), and snail shell (0.2g). Identifiable ceramic vessel fragments include plain (1) and transfer printed (1) bowls, hand painted (1), plain (1), sponged (1), and transfer printed (1) cups, and plates in plain pearlware (1), and edge molded (1), plain (5), and sponged (1) whiteware.
The Architecture assemblage (458) consists of handmade brick (2499.1), indeterminate brick
(2830.2), cut whole nails (8), cut fragmentary nails (43), indeterminate fragmentary nails (54), indeterminate spike (1), hand wrought staple (1), and soda lime window glass (77). Personal items include clear mirror glass (3). Tobacco materials include kaolin pipe bowl (2), stems in 4/64” (1) and
5/64” (2), and dark olive green snuff bottle (4). Activities materials include iron bolt (5), container fragments (49.9g), indeterminate object (5), green vase (2), and sandstone chunk (23). The single unit
149 assemblage is consistent with an antebellum residential area with both domestic and structural elements.
Feature 332 was identified in level 3 of Units 80 and 82; it appeared as a dark stain with a large sandstone chunk protruding from its center. The feature was excavated to a depth of 73cmbd, and measured 1.1m long (north/south) and 1m wide (east/west). Its center point was recorded as
3386870.5N 492006.5E. The artifact frequencies for Feature 332 are 23.08% Kitchen, 69.23%
Architecture, and 7.69% Activities. Kitchen items include hand painted (1) and sponged (1) whiteware, and indeterminate aqua glass (1). Architecture items include handmade brick (1299.8g), indeterminate brick (307g), whole cut nail (1), and indeterminate fragmentary nails (2). Activities items include only one large sandstone chunk (730g).
Feature 333 was identified by a light sandy stain bordered by a buried root mat, located in level
2 of Unit 83. Upon excavation into level 3 a dark circular stain became evident. This deposit was designated Section B of the feature, while the previously excavated segment was labeled Section A.
Section B was brought down to 55cmbd, and at that point was determined to be the result of a rodent burrow. Section A was also determined to be associated with bioturbation. The total feature measured
55cm in length (north/south) and 70cm in width (east/west). Recovery included 25% Kitchen, 50%
Architecture, and 25% Tobacco. These items include annular whiteware (1), indeterminate brick (1), soda lime window glass (1), and kaolin pipe bowl (1).
Feature 334 was identified by a dark circular stain in the plan view of level 1 of Units 86 and
87. Upon excavation to a depth of 51cmbd it was determined to be a rodent burrow. The feature measured 70cm long (north/south) and 82cm wide (east/west) and consisted of semi-loose sand with a
Munsell designation of 10YR 5/2, grayish brown. The Feature 334 assemblage consists of 45.45%
Kitchen, 36.36% Architecture, and 18.18% Activities. These items include plain whiteware (1), dark
150 olive green wine bottle (1), indeterminate soda lime glass (3), indeterminate brick (70.4g), whole cut nail (1), and sandstone chunk (2).
Feature 341 was identified by sub-surface probing which hit upon a large sandstone slab just beneath the root mat. Test unit 102 was opened directly over the anomaly which revealed several sandstone slabs most likely associated with a structural pier. The feature is composed only of sandstone, and was left in situ. Excavation ceased after level 1 of the unit. Recovery from the surrounding matrix included cut nail fragments (2), soda lime window glass (1), and sandstone chunks.
Feature 342 was identified by sub-surface probing which hit upon a disarticulated collection of sandstone chunks. Test unit 104 was opened directly over the anomaly, and upon excavation to the bottom of level 1 the sandstone was determined to be associated with a structural pier. It was left in situ and no further excavation was performed. Recovery from the surrounding matrix included soda lime bottle (3), clear mirror glass (1), dark olive green snuff bottle (1), indeterminate brick (155g), fragmentary nails (7), soda lime window glass (6), and sandstone chunk (11).
The Simpson Lot
The Simpson Lot is located over a half mile to the south of Area A. Whereas Area A is located in the dense Florida forest north of Pond Creek, the Simpson Lot is nested in the residential community upland of the Arcadia industrial complex. Once the site of Ezekiel Simpson's home and the surrounding outbuildings that accompanied the running of his estate and business, today the area is empty but for the encroaching woodlands and properties of neighboring families, some of whom still bear the family name. During the 2012 field season (12B) a systematic shovel test survey of the Simpson Lot revealed four activity areas thought to reflect a differentiated use of space at the site. Activity Area 4 is believed to be the location of one or more structures located in the periphery of the Simpson manor house
(Figure 29). Theories of its inhabitants range from domestic or factory slaves, to overseers, to Simpson descendants, and could in fact represent all of them over the expanse of time this area was occupied.
151
FIGURE 29. Simpson Lot activity areas. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
Archaeological investigation at the Simpson Lot included shovel test, test units, and both resistivity and ground penetrating radar survey. Activity Area 4 is located along the northern boundary of the parcel, in the center of the east/westerly grid. It was designated as such after the discovery of articulated structural remains (Structure 1), and a midden featuring antebellum historic artifacts during excavations. An historic photograph of a cabin on the Simpson property thought to originate in the antebellum period also gave clues leading to the interpretation of Structure 1 as the possible remains of the cabin. Though, a soil depression measuring roughly 6m x 3m located not far to the south of
Structure 1 is also posited to be a cabin and could just as well represent the one in Figure 30. A comparison of the artifact assemblage from Activity Area 4, including the possible antebellum cabin, to
Area A could provide a better understanding of the socioeconomic context of their inhabitants, as well
152
as their identities. The assemblage from 12B Activity Area 4 has been separated into South's functional activity groups for this purpose.
Activity areas at the Simpson Lot are separated into Area 1, the location of a historical water tower and possible warehouse or workshop; Area 2, likely agricultural fields and roadway; Area 3, the location of the original Simpson house and possible associated domestic structures; and Area 4, a historic midden and the location of the proposed “slave cabin.” Area 4 (Figure 30) is located along the fence which forms the northern boundary of the parcel. The area measures roughly 70m x 50m and encompasses Units 109, 110, 115, 116, 117, and Shovel Tests 411, 419, 420, 426, 427, 428, 445, 446,
447. Features located in Activity Area 4 include Feature 406, 409, 410, 411, 412, 422, 423, 425, 428,
430, and 431. The total artifact frequencies for Activity Area 4 (2,781ct) are 36.55% Kitchen, 57.70%
Architecture, 1.01% Arms, 0.29% Clothing, 0.32% Personal, 3.6% Activities, and 0.54% Unspecified.
FIGURE 30. Historic photograph of proposed “slave cabin” located on the Simpson Lot. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
153 The Kitchen assemblage (1016) consists of plain (2), shell edged (1), and transfer printed (1) pearlware, annular (67), hand painted (10), plain (56), shell edged (1), transfer printed (19), and 20th century colored glaze (1) whiteware, plain yellowware (5), indeterminate refined earthenware (2), hand painted over glaze (1), indeterminate (9), molded (1), and transfer printed (1) porcelain, black lead glazed course earthenware (1), plain faience (1), glazed (1) and unglazed (1) redware, brown (1), and porcelaneous stoneware (2), dark (32) and light (60) olive green wine bottle, green soda bottle (1), other bottle in amber (24), aqua (5), blue/green (1), clear (11), dark olive green (2), green (4), light olive green (2), and soda lime (25), flint stemmed glass (1), a light olive green wine seal (1), clear jar
(7), white liner (1), very thin glass in amber (9), blue (1), clear (5), and soda lime (2), indeterminate glass in amber (20), aqua (1), blue (13), clear (298), dark olive green (3), flint (2), gray (3), green (11), light olive green (1), pink (1), purple (20), red (3), soda lime (233), white (2), and yellow (1), cow bone
(1), pig bone (2), indeterminate bone (1), oyster shell (44.3g), snail shell (13), indeterminate shell
(6.6g), nut (5.9g), peach pit (1), seed (8), and aluminum cap (2g). Identifiable vessel fragments include bowls (2), cups (4), pitcher (1), pot (1), saucer (5), plates- ceramic (7) and glass (1).
The Architectural assemblage (1604) consists of handmade brick (260.6g), glazed brick (25.9g), indeterminate brick (4606.4g), unspecified mortar (110.g), terra cotta sewer pipe (11), concrete (9.2g), whole cut nails (52), whole wire nails (33), whole indeterminate nails (3), fragmentary cut nails (338), fragmentary wire nails (33), fragmentary indeterminate nails (581), cut spike (1), indeterminate spike
(1), iron hinge (8), clear window glass (33), soda lime window glass (4), wooden board (55.3g), shingle
(877.7g), and insulation (1). Arms materials (28) include brass casing (15), lock plate (1), copper casing
(1), iron priming flask (1), lead molded bullet (3), and lead shot (7). Clothing materials (8) include an aluminum grommet (1), iron buckle (2), and button (3), prosser button (1), and glass button (1).
Personal items (10) include a necklace chain (1), coin (1), amber pharmaceutical bottle (1), vial (1), mirror (1), porcelain toy teapot piece (1), and pencil lead (4). Activities materials (100) include
154 aluminum tube (1), brass bolt (1), indeterminate object (2), rivet (1), and wire (0.3g), copper wire (2), iron bolt (1), container fragments (177.6g), fence staple (1), handle (2), hardware ring (1), indeterminate object (49), nut (2), screw (2), strap (9), trim (1), and washer (2), lead weight (1), and indeterminate object (12), nickel indeterminate object (1), glass marble (1), lamp chimney (1), telephone pole insulator (1), sandstone chunk (5), coal (1.1g), slate (1), fired clay (2.8g), and unmodified clay (0.5g).
Features in Activity Area 4 include the four articulated brick structural supports that make up what is referred to as Structure 1. These features are numbered 409-412 and pier 1-4 (Figure 31 and
32), and made up three corners and a chimney foundation of an historic cabin measuring 6m x 10m with the southwest corner located at 3386243.805N 492016.7E. These remains are believed to be that
FIGURE 31. 12B Structure 1 Pier 2. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
155
FIGURE 32. 12B Structure 1 Pier 3. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
of the “slave cabin” featured in Figure 30, due to the location of the cabin/Structure 1 to the well seen in the background of the photograph. This cabin is thought to have been built in the 1830's and re- purposed over time until its destruction in the 1960's. The structural features were mapped and recorded, but left in situ, with no artifact recovery from the features themselves. A surface collection from the cabin perimeter included a pink glass plate, historic ceramics, a piano key, marbles, roofing tile, brick and mortar, and corrugated metal roofing. Test Units 115, 116, 117 and Shovel Tests 445,
446, and 447 were opened inside and outside of the structure, and are included in the summary of
Activity Area 4.
Feature 406 was originally recognized in level 204 of ST 428, as a linear iron nail concentration which was associated with a rectangular shaped area of charred wood. Block 7, consisting of Units 109
156 and 110, was opened over ST 428 to further explore the feature. The feature was determined to be the remains of a burnt wooden plank with articulated cut nails running along its length, most likely the supporting yellow pine board over a door's opening. Its location and association with Features 422 and
423 indicate that Feature 406 may be part of an historic outhouse. Feature 406's center-point is
3386262.64N 492029.93E. Recovery from F406 included amber bottle glass (1), indeterminate brick
(1), cut whole nail (1), cut fragmentary nail (36), indeterminate fragmentary nail (8), iron strap (2), independent iron object (1), and carbonized wood (10g).
Feature 422 is located in Block 7, Unit 109, and has a center-point of 3386262.81N 492029.5E.
It first presented as a light sandy clay stain in a half-circle with a linear cross-section, in the bottom of level 205. The feature is located 6cm from F406, and directly above F423. It was excavated in its entirety and measured 1m long (north/south), 38cm wide (east/west), and 8cm in depth. The feature was determined to be a clay cap, most likely laid as a structural support associated with an outhouse.
The artifact assemblage from F422 consisted of 21.05% Kitchen, 76.32% Architecture, 0.88%
Personal, and 1.75% Activities.
Kitchen items include plain whiteware (3), dark olive green wine bottle (3), light olive green wine bottle (2), amber bottle glass (3), clear bottle glass (1), indeterminate glass in blue (1), clear (2), and soda lime (9), oyster shell (12.5g), and seed (0.3g). Architectural items include indeterminate brick
(12), cut whole nails (4), cut fragmentary nails (17), indeterminate fragmentary nails (53), and indeterminate spike (1). Personal remains include only clear mirror glass (1). Activities items include copper wire (1), and indeterminate iron object (1). Other materials include carbonized wood (5.5g).
Feature 423 is located in Block 7, Units 109 and 110, and has a center-point of 3386262.5N
492030.16E. It was first recognized in level 205 as an intrusive deposit, flanked on two sides by light sandy clay (F422), and containing a heavy concentration of carbonized wood. The feature was determined to be a midden, and was found upon excavation to be located directly above Feature 325. It
157 measured 1m long (north/south), 1.18m wide (east/west), and 12cm in depth. The artifact assemblage from F423 consists of 42.42% Kitchen, 51.52% Architecture, 3.03% Clothing, and 3.03% Activities.
The Kitchen assemblage consists of annular whiteware (1), hand painted whiteware chamber pot (1), plain whiteware (1), glazed redware (1), dark olive green wine bottle (2), amber bottle (1), soda lime bottle (1), light olive green wine seal (1), indeterminate soda lime glass (5), and a pig's tooth
(2.2g). Architectural items include indeterminate brick (9.5g), cut whole nail (1), cut fragmentary nail
(14), indeterminate fragmentary nail (1), and soda lime window glass (1). Clothing materials include only an iron buckle (1). Activities items include an iron strap (1) and container fragments (6.6g). Other materials include carbonized wood (5.7g).
Feature 425 was first recognized as a very dark amorphous stain located directly beneath F423, in level 203 of Block 7, Units 109 and 110. Upon excavation the feature was realized to be quite large and comprised of two distinct soil types; these were designated Section A and Section B. Section A's center-point is 3386262.61N 492030.01E and Section B's center-point is 3386262.85N 492030.86E.
The soil of F425 Section A was extremely dark and rich, indicating a likely high level of organic material. This, along with its location beneath a structural support, clay cap, and historic midden makes
Feature 425 a possible privy deposit. The total feature measured 80cm long (north/south), 1.75m wide
(east/west), and 40cm in depth. The Feature 425 artifact assemblage consists of 71.88% Kitchen,
21.88% Architecture, 3.13% Personal, and 3.13% Unspecified.
The Feature 425 Kitchen assemblage consists of transfer printed pearlware (1), annular whiteware (1), transfer printed whiteware (2), light olive green wine bottle (3), flint stemmed glassware
(1), clear very thin glass (2), soda lime very thin glass (2), indeterminate glass in clear (6), flint (1), and soda lime (2), indeterminate bone (0.2g), and seed (2). The Architectural assemblage consists of indeterminate brick (154.2g), and indeterminate fragmentary nails (2). Personal items include only a
158 brass necklace chain (1). Unspecified materials include flat iron (1), indeterminate shell (0.1g), and carbonized wood (9.6g).
Feature 428 was first recognized as a circular stain at the bottom of level 203 in Unit 116, which is located just outside the perimeter of the proposed Structure 1. The feature was excavated to a depth of 9cm and determined to be a post hole. It is possible that the post hole represents a support for a porch or stair coming off of the cabin. Recovery included plain yellowware (1), light olive green wine bottle (1), indeterminate brick (3.1g), indeterminate fragmentary nail (1), and carbonized wood (0.1).
Feature 330 is located in Unit 117 and was first discovered when probing revealed a possible brick feature. Excavation of level 205 uncovered bricks, shingles, and historic materials. Though disturbed by tree roots, many of the bricks appeared articulated and were determined to be a brick pier.
Excavation did not continue past the bricks which were left in situ. Recovery included indeterminate glass in amber (1) and clear (2), shingle (1.8g), carbonized wood (0.8g), and indeterminate iron (0.5).
Feature 331 is located in Shovel Test 447 and was first discovered when probing revealed a possible brick feature. Excavation of the first level revealed articulated bricks which were determined to be a collapsed brick pier. The bricks were mapped and left in situ; recovery from the surrounding shovel test matrix included snail shell (0.1g), seed (3.2g), iron strap (1), and carbonized wood (0.7g).
Summary
The goal of Chapter 5 was to provide a review of materials and archaeological features included in the analysis of the 11B and 12B Activity Area 4 assemblages. An interpretive lens was added, in addition to consideration of the historical record summarized in Chapter 2, to give context to the domestic antebellum nature of material remains at each site. Specific artifacts and material groups were examined for historical and site-specific relevance, when deemed significant to furthering our understanding of the cultural landscape at Arcadia. This included a history of ceramic evolution which
159 will be examined in more detail with regard to its pertinence to the 11B and 12B ceramic assemblages in Chapter 6.
The Arcadia Mill Village (Area A) presented a large material body for analysis, and was thus reviewed in the various blocks and trenches designated during archaeological investigation. Blocks 2,
3, 4; Trenches 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and those single units analyzed as one group as a sample of site-wide distribution, maintain very similar material patterns with the Kitchen and Architectural assemblages representing the majority of recorded artifacts. While maintaining this trend, the material record of
Activity Area 4 at The Simpson Lot offers an alternative context which presents variability in the record with implications for the socioeconomic structure of life at Arcadia.
Through the separation of all recorded materials into South's (1977) functional artifact groups, the major trends and differences seen across Area A and between 11B and 12B become apparent. An analysis of these distinctions will follow in Chapter 6. The presiding themes of the assemblage summaries provided in this chapter, along with the historical record, will provide the framework for that discussion. They will also allow for a reconstruction of the distribution of activities at the Arcadia
Mill Village that attempts to synthesize all of the insights gained through the course of this research, and to better understand the inhabitants of the Arcadia community.
160 CHAPTER VI
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
The Arcadia community was a diverse collective made up of Anglo American management, supervisors, and laborers, as well as African-American slave laborers. The Arcadia Mills archaeological site (8SR384) contains remnants of the industrial and domestic heritage left behind when the mills closed and the community scattered. Evidence of how lives and labor intertwined at Arcadia has been examined through the course of this thesis in the historical, theoretical, and material elements encapsulated in the effort to reconstruct life for the residents of this industrial lion.
This chapter summarizes the data included in the analysis of two archaeological components at
Arcadia: Area A and the Simpson Lot Activity Area 4. The results are discussed and interpreted in relation to the research goals set forth in Chapter 1. Namely, does the archaeological assemblage from
Area A represent part of the enslaved African-American community at Arcadia? What information can be gathered on their lives and roles in the socioeconomic structure of Arcadia? How does Arcadia's material culture compare to other African-American populations in the Antebellum South? And what does this indicate about how we should be approaching "anomalies" like Arcadia in the larger paradigm of African-American archaeology?
Material Correlations and Disparities
One of the main conclusions reached in Chapter 3 was that archaeological analysis at Arcadia should focus on the material evidence of economic limitations experienced by its inhabitants indicative of social dynamics and power structures at the complex. This is not only reflective of the larger capitalist world system's effect on labor group relations, but the impact of agency on the negotiation of socioeconomic influence on a level not hard-wired to variables like race, legal status, or ethnicity.
This section will discuss the implications of material culture differences seen in a comparison of the 11B and 12B assemblages, taking into consideration other sites of contemporary African-American
161 and industrial labor occupation, concentrating on possible explanations for economic disparities between sample populations. Inferences may also be made about whether correlations often made in slave pattern recognition can be applied to non-plantation based slave sites like Arcadia. The implications of this issue may provide guidance as to the validity of using an economically based interpretive model over those based on race and status.
Area A and the Simpson Lot Activity Area are both components of the Arcadia Industrial
Complex, and yet several distinctions should be considered in the analysis of archaeological materials recovered from these sites. Differences in the geological settings of each area are appreciable, though they are separated by just under a half mile. The Simpson Lot is located on an upland hillcrest overlooking Pond Creek, Arcadia's mills, and presumably all associated lodgings and accompanying buildings/shops. The mill village is located in the lowlands north of Pond Creek, bordered by pine forest and wetlands. The Simpson family could maintain a watchful eye over proceedings at the mills and residential areas from their upland location, but no doubt had more contact and direct oversight of those living in housing surrounding their own residence like the activity area cabin. This area is also located nearer to town, roads, and commercial establishments.
Geologically, though Area A is in some ways a part of the encroaching wetlands and the
Simpson Lot is not, each area's soil is comprised of mostly medium to coarse grained semi-compact sandy loam. The modern landscape is moderately to heavily overgrown at Area A, and sparse to moderately overgrown at the Simpson Lot. Vegetation includes an abundance of trees such as yellow pine, live oak, and cypress, and undergrowth such as saw palmetto, indian grass, briar, and ferns. It is likely that these areas were vastly less covered in the antebellum era due to their occupation, use in the industrial landscape of Arcadia, and proximity to logging operations throughout the northern pine forests. An abundance of vegetation and wildlife both terrestrial and maritime were presumably still
162 present in the nearby waterways and woods, and are seen as glimpses in the material record of the interaction between the Arcadia community and nature (Sams 2013:19-20).
Both geological and organizational differences in each component's setting will contribute to an understanding of how those residing within the landscapes of Area A and the Simpson Lot negotiated life within the social and physical boundaries of their home station. Since outside assemblages will be utilized for comparison as well, a degree of variation in material culture will be expected due to natural fluctuations in resources, the impact of layout on social interactions, and impact on refuse patterns and survivability in the record. Larger patterns, concentrated on the Kitchen and Architecture groups, are still pervasive in plantation archaeology despite these deviations. Should the major structures of social and economic limitation congruent with the antebellum slave labor system extend to industrial contexts like Arcadia, they should be evident in the Area A and/or Activity Area 4 populations if they represent an enslaved African-American presence.
Opinions on whether an actual "slave artifact pattern" exists are often split due to the massive stretch of time and land over which slavery is present in the record. Still, Singleton (1990:75) claims artifact pattern recognition can be an important tool in slave studies to "discern differences in slave assemblages that may be related to cultural, economic, and temporal differences." Over time, the development of methodologies in slave archaeology has come to emphasize three key points in the application of pattern recognition. The first is that slave, or more precisely, plantation archaeology, is a means of understanding African-American culture. This is not one culture, but a diverse community of individuals living under the power of others, with different ways of internalizing and adapting to their bondage. Second, that the successful use of processual archeology on slave sites in the Southeast by scholars like Fairbanks, Orser, Singleton, and Otto has resulted in two regional models based on material patterns from slave, overseer, and planter contexts from coastal Georgia (GA) and the South
Carolina lowcountry (S.C.). Third, that these models are largely based on geography and time period.
163 The S.C. pattern is more applicable to the mid-Atlantic region, which developed distinct patterns during the colonial era resulting in a slave system with significant differences to the rest of the
Southeast. The GA pattern is more applicable to sites from the Deep South during the antebellum period. It has also been suggested that separate models be used for the production of rice and cotton, as they have a significant impact on the ecology of the plantation landscape (Joseph 1989:56-61).
Artifact patterns resulting from the S.C. model have several important distinctions. Due to their connection to the early slave trade, there is more evidence of traditional African activities and the assimilation of these practices and materials to the new world. Artifact frequencies tend to reflect a high Kitchen content (averaging at 77.39%) and low architecture content (averaging at 17.81%). The
GA pattern is considered more likely to reflect stratification than ethnicity, as the later generations of slaves had assimilated more fully into the lower class of American social strata, and show a more homogenized material culture with less "Africanisms." GA artifact frequencies tend to reflect a higher architectural component, averaging at 70.78%, and a lower kitchen component, averaging at 24.34%
(Joseph 1989). Theresa Singleton (1980:211-219) calculated a separate average from slave sites in coastal Georgia with very similar results, averaging 70.70% for the architecture group and 24.60% for the kitchen group. When compared to assemblages associated with planters in these regions, a near opposite frequency can be expected.
Based on these precepts, the 11B assemblage (17.97% Kitchen, 76.88% Architecture) and the
12B assemblage (36.73% Kitchen, 57.99% Architecture) both fall closest to the GA pattern in artifact frequency, location, time period, and general material homogeneity. Though, the 12B Kitchen assemblage is noticeably higher than both 11B and the averages for the GA pattern, with a lower architectural component as well. Based on all other aspects of the 12B assemblage being consistent with the GA pattern, this most likely indicates a slightly higher material continuity with the average antebellum planter rather than the S.C. slave pattern (Table 1 and 2).
164 TABLE 1 11B AND 12B ACTIVITY AREA 4 TOTAL ARTIFACT GROUP COMPARISON BY COUNT
Artifact Group 11B Ct % by Ct 12B Ct % by Ct Kitchen 4336 17.97% 1016 36.73% Architecture 18547 76.88% 1604 57.99% Furniture 45 0.19% 0 0 Arms 57 0.24% 28 1.01% Clothing 70 0.29% 8 0.29% Personal 63 0.26% 10 0.36% Tobacco 186 0.77% 0 0 Activities 821 3.40% 100 3.62%
Total 24125 100 2766 100
TABLE 2 11B AND 12B ACTIVITY AREA 4 TOTAL ARTIFACT GROUP COMPARISON BY WEIGHT(g)
Artifact Group 11B Wt % by Wt 12B Wt % by Wt Kitchen 11630.8 3.76% 986.8 8.81% Architecture 278441.4 90.07% 8958.8 79.96% Furniture 127.9 0.04% 0 0 Arms 76.4 0.02% 26.2 0.23% Clothing 86.1 0.03% 13.8 0.12% Personal 50.6 0.02% 7.9 0.07% Tobacco 369.8 0.12% 0 0 Activities 18346.7 5.93% 1210 10.80%
Total 309129.7 100 11203.5 100 Note: Ct and Wt are abbreviated for count and weight. Weight is always in grams (g).
Each functional artifact group is examined below for material patterns and comparisons, starting with the Kitchen group. Artifacts sorted into the South's (1977) Kitchen group fall into several classes: ceramics, wine bottles, case bottles, tumblers, glassware, tableware, and kitchenware. The category also includes organic materials resulting from subsistence activities. The 11B assemblage consists of
17.97% Kitchen items, while the 12B assemblage consists of 36.73%.
Ceramic analysis is often used as an indicator of socioeconomic status. Since the late 18th century, price scaling on commercially produced ceramics has been easily accessible, and the 19th
165 century is known for the flooding of mass-produced ceramics on the market. This resulted in a homogenization of material culture throughout America, with economic boundaries often reflected in the scaling of ceramics present in the home. During this period the influence of Georgian order also made its way to America, and those concerned with maintaining social cues often displayed their higher status through keeping matched sets of the latest ceramic table and teawares (Greene 2011:64-66).
Another common trend in ceramic analysis is the correlation of ceramic form with the type of meals eaten by different social and ethnic groups. Reports often reflect a higher percentage of bowls on
African-American sites, which has been understood as the product of diets consisting of grains and poor cuts of meat often prepared in stews or porridges. This has been associated with both African heritage and the rationed diets of slaves. Planters will usually show more variety in their ceramic forms, with a higher percentage of flatwares that reflect separately prepared foods and better ingredients. In general, transfer printed wares, porcelains, and matching tea sets are associated with the higher economic echelons (Greene 2011:66-70). However, it is not uncommon to find a sample of these types on slave sites as they were sometimes handed down or gifted to slaves from owners, or bought as fineries from the small income some slaves made working over-time (Otto 1977:94-106).
11B has a fairly large Kitchen ceramic assemblage (2,309 sherds) compared to the 12B sample
(182). 11B also has more variety, with 47 styles represented (Table 3), while 12B has 21, though the disparity is not terribly significant due to the smaller sample size. Of the ceramic classes present in the assemblage, 11B consists of 1.78% creamware, 7.15% pearlware, 77.83% whiteware, 1.52% yellowware, 0.43% porcelain, 1.95% course earthenware, and 9.35% stoneware. 12B consists of 2.2% pearlware, 84.62% whiteware, 2.75% yellowware, 6.59% porcelain, 2.2% course earthenware, and
1.65% stoneware.
166
TABLE 3 11B AND 12B ACTIVITY AREA 4 KITCHEN CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE BY TYPE
Ceramic Type 11B Ct % Ct 12B Ct % Ct Refined earthenware Creamware Plain 24 1.03 Hand painted 7 0.3 Gilded 10 0.43 Pearlware Plain 95 4.1 2 1.09 Annular 20 0.86 Broad floral hand painted 1 0.04 Gawdy dutch 1 0.04 Hand painted 3 0.13 Molded edge 3 0.13 Shell edged 14 0.6 1 0.54 Sprig earthentone polychrome 2 0.09 Transfer printed 9 0.39 1 0.54 Wormy finger painted 17 0.73 Whiteware Plain 901 38.85 56 30.43 Annular 121 5.22 67 36.41 Broad floral hand painted 1 0.04 Decal transfer 1 0.04 Edge molded 13 0.56 Flow-blue mulberry 11 0.47 Gilded 4 0.17 Hand painted 234 10.09 10 5.43 Shell edged 60 2.59 1 0.54 Sponged 137 5.91 Sponged and hand painted 30 1.29 Transfer printed 279 12.03 19 10.33 Wormy finger painted 5 0.22 20th century colored glaze 1 0.54 Yellowware Plain 8 0.34 5 2.72 Annular 10 0.43 Blue and white 17 0.73 Indeterminate Refined earthenware 8 0.34 2 1.09 Table 3 continues
167
Table 3 continued...
Ceramic Type 11B Ct % Ct 12B Ct % Ct Porcelain Indeterminate 9 0.39 9 4.89 Over glazed Chinese 1 0.04 Hand painted over glaze 1 0.54 Molded 1 0.54 Transfer printed 1 0.54 Course Earthenware Alkaline glazed 9 0.39 Lead glazed 19 0.82 Black lead glazed 1 0.54 Redware Glazed 17 0.73 1 0.54 Unglazed 1 0.54 Faience Plain 1 0.54 Stoneware Albany slipped 4 0.17 Alkaline glazed 134 5.78 Bristol slipped 1 0.04 Brown salt glazed 45 1.94 Brown 14 0.6 1 0.54 Gray salt glazed 7 0.3 Gray 2 0.09 Indeterminate 3 0.13 Lead glazed 4 0.17 Porcelaineous 2 0.09 2 1.09 Native American Ceramics Sand tempered 1 0.04 Sand-grog tempered 1 0.04
Total 2319 100 184 100 Otto's famous ceramic analysis at Cannon's Point plantation concluded that shape may be a more sensitive indicator of status than type. His original hypotheses questioned whether a comparison of slave, overseer, and planter assemblages could show if a special class of ceramics were bought for slaves/overseers by planters, if they were given the second hand wares of the planter, or if
168 slaves/overseers purchased their own ceramics. Otto conceded that perhaps some disregarded ceramics were handed down or new ceramics bought by slaves, but by and large the majority of the slave/overseer assemblage consisted of a separate range of ceramic types and forms from the planter.
This most likely reflected the subordinate status of slaves and overseers on plantations, as well as their lower economic standing (Otto 1977: 94-105).
Otto's findings also provided insight into some general trends in ceramic distribution arising from the socioeconomic stratification of Cannon's Point plantation (1794-1860), another site falling into the GA artifact pattern group. As far as type, plain and simply decorated wares such as hand painted, sponged, edged, and banded, will be more common in slave/overseer contexts than in planters.
In particular, blue and green shell edged plates are considered a sensitive marker of slave status and are common on slave sites. Because of their higher cost, transfer print wares and porcelain should have higher frequencies in planter contexts. Overseer contexts most often fall in the middle of planter and slave frequencies (Otto 1977:106).
The 2014 UWF field school at Arcadia excavated the former home of Ezekiel Simpson and his family. Upon processing, this assemblage will hopefully provide a collection similar to that of the
"planter" for comparison to Area A and Activity Area 4. The 11B and 12B assemblages share a similar distribution of ceramic types posited by Otto to represent subordinate status, and possible slave presence (Figure 33). Lower price scaled wares represent 74.73% of the 11B assemblage and 77.17% of the 12B assemblage. Otto hypothesized that if planters supplied a separate class of wares to their subordinates, then banded, edged, and plain wares would make up around 70% of the total assemblage.
Miller (1980:3-4) includes sponged wares in this lower price/simple decor category. Otto's research on
St. Simon's Island, GA, revealed a 66% frequency for these classes in slave contexts, and a 71% frequency in overseer contexts (Otto 1977: 105-106).
169 Both the 11B and 12B assemblages feature a high percentage of whiteware, with plain (1820- present), transfer print (1826-1875), annular (1831-1900), sponged (1836-1870), and hand painted
(1820-1890) being the most highly represented. 11B has a wide variety of pearlwares dating largely to the early and mid-19th century, and three types of creamware dating from the mid-1700's to 1820.
Creamware was the cheapest refined earthenware on the market and was often used for utilitarian vessels and chamber pots. 11B has 24 plain creamware sherds, but also 2 gilded creamware sherds from a teacup and 1 from a saucer. These could be possible hand-me-downs from an old tea set. 12B has no creamware present, and only 4 pearlware sherds in plain (2), shell edged (1), and transfer printed
(1). The near 85% majority of whiteware sherds from the 12B assemblage are made up of largely plain
(56) and annular (67) types, with transfer print (19) being the next numerous. The 12B assemblage has a slightly later mean ceramic date (1860) than 11B (1852) which may account for the imbalance of whitewares over pearlware and creamware.
Comparatively, plain sherds make up 44.33% of the 11B ceramics and 34.24% of the 12B ceramics. This is the largest 11B type group, while surprisingly annular wares (36.41%) represent the highest frequency of the 12B assemblage, and only 6.51% of the 11B assemblage. Deetz (1977:234-
235) claims that annular wares were purchased in bulk for slaves and are therefore not evidence of hand-me-downs. Hand painted wares make up 12.85% of 11B ceramics and 5.43% of 12B ceramics.
Sponged wares represent 7.16% of the 11B ceramics and are not present in the 12B assemblage. Edged wares, which Otto claims are often an indicator of slave presence, are 3.88% of the 11B ceramics and
1.09% of the 12B ceramics. It is possible that a portion of the plain sherds in each collection represent the undecorated body of edged wares.
Conversely, the presence of transfer printed wares and porcelain often indicate individuals with more resources to spend on fine tablewares and china, though they are commonly found in slave contexts in small numbers. Transfer printed wares represent 12.42% of the 11B assemblage and 10.87%
170 of the 12B assemblage. This presence is notable, but not significant enough to suggest the presence of high status individuals according to Otto. He posits that transfer printed sherds should represent less than 25% of a slave context's ceramic assemblage and over 80% of a planter's (Otto 1977:106).
Porcelain makes up only 0.43% of the 11B assemblage, but 6.52% of the 12B assemblage.
Again, a high status dwelling would be expected to contain a much higher percentage. However, with a smaller sample size it is interesting that 12B's porcelain count (12) is higher than 11B's (10). This might indicate gifts or finery purchased by the inhabitants. In conjunction with the fact that the 12B assemblage is dominated by decorated whitewares, and lacks older types like creamwares and pearlwares almost completely, this may indicate a slightly higher level of economic freedom. Should this represent a slave cabin, it might indicate the preferential treatment of its inhabitants by the gifting of some higher priced ceramics. Kenneth Lewis (2009:58) suggests that higher frequencies or porcelain are often found in the dwellings of planters and domestic slaves, who receive it as a benefit of their close relationships to planters' families. Overseers and slaves living farther away from the planter's house and with less direct contact to them will be less likely to acquire the expensive imported wares.
All other ceramics present in the 11B and 12B assemblages are associated most often with utilitarian wares and storage vessels. This includes yellow ware, of which 11B has 35 sherds in plain
(8), annular (10), and blue and white (17), and 12B has 5 sherds in plain. 11B has 45 course earthenware sherds in alkaline glazed (9), lead glazed (19), and glazed redware (17); 12B has 4 course earthenware sherds in black lead glazed (1), glazed (1) and unglazed (1) redware, and plain faience (1).
There is a large disparity in the number of stoneware types and sherds present in the 11B and 12B records. Stoneware represented the second highest frequency ceramic class at Area A (9.35%), and the lowest frequency ceramic class at Activity Area 4 (1.65%). 12B has only 3 stoneware sherds in brown
(1) and porcelaneous (2), while 11B has 216 sherds in albany slipped (4), alkaline glazed (134), bristol
171
FIGURE 33. Area A Kitchen Ceramic frequency by count.
172
slipped (1), brown salt glazed (45), brown (14), gray salt glazed (7), gray (2), indeterminate (3), lead glazed (4), and porcelaneous (2).
With a total of only 12 ceramic sherds from likely utilitarian vessels compared to 296 at Area A, the 12B activity area can be assumed to have had a very low number of storage vessels kept on-site.
Possible explanations for this include the likelihood that Area A housed a far greater number of people, as evidenced by the architectural remains, and were located farther away from the main house and supply lines. More storage capacity would have been essential if a large body of people were fed there on a daily basis. The Simpson Lot residents probably had better access to supplies being stored by the
Simpson's, and may have had a communal eating area outside of Activity Area 4. Architectural evidence does not support the presence of more than one cabin in the sample area, so occupancy was likely far smaller on this plot of land and would not require as much food storage.
Ceramic forms identifiable from 11B include .61% bottle, 23.06% bowl, 38.98% cup, 0.2% jug,
0.61% pitcher, 24.49% plate, 1.63% platter, 1.02% pot, 8.78% saucer, 0.2% storage jar, 0.2% teapot, and 0.2% tureen. The most common forms were annular whiteware bowls (8.57%), plain (14.08%), hand painted (10.61%), and sponged cups (5.51%), and plain (7.96%), shell edged (4.9%), and transfer printed plates (4.49%). The 12B sample has only 13 discernible forms, the majority being cups (3), plates (4), and saucers (3). None of these appear to be from matching sets, as all sherds are from different styles except 3 plain whiteware plate fragments. Annular bowls were the most common vessel at each site, with plain whiteware plates as the most common flatware--though plain whiteware plate body sherds could also represent the unpainted portion of a shell edged plate, which was the second most numerous flatware at 11B.
Area A reflects more variety in vessel form, with the presence of at least one platter and tureen.
However, it appears in other ways to align closely with patterns suggestive of a lower class/possible
173 slave context, according to Otto. The ratio of low-cost ceramic types compared to transfer prints and porcelain is very high, with bowls equally represented with plates, and annular bowls and plain/shell edged plates among the highest frequency of forms on site. The Mill Village is often referred to as a slave village, but in plantation models the houses of white overseers are not uncommon near the location of slave dwellings (Lange and Handler 2009:17-22; Orser 2009:70-71). Therefore the presence of white supervisors cannot be discounted at Area A, even if it is concluded to be primarily a slave occupation.
The Simpson Lot Cabin's ceramic assemblage consists of a very similar ratio of low-cost ceramic types to transfer prints and porcelains, with annularware the most common type. Though there is only one annular bowl fragment in the 12B assemblage and no shell edged plate sherds. The other interesting deviation from 11B is that plates (30.77%) are much more frequent than bowls (7.69%).
This could indicate a diet less reliant on stews and porridges, with more individually prepared food items. Overall, ceramic types at 12B are consistent with a lower class context, but ceramic forms inference the diet of someone with access to better materials. Again, this could imply that the residents of the Simpson Lot were being supplied with different food as a result of their closer proximity to the
Simpson family stores and possible agricultural fields.
Kitchen glass is most often an indicator of alcohol consumption. Wine/ale bottles in olive green were identified at both 11B and 12B. These are a common piece of most 19th century material cultures, though noted in plantation studies as more prevalent in slave contexts than planters and overseers (Otto
1980:9). Frequency is similar at both sites, with the 11B Kitchen glass assemblage consisting of 14.5% wine bottle and the 12B assemblage consisting of 11.41%. 11B has a case bottle sherd present, while
12B has no case bottles. Liquor bottles are not uncommon in slave contexts, but tend to be more frequent in planter/overseer contexts. The only other significant glass category identifiable is glasswares. There are 5 tumbler fragments at 11B and 12 indeterminate glassware fragments. 12B's
174 only discernible glassware is one stemmed glass sherd in flint. The Area A residents appear to have had drinking glasses but no wine/port glasses, while the Simpson Lot cabin appears to have had a wine/port glass but no drinking glasses (that can be identified). Another unique item found in the 12B surface collection at Structure 1 is a nearly whole molded, pink glass plate. This is a fine item, and nothing similar was found at Area A.
Floral and faunal remains from subsistence activities are sparse at Arcadia due to the high acidity of the soil. 11B and 12B share a similar assemblage, consisting mainly of oyster shell, peach pits, seeds, and large mammal bones. Besides small samples of indeterminate mammal, cow and pig bones are the only surviving animal remains. Of these, one cow's tooth was recovered from Area A in
Feature 326, and one cow's tooth was recovered from 12B Unit 109. Two pig bones were recovered in close association with the cow's tooth in Units 109 and 110, Feature 423. Cows and pigs are the most common protein found in the slave diet, with pigs often represented at a higher frequency than cows.
They are also common in middle and upper-class diets, though there is usually a marked difference in the quality of cuts of meat consumed by those with more economic freedom. Cuts of meat reserved for the very poor, including slaves, were often leftover portions of the animal like heads and feet (Deetz
1977: 235; Fairbanks 1984; Greene 2011:70).
The presence of teeth at both 11B and 12B indicate this may have been precisely what the inhabitants were preparing. Each context is also directly associated with a structure, so it is not likely that these teeth represent an area reserved for animal pens. The 12B bones were found in the refuse midden under what is believed to be a privy, so they are most likely discarded food remains from the nearby Area 4 cabin. There is no metal cookware or utensils in the 12B assemblage, but the 11B
Kitchen assemblage includes a kettle, pot, lid, fork, spoon, and knife (Figure 34).
175
FIGURE 34. Utensil handle from Area A. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
The Architectural assemblage at Area A is extensive and comprised mainly of brick and metal fasteners. A good portion of bricks recovered at Arcadia are handmade, including the whole bricks forming the corner supports of Structure 1 at the Simpson Lot. Based on the historical photograph of the proposed "slave cabin" at the Simpson Lot, both the 11B and 12B structures are believed to have been framed and raised off the ground on brick and sandstone pier supports, with possible porches extending off one side of the house. The architectural assemblage supports this, as the remains of brick piers have been documented in each excavation in association with areas of high domestic artifact frequency (Figure 35). Brick represents 48.38% of the 11B Architecture group and 31.48% of the 12B
Architecture group. This is a large enough amount to represent some structural influence, such as piers or chimney, but not entire foundations or frames. The abundance of metal fasteners found in association with brick and domestic materials also supports this conclusion.
176
FIGURE 35. Area A Architecture frequency by weight(g).
177 Housing styles associated with slavery vary according to period and region, and even still do not share complete uniformity. Several styles associated with 19th century slave quarters include the shotgun, dogtrot, and saddlebag house. Earlier models of slavery in colonial America did not always reflect the rigid stratification of the 19th century; slaves sometimes co-habitated with their owners or were housed nearby in small dwellings often built in African traditions. By the late 18th century, when plantations were growing into large scale businesses, a more regimented model was adopted by many slave owners which allowed for further control to be exercised over their enslaved work force. Quarters which were once built on the ground, allowing slaves to build sub-floor pits, often seen as a sign of resistance, were now built on piers creating less opportunity for secretive activities. These dwellings tended to be single or duplex units featuring porches and chimneys (Deetz 1977:215-225).
The cabin featured in the Simpson Lot photograph appears most similar to the saddlebag design, featuring two rooms with separate entrances sharing a central chimney and a front porch. At least six brick piers can be seen supporting the wooden structure. The description of eight saddlebag cabins documented as slave dwellings at the Saragossa cotton plantation in Natchez, Mississippi by Young
(1999:58-66) bears a remarkable resemblance to the Simpson Lot cabin. Saragossa operated for roughly the same period as Arcadia, with occupation continuing into the 20th century. The slave cabins were probably first constructed in the 1820's and then remodeled in the 1850's. All architectural materials found at Arcadia area also present at Saragossa, where the majority of structural materials recovered included brick, cut nails, and flat window glass. These structures measure 6 x 10m and housed between 4-6 people per room; they were concluded by Young (1999) to represent the larger range of antebellum slave houses throughout the South. They appeared to also be of higher quality compared to the hovels described by many former slaves in south Mississippi which Young (1999) posits could reflect the wealth and prestige the plantation owner wished to be viewed with by the general public.
178 Other wooden frame, brick pier slave houses have been excavated from 19th century plantations, most notably by Ascher and Fairbanks (1971:3), Singleton (2009:295), Jones (2009:205-
206), and Deetz (1977:221). There have also been houses of similar style reported on 19th century sites with African Americans working in industrial labor. Dogtrot style dwellings, which are very similar in layout to the saddlebag style, housed slaves at Van Winkle's Sawmill in the Arkansas Ozarks (Brandon and Davidson 2005:123-125). Descriptions of postbellum tenant homes on Millwood Plantation, believed to have been occupied by slaves before the Civil War, appear to be similarly styled wooden structures on brick piers. Millwood operated agricultural fields and sawmills, though it is not clear if the slaves working in the mills were housed along with the field slaves in this location (Orser and
Nekola 2009:75-81).
The archaeological evidence of Structure 1 in the Simpson Lot shows no discrepancy with the historical photograph as far as structural elements or concentration of domestic artifacts. Based on the location of structural piers, documented as Features 409, 410, 412, 330, and 331, Structure 1 appears to be approximately 6 x 10m in size. This is exactly the same size as the saddlebag cabins noted previously at Saragossa Plantation. The remains of a chimney foundation documented as Feature 411 and a post hole which may have supported a porch (Feature 428), support the interpretation of Structure
1 as the cabin featured in the historical photograph.
Whether or not this represents the same style of structure located in the Mill Village is difficult to tell, though the general architecture appears the same. Evidence of chimneys is implicated through the high frequency of bricks in the assemblage and spatial association to structural features and domestic artifacts, but no articulated brick chimney foundations have been located. Several post hole features at Area A (Features 321, 324, 337, 340, and 343) could also suggest porch supports. The similarity in material culture between the two sites would suggest that individuals inhabiting the same general economic level lived at these sites, so it seems likely that their dwellings would reflect this.
179 Other architectural elements in the assemblages include nails, other metal fasteners, and window glass. The majority of nails at each site were iron, with slight variations in manufacture. The
11B nail assemblage consists of 0.13% hand wrought, 50.61% cut, 0.62% wire, and 48.63% indeterminate. Of the whole nails recovered, 51.33% of them are straight, 33.57% of them are pulled, and 15.10% of them are clinched. This is consistent with a construction date in the early to mid-19th century, and perhaps some, but not a lot of deconstruction at the site. The 12B nail assemblage consists of no hand wrought nails, 37.39% cut, 6.58% wire, and 56.02% indeterminate. Of the whole nails recovered, 38.89% are straight, 31.48% are pulled, and 29.63% are clinched. This is still consistent with an early to mid-19th century construction date. The higher percentage of wire nails is also consistent with the historical knowledge of this cabin's repurposing into the 20th century.
Other metal fasteners in the collection include iron spikes, brackets, hinges, latches, and staples.
11B has 57 iron spikes, most of which are hand wrought or cut. 12B has one cut and one indeterminate spike, and its only other metal fasteners are eight iron hinges. Spikes are common in frame construction, and the hinges were likely used to connect doors or window shutters. 11B had a larger population and it is believed to have featured several structures, accounting for the larger number of spikes and metal fasteners. These include bracket (1), hinges (10), latches (6), and a hand wrought staple (1).
Windows were common features in both mill towns and slave quarters. The saddlebag houses at
Saragossa plantation had three six-over-six sash windows per pen, making six per structure (Young
1999:59). The high frequency of flat window glass at Arcadia suggests that structures at Area A and the
Simpson Lot had windows. At Area A, the majority of window glass recovered was soda lime (3,161) as opposed to clear (385), while the 12B window glass was mostly clear (33) as opposed to soda lime
(4). Because soda lime was the more common glass in the 19th century, with clear glass gaining popularity at the end of the century, this suggests that Area A's windows were original to construction
180 in the early to mid-19th century. Historical accounts suggest that some of Arcadia’s lowland cabins were still being used during the Civil War, but there is no evidence that occupation continued after this
(Phillips and Mabeltini 2012). The Simpson Lot cabin was known to have continuous occupation until its destruction in the 1960's, so the likelihood that its original windows were replaced by clear panes at some point is high.
Artifacts from the Furniture group were only recovered from Area A. The Furniture assemblage consists of brass furniture tacks (5) and escutcheon plates (2), iron drawer pull (1), escutcheon plate
(1), and furniture tacks (7), lamp chimney fragments (12), lamp fragments (4), and vase glass in blue- green (12), brown (1), green (2), and soda lime (2). The Mill Village houses were likely equipped with storage furniture, like dressers or chests, as well as lamps and several vases. This indicates that whether the inhabitants were slaves or white supervisors/laborers, their living spaces included items meant to make one feel at home. The 0.18% overall frequency of these items intimates a fairly low number of furniture pieces, or a failure to locate more than one or two domestic concentrations. Still, the presence of non-essential items which may have been viewed as belongings or decoration is significant. Vases, though not necessarily related to one gender or another, may signify the presence of women at Area A.
The Arms group makes up 0.23% of the 11B assemblage and 1.01% of the 12B assemblage.
The majority of the 11B Arms items were located in Feature 322, the sheet midden over what has been interpreted as an activity area just beyond Structure 1. Metal gun parts recovered from Area A include an escutcheon plate (1), lock plate (1), priming flasks (5), and percussion caps (16). Ammunitions related artifacts include lead shot (18), bullets (2), and a shell (1). Gunflints and associated debitage include gunflint flakes (3), fragments (9), and spall (1). All flints were gray except for one honey- colored fragment. This assemblage indicates the presence of both flintlock and percussion lock firearms, both of which featured escutcheon and lock plates, and required the use of priming flasks for the storage of gun powder. The use of round lead shot is also consistent with these firearms; the
181 average size of shot in the assemblage strongly indicates they were used for hunting and not military or defensive purposes.
Percussion caps came into use in the 1820's, but did not immediately replace the flintlock.
Flintlock muskets and pistols were maintained by owners through the Civil War. The timeline of mill operations at Arcadia coincides with this period, so it is not unlikely that the residents of the Mill
Village would have used both forms throughout the duration of occupation at Arcadia. Arcadia was also involved in skirmishes during the Civil War, during which both Confederate and Union troops are believed to have lodged at or near the Mill Village for brief periods of time. It is also possible that firearm items recovered from Feature 322 represent this Civil War occupation, though again, the size of shot recovered from Area A does not correlate to those commonly used by Civil War soldiers (Phillips and Mabeltini 2012).
Though it may seem improbable that a slave owner would outfit his slaves with firearms, there is precedent for this practice found on slave sites throughout the South. Ascher and Fairbanks (1971:13-
14) documented gunflints and lead shot at slave cabins at Reyfield Plantation on Cumberland Island,
GA in 1971, concluding that the Reyfield slaves had smooth bore, flintlock muskets. More examples have been uncovered at Kingsley Plantation, FL, Stafford Plantation, GA, King's Bay Plantation, GA,
Cannon's Point Plantation, GA, Jones Creek Plantation, GA, and Butler Island Plantation, GA. The benefit to allowing slaves to supplement their diets with small game hunting and fishing was economical, and so to save on rations some slave owners overlooked the potential for violence (Reitz et al. 2009:183-186). The size of lead shot and the presence of a frog gig (harpoon) in the assemblage support the likelihood that the firearms at Area A were being used by its inhabitants for hunting.
The Arms assemblage from the Simpson Lot Activity Area 4 consists of bullet casings (16), lock plate (1), priming flask (1), and lead shot (10). The priming flask indicates that there was most likely a
19th century firearm present on site, but the bullet casings are probably postbellum if not 20th century.
182 Again, the small size of shot at 12B, ranging from 3.6mm to 5.8mm, does not seem likely for a purpose other than hunting. The rich natural environment surrounding the Simpson estate was full of life, and it does not seem unreasonable to imagine that those living in separate residential areas at the complex were all benefiting from the supplementation of their diets through hunting and fishing.
The Clothing assemblage at 11B is 0.29% of the total assemblage, and it also represents 0.29% of the 12B assemblage. While this amounts to only 8 items in the Simpson Lot sample, it adds up to 70 items at Area A. By material these include iron buckles (6), eyelets (5), buttons (11), a snap (1), and thimbles (3); brass hook & eyes (12), buttons (10), straight pins (2), shoe hook & eyes (2), shoe lace tip
(1), and thimble (1); pewter buttons (2); bone button (1); drawn glass beads in blue (1) and black (2), and porcelain prosser buttons (10). All clothing items present in the assemblage are consistent with
19th century dress. The bone button would probably not have been purchased commercially, but they were easily made from animal bone as a replacement when necessity required it. They are found on
American sites from the 17th century on, though are largely attributed to the 19th century, and are usually found on lower class sites. Bone buttons tend to be small, and are often used for underwear, trousers, or pillowcases. American bone buttons are most commonly made of cow or pig bone (Rivers
1999:30-31).
Typical slave clothing consisted of plain garments made of cheap, coarse fabrics. Before the
19th century it was mostly imported, but by the age of large plantations many slave women were tasked with darning "homespun" clothes for the entire work force. Perhaps the Arcadia cotton factory and its skilled slave weavers contributed to the production of the raw materials needed to produce their own clothing. The Woodville Manufacturing Company in Mississippi replaced white laborers in their cotton mill with slave labor in 1852 and advertised cheaper "negro cloths" than available from the Lowell,
Massachusetts factories. The southern slave cloth market became competitive in the 1840's and 50's, so
183 perhaps the demand for fabrics deemed appropriate for slave clothing had even reached the Arcadia mill (Shaw 2014).
Whether or not they were producing their own fabrics, there is no doubt that upkeep at the very least required the sewing of clothes items by the Area A inhabitants. This is seen in the presence of thimbles and straight pins. While this would be expected of any laborers performing intensive physical work, the patching and darning of clothes by slave women is a well known practice that was practical but also allowed for the expression of an aesthetic form of cultural identity unique to African-American society. Men in African traditions were involved with fabric production, but in American slave culture they were known less for weaving and more for working on shoes (White and White 1995:168-172).
The metal fasteners, eyelets, and shoe parts excavated from Area A were concentrated in Feature
322, the sheet midden/activity area. This may have been located on or just off of Structure 1's porch, and would seem an ideal place for clothes maintenance to be taking place. The assemblage presents the possibility of several clothing items worn by both men and women, such as shoes and boots, shirts, dresses, petticoats, trousers, skirts, underwear, and coats. Hook and eyes are most often associated with women's clothing, though were sometimes used on men's waistcoats, shirts, coats, and trousers. Shoes were likely plain or laced leather, though the presence of buckles indicates there may have been fancier buckled shoes present. Nicer clothing was owned by the average individual for attendance of Sunday church services; this was encouraged by many slave owners who supported the Christianization of their charges. Belts or buckle shoes may have been given to or bought by slaves who earned extra income, though niceties like this are more often linked to domestic slaves (White and White 1995:170-180).
There are 34 buttons in the 11B assemblage, the majority of which are iron and brass. Porcelain prosser buttons are also present. The prosser, or "little china" button (1840-1909), was fairly cheap and could be purchased in bulk for use mainly on shirts and underwear (Rivers 1999:35). Brass buttons replaced the popularity of pewter buttons in the early 19th century and were most common through the
184 first half of the century. The iron button was generally inexpensive and popular, especially among the lower class, from 1800-1870. The frequency of buttons by material is consistent with the Mills' dates of operation. Porcelain (10), brass (10) and iron (11) buttons were all popular during the mid-19th century, while pewter buttons (2) were out of fashion not long after the first mill at Arcadia opened. Buttons are considered common finds on slave sites, and are often represented at a higher frequency than non-slave sites (Marcel 1994:6-7).
The general economic assessment of buttons at Area A is that they are all consistent with lower price scales for the period. Fine clothing of the era was more often made with silver or pearl outer buttons, and glass utilitarian buttons for undergarments. These materials are not unheard of on slaves clothing, but again, more likely on the clothing bought or given to higher status slaves like domestics.
There is an account of an industrial slave named Charles Cox, who ran the mill house at Whitehall
Plantation in Maryland in the late 18th century, who was often dressed in finer clothes than was expected of a slave. He was said to own three waistcoats, two shirts, a pair of brown breeches, and a hand-me-down broadcloth coat with silver basket buttons given to him by his owner, Maryland
Governor Horatio Sharpe. The silver buttons had formerly adorned the coat of his owner, an ex-military colonel and very wealthy man. These fine gifts and more expensive materials propagated the development of slave hierarchies in which slaves associated with wealthy owners could serve as a reflection of their wealth. The more common the slave was considered by white society, the less likely their material culture was to reflect the master's high social and economic status (Marcel 1994:10-13).
Another indicator of the style of dress and economic level of Area A's inhabitants is the presence of military buttons (2). These buttons are characterized by an oval border lined with 14 stars surrounding a left-facing eagle atop an upright anchor (Figure 36). Upon original discovery, it was theorized that they represented the Civil War occupation of Arcadia. Investigation by Mabeltini and
Phillips (2012) reached a preliminary identification of this style as a Navy officer's button dating
185 between 1830 and1852. While this is in line with the dates of occupation at Area A, there is no recorded military activity around Arcadia during this period. General Andrew Jackson marched his troops through the northeastern corner of the Rua land grand in 1818, but this appears to be before any button matching this description was being used by the military.
It is possible that Confederate or Alabama militia troops encamped in the former mill village during the Civil War were not provided government-issued uniforms and clothed themselves with older military service dress. But the assemblage of possible military items found at Arcadia is too small to represent a large encampment, and lacks any distinguishing features of Civil War material culture. The typical minié balls used at the time were designed for .58 and .69 caliber rifles which does not match the buck shot style lead balls found at Arcadia (Phillips and Mabeltini 2012).
The more likely scenario involves the practice of dressing slaves in surplus military clothing.
This has been documented primarily in the 19th century, and appeared to be particularly prevalent after a military surplus was issued in the 1830's. Clothes deemed damaged or unserviceable were made available for public sale or auction, and were apparently purchased by those among the extremely poor, free blacks, and slave owners. Clothing large numbers of slaves with pre-made dress was expensive, and the burden of sewing every clothing need for a large work force often fell to a few skilled enslaved seamstresses, often with the mistress of the plantation. This could become difficult when the needs or costs rose above the slave owner's ability to meet them. The cheap yet durable materials of military dress were considered well suited to the work of a slave, and did not appear above the standards of what was expected for slave attire. Thus, some slave owners took advantage of surplus sales to provide their charges with reliable clothing (White and White 1995:163-164). A letter from the Army and Navy
Chronicle relayed the dismay of one man who disliked seeing soldier's old uniforms "upon the back of every negro," after being bought at public sale (Miller 2014).
186 The Navy buttons present at Arcadia were likely coat buttons, judging from their size, which
would have replaced the most expensive clothing items to produce or buy for slaves. The fact that
surplus military uniforms sold or auctioned to the public were worn or damaged also implies that if the
Area A slaves were wearing them, they may have appeared less well kept than if they were outfitted in
newly made clothing every year. Though, the strenuous work of the mills and the Florida heat no doubt
contributed to the rapid dilapidation of newly made clothes. The Navy coat buttons also indicate the
presence of men at Area A, as slave women were still expected to dress in a similar fashion to white
antebellum society, and were not likely to be given men's coats.
FIGURE 36. U.S. Navy officer's button, 1830-1852. (Courtesy of the Archaeology Institute, the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.)
The only other class of clothing item present at Area A is beads, of which there are two black
and one blue, all drawn. The significance of beads on colonial and antebellum African-American sites
is related to the amalgamation of unique African-American folk beliefs and practices stemming from
the interaction of various Central and West African cultural groups in the Americas. Beads were not
only bought or bartered for as jewelry, but charms with shared symbolic meaning often related to
protection. The color blue was also significant to African-American culture, and is associated by many
187 cultures around the world with healing and the prevention of disease. The combination of both of these protective symbols is most likely why blue beads are commonly found on African-American sites.
According to Stine, Cabak, and Groover (1996:64-65), blue beads average 8 per site, or 36% of clothing items recovered from African-American sites in coastal South Carolina and Georgia. They are associated most often with women and infants. Of other colored beads imbued with cultural meaning, black beads were reportedly worn to prevent heart trouble. Excavation techniques are not always sensitive to the recovery of very small items like beads, contributing to their scarcity in the archaeological record, and at Area A. The presence of both blue and black beads, both of known symbolic meaning to antebellum African-American culture, could indicate their presence at Area A.
The 12B Clothing assemblage consists of an aluminum grommet (1), iron buckles (2), iron buttons (3), a prosser button (1), and a glass button (1). This assemblage is somewhat similar to Area A as far as clothing items possibly present at the site, and economic scaling. However, the glass button is considered of nominal superiority over porcelain or metal buttons through the 19th century. Another indicator of the later occupation period of the Simpson Lot cabin is the presence of an aluminum grommet. Aluminum was a fairly new metal in the late 19th century, when it first begins to appear in the record. It was also relatively scarce, so clothing items such as buttons or grommets made from the material were expensive through the turn of the century (Marcel 1994:6). The Simpson Lot cabin was repurposed several times through the years, and the later time scale of this item suggests it belonged to a postbellum or 20th century occupant.
The Personal group consists of 0.26% of the 11B assemblage and 0.32% of the 12B assemblage.
At Area A this includes brass earring (1) and jewelry parts (2), iron blades (2) and necklace chain (12), mirror fragments in aqua (2), clear (21), and soda lime (18), pharmaceutical bottle (1), vial (1), comb
(1), pencil lead (1), and indeterminate bead (1). The items indicated by this list include jewelry, a knife, mirrors, a vial, pharmaceutical bottle, comb, and pencil. Personal items on slave sites are generally a
188 low percentage of the total collection, limited to a couple of items per structure. This trend is challenged in the 19th century however, as the introduction of mass-produced goods began to homogenize material consumption through America. The frequency of personal items on slave sites increases during this period, as materials were easier and cheaper to acquire (Wheaton and Garrow
2009:251-154).
Enslaved peoples could be given, barter, or buy jewelry, pharmaceutical products, mirrors, personal care items, or any number of other materials. Their presence might indicate the supplemental wage earning of slaves through activities like subsistence farming and hunting for their owner's family, or extra work like darning or maintenance. When money was not paid for these endeavors, sometimes a portion of the products of home farming could be taken and bartered with for fineries or personal items.
Most often these included clothes, medicines, jewelry, and fine table and tea wares (White and White
1995:155-162).
Another explanation for the presence of items like jewelry is possible theft or the salvage of items discarded by their owners. There are documented cases of slaves being disciplined for such activities, and of slave communities developing complex exchange networks that dealt in materials rarely supplied to the average laborer (Wheaton and Garrow 2009:251-154). As with other material commodities, the likelihood of domestic slaves being given finer personal items and gifts is higher than that of slaves working outside of the planter's household. In any case, the amount and variety of personal items should be expected to increase with the economic capacity of the individual to acquire them (L. Lewis 2009:128-138).
Personal items from 12B include a necklace chain (1), coin/token (1), amber pharmaceutical bottle (1), vial (1), mirror (1), pencil lead (4), and a porcelain toy teapot piece (1). The materials represented in this assemblage are very similar to Area A, with the exception of the coin/token and toy teapot piece. No material or markings could be discerned from the coin or token, but it is believed to be
189 machine made and could date to the 20th century. Toys such as the porcelain teapot piece indicate the presence of children. While there were circumstances when slave children were given trinkets by their owners, the majority of slave children were not expected to have a collection of personal toys made of fine materials like white children. King (1995:54) states that "enslaved girls did not own miniature china tea sets or play houses as did some of their white companions." This statement sounds like hyperbole, but can still be imagined an accurate portrayal in most cases. This toy piece is an indicator of the presence of a child with a moderate to high socioeconomic background, or a relationship with someone who could afford to give them a toy china tea set to play with.
The Tobacco group represents 0.76% of the 11B assemblage, but was not present in the 12B assemblage. Tobacco items recovered from Area A include fragmented ceramic pipes in kaolin (48), course earthenware (5), and stoneware (8), as well as snuff bottle in dark olive green (111), and light olive green (14). Of the 61 pipe fragments recovered from Area A, 42 of them were located in Feature
322, the sheet midden and proposed activity area. Of the 125 snuff bottle fragments recovered, 46 came from Feature 322 as well. This area contains a fire pit and the remnants of other activities like food preparation, sewing, and firearm maintenance; therefore it seems natural that the mill village residents would also be partaking in this popular pastime there.
The majority of pipe materials recovered were imported English varieties, relatively inexpensive, and often provided to slaves for recreational purposes. Supplemental income was also used by slaves to buy tobacco materials. The course earthenware and stoneware pipes are probably
American made, and could have been available to a more limited extent in the local area (Deetz
1977:239-252). Binford and Harrington's pipe stem dating ranges and formula are not accurate for samples of this size, and are generally not used after the 18th century. The form and decoration of pipe bowls in the assemblage are consistent with those dating between 1820 and 1900, roughly concurrent with the occupation of the Arcadia Mill Village (Hume 1969:296-310).
190 Activities group items made up 3.36% of the total 11B assemblage, and 3.6% of the total 12B assemblage. Each included a variety of industrial materials and recreational objects. Iron items recovered from Area A include barrel bands (2), bolt (4), chain (2), container fragments (1017.3g), cotter pin (1), fence wire (1), file (1), gear (3), gig/harpoon (1), handle (3), hardware ring (2), horse tack (2), clothing iron (1), machine part (12), iron plate (1), nut (6), pipe fitting (1), screw (2), screw eye (2), shuttle tip (1), strap (12), washer (5), and wire (11). Brass items from Area A include a hardware ring (1), and rivet (4). Copper items from Area A include a hardware ring (1), rivet and rove
(2), washer (1), and wire (1). Lead items from Area A include a bale seal (1), and indeterminate objects
(19). Glass items from Area A include a light olive green ink bottle (1), marbles in clear (1) and green
(2), tubing (1), and utilized flakes in aqua (1), clear (2), and soda lime (4). Lithics items from Area A include sandstone chunk (577), core (1), denticulate (1), non-utilized flakes (15), slate (6.1g), utilized chunk (6), and utilized flakes (6). Other Activities items include worked shell (3), and fired clay
(2502.9g).
The 12B sample includes aluminum tube (1), copper wire (2), lead weight (1) and indeterminate objects (12), and an indeterminate object of nickel (1). Brass items include a bolt (1), rivet (1), and wire
(0.3g). Iron items include a bolt (1), container fragments (177.6g), fence staple (1) handle (2), hardware ring (1), nut (2), screw (2), strap (9), trim (1), and washer (2). Glass items include a marble (1), lamp chimney (1), and telephone pole insulator (1). Lithics items include sandstone chunk (5), coal (1.1g), and slate (1). Other Activities items include fired (2.8g) and unmodified (0.5g) clay.
The majority of the Area A assemblage consists of hardware consistent with architectural or industrial materials, possibly related to domestic structures or either of the mills operating less than a quarter of a mile away on Pond Creek. There is also evidence of storage barrels and containers. The sandstone chunk scattered throughout the site is from a natural deposit on the Arcadia property; it was utilized in the construction of the mill complex earthworks and in the foundations of the mill village
191 structures. Several items of possible relation to the cotton factory and textile production were also recovered from Area A, including a shuttle tip and bale seal. No items with discernable connections to industrial activities are present in the 12B assemblage. Another item of interest at Area A includes a gig or harpoon usually used to hunt for frogs or fish. Marbles could indicate the presence of children, or at least recreational activities among the residents of Area A and the Simpson Lot cabin, as a marble was also recovered in this location.
Besides the presence of industrial materials, the only other significant differences in the 11B and 12B Activities groups are the presence of Native American lithics from previous occupation of the area, and the small collection of utilized glass from Area A. Glass knapping could have been an attempt to repurpose glass as tools or experiment with the technology in a recreational manner. It could represent a way to fill idle time for the mill village residents that was not engaged in by those in the
Simpson Lot cabin. A general comparison of the two collections appears to indicate that the Area A residents were partaking in more varied activities than those at the Simpson Lot, whose assemblage is almost entirely domestic in nature.
Identities and Life in the Arcadia Community
Area A
A vast body of material culture has been examined from the 2011 excavations of the Arcadia
Mill Village. Several important observations have been made that, when viewed in concert, point to the presence of African-American industrial workers at this location. These clues come in the presence of traits and materials often associated with African-American ethnicity and treatment, materials reflective of industrial labor, and a general economic level of correspondence with individuals of very limited economic capacity.
African and African-American ethnicity in colonial and antebellum society is tied to both cultural traits reminiscent of a life before their enslavement, and traits borne from the adaptation of that
192 life to bondage amidst a foreign culture. Each are represented in the Area A assemblage. Earlier in this chapter the significance of blue and black beads in African-American culture was highlighted, as were the specific connections of military buttons, shell edged plates, annular bowls, and the saddlebag style house to the presence of slaves on Southern antebellum sites. The latter four are not symbolically significant to African-American culture, as beads are documented to be, but rather represent several outcomes of the economic context shared by many slaves across the South. These are examples of materials associated with slavery not because they are limited only to the African-American "race" or the legal status of the enslaved, but because they were deemed fitting investments for people of this socioeconomic class by slave owners and are therefore often represented in known slave assemblages.
The identification of industrial hardware and several items related to weaving and fabric production in the 11B assemblage indicates a connection between the Area A residents and Arcadia's industrial activities. More pointedly, a bale seal and shuttle tip recovered from Area A could implicate women involved in weaving at the cotton factory. The known work force of the cotton factory consisted mainly of slave girls bought specifically for the purpose of fabric production, as well as some male slaves and at least three white female supervisors. While it is possible that these items reflect the presence of male cotton factory laborers or the white supervisors, the supervisors are not suspected of living at Area A and the ratio of women to men at the factory makes it more likely that these items reflect the presence of female slaves.
Other items in the 11B assemblage that could intimate that women lived at Area A are jewelry parts, cookware, sewing materials, vases, beads, hook & eyes, and an iron. The presence of men at Area
A is also suspected based on the recovery of firearm parts and ammunition, tobacco pipes and snuff bottles, and various pieces of hardware both domestic and industrial. Children are not directly indicated, though several marbles were discovered which could have been used recreationally by children just as well as men and women. Of the seven slave dwellings associated with Forsyth and
193 Simpson on the 1850 slave schedules, two of them are all male and one is only women and children.
The other four have men and women listed, or men, women, and children (United States Bureau of the
Census 1850b). Area A could have housed families, or at least co-habitating males and females. The evidence does not dismiss the possibility of all male or all female houses in the same vicinity.
The interpretation of economic status at Area A is based on material correlations to previously studied antebellum sites. While many of these material patterns are commonly found on slave or
African-American sites, they are not the sole province of these groups. Lower class Anglo Americans,
Native Americans, and free blacks experienced similar economic limitations resulting in comparable material patterns. They do not indicate a direct African-American or slave presence at Area A, but in context with the previously stated evidence this pattern augments the likelihood that the 11B assemblage does represent the Arcadia slaves.
Evidence of economic level include the high frequency of low-cost and simply decorated refined earthenwares proposed by Otto to represent at least 70% of the ceramic styles present at antebellum slave sites (Otto 1977: 105-106). These styles make up 74.7% of the 11B assemblage, though the author repeats that similar frequencies are found on low status sites with occupants other than slaves due to the similarity in economic capacity (Greene 2011:68-70). The difference being in non-slave contexts these are purchased by the occupant, whereas in slave contexts they have most likely been purchased for the occupant by the slave owner. These low-cost wares are found at a much higher ratio in Area A than more expensive ceramic styles such as transfer print and materials such as porcelain. Comparatively, the more economic freedom an individual had during the mid-19th century, the higher the frequency of transfer prints and porcelain in the assemblage.
Another indicator of low-economic level is the near equal frequency of bowls to plates in the
11B ceramic assemblage which is often related to the nature and quality of foods being consumed by the inhabitant. Many scholars in African-American archaeology find this a more sensitive indicator of
194 slave status, as slave rations often resulted in diets heavy in stews and porridges requiring hollowares
(Ascher and Fairbanks 1971; Fairbanks 1984; Greene 2011; Lange and Handler 2009; Lange and
Carlson 2009; Moore 2009; Otto 1975, 1977), though again this is sometimes seen in non-slave low- status sites where less economic freedom results in similar choices in consumables and ceramics. The relationship between bowls and diet at Area A is also supported by the presence of a cow's tooth in the faunal assemblage, possibly indicating the use of a cow's head in food preparation. The heads and feet of cows and pigs are often associated with the very poor cuts of meat given to plantation slaves (Deetz
1977: 235; Fairbanks 1984; Greene 2011:70).
Architectural indicators of low-economic status include the style of housing found at Area A and the low frequency of furniture items recovered. The wooden framed brick pier style of architecture is most often associated with the construction of quickly made, low-cost housing common of slave quarters and mill towns in the 19th century. Historical and archaeological evidence from the Simpson
Lot indicates that a style of house like the saddlebag design was used for the cabin located on the property next to Ezekiel Simpson's house. The Mill Village structures appear to be of a very similar nature. Though this style is documented on many contemporary Southern slave sites, it could have provided fitting lodging for lower class white or free black laborers as well. The scant evidence of furnishings could indicate the inability of the inhabitants to afford many furniture pieces or décor.
The low frequency of personal and clothing items at Area A is consistent with a low-economy domestic setting, very similar to what is seen on contemporary GA pattern slave sites. Fineries and personal belongings could be purchased by slaves with a small income from extra work, or given to slaves as gifts or hand-me-downs by their owners. Items like jewelry, fine china, and fancy clothing can be present on slave sites, just as it can be present on lower class sites, but generally in a much lower proportion than is expected on sites where the individual has more economic freedom. Of those items
195 present in the Area A assemblage, the quality is that of a low to mid-level price scale, as seen by the high frequency of iron and prosser buttons.
The final pattern with a common association to low-economic status indicates the supplementation of diet through hunting and fishing. The Arms assemblage and the presence of a frog gig/harpoon in the Activities group are strong indicators of these actions. The size of ammunition from the site and the style of weapon used indicate a subsistence pattern and not a military presence. Food supplementation is known from slave sites through horticulture and hunting, as a way to increase the nutritional intake of slaves only given rationed foods, as well as a way for slave owners to save money on yearly food costs. Though, this practice is far from foreign to many 19th century peoples attempting to feed their families with natural resources instead of expensive consumables.
The coalescence of these ethnic, industrial, and economic factors provides the basis for the interpretation of Area A as the location of the Arcadia Mill Village, the home of a portion of Arcadia's enslaved industrial work force. This domestic area was most likely occupied throughout the duration of mill operations between 1828 and 1855, perhaps for some time after, and again for brief periods during the Civil War. The summary of material evidence given in this chapter has revealed the presence of at least one dwelling, most likely surrounded by several more, where a small community went about their day to day lives. The families and laborers who called the village home lived in a small world, where they labored in the nearby mills during the day, and retreated homeward to prepare food, smoke tobacco, repair clothing or perhaps machine parts, plan a morning hunting trip, or play a game of marbles. Doubtless, other needs and people influenced their lives, but these histories will remain, like them, full of hidden complexities that dance at the edges of the materials they left behind.
The Simpson Lot Activity Area 4
The similarities and differences between the Area A assemblage and the 12B Activity Area 4 assemblage have been presented earlier in this chapter. The Simpson Lot sample was chosen because of
196 its historical association as a “slave cabin,” and its ability to provide a comparative context from which to assess socioeconomic dynamics between the two Arcadia populations. Though the dwelling has been called a slave cabin by Simpson descendants, the inhabitants of the Simpson Lot structure in Activity
Area 4 still hold some mystery from an archaeological standpoint. Do they indeed represent enslaved
African Americans? If so, are they a specific component of the industrial work force or perhaps domestic servants? Could the cabin have actually housed white laborers or supervisors instead of
Arcadia slaves? When approached with the same three parameters as the Area A assemblage, ethnicity, occupation, and economic level, the 12B assemblage does not provide as clear of an answer to the question of identity.
There are no traditional ethnically African or African-American artifacts in the 12B assemblage, though as observed in the Area A assemblage, the high percentage of annularwares is often associated with enslaved populations due to the economic context shared by many slaves in the GA pattern group.
At odds with the association of patterns found at Area A with connections to slave contexts is the absence of shell edged plates and low percentage of annular bowls.
Evidence of industrial activities and materials are not visible in the 12B assemblage, though hardware and fasteners found in the Architecture and Activities group which appear domestic could have industrial uses as well. The majority of activities and items in the assemblage are domestic in nature, and most likely reflect the daily subsistence and maintenance activities of its inhabitants for themselves. Domestic servants are assumed to do the majority of their work in the owner's home, though perhaps certain needs like sewing, some food preparation, and childcare could be done in their own dwelling. The evidence for domestic servants at the 12B cabin is speculative based on materials relating to occupation, but there is no clear evidence of industrial labor.
Economic status at the 12B cabin is evidenced by many of the same patterns found at Area A, including low-priced ceramics, style of housing, poor cuts of meat, meager furnishings, and a low
197 percentage of personal and clothing items. However, this is tempered slightly by the presence of several patterns which may indicate a higher economic capacity than Area A, even though they do not go so far as to suggest the residents had the economic freedom of the upper class. This is seen in the higher frequency of porcelain and flatwares, the slightly higher quality of buttons and personal items such as a toy porcelain tea pot, and the presence of fine items such as a molded pink glass plate and stemware. A piano key from the surface collection may indicate a piano, but as with the rest of the assemblage there is the possibility that some artifacts may be associated with a postbellum or 20th century occupation.
As stated earlier in this chapter, those items indicative of a higher level of economic freedom at the 12B cabin may have been purchased by the inhabitants as fineries or given to them by someone of a higher economic status. The majority of the assemblage is consistent with a lower class occupancy from the mid-19th through the early 20th century. Daily life at the cabin most likely included food preparation and consumption, food supplementation through hunting, recreation and childcare, as indicated by the toy tea pot and marbles. The presence of firearm parts and ammunition indicates the presence of men, and the toys point towards a child or children. Jewelry and cookware in the assemblage indicate the presence of women. The absence of tobacco products is odd judging by the amount of tobacco items recovered from Area A and the general popularity of the pastime in the 19th century. Perhaps there were not a lot of men living at this cabin or at least no men who smoked tobacco. The total assemblage seems to indicate a family structure was present at the Simpson Lot cabin.
The cabin's inhabitants lived in the shadow of the Simpson house, and this nearness probably impacted their lives more on a daily basis than the mill village community. If they were slaves, then the presence of a small class of more expensive materials might indeed be an indicator of that relationship, as slaves that worked in a closer proximity to the owner's family were often treated differently and incentivized through practices like gift giving. This relationship may have also resulted in a share of the
198 foods eaten by the Simpsons, possibly from their own fields or animals, reflected in a larger percentage of flatwares at the cabin. Of course, if this structure housed white supervisors who were not wealthy or paid enough to afford many niceties, there might be little to no difference in the assemblage. The artifact group patterns from the 12B activity area have similarities to the GA slave pattern in some aspects, but also to the overseer's pattern in others.
The absence of ethnically African-American items and industrial materials make it difficult to distinguish the cabin's residents by race, legal status, or occupation. The economic aspects examined for identification have suggested possible domestic slave occupancy or lower class white occupancy.
The historical record suggests that the Simpson Lot cabin was utilized by slaves during the antebellum period. If the record is queried for information on known Arcadia overseers and supervisors, it appears even more unlikely that the cabin was inhabited by one of them.
The shareholders and mill wrights that Forsyth and Simpson brought in to lead the company through the transition to steam power were all men with an income inconsistent with the economic level of housing or materials at Activity Area 4, and it is unlikely that they lived on Simpson's property.
Mill wright Benjamin Overman and Ezekiel Simpson's brother James were the next listings on the 1850 census after E.E., indicating they probably lived very close to him. James could have been living in the cabin, but the brother of one of Milton's wealthiest business owners would not likely have lived at this economic level, and could have simply been living in E.E.'s home but listed as a separate head of house. He was also listed as unmarried, and the archaeological record indicates the presence of women and children. Overman had a family of 8 in 1850 and owned slaves of his own; the size and economic level of the Simpson Lot cabin makes it very unlikely that he and his family were living there (United
States Bureau of the Census 1850a).
Other known Arcadia supervisors were the three women from New York brought in to oversee the cotton factory. Two of these women, the Dennison sisters, were married during their time in Florida
199 which was cut short when they died of yellow fever in 1853. They may have lived on the Simpson property when they first arrived in Florida, but would have moved out upon marriage. The third factory supervisor is believed to be Sarah West, who was not listed in the 1850 census but was recorded as living in the Simpson home in the 1860 census. She was also listed as unmarried (United States Bureau of the Census 1850a, 1860a). None of these facts supports the possibility of her living in the Simpson
Lot cabin during this period. There is also too little known about the economic status of any of these women or possible supervisors unknown to speculate about what kind of income limitations they would or would not have faced.
I do not believe the historical or material record holds definitive proof at this time of the
Simpson Lot cabin's antebellum inhabitants. However, the historical tradition of the “slave cabin,” along with the low-economy status of the materials recovered and the possibility of gifted fineries would best describe the material culture of domestic slaves above all others suspected of living on the
Simpson estate. The wealth displayed by Forsyth, Simpson, and the main body of shareholders and mill-hands during operations at the Arcadia mills is inconsistent with the economic level of the cabin's occupants. Those individuals paid by the company to labor or supervise in the mills would not necessarily have lived on the estate, and if they did it would be surprising if prosperous men of such prominence in the community chose to provide them with little more monetary or material wealth than their slaves.
The antebellum plantation overseer in the GA pattern was often not particularly wealthy and thus shared a significant amount of materials in common with the low-economy slave class. Still, there are discrepancies between the two that are not mirrored by the 12B assemblage. At Cannon's Point,
Otto's overseer ceramics were dominated by a 72% frequency of plates versus bowls, and 28% of them were transfer printed plates (Otto 1977: 105-106). The 12B ceramic assemblage is only 30.7% plates, and none of them appear to be transfer printed. While there are marked differences from 12B to the
200 Area A assemblage which indicate some higher cost materials, the whole of the site is not consistent with what would be expected of paid company employees living and working side by side with
Arcadia's owners. Therefore the cabin is more likely to have housed slaves provided with housing and belongings by their owner, who may have had motivation to provide them with some slightly better materials due to their close relationships or increased visibility to the public.
So what do these interpretations mean as indicators of socioeconomic dynamics at Arcadia? If both the Mill Village and Simpson Lot cabin were inhabited by the enslaved African-American component of the Arcadia community, then the material record indicates a general low-economic status shared by the two. Social influence, possibly resulting from the close proximity of the Simpson Lot slaves to the Simpson family, distinguishes them on a slightly higher socioeconomic level from the Mill
Village. This is seen in the homogeneity of basic materials provided for them, but the presence of several higher-cost items and the possibility of better foodstuffs being provided to them. The documented preference of slave owners for domestic slaves and the precedent of finer materials representing their higher status in Anglo antebellum society indicate that these material clues could be reflecting the presence of Arcadia's domestic slaves.
An interpretation of this relationship utilizing SI might explain the low economy level of all the
Arcadia slaves by the choice of their owners to conform to institutionalized behaviors regarding the treatment of African Americans in Anglo antebellum society. The feelings of pride that would have come with the approval of their peers for this behavior reinforced the choice to treat and provide for their slaves in a manner similar to those around them. This was also economical and resulted in more of an income for the owner which resulted in more pride in their interactions with those around them.
Still, their face to face interactions with the people they utilized as an important source of labor and eventual profit required that they avoid causing judgment which would result in a refusal to work. It
201 might also be speculated that feelings of shame in the owner from their part in the bondage of their slaves might also result in either excessive discipline or better treatment.
Evidence of either kind of treatment is not visible in the material record at Area A, but may be indicated by the presence of fineries at the Simpson Lot cabin. If they are gifts from the Simpsons or
Forsyths, this could represent the positive feelings associated with the bond or friendship of owner and slave. Pride in their slaves' happiness and positive judgments could also motivate a slave owner to show better treatment. Though the actions of the owner as an agent in the social structure of the complex might have been motivated through the cognitive process of interaction and interpretation, this process also provides a corresponding breakdown of material boundaries visible in the archaeological record.
The Question of Anomalies in Slave Archaeology
As Orser (1987:131) has argued, the dynamics of economics and power in the plantation system can be studied archaeologically, but meaningful interpretation of their material implications cannot be limited by constructs like race and class. There are cases where plantation slave contexts display significant discrepancies not explainable by racial differences (Young 1997), or where white labor material patterns are practically indiscernible to slave's despite racial, legal, and social differentiation
(Shackel 1994:62). If material culture was the only record of identification in these cases, a categorization of race, legal, or social status would not be attainable which accurately represented all parties.
This is where context is relevant, and an economic basis for the stratification of materials in the absence of known ethnic or historical markers will provide the best chance for understanding material correlations to group dynamics in the archaeological record. Orser (1987, 1988) and Epperson's (1988,
2004) archaeology of "economics and power" provides the best model for how power structures and their impact on economic boundaries can affect the material culture of labor systems like the plantation,
202 while being influenced by race and social status, but not creating rules of material distribution bound by them.
If this new lens is applied to the analysis of Arcadia, similarities between different components can be examined for the material evidence of economic differences reflecting power dynamics, related, but not tied to race and status indiscriminately. This is not entirely dissimilar to Otto's interpretation of
Cannon's Point through the distinction of three types of status (racial/legal, social, elite/subordinate) that influence the distribution of goods between planter, overseer, and slave. But allows for variation in personal and group relationships to determine how power influences economic disparity, instead of assuming these boundaries adhere to racial, occupational, or class based stereotypes. That variation can reflect different labor contexts, modes of production, cultural and geographical landscapes, personal histories, or other significant influences on socioeconomic dynamics.
When sites of non-plantation based African-American occupation are investigated archaeologically, there is no reason to shy away from comparison to the wide body of plantation studies material available, so long as they are not viewed as the rule by which all African-American sites should be modeled after. In fact, when viewed in the context of economy and power, deviations from plantation patterns can help illuminate how life and material culture was affected by differences in labor structures and social dynamics, despite shared variables like race and legal status. The cognitive processes that generate the motivations of agents like slave owners, as well as how those same processes influence enslaved individuals in their interactions and decisions, provides a better understanding of how the landscape of slavery functions through day to day practice than by expecting it to adhere to a structure based on unreliable variables.
At the Arcadia Mill Village, this investigation has revealed many similarities in the material culture of the enslaved industrial labor population to antebellum plantation slaves in the Deep South.
The basis for this relationship is in patterns of material distribution based on similar labor structures
203 and group dynamics. The only significant difference in artifact patterning according to South's (1977) functional group categories, stems from activities relating to the industrial environment at Arcadia that are not present in agricultural contexts. When examining the influence of social status at Arcadia, the historical record indicates that at least according to local white society the skilled work force was viewed with more interest insofar as their involvement in Arcadia's success was concerned. This gives the appearance of their holding a more important place in the conscience of white society than other slave groups due to their industrial positions. Though this may have influenced their social status and been reflected in interactions, it does not appear to have made an impact on their economic status as a result of increased material variety or quality made available to them.
The same may not be true for the residents of the Simpson Lot cabin, if they were also a component of the Arcadia slaves. However, it is not clear whether this could have been a result of their occupation, visibility, or personal relationships with their economic providers. If the activity area analyzed was not occupied by Arcadia slaves, then their access to fineries could reflect an increased amount of resources because of their occupation or connection to the Simpsons. White inhabitants would be assumed to hold a higher social status than enslaved blacks, but if this is the case at the
Simpson Lot cabin then it did not translate into a vastly different economic status than the industrial slaves or the antebellum plantation slave. In either case, race or social status do not appear to have had a significant effect on the material stratification of the Mill Village or the Simpson Lot cabin.
Methodologies in African-American archaeology are often sensitive to cultural traits influenced by ethnicity, but sometimes rely too heavily on material pattern analysis based on race and social status.
As seen in the Simpson Lot activity area, material correlations to slave contexts are not always enough to prove an African-American presence. Economy based research may provide the best strategy for discovering associations to ethnicity, legal status, and social status based on an ethnohistorical examination of the limiting factors and agents that may have influenced each specific context.
204 I posit that material patterning often utilized in plantation studies may be applicable to anomalous slave sites, but this is rather due to similarities in social and labor structures than race. The influence these structures have on group dynamics and the control of material distribution will likely result in regional and temporal patterns. These patterns may not be applicable to contemporary non- slave sites of African-American inhabitance due to structural differences in the dissemination of power and resources. More research needs to be attempted to discern patterns in non-slave settings, as well as domestic settings where there is strong evidence that social dynamics result in differential treatment and material culture to that of enslaved labor groups.
Summary
Analysis of archaeological investigations at the Arcadia Mills Industrial Complex has revealed two domestic settings characterized by a shared material culture of limited economic capacity. Material and spatial analysis of the mill village located in Area A suggests that a community of enslaved industrial laborers inhabited the woodlands north of the mills they toiled in through 27 sweltering
Florida summers. Historical data indicates that the Arcadia slaves formed families during their tenure at the complex; perhaps it was here that these bonds were cemented.
An activity area at the Simpson Lot believed to be the location of an antebellum slave cabin has been analyzed in comparison to Area A. Many similarities in the record as well as the historical evidence suggest that this cabin was probably at one point inhabited by another component of the
Arcadia slave community. However, the interpretation of material distribution at this site indicates a shift in socioeconomic level that is reflected in increased access to finer goods. This, along with the absence of industrial materials, indicates a difference in either occupation or the power dynamics associated with their relationship to the Simpson family. Therefore, there is more ambiguity as to the identity of the cabin residents.
205 Archaeologically, the material culture of industrial slavery straddles two worlds. Neither industrial nor plantation archaeology are particularly adept at examining contexts outside of the traditional settings of the factory or plantation. Nevertheless, they share a common ground in the structure of a world labor system that disseminates power and resources through economic boundaries.
When dealing with anomalies in either case, I suggest stripping away racial or social expectations and interpreting economic variation as the result of power dynamics motivated by the interaction of agents.
At Arcadia, this helps explain similarities to plantation labor patterns in the material record, despite the attention given to their occupational differences by the local community.
The Arcadia Mills Industrial Complex was not a shining city on a hill; its history and those of its owners and laborers was fraught with challenges, successes, and failures. Regardless of its impact on
Northwest Florida and the slumbering south, the lives of this community were shaped in mills along the banks of Pond Creek and in the shadow of the great house. Arcadia's use of skilled slave labor challenged beliefs about social structure and industrial development in the South, and their enduring legacy is the dream of progress upon which the surrounding landscape is built.
206 REFERENCES
Adams, William Hampton and Sarah Jane Boling 1989 Status and Ceramics for Planters and Slaves on Three Georgia Coastal Plantations. Historical Archaeology 23(1):69-96.
American State Papers 1789-1838 Public Lands IV, 38 Vol. VIII. Washington, D.C., U.S. Congress, 1831- 1861. Electronic document, www.memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsp.html, accessed April 5, 2012.
Appleyard, John 2006 Lumbering in Northwest Florida and Alabama. Bodree Printing Co., Pensacola.
Ascher, Robert and Charles H. Fairbanks 1971 Excavation of a Slave Cabin: Georgia, U.S.A. Historical Archaeology 5:3-17.
Baerreis, David A. 1961 The Ethnohistoric Approach and Archaeology. Ethnohistory 8(1):49-77.
Bateman, Fred and Thomas Weiss 1975 Comparative Regional Development in Antebellum Manufacturing. The Journal of Economic History 35(1):182-208.
Beaudry, Mary C. 1989 The Lowell Boott Mills Complex and Its Housing: Material Expressions of Corporate Ideology. Historical Archeology 23(1):19-32.
Beck, Monica L. and William B. Lees 2009 “As Happy and Contented with their Vocation:” Shame and Pride Surrounding the Industrial Slaves of the Arcadia Cotton Mill. Paper presented to the 20th Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Berlin, Ira, and Herbert G. Gutman 1983 Natives and Immigrants, Free Men and Slaves: Urban Workingmen in the Antebellum American South. The American Historical Review 88(5):1175–1200.
Biographical and Historical Memoirs of Louisiana 1892 Volumes 1-11. Chicago: Goodspeed. Electronic Document, www.ancestry.com, accessed on 14 September 2013.
Blumer, Herbert 1969 Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey.
207 Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Brandon, Jamie C. and James M. Davidson 2005 The Landscape of Van Winkle's Mill: Identity, Myth, and Modernity in the Ozark Upland South. Historical Archaeology 39(3):113-131.
Cassell, Mark S. and Myron O. Stachiw 2005 Perspectives on Landscapes of Industrial Labor. Historical Archaeology 39(3):1-7.
Clark, James C. 2000 Quick Looks at Florida History. Pineapple Press, Inc., Sarasota.
Cooley, Charles Horton 1922 Human Nature and the Social Order. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
Daily Picayune 1845 No Title. Daily Picayune 19 February. New Orleans, LA.
DeBow's Review 1847 Cotton Manufactories in Southern States. DeBow's Review IV. 1853 Cotton Manufactories in Southern States. DeBow's Review XIV. 1855 Cotton Manufactories in Southern States. DeBow's Review XIX.
DeCorse, Christopher R. 1999 Oceans Apart: Africanist Perspectives on Diaspora Archaeology. In “I, Too, am America”: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life, edited by Theresa Singleton, 132-155. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Deetz, James 1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life. Anchor Books and Random House, New York. 1993 Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619-1864. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Dew, Charles B. 1994 Bond of Iron: Master and Slave at Buffalo Forge. W.W. Norton and Co., New York.
Dodd, Dorothy 1929 Railroad Projects in Territorial Florida. Master's Thesis, Florida State College For Women, Tallahassee, Florida.
Dorr, Anna Worcester [1864] Personal Memoir. Pensacola Historical Society Resource Center, Pensacola, FL.
208 Escambia County Courthouse, Circuit Court Records 1853 George Willis vs. Joseph Forsyth. Microfiche File 1853-1369, Archives and Records Division, Pensacola, FL. 1820-1910 Escambia County Deed Books B, C. Archives and Records Division, Pensacola, FL.
Euler, Robert C. 1972 Ethnohistory in the United States. Ethnohistory 19(3):201-207.
Evans, Oliver 1850 The Young Mill-Wright and Miller's Guide. Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia.
Fabel, Robin 1988 The Economy of British West Florida, 1763-1783. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Fairbanks, Charles H. 1974 The Kingsley Slave Cabins in Duval County, Florida, 1968. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1972 (7):62-93. 1984 The Plantation Archaeology of the Southeastern Coast. Historical Archaeology 18(1):1-14.
Ferguson, Leland 1980 “Looking for the 'Afro' in Colono-Indian Pottery.” In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America, ed. R. Schuyler, 14-28. Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, N.J.
Flannery, Kent (editor) 1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York.
Gallo, John 1985 Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Yellow ware. Heritage Press, New York.
Gary, Jack 2012 Ceramics and Jefferson's Aesthetic Philosophy. In Jefferson's Poplar Forest: Unearthing a Virginia Plantation, edited by Barbara J. Heath and Jack Gary, pp. 85-104. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Genovese, Eugene D. 1974 Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. Pantheon Books, New York.
Genovese, Eugene D. and Elizabeth Fox Genovese 1983 Fruits of Merchant Capital: Slavery and Bourgeois Property in the Rise and Expansion of Capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gober, William 1956 Lumbering in Florida. Southern Lumberman 104.
209 Goffman, Erving 1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre, Edinburgh.
Greene, Lance K. 2011 Ethnicity and Material Culture in Antebellum North Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology 30(1):64-78.
Griffin, Richard R. 1962 The Cotton Mill Campaign in Florida, 1828-1863. Florida Historical Quarterly 40(2):261-274.
Hanson, Lee H., Jr. 1971 A Reply to Gunflints and Chronology at Okmulgee National Monument. Historical Archaeology 5:109-111.
Hansen, Marcus Lee 1929 The Second Colonization of New England. The New England Quarterly 6(2):554–546.
Harrison, Faye V. 1995 The Persistent Power of 'Race' in the Cultural and Political Economy of Racism. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:47-74.
Heath, Barbara J. and Jack Gary (editors) 2012 Jefferson's Poplar Forest: Unearthing a Virginia Plantation. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Heath, Christian 1988 Embarrassment and Interactional Organization. In Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, edited by P. Drew and A. Wooton, pp. 136–60. Polity, Cambridge.
Hume, Iver Noël 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Johnstone, George 1766 Letter to John Pownall, dated 12 April. Public Records Office of Great Britain: Colonial Office Record. Microfiche File CO5/574:967. Special Collections, John C. Pace Library, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.
Jones, Steven L. 2009 The African-American Tradition in Vernacular Architecture. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, edited by Theresa A. Singleton, pp. 195-211. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA
210 Joseph Forsyth Papers 1855 Ledger, Daybook, and Will. Microfiche File M1968-11/64. Special Collections, John C. Pace Library, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.
Joseph, J.W. 1989 Pattern and Process in the Plantation Archaeology of the Lowcountry of Georgia and South Carolina. Historical Archaeology 23(1):55-68.
Kelso, W.M. 1984 Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia. Academic, New York.
King, Martin Luther 1972 History of Santa Rosa County: A King's County. Privately Published.
King, Wilma 1995 Stolen Childhood: Slave Youth in Nineteenth-Century America. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
Lange, F.W. and J.S. Handler 2009 The Ethnohistorical Approach to Slavery. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, edited byTheresa A. Singleton, pp. 15-29. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA.
Leffel, James 1881 Leffel's Construction of Mill Dams. James Leffel and Co., Springfield, Oh.
Lewis, Kenneth E. 2009 Plantation Layout and Function in the South Carolina Lowcountry. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, edited by Theresa A. Singleton, pp. 35-61. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA.
Lewis, Lynne G. 2009 The Planter Class: The Archaeological Record at Drayton Hall. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, edited by Theresa A. Singleton, pp. 121-138. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA.
Lightfoot, Kent, Antoinette Martinez and Ann M. Schiff 1988 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity 63(2):199-222.
Lindsey, Bill 2014 Society for Historical Archaeology and the Bureau of Land Management. Electronic document. http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm, accessed June 22, 2014.
211 Mabeltini, Brian and John C. Phillips 2012 Vestiges of Conflict in a 19th Century Mill Village. Paper presented at the 45th Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Baltimore, Maryland.
Marcel, Sarah Elizabeth 1994 Buttoning Down the Past: A Look at Buttons as Indicators of Chronology and Material Culture. University of Tennessee honors thesis project, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels 1848 The Communist Manifesto. The Two Narratives of Political Economy, 389-408. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Mead, George Herbert 1934 Mind, Self, and Society. Ed. By Charles W. Morris. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Meillassoux, Claude 1991 The Anthropology of Slavery: The Womb of Iron and Gold. Translated by Alide Dasnois. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Miller, Edward 2014 Discards, Ragamuffins, and the New Orleans Connection. Alamo De Parras. Electronic document, Miller, George L. 1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14:1-40. Miller, Randall M. 1981 The Fabric of Control: Slavery in Antebellum Southern Textile Mills. The Business History Review 55(4):473. Moore, S.M. 1985 Social and Economic Status on the Coastal Plantation: An Archaeological Perspective. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, edited by T. A. Singleton, pp. 141-160. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Morris, Allen (compiler) 1985 The People of Lawmaking in Florida 1822-1985. Tallahassee, FL. Morris, Charles L. (editors) 1962 Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist: Works of George Herbert Mead, Vol. 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 212 Musolf, Gil Richard 1992 Structure, Institutions, Power, and Ideology: New Directions Within Symbolic Interactionism. The Sociological Quarterly 33(2):171-189. National Archives and Records Administration 1807-1860 Slave Manifests of Coastwise Vessels Filed at New Orleans, Louisiana. Microfiche File viewed electronically, www.ancestry.com, October 7, 2013. North Alabamian 1845 No Title. North Alabamian 7 March. Tuscumbia, AL. Orser, Charles E. 1985 The Sorghum Industry of a 19th-Century Cotton Plantation in South Carolina. Historical Archaeology 19(1);51-64. 1988a The Material Basis of the Postbellum Tenant Plantation: Historical Archaeology in the South Carolina Piedmont. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1988b The Archaeological Analysis of Plantation Society: Replacing Status and Caste with Economics and Power. American Antiquity 53(4): 735-51. 1992 Beneath the Material Surface of Things: Commodities, Artifacts, and Slave Plantations. Historical Archaeology 26(3): 95-104. Orser, Charles E. and Annette M. Nekola 2009 Plantation Settlement from Slavery to Tenancy: An Example from a Piedmont Plantation in South Carolina. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, edited by Theresa A. Singleton, pp. 67-91. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA. Ortner, Sherry 2006 Anthropology and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject. Duke University Press, Durham and London. Otto, John Solomon 1975 Status Differences and the Archaeological Record: A Comparison of Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites from Cannon's Point Plantation (1794-1861), St. Simons Island, Georgia. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. 1977 Artifacts and Status Differences: A Comparison of Ceramics from Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites on an Antebellum Plantation. In Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology, edited by S. South, pp. 91-118. Academic Press, New York. 1980 Race and Class on Antebellum Plantations. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America, edited by R. Schuyler, pp. 3-13. Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, N.J. 1984 Cannon's Point Plantation, 1794-1860: Living Conditions and Status Patterns in the Old South. Academic Press, Orlando. Overman, C.H. 1939 After 111 Years, Bagdad Reaches the End. The Southern Lumber Journal Part 1(16). 213 Padgug, Robert A. 1976 Problems in the Theory of Slavery and Slave Society. Science & Society 40(1):3-27. Panton, Leslie & Co. Guide to the Papers of Panton, Leslie, & Co. Special Collections, John C. Pace Library, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL. Pensacola Gazette 1835 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 9 May. Pensacola, FL. 1836 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 28 May. Pensacola, FL. 1837 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 24 February. Pensacola, FL. 1838 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 17 November. Pensacola, FL. 1840 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 1 August. Pensacola, FL. 1841 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 13 February, 25 September. Pensacola, FL. 1842 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 3 September, 31 December. Pensacola, FL. 1845 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 13 September, 6 December, 13 December. Pensacola, FL. 1846 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 18 April, 23 May, 15 August, 10 October, 17 October. Pensacola, FL. 1848 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 8 April. Pensacola, FL. 1853 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 8 October, 15 October. Pensacola, FL. 1855 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 17 March, 24 March, 2 June, 30 June, 11 August. Pensacola, FL. 1856 No Title. Pensacola Gazette 15 February. Pensacola, FL. Phillips, John C. 1993 Arcadia: An Early 19th Century Water-Powered Industrial Complex in Northwest Florida. Report of Investigations, No. 44, University of West Florida, Archaeology Institute, Pensacola, FL. 1996 The Water-Powered Industries of Northwest Florida: An Archaeological Reconnaissance. University of West Florida, Archaeology Institute, Report of Investigations, No. 58, Pensacola. 1997 Flood Thy Neighbor: Colonial and American Water-Powered Mills in West Florida. Paper presented at the 16th Gulf Coast History and Humanities Conference, Pensacola, FL. 1998 Flood Thy Neighbor: Colonial and American Water-powered Mills in West Florida. Gulf South Historical Review 14(1):143-157. (Draft for Gulf Coast History and Humanities Conference cited in some cases, pp. 1-11). 2009 Arcadia Village Community Organization and Social Structure: Research Design and Methodology. Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola. 2010 Archaeological Investigations at Arcadia Mill: Research Design and Methodology. Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola. Perry, W. and R. Paynter 1999 Artifacts, Ethnicity, and the Archaeology of African Americans. In “I, Too, am America:” Archaeological Studies of African-American Life, edited by T.A. Singleton, pp. 299-310. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. 214 Riling, Ray 1992 The Powder Flask Book. R&R Books, New Jersey. Rivers, Sara 1999 An Analysis of the Buttons from Three Historic Homes in Western Kentucky. Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology 14:29-35. Robinson, Harriet H. 1898 Loom and Spindle or Life Among the Early Mill Girls. Thomas Crowell & Co, New York. Rosborough, Leigh A. 2004 Settlers and Slaves: A Spatial Analysis of a Colonial and Antebellum Mill Community in Escambia County, Florida. M.A. Thesis, Department of History, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL. Rosenberg, Morris and Ralph H. Turner (editors)| 1981 Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. Basic Books, New York. Rucker, Brian 1988 Arcadia and Bagdad: Industrial Parks of Antebellum Florida. The Florida Historical Quarterly 67(2): 147-165. 1990 Blackwater and Yellow Pine: The Development of Santa Rosa County, 1821-1865. Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. 2006 Timothy Twitchell: New England Entrepreneur on the West Florida Frontier. Patagonia Press, Bagdad, FL. Sams, Adrianne B. 2013 Arcadia Mill Village: Spatial Analysis of a Nineteenth Century Industrial Community. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola. Sanjek, Roger 1994 The Enduring Inequalities of Race. In Race, edited by S. Gregory and R. Sanjek, pp. 18- 38. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J. Scheff, Thomas J. 2005 Looking-Glass Self: Goffman as Symbolic Interactionist. Symbolic Interaction 28(2):147-166. Shackel, Paul A. 2000 Craft to Wage Labor: Agency and Resistance in American Historical Archaeology. In Agency Theory in Archaeology, edited by J. Robb and M.A. Dobres, pp. 232-246. Routledge Press, London. 2004 Labor's Heritage: Remembering the American Industrial Landscape. Historical Archaeology 38:44-58. 2009 The Archaeology of American Labor and Working-Class Life. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 215 Shackel, Paul A. and Matthew Palus 2006 Remembering an Industrial Landscape. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 10(1):49-71. Shaw, Madelyn 2014 Slave Cloth and Clothing Slaves: Craftsmanship, Commerce, and Industry. Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts 35. Electronic document, http://www.mesdajournal.org/2012/slave-cloth- clothing-slaves-craftsmanship-commerce-industry/, accessed May 10, 2014. Singleton, Theresa A. 1980 The Archaeology of Afro-American Slavery in Coastal Georgia: a Regional Perception of Slave Household and Community Patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1990 The Archaeology of the Plantation South: A Review of Approaches and Goals. Historical Archaeology 24(4):70-77. 2009 The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Singleton, Theresa A. and Mark Bograd 1995 The Archaeology of the African Diaspora in the Americas. Guides to the Archaeological Literature of the Immigrant Experience in America, no. 2. The Society for Historical Archaeology, Tuscon, AZ. South, Stanley 1972 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis in Historical Archaeology. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1971 6:71-106. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Southern Journal 1846 No title. Southern Journal 14 April. Tallahassee, FL. Sprague, Roderick 2002 China or Prosser Button Identification and Dating. Historical Archaeology 36 (2):111- 127. Starobin, Robert S. 1968 Disciplining Industrial Slaves in the Old South. The Journal of Negro History 53(2):111-128. 1970 The Economics of Industrial Slavery in the Old South. The Business History Review 44(2): 131-174. Steen, Carl 2011 Alkaline Glazed Stoneware Origins. South Carolina Antiquities 43:21-29. 216 Stine, Linda France, Melanie A. Cabak, and Mark D. Groover 1996 Blue Beads as African-American Cultural Symbols. Historical Archaeology 30(3):49-75. Stoffle, Richard W. and Demitri B. Shimkin 1980 Explorations in Afro-American Ethnohistory. Ethnohistory 27(1):1-12. Trigger, Bruce G. 1986 Ethnohistory: The Unfinished Edifice. Ethnohistory 33(3):253-267. United States Bureau of the Census 1830 United States Federal Census. United States Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed January 2012-November 2013. 1840 United States Federal Census. United States Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed January 2012-November 2013. 1850a United States Federal Census. United States Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed January 2012-November 2013. 1850b United States Census Slave Schedules. United States Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed January 2012- November 2013. 1850c United States Census Manufacturing Schedules. United States Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed January 2012 – November 2013. 1860a United States Federal Census. United States Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed January 2012-November 2013. 1860b United States Census Slave Schedules. United States Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed January 2012-November 2013. 1870 United States Federal Census. United States Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed January 2012-November 2013. 1880 United States Federal Census. United States Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed January 2012-November 2013. United States Vital Records 1800-1890 Birth, Marriage, and Death Records for the States of Connecticut, Florida, New York, South Carolina. Electronic documents, www.ancestry.com, accessed January 2012- November 2013. Wallerstein, Immanuel 1974 The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. University of California Press, Berkeley. Wheaton, Thomas R. and Patrick H. Garrow 2009 Acculturation and the Archaeological Record in the Carolina Lowcountry. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, edited by Theresa A. Singleton, pp. 239- 258. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA. 217 White, Shane and Graham White 1995 Slave Clothing and African-American Culture in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Past & Present 148:149-186. White, Stephen W. 1975 On the Origins of Gunspalls. Historical Archaeology 9:65-73. Williams, John Lee 1837 The Territory of Florida (1962). Facsimile Reproduction. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Wilson, Bobby M. 2005 Race in Commodity Exchange and Consumption: Separate but Equal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95(3):587-606. Wolf, Eric R. 1982 Europe and the People Without History. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1994 Perilous Ideas: Race, Culture, People. Current Anthropology 35(1):1-12. Wooster, Ralph A. 1958 The Florida Secession Convention. Florida Historical Quarterly 36. Wyckoff, William C. 1883 Silk Manufacture in the United States. Silk Association of America, New York. Young, Amy L. 1997 Cellars and African-American Slave Sites: New Data from an Upland South Plantation. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 22(1):95-115. 1999 Archaeological Investigations of Slave Housing at Saragossa Plantations, Natchez, Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 18(1):57-68. 218 APPENDIXES 219 Appendix A 11B Area A All Artifacts 220 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen 17.74 3.64 Refined Earthenware Creamware Plain 24 24.4 Gilded 10 18.8 Hand painted 7 3.8 Pearlware Plain 95 331.5 Annular 20 39.3 Broad floral hand painted 1 0.9 Gaudy dutch 1 0.9 Hand painted 3 6.9 Molded edge 3 13.3 Shell edged 14 65.6 Sprig earthentone polychrom 21.2 Transfer printed 9 17.4 Wormy finger painted 17 39.1 Whiteware Plain 901 1967.2 Annular 121 353.5 Broad floral hand painted 1 1.4 Decal transfer 1 0.9 Edge molded 13 67.2 Flow-blue mulberry 11 57.3 Gilded 4 3.7 Hand painted 234 467.4 Shell edged 60 389.1 Sponged 137 242.0 Sponged and hand painted 30 47.2 Transfer printed 279 649.5 Wormy finger painted 5 6.2 Yellowware Plain 8 34.2 Annular 10 21.1 Blue and white 17 35.1 Indeterminate Refined earthenware 8 5.8 Porcelain Indeterminate 9 43.6 Over glaze Chinese 1 6.6 221 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen (cont.) Course Earthenware Alkaline glazed 9 33.0 Lead glazed 19 81.5 Redware- glazed 17 120.7 Stoneware Albany slipped 4 13.3 Alkaline glazed 134 1291.9 Bristol slipped 1 12.0 Brown salt glazed 45 441.3 Brown 14 91.0 Gray salt glazed 7 21.7 Gray 2 77.3 Indeterminate 3 3.0 Lead glazed 4 39.4 Porcelaineous 2 8.2 Native American Ceramics Sand tempered 1 2.0 Sand-grog tempered 1 0.9 Glass Bottle Wine Light olive green 102 375.0 Dark olive green 167 395.1 Soda lime 3 1.2 Case 1 1.7 Other Amber 14 36.7 Aqua 79 338.9 Blue 4 4.7 Brown 2 8.2 Clear 52 88.7 Dark olive green 14 29.7 Flint 1 0.3 Light green 3 22.2 Light olive green 13 6.8 Soda lime 229 461.2 Glassware Tumbler 2 12.0 Clear 1 10.7 Soda lime 1 1.3 222 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen (cont.) Indeterminate Clear 11 105.2 Flint 1 0.6 Other glass Very thin 79 10.2 Indeterminate Amber 2 1.1 Aqua 116 64.9 Blue 10 7.5 Blue-green 13 16.1 Clear 248 109.6 Dark olive green 3 17.1 Flint 14 19 Light olive green 4 4.8 Soda lime 665 363.5 White 1 0.2 Fauna Mammal Cow 1 12.9 Indeterminate 2 0.3 Indeterminate bone 6 1.1 Shell Oyster 74 766.9 Land snail 5 1.0 Indeterminate 12 17.6 Flora Peach Pit 7 3.5 Nut 2 0.2 Seed 45 4.5 Metal Cookware Kettle 1 84.6 Pot 1 246.7 Lid 1 725.0 Utensils Knife 3 18.8 Fork 1 25.4 Spoon 1 8.8 223 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Architecture 75.9 87.19 Brick Fired Clay 2502.9 Handmade 580 123718.2 Tile 1 7.3 Indet Glazed Brick 8 439.4 Indet Brick < ½ in. 7855.3 Indet Brick > ½ in. 8384 106733.4 Mortar Indeterminate 6131.1 Finished 2890.2 Finished and marked 420.0 Tabby 728.5 Oyster shell 728.5 Marked 4518.6 Other Cut stone 2 1986.6 Indet Concrete 1 10.8 Metal Nails, iron Whole Cut 286 2139.9 Indeterminate 3 11.5 Whole, clinched Hand wrought 2 59.1 Cut 81 622.4 Indeterminate 2 16.0 Whole, pulled Cut 186 1368.7 Indeterminate 3 17.2 Fragmentary Hand wrought 6 62.4 Cut 2456 7395.6 Wire 37 61.4 Indeterminate 2883 4049.6 Nails, brass Whole Wire 1 2.2 Indeterminate 1 1.0 Fragmentary Hand wrought 1 3.1 224 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Architecture (cont.) Nails, lead Fragmentary 1 0.6 Spike Hand wrought 18 473.6 Cut 24 704.6 Wire 1 40.1 Indeterminate 14 271.3 Iron Bracket 1 395.0 Hinge 10 180.5 Latch 6 129.5 Staple, hand wrought 1 135.7 Glass Window, house Clear 385 216.5 Soda lime 3161 1396.0 Doorknob, clear glass 1 17.1 Furniture 0.18 0.04 Brass Escutcheon plate 2 8.7 Furniture tack 5 2.9 Iron Drawer pull 1 11.2 Escutcheon plate 1 6.8 Furniture tack 7 2.1 Glass Chimney lamp 8 8 Lamp 4 4.1 Vase Blue-green 12 73 Brown 1 1.3 Green 2 0.5 Soda lime 2 9.3 Arms 0.23 0.02 Metal Brass Bullet 2 1.5 Gun escutcheon plate 1 1.1 Lock plate 1 1.1 Percussion cap 14 2.1 225 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Arms (cont.) Priming flask 1 3.3 Shell 1 3.3 Copper Percussion cap 2 0.3 Iron Priming flask 3 16.3 Lead Shot, dropped 3.4-3.9mm 10 4.8 8.5mm 1 2.9 Shot, molded 6.3-7.3mm 5 7.6 8.2-9mm 2 6.9 Pewter Priming flask 1 5.8 Lithics Gunflint flake Flint- gray 3 0.5 Gunflint fragment Flint- gray 8 14.7 Flint- honey colored 1 1.1 Gunflint spall Flint- gray 1 3.1 Clothing 0.29 0.03 Metal Iron Buckle 6 35.4 Eyelet 5 1.6 Button 11 14.4 Snap 1 0.4 Thimble 3 2.9 Brass Hook & Eye 12 1.8 Button 10 17.8 Straight pin 2 0.2 Shoe hook & eye 2 0.2 Shoe lace tip 1 0.4 Thimble 1 1.7 226 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Clothing (cont.) Pewter Button 2 5.7 Fauna Bone button 1 0.1 Glass Bead, drawn Blue 1 0.1 Black 2 0.2 Porcelain Prosser button 10 3.2 Personal 0.26 0.02 Metal Brass Earring 1 1.5 Jewelry piece 2 0.2 Iron Metal blade 2 23.2 Necklace chain 12 0.1 Glass Mirror Aqua 2 1.5 Clear 21 5.2 Soda lime 18 9.6 Pharmaceutical bottle 1 7.6 Vial 1 0.3 Other Comb 1 0.9 Pencil lead 1 0.4 Bead 1 0.1 Tobacco 0.76 0.12 Ceramic Kaolin Pipe Body 3 3.2 Bowl 26 33.6 Stem 19 21 Course earthenware pipe Bowl 5 7 Stoneware pipe Bowl 8 20.6 227 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Tobacco (cont.) Glass Snuff bottle Dark olive green 111 244.4 Light olive green 14 40 Activities 3.36 5.74 Metal Iron Barrel band 2 48.4 Bolt 4 63.9 Chain 2 71.2 Container 1017.3 Cotter pin 1 53.2 Fence wire 1 5 File 1 38.6 Gear 3 3.2 Gig/harpoon 1 36.5 Handle 3 94.3 Hardware ring 2 85.7 Horse tack 2 174.5 Indet metal object 68 1287.1 Clothing Iron 1 3420 Machine part 12 505.7 Metal plate 1 9.6 Nut 6 733.3 Pipe Fitting 1 46.5 Screw 2 7.9 Screw eye 2 11.3 Shuttle tip 1 26 Strap 12 105.3 Washer 5 37.8 Wire 11 138.6 Brass Hardware ring 1 12.8 Indet metal object 26 18.7 Rivet 4 14.4 Copper Hardware ring 1 0.5 Rivet and rove 2 5.8 Washer 1 0.2 Wire 1 0.8 228 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Activities (cont.) Lead Bale seal 1 10.9 Indet metal object 19 86.1 Glass Ink bottle- light olive green 1 29.4 Marble Clear 1 1.1 Green 2 5.7 Tube 1 5.8 Utilized flake Aqua 1 0.3 Clear 2 0.4 Soda lime 4 0.3 Lithics Chunk/shatter 577 7539.1 Core 1 1.3 Denticulate 1 0.4 Non-utilized flake Chert, flint 3 0.2 Coastal chert 1 0.1 Marianna chert 2 0.7 Sandstone 1 0.2 Tallahatta quartzite 6 1.1 Quartz 2 0.3 Slate 6.1 Utilized chunk 6 51.8 Utilized flake Chert, flint 1 2.6 Coastal agate 2 1.2 Marianna chert 2 0.4 Quartz 1 0.5 Fauna Worked shell 1 8.2 Indet worked shell 2 15.5 Clay Fired 2502.9 Unspecified 1.28 3.2 Metal Flat iron 18 101.4 229 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Unspecified (cont.) Indet metal fragments 1191 Metal rod- iron 3 521.1 Lithics Concretion 131 1272.5 Fulgerite 1 0.2 Other Cinder/slag 22 111.6 Carbonized wood 136 1060.6 Tube 1 5.8 Scanned < ¼ in. 5909.3 Unscanned < ¼ in. 61.2 Total 24437 100 319364.4 100 230 Appendix B 12B Activity Area 4 All Artifacts 231 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen 36.55 5.78 Refined eathenware Pearlware Plain 2 2.7 Shell edged 1 0.3 Transfer printed 1 30.9 Whiteware Annular 67 12.1 Hand painted 10 5.2 Plain 56 188.9 Shell edged 1 1.2 Transfer printed 19 18.6 20th century colored glaze 1 0.3 Yellowware Plain 5 18.8 Indeterminate 2 0.3 Porcelain Hand painted over glaze 1 0.3 Indeterminate 9 10.6 Molded 1 0.7 Transfer printed 1 2.9 Course earthenware Black lead glazed 1 0.1 Faience Plain 1 0.2 Redware Glazed 1 2.8 Unglazed 1 3.1 Stoneware Brown 1 2 Porcelaneous 2 0.2 Glass Bottle Wine Dark olive green 32 51.1 Light olive green 60 87.7 Soda Green 1 7.3 Other Amber 24 19.8 Aqua 5 13.8 232 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen (cont.) Blue/green 1 0.8 Clear 11 24.3 Dark olive green 2 0.5 Green 4 10 Light olive green 2 0.1 Soda lime 25 33.4 Glassware Stemmed glass Flint 1 0.3 Other Wine seal Light olive green 1 4.1 Jar Clear 7 11.3 Liner White 1 1 Very thin Amber 9 0.5 Blue 1 0.1 Clear 5 0.5 Soda lime 2 0.2 Indeterminate Amber 20 7.2 Aqua 1 1.4 Blue 13 3.5 Clear 298 147.8 Dark olive green 3 11.1 Flint 2 0.7 Gray 3 0.5 Green 11 3 Light olive green 1 0.1 Pink 1 0.6 Purple 20 4.6 Red 3 2.4 Soda lime 233 93.5 White 2 0.3 Yellow 1 0.2 Fauna Bone 233 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen (cont.) Mammal Cow 1 34.5 Pig 2 2.7 Indeterminate 1 0.8 Shell Oyster 44.3 Snail 13 2.6 Indeterminate 6.6 Flora Nut 5.9 Peach pit 1 0.5 Seed 8 41 Metal Aluminum Cap 2 Architecture 57.7 52.52 Brick Handmade 6 260.6 Indet glazed 3 25.9 Indet > ½ in. 496 4069.8 Indet < ½ in. 536.6 Mortar/Plaster Unspecified 110.4 Ceramic Terra cotta sewer pipe 11 207.3 Concrete 9.2 Metal Nails, iron Whole Cut 25 153.5 Wire 15 61.7 Indeterminate 2 48 Whole, pulled Cut 14 81.3 Wire 12 49.7 Whole, clinched Cut 13 63.8 Wire 6 22.1 Indeterminate 1 16.3 234 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Architecture (cont.) Fragmentary Cut 338 975.2 Wire 33 56.3 Indeterminate 581 925.6 Spike Cut 1 30.8 Indeterminate 1 30.7 Hinge 8 254 Glass Window, house Clear 33 33 Soda lime 4 3.9 Modified flora Board 55.3 Other Shingle 877.7 Insulation 1 0.1 Arms 1.01 0.15 Metal Brass Casing 15 6.1 Lock plate 1 3.9 Copper Casing 1 0.4 Iron Priming flask 1 7.8 Lead Bullet, molded 2 3.2 5.8mm 1 2.1 Shot 3 1.1 3.6mm 1 0.3 3.9mm 1 0.3 4.5mm 2 1 Clothing 0.29 0.08 Metal Aluminum Grommet 1 0.4 Iron Buckle 2 8.5 Button 3 4.4 235 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Clothing (cont.) Porcelain Prosser button 1 0.4 Glass Button 1 0.1 Personal 0.32 0.05 Metal Necklace chain 1 0.1 Coin 1 2.9 Glass Pharmaceutical bottle Amber 1 1.8 Vial 1 2.2 Mirror 1 0.4 Ceramic Porcelain Toy teapot piece 1 0.5 Lithic Pencil lead 4 0.5 Activities 3.6 7.09 Metal Aluminum Tube 1 10.4 Brass Bolt 1 26.3 Indet object 2 0.3 Rivet 1 0.3 Wire 0.3 Copper Wire 2 3.5 Iron Bolt 1 74.6 Container frags 177.6 Fence staple 1 7.4 Handle 2 12.9 Hardware ring 1 3.4 Indet object 49 362.1 Nut 2 24.1 Screw 2 19.8 Strap 9 181.7 Trim 1 2.8 236 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Activities (cont.) Washer 2 5.8 Lead Indet object 12 16.8 Weight 1 4.7 Nickel Indet object 1 3.6 Glass Marble 1 6.3 Lamp chimney 1 0.1 Telephone pole insulator 1 4.1 Lithics Chunk/shatter 5 255.7 Coal 1.1 Slate 1 1 Clay Fired 2.8 Unmodified 0.5 Unspecified 0.54 34.32 Metal Iron Caster wheel 3 65.2 Crown cap 1 8 Flat iron 2 77.8 Indet object 351.8 Pull tab 5 0.9 Lead Indet object 1.3 Glass Incandescent bulb 2 0.4 Lithics Concretion 6.2 Flora Carbonized wood 188.3 Wood 38.1 Fauna Indeterminate shell 2.1 237 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Unspecified (cont.) Other Scanned < ¼ in. 5106.8 Carbon rod 2 5.2 Cinder/slag 2.5 Total 2781 100 17058.6 100 238 Appendix C 11B Block 2 All Artifacts 239 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight (g) % Wt Kitchen 14.62 5 Refined Earthenware Creamware Plain 2 2 Pearlware Plain 1 5.6 Whiteware Annular 3 3.6 Hand painted 4 9.3 Plain 16 20.2 Sponged 4 2.2 Transfer printed 2 0.8 Course Earthenware Redware- glazed 2 21.3 Stoneware Alkaline glazed 1 1.4 Brown 1 1.9 Native American Ceramics Sand tempered plain 1 2 Glass Bottle Wine 2 1.7 Dark olive green Other Light Green 1 7 Soda lime 4 9.8 Other glass Indeterminate Clear 1 0.4 Dark olive green 1 0.4 Soda lime 9 17.2 Fauna Shell Oyster 2 23.4 Architecture 75.38 87 Brick Handmade 2 474.7 Indet glazed brick 1 379 Indet Brick > ½ in. 87 914.9 Indet Brick < ½ in. 43 240 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight (g) % Wt Architecture (cont.) Metal Nails, iron Whole Cut 4 39.6 Whole, pulled Cut 5 41.3 Fragmentary Cut 38 164.6 Indeterminate 88 173.2 Iron Hinge 1 5.3 Window glass House Soda lime 68 32 Arms 1.03 0.28 Brass Gun escutcheon plate 1 1.1 Lock plate 1 1.1 Priming Flask 1 3.3 Lead Shot, molded 6.3mm 1 1.7 Clothing 0.77 0.1 Metal Brass Hook & eye 1 0.2 Iron Button 1 1.2 Pewter Button 1 1.2 Tobacco 1.28 0.11 Glass Snuff bottle Dark olive green 5 2.9 Activities Metal 4.1 4.77 Iron Strap 3 36.4 Container 1 1.4 241 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight (g) % Wt Activities (cont.) Lead Indet object 2 12.8 Lithics Chunk/shatter, sandstone 10 73.8 Unspecified 2.82 2.74 Metal Indet object 2 15.3 Lithics Concretion 1 7 Other Carbonized wood 7 35.5 Cinder/slag 1 2.2 Scanned < ¼ in. 11.5 Totals 390 100 2606.4 100 242 Appendix D 11B Block 3 All Artifacts 243 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen 14.16 4.15 Refined Earthenware Creamware Gilded 2 7.7 Hand painted 1 0.7 Plain 4 5.1 Pearlware Annular 7 13.1 Plain 5 68 Shell edged 2 7.9 Sprig earthentone polychrome 2 1.2 Transfer printed 1 3 Whiteware Annular 23 150.5 Edge molded 2 18.1 Flow blue mulberry 5 32.8 Gilded 3 3.4 Hand painted 20 61.7 Plain 103 444.8 Shell edged 7 45.6 Sponged 5 41.1 Sponged/hand painted 1 3.3 Transfer printed 26 88.4 Yellowware Blue and white 1 7.1 Plain 2 9.3 Indeterminate Refined earthenware 1 0.7 Porcelain Indeterminate 3 15.8 Stoneware Alkaline glazed 4 37.1 Brown salt glazed 6 113.9 Brown 4 43.4 Glass Bottle Wine Dark olive green 11 15 Light olive green 3 1.2 Soda Soda lime 2 25.4 244 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen (cont.) Other Amber 1 2.1 Aqua 24 189.6 Clear 9 10 Soda lime 45 79.4 Glassware Drinking glass Indeterminate 5 88.6 Other glass Very thin 4 1.5 Indeterminate Aqua 16 11.7 Blue/green 4 8.5 Clear 41 10.5 Flint 3 10.7 Soda lime 35 35.4 Fauna Mammal Cow 1 12.9 Indeterminate 1 0.1 Indeterminate bone 4 0.7 Shell Oyster 10 227.4 Architecture 83.56 92.17 Brick Handmade 138 14594.7 Indet glazed brick 2 39.7 Indet brick > ½ in. 1589 21451 Indet brick < ½ in. 4611.8 Ceramic Tile 1 7.3 Mortar Finished 1 77.3 Metal Nails, iron Whole Cut 60 436.6 Indeterminate 1 1.6 Whole, pulled Cut 31 219.1 245 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Architecture (cont.) Indeterminate 2 12.9 Whole, clinched Cut 24 157.1 Fragmentary Cut 328 1053.4 Wire 3 8.7 Indeterminate 250 347.6 Spike, iron Hand wrought 1 13 Cut 6 151.7 Iron Latch 2 3.4 Glass House window Soda lime 269 176.5 Doorknob, clear glass 1 17.1 Furniture 0.09 0 Brass Furniture tack 1 0.5 Iron Furniture tack 2 0.8 Arms 0.03 0 Metal Percussion cap, brass 1 0.1 Clothing 0.19 0.02 Metal Brass Hook & eye 1 0.1 Iron Buckle 1 3.5 Button 1 2.8 Snap 1 0.4 Porcelain Prosser button 2 0.7 Personal 0.12 0.02 Glass Mirror, clear 2 0.6 Pharmaceutical bottle 1 7.6 Other Pencil lead 1 0.4 246 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Tobacco 0.15 0.03 Ceramic Kaolin pipe 1 0.2 Glass Snuff bottle Dark olive green 4 15.3 Activities 1.67 2.54 Metal Brass Indet object 6 8.7 Copper Wire 1 0.8 Iron Barrel band 1 28.5 Bolt 2 45.1 Container frags 364.9 Indet object 8 32.2 Nut 1 18.1 Wire 55.8 Glass Chimney lamp 6 5.2 Vase Brown 1 1.3 Soda lime 1 4.9 Lithics Chunk/shatter 22 613.9 Non-utilized flake Marianna chert 1 0.2 Tallahatta quartzite 1 0.1 Utilized chunk 1 1.1 Utilized flake Marianna chert 1 0.1 Fauna Indet worked shell 1 15.2 Unspecified 0.03 1.06 Metal Flat Iron 15.6 Indet iron object 195.7 Indet lead object 8 Lithics Concretion 11.7 247 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Flora Carbonized wood 121.5 Fauna Indet shell 1 0.1 Other Cinder/slag 8.1 Scanned < ¼ in. 113.8 Unscanned < ¼ in. 26.4 Total 3242 100 47064.9 100 248 Appendix E 11B Block 4 All Artifacts 249 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen 16.4 10.59 Refined earthenware Creamware Gilded 1 0.2 Pearlware Plain 9 39.1 Shell edged 2 5.6 Whiteware Annular 6 6.1 Flow blue mulberry 1 0.3 Hand painted 32 46.3 Plain 77 176.4 Shell edged 7 95.4 Sponged 5 4.6 Transfer printed 26 46.8 Yellowware Blue and white 5 8.8 Porcelain Indeterminate 1 1.1 Course earthenware Redware- glazed 1 0.2 Stoneware Alkaline glazed 9 49.8 Brown salt glazed 9 52.8 Indeterminate 1 0.1 Glass Bottle Wine Dark olive green 7 48.3 Light olive green 18 10.4 Other Amber 1 0.4 Aqua 19 28.4 Clear 12 3.9 Light olive green 2 2.7 Soda lime 5 21.5 Other glass Very thin 2 0.3 Indeterminate Aqua 47 22.7 Clear 12 10.9 250 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen (cont.) Soda lime 17 5.3 Fauna Shell Oyster 3 36 Metal Iron Knife fragments 3 18.8 Lid 1 725 Architecture 67.87 64.83 Brick Handmade 57 1834.3 Indet brick > ½ in. 380 4225.3 Indet brick < ½ in. 276.5 Metal Nails, iron Whole Cut 28 231.6 Indeterminate 2 9.9 Whole, pulled Cut 27 187.9 Whole, clinched Hand wrought 1 39.8 Cut 9 64.3 Indeterminate 1 8.3 Fragmentary Hand wrought 2 13.1 Cut 304 842.3 Indeterminate 279 446.5 Spike, iron Hand wrought 3 40.9 Indeterminate 3 61.5 Iron Bracket 1 395 Hinge 7 171.5 Glass Window, house Clear 104 42.5 Soda lime 203 92.5 251 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Furniture 0.19 0.14 Metal Brass Escutcheon plate 1 0.7 Furniture tack 1 1.1 Iron Drawer pull 1 11.2 Escutcheon plate 1 6.8 Arms 0.1 0.04 Metal Brass Bullet 1 1.2 Lead Shot, molded 9mm 1 3.7 Clothing 0.43 0.12 Metal Brass Hook & eye 1 0.2 Iron Buckle 1 5.5 Button 3 7.4 Thimble 3 2.9 Porcelain Prosser button 1 0.2 Personal 0.48 0.06 Metal Brass Shoe hook & eye 1 0.1 Glass Mirror glass Aqua 1 1.2 Clear 1 0.2 Soda lime 7 6.6 Tobacco 0.72 0.15 Ceramic Kaolin pipe 1 0.3 Glass Snuff bottle Dark olive green 9 16.3 Light olive green 6 4.8 252 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Activities 13.76 21.45 Metal Brass Rivet 1 2.7 Indet object 1 1.8 Iron Bolt, cut 1 9.2 Container frags 29 Gear 1 0.4 Machine part Cut 1 30 Indeterminate 5 135.3 Nut 1 101.8 Washer 2 1.6 Wire 1 16.1 Indet object 18 72.3 Lead Bale seal, stamped 1 10.9 Indet object 4 9.9 Lithics Chunk/shatter Sandstone 244 2373.3 Non-utilized flake Tallahatta quartzite 2 0.2 Marianna chert 1 0.5 Utilized chunk Flint/chert 1 10.2 Glass Utilized flake, clear 1 0.1 Clay Fired clay 167.5 Unspecified 0.05 2.62 Metal Iron Rod 1 20.9 Indet object 113.1 Flora Carbonized wood 137.1 253 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Unspecified (cont.) Other Cinder/slag 1.5 Scanned < ¼ in. 90.3 Total 2080 100 13858 100 254 Appendix F 11B Trench 2 All Artifacts 255 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen 15.14 4.08 Refined earthenware Creamware Gilded 1 0.6 Pearlware Hand painted 1 1.6 Plain 17 40 Shell edged 1 1 Transfer printed 3 3.6 Wormy finger painted 1 2.8 Whiteware Annular 10 25.4 Flow blue mulberry 1 2.4 Hand painted 10 14.3 Plain 62 153.1 Shell edged 5 21.6 Sponged 1 0.7 Sponged and hand painted 1 1.9 Transfer printed 26 39.2 Wormy finger painted 1 0.3 Yellowware Annular 1 2.5 Blue and white 2 1.5 Porcelain Hand painted over glaze 1 6.6 Course earthenware Alkaline glazed 2 0.6 Stoneware Albany slip 1 1.6 Alkaline glazed 7 52.2 Brown 1 6.9 Glass Bottle Wine Dark olive green 10 59.2 Light olive green 5 20.8 Soda lime 2 0.6 Other Aqua 9 16 Clear 1 0.3 Soda lime 12 21.5 256 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen (cont.) Glassware Tumbler Clear 1 10.7 Other Aqua 8 4.9 Clear 18 11.1 Soda lime 54 30.2 Fauna Shell Oyster 3 18.4 Flora Nut 2 0.2 Peach pit 1 0.2 Architecture 79.66 85.13 Brick Handmade 18 5016.8 Indet brick > ½ in. 363 4911 Indet brick < ½ in. 158.7 Metal Nail, iron Whole Cut 19 165.3 Whole, pulled Cut 17 132.8 Whole, clinched Cut 5 49.2 Fragmentary Cut 209 581.9 Machine made 2 2.6 Indeterminate 389 327.2 Spike, iron Hand wrought 3 117.7 Cut 7 173.1 Indeterminate 1 9.5 Hinge, iron 1 154.9 Glass Window, house Clear 57 24.2 Soda lime 393 165.3 257 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Furniture 0.05 0.06 Metal Brass Escutcheon plate 1 8 Arms 0.05 0.01 Metal Lead shot 6.7mm 1 1.7 Clothing 0.43 0.03 Metal Brass Hook & eye 1 0.1 Thimble 1 1.7 Iron Eyelet 5 1.6 Porcelain Prosser button 1 0.3 Tobacco 0.59 0.16 Ceramic Kaolin pipe 1 0.9 Stoneware pipe 2 8.4 Glass Snuff bottle 8 13.6 Activities 3.97 7.92 Metal Brass Indet object 12 1.9 Iron Container frags 58.1 Handle 2 83.7 Hardware ring 1 48.9 Nut 1 144.9 Pipe fitting 1 46.5 Strap 1 2 Washer 1 16.2 Indet object 15 76.7 Lead Indet object 3 30.5 Lithics Chunk/shatter Sandstone 34 510.7 258 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Activities (cont.) Slate frag 1 2.9 Utilized flake Coastal agate 1 0.4 Marianna chert 1 0.3 Clay Fired clay 92.1 Unspecified 0.11 2.61 Metal Iron Flat iron 1 7.5 Indet object 83.9 Lead Indet object 1 4.9 Lithics Concretion 214.8 Flora Carbonized wood 19.4 Other Cinder/slag 1.4 Scanned < ¼ in. 36 Total 1863 100 14084.7 100 259 Appendix G 11B Trench 3 All Artifacts 260 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen 20.1 3.26 Refined earthenware Creamware Gilded 6 10.3 Hand painted 5 2.9 Plain 17 16.5 Pearlware Annular 10 14.7 Gaudy dutch 1 0.9 Molded edge 3 13.3 Plain 48 134.9 Shell edged 8 46.5 Transfer printed 3 8.7 Wormy finger painted 10 22 Whiteware Annular 71 151.3 Decal transfer 1 0.9 Edge molded 9 42.6 Flow blue mulberry 4 21.8 Gilded 1 0.3 Hand painted 142 254.9 Plain 567 1013.1 Shell edged 32 162.5 Sponged 113 179 Sponged and hand painted 27 41.5 Transfer printed 167 370.1 Wormy finger painted 4 5.9 Yellowware Annular 9 18.6 Blue and white 9 17.7 Plain 6 24.9 Indet refined earthenware 7 5.1 Porcelain Indeterminate 5 26.7 Course Earthenware Alkaline glazed 7 32.4 Lead glazed 17 79.4 Indet lead glazed 2 2.1 Ironstone 1 2.4 Redware, glazed 14 99.2 261 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen (cont.) Stoneware Albany slip 3 11.7 Alkaline glazed 111 1135.4 Bristol slip 1 12 Brown salt glazed 30 274.6 Brown 7 32.3 Gray salt glazed 7 21.7 Gray 2 77.3 Indeterminate 2 2.9 Lead glazed 4 39.4 Porcelaneous 2 8.2 Native American ceramic Sand grog tempered 1 0.9 Glass Bottle Wine Dark olive green 122 240.5 Light olive green 63 79.9 Case Light olive green 1 1.7 Other Amber 12 34.2 Aqua 24 97.2 Blue 4 4.7 Brown 2 8.2 Clear 23 57.1 Flint 1 0.3 Dark olive green 11 22.5 Light olive green 8 2.3 Soda lime 151 310.1 Glassware Tumbler Soda lime 1 1.3 Indeterminate Flint 1 0.6 Clear 5 14.3 Other glass Very thin Clear 27 2.6 Soda lime 11 0.9 262 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen (cont.) Indeterminate Amber 2 1.1 Aqua 29 14.7 Blue 8 4.1 Blue/green 5 2.8 Clear 148 59.7 Flint 11 8.3 Dark olive green 1 0.7 Light olive green 2 0.8 Soda lime 470 241.3 White 1 0.2 Fauna Mammal Indeterminate 1 0.2 Indeterminate bone 2 0.4 Shell Oyster 42 220.5 Snail 4 0.8 Indeterminate 4 1.7 Flora Peach pit 6 3.3 Seed 4.7 Metal Cast iron kettle 1 84.6 Spoon 1 8.8 Architecture 76.14 89.63 Brick Handmade 246 83293.8 Indet glazed brick 4 19.2 Indet brick > ½ in. 5096 55734 Indet brick < ½ in. 2270.6 Mortar Indeterminate 5595.6 Finished 2812.9 Finished and marked 420 Marked 4518.6 Oyster shell 728.5 Other Concrete 1 10.8 263 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Architecture (cont.) Metal Nails, brass Whole Wire 1 2.2 Indeterminate 1 1 Fragmentary Hand wrought 1 3.1 Nails, iron Whole Cut 140 999.4 Whole, pulled Cut 71 528.9 Whole, clinched Hand wrought 1 19.3 Cut 31 262.9 Indeterminate 1 7.7 Fragmentary Hand wrought 4 49.3 Cut 1169 3533.4 Wire 32 50.1 Indeterminate 1353 1984 Spike Hand wrought 11 302 Cut 4 141.4 Wire 1 40.1 Indeterminate 8 166.1 Iron Hinge 2 3.7 Latch 4 126.1 Glass Window, house Clear 116 57.1 Soda lime 1936 773.3 Furniture 0.16 0.01 Metal Brass Furniture tack Hand wrought 1 0.4 Indeterminate 2 0.9 264 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Furniture (cont.) Iron Furniture tack Hand wrought 2 0.5 Indeterminate 3 0.8 Glass Chimney lamp 2 2.8 Lamp 4 4.1 Vase Blue/Green 7 12.4 Soda lime 1 4.4 Arms 0.33 0.02 Metal Brass Shell, indeterminate 1 3.3 Bullet, machine made 1 0.3 Percussion cap 12 1.8 Iron Priming flask 2 3.8 Copper Percussion cap 2 0.3 Lead Shot, dropped 5 3.4 3.4mm 1 0.2 3.7mm 1 0.4 3.8mm 1 0.3 3.9mm 2 0.5 8.5mm 1 2.9 Shot, molded 1 1.8 7mm 1 1.8 8.2mm 1 3.2 Lithics Gunflint flake Flint- dark gray 2 0.4 Gunflint fragment Flint- dark gray 3 7.2 Flint- light gray 5 7.5 Flint- honey colored 1 1.1 Gunflint spall Flint- dark gray 1 3.1 265 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Clothing 0.26 0.02 Metal Brass Hook & eye 8 1.2 Button 10 17.8 Pin 2 0.2 Iron Buckle 2 12 Button 5 2.5 Pewter Button 1 4.5 Fauna Bone button 1 0.1 Glass Bead Blue 1 0.1 Black 2 0.2 Porcelain Prosser button 3 1.1 Personal 0.33 0.01 Metal Brass Earring 1 1.5 Jewelry part 2 0.2 Shoe hook & eye 1 0.1 Iron Necklace chain 12 0.1 Glass Mirror Aqua 1 0.3 Clear 15 3.8 Soda lime 11 3 Vial 1 0.3 Other Indeterminate bead 1 0.1 Tobacco 0.75 0.11 Ceramic Kaolin pipe Bowl 18 17.5 Stem 4/64 4 4.6 266 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Tobacco (cont.) 5/64 12 13.3 6/64 4 10.5 Stoneware pipe 5 11.7 Course earthenware pipe 3 6.1 Glass Snuff bottle Dark olive green 48 119.5 Light olive green 7 26.7 Activities 1.92 3.29 Metal Brass Indet object 6 4.9 Rivet 3 11.7 Copper Hardware ring 1 0.5 Rivet & rove (ship building) 2 5.8 Washer 1 0.2 Iron Chain 2 71.2 Container fragments 383.4 Cotter pin 1 53.2 Gear 2 2.8 Handle 1 10.6 Hardware ring 1 36.8 Horse tack 2 174.5 Indet object 13 999.6 Machine part 6 340.4 Metal plate 1 9.6 Nut 2 230.6 Screw 2 7.9 Screw eye 1 5.5 Shuttle tip 1 26 Strap 8 66.9 Washer 1 3.8 Wire 9 66.7 Lead Indet object 5 14.4 Glass Glass tube 1 5.8 Marble 2 4.1 267 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Activities (cont.) Utilized flake 4 0.3 Lithics Chunk/shatter 157 1307.2 Core, jasper 1 1.3 Denticulate 1 0.4 Non-utilized flake Coastal chert 1 0.1 Flint- chert 1 0.1 Quartz 2 0.3 Tallahatta quartzite 3 0.8 Sandstone 1 0.2 Slate fragment 5 3.2 Utilized chunk Coastal agate 1 9.3 Quartzite 2 3.7 Sandstone 1 27.5 Utilized flake Coastal agate 1 0.8 Flint- chert 1 2.6 Fauna Shell, worked 2 8.5 Clay Fired 2141 Unspecified 0.01 3.64 Metal Flat iron 31 Indet object 577.7 Rod, iron 1 10.2 Lithics Concretion 358.2 Fulgerite 0.2 Other Cinder/slag 98.4 Carbonized wood 108.1 Scanned < ¼ in. 5462.4 Unscanned < ¼ in. 34.8 Total 13441 100 183486 100 268 Appendix H 11B Trench 4 All Artifacts 269 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen 29.34 3.2 Refined earthenware Creamware Hand painted 1 0.2 Plain 1 0.8 Pearlware Annular 3 11.5 Hand painted 1 3 Plain 4 9.8 Transfer printed 1 0.4 Wormy finger painted 1 2.5 Whiteware Annular 3 7.6 Hand painted 12 14.2 Plain 20 32.7 Shell edged 2 3.4 Sponged 1 0.7 Transfer printed 9 25 Glass Bottle Wine Dark olive green 9 14.1 Light olive green 4 4.8 Soda lime 1 0.6 Other Aqua 2 6.6 Clear 2 13.4 Soda lime 6 15 Glassware Drinking glass Indeterminate 1 2.3 Other Very thin glass Aqua 27 4 Soda lime 7 0.8 Indeterminate Aqua 10 2.5 Blue/green 1 3.7 Clear 7 5.4 Soda lime 38 12.4 270 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen (cont.) Fauna Shell Oyster 45.9 Flora Seed 0.2 Architecture 66.44 83.16 Brick Handmade 18 2148.4 Indet glazed 1 1.5 Indet > ½ in. 133 1413.7 Indet < ½ in. 88.1 Metal Nails, iron Whole Cut 15 115.8 Whole, pulled Cut 9 67.3 Whole, clinched Cut 4 26 Fragmentary Cut 92 288.4 Indeterminate 36 74.5 Spike, iron Cut 2 82.6 Glass Window, house Clear 1 0.2 Soda lime 81 36.4 Lithics Cut sandstone 2 1986.6 Arms 0.51 0.08 Metal Brass Percussion cap 1 0.2 Pewter Priming flask 1 5.8 Lithics Gunflint flake Flint- light gray 1 0.1 271 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Clothing 0.34 0.15 Metal Brass Shoe lace tip 1 0.4 Iron Buckle 1 11.3 Tobacco 0.84 0.08 Ceramic Stoneware pipe 1 0.5 Glass Snuff bottle 4 5.7 Activities 2.53 4.5 Metal Iron Barrel band 1 19.6 Container frags 58.4 Fence wire 1 5 Indet object 1 14.7 Screw eye 1 5.8 Lead Indet object 2 2 Glass Utilized flake Aqua 1 0.3 Vase Blue/green 2 22.4 Lithics Chunk/shatter 4 159.6 Non-utilized flake Flint- chert 2 0.1 Clay Fired clay 54.4 Unspecified 8.82 Metal Flat iron 3.8 Indet object, iron 22.7 Fauna Indet shell 0.3 Flora Carbonized wood 624.5 272 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Other Scanned < ¼ in. 20.3 Total 593 100 7610.9 100 273 Appendix I 11B Trench 5 All Artifacts 274 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen 7.13 1.99 Refined earthenware Pearlware Plain 4 12.2 Wormy finger painted 5 11.8 Whiteware Annular 2 4.7 Edge molded 1 3.3 Hand painted 8 62.1 Plain 18 60.7 Shell edged 4 21.4 Sponged 2 1.1 Transfer printed 11 58.3 Stoneware Alkaline glazed 1 14 Brown 1 6.5 Glass Bottle Wine Dark olive green 1 0.7 Light olive green 6 253.7 Other Clear 4 3.9 Dark olive green 1 4.5 Light olive green 3 1.8 Soda lime 1 0.7 Other Indeterminate Blue/green 3 1.1 Clear 16 6 Light olive green 2 4 Soda lime 11 6.9 Fauna Shell Oyster 154.9 Flora Seed 0.1 Architecture 84.05 80.79 Brick Handmade 97 13856.4 Indet > ½ in. 357 12332.2 275 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Architecture (cont.) 7.13 1.99 Indet < ½ in. 278 Mortar Indeterminate 2.6 Metal Nails, iron Whole Cut 14 100.9 Whole, pulled Cut 23 158.9 Whole, clinched Cut 3 22.3 Fragmentary Cut 236 671 Indeterminate 309 488.3 Spike Cut 5 155.8 Indeterminate 1 11.3 Glass Window, house Clear 102 71.7 Soda lime 91 58.8 Arms 0.14 0.04 Metal Iron Priming flask 1 12.5 Lead Shot 7.3mm 1 0.6 Clothing 0.2 0 Metal Button, iron 1 0.5 Porcelain Prosser button 2 0.7 Personal 0.2 0.07 Metal Iron blade 2 23.2 Other Comb 1 0.9 Tobacco 1.97 0.2 276 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Ceramic Kaolin pipe 2 3.8 Glass Snuff bottle Dark olive green 27 65.1 Activities 5.91 14.63 Metal Brass Hardware ring 1 12.8 Indet object 1 1.4 Iron Container frags 59.2 Harpoon gig 1 36.5 Iron, clothing 1 3420 Indet object 7 65 Nut 1 237.9 Washer 1 16.2 Lead Indet object 2 10.3 Glass Marble, green 1 2.7 Utilized flake 1 0.3 Vase, blue/green 3 38.2 Lithics Chunk/shatter 67 1163.6 Clay Fired clay 44.9 Unspecified 0.41 2.29 Metal Iron Indet object 166.7 Rod 1 490 Lithics Concretion 25.5 Flora Carbonized wood 3.4 Other Indet object 5 0.1 Scanned < ½ in. 112.6 Total 1473 100 34917.2 100 277 Appendix J 11B Trench 6 All Artifacts 278 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen 7.81 9.15 Refined earthenware Pearlware Plain 1 6.4 Whiteware Annular 2 3.9 Hand painted 1 0.5 Plain 4 10.7 Shell edged 3 39.2 Sponged 1 1.6 Transfer printed 4 4.8 Glass Bottle Wine Dark olive green 2 4.8 Other Aqua 1 1.1 Other Indeterminate Aqua 2 7.6 Soda lime 7 5.4 Flora Seed 0.3 Metal Iron Fork 1 25.4 Pot 1 246.7 Architecture 84.64 84.33 Brick Indet > ½ in. 108 2942.8 Indet < ½ in. 33.7 Metal Nails, iron Whole Cut 4 29.2 Whole, pulled Cut 1 7.7 Whole, clinched Cut 2 15.8 Fragmentary Cut 37 109.6 279 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Architecture (cont.) Indeterminate 126 138.9 Glass Window, house Soda lime 47 24.8 Clothing 0.52 0.08 Metal Iron Buckle 1 3.1 Porcelain Prosser button 1 0.2 Tobacco 1.3 0.31 Ceramics Course earthenware pipe 2 0.9 Glass Snuff bottle Dark olive green 2 2.6 Light olive green 1 8.5 Activities 5.73 5.06 Metal Iron Container frags 13 Indet object 1 13 File 1 38.6 Glass Ink bottle Light olive green 1 29.4 Lithics Chunk/shatter 18 103.8 Utilized flake Quartz 1 0.5 Unspecified 1.06 Metal Flat iron 0.7 Flora Carbonized wood 0.7 Other Scanned < ½ in. 40.3 Total 384 100 3916.2 100 280 Appendix K 11B Single Units All Artifacts 281 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Kitchen 18.64 2.98 Refined earthenware Pearlware Hand painted 1 2.3 Plain 6 15.5 Shell edged 1 4.6 Transfer printed 1 1.7 Whiteware Annular 1 0.4 Edge molded 1 3.2 Hand painted 5 4.1 Plain 33 51.1 Sponged 5 11 Transfer printed 7 14.2 Stoneware Alkaline glazed 1 2 Glass Bottle Wine Dark olive green 3 10.8 Light olive green 3 4.2 Other Clear 1 0.1 Dark olive green 2 2.7 Light green 2 15.2 Soda lime 5 3.2 Other Very thin Aqua 1 0.1 Indeterminate Aqua 4 0.8 Blue 2 3.4 Clear 5 5.6 Dark olive green 1 16.3 Soda lime 24 9.4 Fauna Shell Oyster 40.4 Snail 0.2 282 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Architecture 74.23 78.06 Brick Handmade 4 2499.1 Indet > ½ in. 270 2744.9 Indet < ½ in. 85.3 Metal Nails, iron Whole Cut 2 21.5 Whole, pulled Cut 3 29.1 Whole, clinched Cut 3 24.8 Fragmentary Cut 43 151 Indeterminate 54 70 Spike, iron Indeterminate 1 22.9 Staple Hand wrought 1 135.7 Glass Window, house Soda lime 77 40.1 Personal 0.49 0.01 Glass Mirror, clear 3 0.6 Tobacco 1.46 0.14 Ceramic Kaolin pipe Bowl 2 1.6 Stem 4/64 1 2.2 5/64 2 2.9 Glass Snuff bottle Dark olive green 4 3.4 Activities 5.19 17.6 Metal Iron Bolt 1 9.6 Container frags 49.9 283 Artifact Group Count % Ct Weight(g) % Wt Activities (cont.) Indet object 5 13.6 Lead Indet object 1 6.2 Glass Vase, green 2 0.5 Lithics Chunk/shatter 23 1233.2 Unspecified 1.22 Metal Flat iron 42.8 Indet iron 3 Lithics Concretion 17.7 Flora Carbonized wood 5.6 Other Scanned < ¼ in. 22.1 Total 617 100 7461.8 100 284 Appendix L 11B - 12B Nail Breakdown 285 Nail Breakdown 11B Ct % Ct 12B Ct % Ct Nails, iron Whole Cut 286 4.81% 13 1.82% Wire 0 0% 7 0.98% Indeterminate 3 0.05% 1 0.14% Whole, pulled Cut 186 3.13% 12 1.68% Wire 0 0% 5 0.70% Indeterminate 3 0.05% 0 0% Whole, clinched Hand wrought 2 0.03% 0 0% Cut 81 1.36% 12 1.68% Wire 0 0% 4 0.56% Indeterminate 2 0.03% 0 0% Fragmentary Hand wrought 6 0.10% 0 0% Cut 2456 41.31% 230 32.21% Wire 37 0.62% 31 4.34% Indeterminate 2883 48.49% 399 55.88% Total 5945 100 714 100 286 Appendix M 11B Mean Ceramic Date 287 Cream-Colored Ceramic Type Start End Median Date Count Median x Ct Creamware Plain 1760 1820 1790 24 42960 Gilded Hand painted 1750 1820 1785 7 12495 Pearlware Annular 1790 1820 1805 20 36100 Gaudy dutch 1820 1840 1830 1 1830 Hand painted 1790 1820 1805 3 5415 Molded edge 1780 1830 1805 3 5415 Plain 1780 1840 1810 95 171950 Shell edged 1780 1830 1805 14 25270 Sprig earthentone polychrome 1790 1815 1802 2 3604 Transfer printed 1795 1840 1817 9 16353 Wormy finger painted 1790 1820 1805 17 30685 Whiteware Annular 1831 1900 1865 121 225665 Decal transfer 1850 1930 1890 1 1890 Edge molded 1820 1900 1860 13 24180 Flow-blue mulberry 1841 1900 1870 11 20570 Gilded Post-1850 1860 4 7440 Hand painted 1820 1890 1855 234 434070 Plain Post-1820 1860 901 1675860 Shell edged 1820 1900 1860 60 111600 Sponged 1836 1870 1853 137 253861 Sponged and hand painted 1820 1870 1845 30 55350 Transfer printed 1826 1875 1850 279 516150 Wormy finger painted 1831 1900 1865 5 9325 Yellowware Annular 1797 1900 1849 10 18490 Blue and white 1797 1900 1849 17 31433 Plain 1797 1900 1849 8 14792 Total 2026 3752753 ∑(d1f 1) Note: Ct is abbreviated for count. Mean ceramic date = ∑f 1 where d1= median manufacture 3752753 date per type and f1= artifact count per type. The 11B mean ceramic date = 2026 = 1852.3 288 Appendix N 12B Activity Area 4 Mean Ceramic Date 289 Cream-Colored Ceramic Type Start End Median Date Count Median x Ct Pearlware Plain 1780 1840 1810 2 3620 Shell edged 1780 1830 1805 1 1805 Transfer printed 1795 1840 1817 1 1817 Whiteware Annular 1831 1900 1865 67 124955 Hand painted 1820 1890 1855 10 18550 Plain Post-1820 1860 56 104160 Shell edged 1820 1900 1860 1 1860 Transfer printed 1826 1875 1850 19 35150 20th century colored glaze Post-1900 1950 1 1950 Yellowware Plain 1797 1900 1849 5 9245 Total 163 303112 ∑(d1f 1) Note: Ct is abbreviated for count. Mean ceramic date = ∑f 1 where d1 = median manufacture 303112 date per type and f1 = artifact count per type. The 12B Activity Area 4 mean ceramic date = 163 = 1859.58 290