A Diachronic Perspective on the Archaeology of Huddleston House, a Nineteenth Century Indiana

Home , Connected farm

QUAKERS ON THE HOOSIER FRONTIER: A DIACHRONIC

PERSPECTIVE ON THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HUDDLESTON

HOUSE, A NINETEENTH CENTURY INDIANA FARMSTEAD

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

MASTER OF ARTS

MICHAEL KEITH LAUTZENHEISER

DR. MARK GROOVER, COMMITTEE CHAIR

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY

MUNCIE, INDIANA

NOVEMBER, 2010

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

To begin, would like to thank my thesis committee chairperson, Dr. Mark

Groover. When I walked into my first anthropology class nearly ten years ago, I could have never imagined the amount of influence the instructor would have on shaping my future. Without Dr. Groover‘s constant encouragement, trust, and constructive criticism, this research would not have been possible. He always had time to listen, and never stopped believing in me. He motivated me to do my absolute best, and I for that, I am forever in his debt.

I would also like thank my thesis committee members. Dr. Colleen Boyd is a wonderful person. Her ideas and suggestions were invaluable. Also, she agreed to continue to help with my thesis even while on sabbatical and not obligated to do so. This gesture showed a tremendous amount of selflessness, and speaks to the high level of character possessed by Dr. Boyd. This was highly motivating for me, because I so truly appreciated the commitment taken by Dr. Boyd to help me. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Mark Hill for his kindness, patience, and expertise. Also, I am very appreciative of Dr. S. Homes Hogue, who volunteered to analyze the faunal remains pro bono during Spring Break. That act demonstrated extreme generosity. Thank you very much, Dr Hogue, for everything.

Also, I must give a special thanks to the field crew of the 2007 field school:

Kevin Cupka Head, Sue Cupka Head, Sarah Hunnicutt, Julie Koogler, and Cleo Lyons.

iii

Likewise, I would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Historic Landmarks

Foundation of Indiana. Specifically, I would like to thank Karen Trent, former assistant administrative director at Huddleston House. In addition, I thank all of the people who helped me gather various historical documents. The staff at the Wayne County

Courthouse was extremely helpful and deserves thanks. Also, the volunteers at the

Wayne County Genealogical Society library were extremely helpful, interesting, and hospitable. They were always so nice.

However, I saved the best for last. My loving family remained patient, and never stopped believing in me. My wonderful wife Melissa helped me in every possible way; from offering ideas, to helping crunch numbers, to surrendering her computer for days at a time. I love you and thank you very much for all the support. To my son, Hunter, thank you for all your help and patience. He showed a tremendous amount of maturity in dealing with a house constantly cluttered with ubiquitous stacks of paperwork that resembled the leaning tower of Pisa. Throughout the entire process, they never lost faith or their temper. Thank you, I love you both.

To my dad, Eric, who taught me to always do my best, I appreciate all of your love and guidance. My father values education very highly, and has instilled this attitude onto me. To my mother, Alice, thank you for providing a refuge, away from the troubles of research and writing. Also, thank you for teaching me to always be myself, and for always being yourself around me.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………..………ii.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………….iii

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………. viii

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………….. xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………….………..…………….. 1

CHAPTER 2: THEORY AND METHODS…………………………….…………..Field9 Methods……………………………………………………………………………….. 16 Laboratory Methods……………………………………………………….…………. 17 Documentary Analysis Methods……………………………...……….…………….. 18

CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CULTURE HISTORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW….2222 National Road……………………………………………………………….……...……2222 Quakers …………………………………………………………………………………25.25 Native American Groups……………………………………………………..…..….…..2626 Industrial Transition ……………………………………………………….….……..…30.30 Quaker Archaeology……………………………………………………………....….…33.33 Farmstead Archaeology……………………………………………………………...….35.35

CHAPTER 4: HUDDELSTON EXTENDED FAMILY HISTORY………….……….40.40 Frontier Period………………………………………………………….………….…….4747 The Huddleston Period……………………………………………………………..……4849 Early Phase: John Huddleston Occupation , 1839 to1877…………….……………..….5151 Middle Phase: The Levi and Henry Huddleston occupation, 1877 -1905………………5352 Late Phase: the Charles and Kenneth Huddleston occupation, 1906- 1934…….. 56 Transition and Restoration Periods: 1935-Present…………………………………. 60

CHAPTER 5: HISTORICAL CONTEXT: NINETEENTH CENTURY REGIONAL AND GLOBAL AGRICULTURALTREND…….……..6767 Hoosier Farming………………………………………….…….…………………….. 68 Corn Laws………………………………………………………….…………..……… 70 Agricultural Geography…………………………………………………………………74

CHAPTER 6: HISTORICAL CONTEXT: RECONSTRUCTING LOCAL ECONMIC TRENDS ………………..……………....……………….. 91 Methods…………………………………………………..………………….…………. 91 Wealth ………………………………………….……………………….…………….. 93 Results…………………………………………………………….……………………. 93 Discussion…………………………………………..………………….….…………… 103 Landholdings………………………………………………………….………..…………104 Commodities ……………………………………………………………………..……112112

CHAPTER 7: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS………………………………….. 119 Landscape Reconstruction………………………………………..…………………… 119 Objectives of 2007 Field School Excavation…………………..……….…………….. 138 Field Methods……………………………….…………………..……………….…….138138 Laboratory Methods…………………………………………….…………….….…… 145 Ceramic Analysis…………………………………………………….…………..…….150150 Materials………………………………………………………………………....……..150150 Methods……………………………………………………………………..…….……151151 Utilitarian Ceramics……………………………………………………….……………152152 Redware…………………………………………………………………………….…..151151 Stoneware……………………………………………………………………..…...... 15115 1 Refined Ceramics……………………………………………………..………...... …..15215 2 White Bodied Ware/ Ironstone…………………….………………………………….. 152 Whiteware………………….……………………………………………………….…..152152 Yellowware……………………………………………………………………….…….153153 Porcelain………………………………………………………………………………..153153 Semi-Porcelain………………………………………………………………………....153153 Pearlware……………………………………………………………………………….. 154 Decorated/ Undecorated (Surface Treatment)…………..………………………………1 54 Results………………………………………………………….………………….……155155 Time Sequence Analysis………………………………………………………….……160160 Flat Glass…………………………………………………………………………….…162162 Nails…………………………………………………………………………………….170170 CHAPTER 8: SECONDARY ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIO……...…….…..176176

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION……………………………………….………………...193193 Contributions…………………………………………………………………...... 194 Recommendations……………………………………..…………………….……..….19519 5

REFERENCE CITED……………………………………………………………………1 97

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL REPORT……………………………………....………212212

APPENDIX B: ARTIFACT INVENTORY…………………………….……………..239239

APPENDIX C: DATES AND SOURCES USED TO CALCULATE MEAN ARTIFACT DATES…………………………………………………..… 286

APPENDIX D: WINDOW GLASS DATES………………………………….……..…. 292

APPENDIX E: MEAN DATES FOR ARTIFACT GROUPS………………….…..….. 294

APPENDIX F: TIME SEQUENCE DATA………………………………….……...….. 289

APPENDIX G: JOHN HUDDLESTON‘S WILL…………………………………..….. 299

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Location and image of Huddleston House…………………………………... 4 Figure 1.2. Huddleston map showing locations of archaeological investigations……….. 6 Figure 3.1. Path of the National Road…………………………………………………..... 24 Figure 3.2. Existing and Extinct Quaker Communities…………………………………… 28 Figure 3.3. Quaker residence in U.S. counties………………………………………..... 29 Figure 3.4. USGS 7.5‘ Topographic Map, Cambridge City Quadrangle………………… 32 Figure 4.1. Huddleston genealogy chart………………………………………………..... 42 Figure 4.2. United States Census Bureau enumeration sheet, 1820………….………….. 46 Figure 4.3. Original land patent, Wayne County, Jackson Township, IN...……………… 49 Figure 4.4. Timeline of Huddleston House property owners……………………...... 50 Figure 4.5. Huddleston family Bible……………………………………………………… 52 Figure 4.7. 1856 Wayne County atlas………………………………………………...….. 55 Figure 4.8. Wayne County transfer book 1875-1880:H……………………………...….. 57 Figure 4.9. Undated surveyor‘s sketch map of Mt. Auburn, IN…………………..…….. 58 Figure 4.10. Wayne County Atlas, 1874…………………………………………...…….. 62 Figure 4.11. Wayne County Atlas, 1879…………………………………………..…….. 63 Figure 4.12. Wayne County Atlas, 1884……………………………………………..….. 64 Figure 4.13. Wayne County Atlas, Mt Auburn plat map, 1884………………………...... 65 Figure 4.14. United States Census Bureau enumeration sheet, 1910………………...….. 66 Figure 5.1. Kondratieff wave…………………………………………………………….. 75 Figure 5.2. Top corn producing states, 1840…………………………………………….. 78 Figure 5.3. Top corn producing states, 1850…………………………………………….. 78 Figure 5.4. Top corn producing states, 1860…………………………………………….. 79 Figure 5.5. Top corn producing states, 1870…………………………………………….. 79 Figure 5.6. Top corn producing states, 1880…………………………………………….. 80 Figure 5.7. Top corn producing counties,1870…………………………………………… 85 Figure 5.8. Top swine producing counties, 1870………………………………………... 86 Figure 5.9. Top corn producing counties, 1850…….……………………………….……. 87 Figure 5.10. Top swine producing counties, 1850……………………………………...... 88 Figure 5.11. Price of corn exports, 1866-1840…………………………………………… 89 Figure 5.12. Corn prices, yield, and acreage, 1866-1840………………………………… 90 Figure 5.13. Total harvested acreage, 1866-1940…………………………….………….. 90 Figure 5.14. Corn; yield, 1866-1940………………………………………………………. 90

vii

viii

Figure 6.1. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1850……………….…... 95 Figure 6.2. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1860………………...…. 97 Figure 6.3. Wealth group distribution of Jackson Township sample, 1850 and 1860….. 98 Figure 6.4. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1870…………………… 100 Figure 6.5. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1880…………………… 101 Figure 6.6. Wealth group distribution of Jackson Township sample, 1870 and 1880…. 102 Figure 6.7. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1850-1880………...…… 105 Figure 6.8. Jackson Township landholdings: average acreage…………………….…… 107 Figure 6.9. Diachronic comparison of average farm size……………………………...... 109 Figure 6.10. Livestock commodities produced by Jackson Township sample………...... 113 Figure 6.11. Crop commodities produced by Jackson Township sample……………….. 116 Figure 6.12. Huddleston family wealth through time……………………………………. 118 Figure 7.1. Map of Huddleston farmstead……………………………………………….. 120 Figure 7.2. Modern eastern view of Huddleston House…………………………………. 121 Figure 7.3. Modern western view of Huddleston House………………………………… 121 Figure 7.4. Huddleston family kitchen………………………………………………...... 124 Figure 7.5. Huddleston family dining room……………………………………………… 124 Figure 7.6. Historic photograph of Huddleston House, 1894……………………………. 125 Figure 7.7. Western wall of I house……………………………………………………… 126 Figure 7.8. Eastern wall of I house………………………………………………………. 126 Figure 7.9. Bank barn……………………………………………………………………. 128 Figure 7.10. Southern Portion of Barn involved in 1977 excavation……………………. 129 Figure 7.11. Carriage House………………………………………………………..…… 129 Figure 7.12. Reconstructed Smokehouse………………………………………………… 131 Figure 7.13. Springhouse…………………………………………………………………. 132 Figure 7.14. Reconstructed Well Pump………………………………………………….. 133 Figure 7.15. Springhouse at Mendenhall Plantation…………………………………….. 133 Figure 7.16. View of Herb Garden Facing East…………………………………………. 134 Figure 7.17. Plat map of Mt. Auburn, Wayne County Atlas, 1874…………………...... 136 Figure 7.18. Map of 2002 artifact density distribution………………………………...... 137 Figure 7.19. Map showing location of STP grid and units………………………………. 139 Figure 7.20. 2007 site excavation…………………………………………………..……. 140 Figure 7.21. Extent of structure 1foundation………………………………………...…… 141 Figure 7.22. Scale…………………………………………………………………………. 142 Figure 7.23. Southeast corner of structure 1, unit 8……………………………………… 143 Figure 7.24. Northeast corner of structure 1, unit 5………………………………………. 144 Figure 7.25. Quantity of artifact assemblage by functional classification group….………1 46 Figure 7.26. Percentages of artifact assemblages by functional group, combined…….. 147 Figure 7.27. 2002, STP………………………………………………………………...... 147 Figure 7.28. 2007, units……………………………………………………………..…… 147 Figure 7.29. Percentage of artifact assemblages, Moore-Youse House……………...... 149 Figure 7.30. Percentage of artifact assemblages, Gibbs farmstead……………………… 149 Figure 7.31. Percentage of ceramics by ware type………………………………………. 156 Figure 7.32. Percentage of refined to utilitarian ceramics……………………………….. 157 Figure 7.33. Percentage of utilitarian ceramics by ware type…………………………….. 157

viii

Figure 7.34. Percentage of refined ceramics by ware type………………………….…… 158 Figure 7.35. Percentage of refined ceramics by decoration……………………………… 159 Figure 7.36. Quantity of decorated ceramics…………………………………………….. 159 Figure 7.37. Time sequence analysis of Huddleston House archaeological assemblage, 2007…..………...….……………………………...…………. 163 Figure 7.38. Time sequence analysis of ceramics…………………………..……………. 164 Figure 7.39. Time sequence analysis of curved glass…………………………………….. 164 Figure 7.40. Time sequence analysis of kitchen artifacts group………………………….. 165 Figure 7.41. Time sequence analysis of architectural group……………………………… 166 Figure 7.42. Flat glass…………………………………………………………………….. 166 Figure 7.43. Nails………………………………………………………………..…………1 66 Figure 7.44. Household succession and size through time………………………..……… 167 Figure 7.45. Time sequence distribution compared to household size…………….…….. 168 Figure 7.46. Window glass quantity per year of manufacture date…………….…..……. 171 Figure 7.47. Quantity of window glass…………………………………………………… 171 Figure 7.48. Quantity of wire and cut nails………………………………………………. 173 Figure 7.49. Comparison of time sequence data to mean date, nails………………………1 73 Figure 7.50. Percentage of machine cut nail production……………………………...... 175 Figure 8.1. All Faunal Categories. Based on weight percent…………..………………… 181 Figure8.2. Categories with Identified Fauna. Based on Weight percent……………...... 181 Figure 8.3. Quantity of flat ware to hollow ware sherds…………………………………. 183 Figure 8.4. Time sequence analysis of ceramics………………………………………….. 188 Figure 8.5. Time sequence analysis of whiteware to ironstone……………………………1 89 Figure 8.6. Photograph taken in the late 1890s………………………………………...... 191 Figure A.1. Spatial Distribution Map of 2002 STP data…………………………….……. 220 Figure A.2. Photo of Ball State University students excavating around structure ………. 221 Figure A.3. Unit 4, 2007……………………………………………………..……..…….. 222 Figure A.4. Unit 3, 2007………………………………………………………..…..…….. 223 Figure A.5. Unit 1, feature 1, posthole, 2007…………………………….……...... 224 Figure A.6. Artifacts recovered from Huddleston House…………………...…….……… 225 Figure A.7.. : Unit 1, Feature 1-North wall………………………………..…….…...... 226 Figure A.8. Unit 1-South wall…………………………………………………..…..……...2 27 Figure A.9. Unit 4, west wall…………………………………………………….………...2 28 Figure A. 10. Unit 6, south wall…………………………………………………....………2 29 Figure A. 11. Unit 7, north wall………………………………………………..…..………2 30 Figure A. 12. Unit 8, north wall………………………………………………………...... 231 Figure A. 13. Unit 9, south wall…………………………………………..………………..2 32 Figure A. 14. Unit 5, south wall……………………………………………….……………2 33 Figure A. 15. 2007 unit locations…………………………………………………...…….. 234 Figure A. 16. Unit 5………………………………………………………….…...... …….. 235 Figure A. 17. Unit 8…………………………………………………….………...………..2 36 Figure A. 18. Unit10………………………………………….……………………………2 37 Figure A. 19. Units 6 and 9…………………………………………………..…………… 238 Figure B. 1. Bottle glass recovered at Huddleston House,2007…………………………. 272 Figure B. 2. Decorated ceramics recovered at Huddleston House,2007………….…….. 273

Figure B.3. Undecorated Ironstone and Whiteware ceramics…………………….…….. 274 Figure B.4.. Machine cut nails and wire nails …………………………………………. 275 Figure B.5. Architectural group artifacts………………………………….…………….. 276 Figure B.5. Energy group artifacts recovered at Huddleston House, 2007……………… 277 Figure B.5. Arms group artifacts recovered at Huddleston House, 2007………….……. 278

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. Index to Huddleston Genealogy Chart…………………………………...…… 43 Table 4.2. Transition Period Property Owners………………………………..……..…… 61 Table 5.1. Top Corn Producing States with Percentage of Total U.S. Crop…...... 72 Table 5.2. Top Corn and Swine Producing Counties in Indiana, 1850-1870…….…...... 82 Table 6.1. Jackson Township Landholdings…………………………………..………….. 107 Table 6.2. Average Farm Size Comparison……………………………………...……….. 109 Table 6.3. Total Land Surface Devoted to Farming...... 111 Table 6.4. Livestock Commodities Produced by Jackson Township Sample…………… 113 Table 6.5. Crop Commodities of Jackson Township Sample Compared to Huddleston……………………………………………………………………..1 16 Table 7.1. Quantity of Huddleston House Artifacts per Functional Group……….……. 146 Table 7.2. Functional Categories of Moore-Youse House………………………..…….. 149 Table 7.3. Refined to Utilitarian Ceramics……………………………………………….. 157 Table 7.4. Surface Treatment of Utilitarian Ceramics…………………………………… 157 Table 7.5. Decoration Type………………………………………………………………. 159 Table 7.6. Quantity of Nails………………………………………………………..………1 73 Table 8.1. Faunal Remains by Provenience……………………………..……………….. 179 Table 8.2. Number and Weight for Each Decade using Faunal Categories…….…...... 180 Table 8.3. Percentage of Bone Weight for all Faunal Categories…………………...... 180 Table 8.4. Percentage of Bone Weight for Identified Fauna……………….……...…….. 180 Table 8.5. Hollow to Flat Ware………………………………….……………...... ……… 183 Table 8.6. Economic Scaling……………………………………………...... 184 Table 8.7. Time Sequence Analysis of Whiteware to Ironstone……………….……….. 189

xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Farming in Indiana has always been difficult. The fortunes of Indiana farmers are perhaps best characterized by an anonymous quote from a frontier Wayne County,

Indiana resident:

When the plower, who, sometimes was in his teens, endeavored to guide the

plow around a stump by pressing his unequal weight down, it would sometimes

strike a root before the horses could be stopped, and the young plow-boy found

himself tossed some distance off (Wayne County Genealogical Society).

In many ways this tale is a microcosm of Indiana farming throughout the past 200 years.

Fluctuating markets were responsible for unpredictable commodities prices from year to year. Farm families such as the Huddleston household benefited from favorable economic conditions some years, but also suffered during economic hardships in others.

Not unlike the young farm boy who was abruptly thrown from his plow, Hoosier farmers were often the victims of unforeseen troubles.

The Huddleston House farmstead is located in Wayne County, Indiana in the town of Mt. Auburn. Wayne County lies on the eastern border of the state adjacent to

Ohio. A farming tradition was established early in the history of Wayne County, and the

Huddleston family conformed to this trend. The Huddleston House farmstead was

xii

2 occupied and owned by four generations of the Huddleston family members between

1839 and 1934. Like most Hoosier farm families, some early Huddleston households benefited from favorable economic conditions while other later households suffered from weaker ones. Presently, the Huddleston House functions as a museum and regional office of the Historical Landmarks Foundation of Indiana. This means that the family no longer owns the property and was unsuccessful in retaining the family farm. Several factors were involved in the loss of the Huddleston farmstead by the family. Fluctuating global markets, results of westward expansion, variable household size, and individual entrepreneurial ambition were among these factors. The property abuts US 40, historically known as the Cumberland Road and/or the National Road. The completion of the National Road and subsequent migration westward was a significant catalyst to frontier settlement in the middle 19th century. Moreover, shifts in the frontier and breadbasket regions within the United States resulted in changes at the global and local level. Hoosier farm families like the Huddlestons had to adapt to changing times and conditions or risk failure.

Interestingly, on January 4, 1930, at the onset of one of the worst global economic catastrophes, the Great Depression, a Wayne County newspaper headline boasted:

―Agricultural Outlook Is Brightest Since 1920: Marketing Act and Granting of High

Tariff Protection Are Seen As Two Chief Factors Favoring Farmers During Ensuing

Year‖ (Richmond Palladium Item 1930:1). Ironically, in many ways this date marked the beginning of the end for the Huddleston family farm. On this same date, in the same newspaper, a short, five line obituary for Mrs. Charles Huddleston appeared. Nine days later, Charles Huddleston‘s own obituary appeared after he took his own life due to

3 despondency over his wife‘s death. Less than five years later the house and farmstead were sold out of the family. Although the headline bragged of a bright outlook, this was not the case for the Huddleston family farmstead. Therefore, much like the young farm boy who was thrown from the plow, a series of interrelated factors culminated in the disconnection of the Huddleston family from their ancestral farmstead.

Examining the myriad of changes that occurred during the near century long

Huddleston occupation at the farmstead guided initial inquiry. Changing regional relationships resulted from the settling of the frontier. Moreover, production of surplus agricultural commodities for sale to market demonstrated a clear articulation to larger international financial markets. Therefore, the Huddleston family‘s fortune was largely dependent on the amount they could produce, and the price at which they could sell that product. Similarly, fluctuations in commodities prices, such as grains, were unpredictable from year to year. The price of grains fluctuated greatly throughout the 94 year Huddleston occupation. Therefore, investigating each Huddleston household through the line of succession was important in this research. Every story has a beginning, middle, and end. Consequently, a diachronic perspective was taken to study the Huddleston farmstead and their community.

Three archaeological investigations have been conducted on the Huddleston property (Sasser 1977; Zoll 2002; Groover 2007b). Trenching and unit excavation in

1977 resulted in the discovery of several features. Phase I investigations consisting of shovel test pits defined the archaeological recovery of the 2002 study. In the 2007 survey, ten test units were excavated following surface collection sampling. The

WAYNE COUNTY

FIGURE 1.1. Location and image of Huddleston House (photo courtesy of Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana).

5 excavation resulted in the discovery of a foundation in the rear (south) house lot.

Likewise, material culture was recovered through archaeological excavation. Ceramics, building materials, and faunal remains constitute the bulk of the artifact assemblage.

Due to the unique nature of the Huddleston House, several different significant research topics are explored in this thesis. Research questions addressed in this study are:

1. How and to what extent was the Huddleston household articulated to the

world economy?

2. What were the past agricultural activities engaged in by the Huddleston

household?

3. Did the Huddleston household comply with or deviate from local, regional,

and national trends regarding wealth, production, and material conditions?

4. How did the house lot change over time?

5. Does archaeological evidence at Huddleston House reflect documented

household succession events?

To better understand the people we study, historical archaeologists rely on the use of both archaeologically excavated material culture and the documentary record to reconstruct the past (Deagan 1982; Leone and Potter 1988; Little 1992; Orser 1996).

Primary historical documents can be used build historical context and identify recorded events. This information provides the basic timeline from which archaeological investigation and interpretation can ensue. An extensive reliance on both primary historical documents and archaeological evidence provides rich contextual understanding to the site. Because of the protracted duration of the Huddleston family‘s occupation on the property, a diachronic approach was taken to interpret the conditions of the past

NATIONAL ROAD (US 40) N

PROBABLE LOCATION BROOM SHOP

FEDERAL STYLE I-HOUSE BANK BARN (YELLOW BARN) SPRING HOUSE

LOCATION OF 2007 EXCAVATION LOCATION OF 1977 EXCAVATION

SMOKE HOUSE

CARRIAGE HOUSE (RED BARN) LOCATION OF 1977 EXCAVATION STRUCTURE 1

0 50 FEET

LOCATION OF 2002 S.T.P. SURVEY

Figure 1.2. Map of Huddleston property showing locations of archaeological excavations.

7 inhabitants. This approach, which combines multiple scales of temporal and spatial analysis allows for examination of the entire sequence of household succession. The specifics of this research design are presented in Chapter 2. Furthermore, the analytical methods which link interpretive theory to specific sites are addressed in Chapter 2. The methods used here are particularly well suited for farmstead sites, and provide evidence which directly addresses specific research questions. In addition, this research design is extremely replicable, making the comparative potential advantageous and beneficial.

A brief regional culture history of the local area and a review of relevant literature are presented in Chapter 3. The culture history provided in Chapter 3 is temporally biased. Indigenous culture prehistory is not considered. Chapter 4 summarizes the known patralineal genealogy of the Huddleston family. Also discussed in Chapter 4 are the property history and the succession of household ownership.

In Chapter 5 the interpretive context shifts from household level analysis to focus on regional and national trends. Farm households, such as the Huddlestons, were significantly affected by fluctuations in local and global commodities markets.

Moreover, participation in aggressive surplus agriculture production links the Huddleston family to the global economic system. This reveals a great deal about the economic and subsistence strategy in which the household was engaged. In addition, it provides context to help predict the types of activities household members were engaged in on a daily basis. Census figures are then used to locate major areas of surplus agricultural production and identify core/periphery relationships.

In Chapter 6 focus shifts to the community level. Data contained in United States

Agricultural Census enumeration forms are used to construct a comparative database of

8 proximally located contemporaneous property owners. Quantities of production commodities and wealth values are tabulated and compared to the Huddleston household through time.

Chapter 7 provides detailed description, classification, analysis, comparison, and commentary about the archaeological investigations at the Huddleston House. Topics pertaining to landscape and architectural change through time are discussed. In addition, time sequence analysis of the artifacts is presented.

In Chapter 8, all of the evidence is considered, and a holistic interpretation is presented. Patterns in the archaeological record which can be linked to documented household succession events may reflect and even predict changes on the landscape and in archaeological assemblages.

Chapter 9 readdresses research questions presented in this thesis and provides future recommendations and perceived contributions of this research. The role of the

Huddleston House as a museum allows for protection of cultural resources, meaning extensive excavation in the near future is neither urgent nor warranted. However, the research model used in this analysis could be used in the future on other Midwest farmstead sites.

In conclusion, this thesis examines material conditions at the Huddleston farm.

Documentary and archaeological evidence are combined to gain optimal context. A diachronic perspective is taken in order to recognize trends. Changes in households, landscapes, production quantities, and regional relationships are of extreme interest.

Therefore, reconstructing the events of the Huddleston occupation is the goal of this thesis.

CHAPTER 2 THEORY AND METHODS

In his important study, An Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism and Material

Life: The Gibbs Farmstead in Southern Appalachia, 1790-1920, Mark Groover

(2003:20-21) argues that diachronically based analysis provides optimal insight into multigenerationally occupied farmsteads. The Huddleston farmstead, occupied by four successive generations, provided the perfect opportunity to implement a similar research design. This research design, adapted from Groover, reconstructs temporal process and links households to local, regional, national and global phenomenon. In addition, artifact assemblages are linked to specific households within the line of succession (Groover

2003:17,19,21). This theory involves interpretation based upon multiple scales of analysis. Charles Orser (1996:186-187) is a major advocate of this type of analysis. He states that, ―research shows that the best analyses are multiscalar…The dialectical approach is mutualist in that it acknowledges the significance of netlike connections across space and time.‖ In doing this, optimal context into the life of the people at the site can be gained. By using multiple temporal and spatial scales to interpret the evidence, greater understanding and insight is obtained. As previously stated, another basic characteristic of these methods, which is true of historical archaeology in general, is the use of the archaeological and documentary record.

Therefore, specific analytical methods demonstrating how the Huddleston family interacted with the external world, landscape, and financial markets are necessary. To accomplish this objective, a hybrid theory adapted from the Annales school of French social history and inspired by world systems theory was created (Groover 2001, 2003,

2008). This approach has many advantages. First, the researcher is able to analyze the site from a diachronic level, or through time perspective. Also, analyzing the site from multiple time intervals is possible. This can allow for recognition of patterns which can be undetectable if analyzed through a singular (or incorrect) time interval. In addition, the extent to which the site‘s inhabitants articulate to larger global events and how this interaction resulted in the deposition of the archaeological remains is the main focus of this research design. By understanding this interaction greater contextual interpretations of relative wealth and standard of living is accomplished.

The Annales school was developed by French social historians, most notably,

Ferdinand Braudel (1971, 1974, 1980, 1981). Several archaeologists have found value in using this system of analysis (Stoianovich 1976; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1985; Bintliff 1991;

Knapp 1992: 9-16; Groover 2001, 2003, 2008). The Annales school views time in several different realms, all working simultaneously. Time can be divided into three main scales. The first temporal scale is the evenements, or short-term events. Time periods included within this evenements level include small particular events, such as a battle. Short-term level time periods usually consist of a decade or less. The second analytical level of temporal division is the conuoncture , or medium level time. Medium level time intervals generally range from periods of one generation, to a few centuries. It is within the realm of medium-scale time that economic trends and regional cultural

11 history periods can be analyzed. The final temporal scale is referred to as the longue duree. The longue duree is concerned with large amounts of time. Time periods ranging from several centuries to those best described in geologic time can be addressed at this scale. Issues suited for ―long-term history‖ include human migration and human evolution (Bintliff 1991; Dark 1995; Groover, 2004). Therefore, this thesis considers the

Huddleston family through both evenements, short range, and conuoncture, medium range time scales. The Huddleston family lacks adequate time depth for a longue duree analysis.

The Huddleston site enables the fusion of theory in an attempt to provide the most complete description of the family. Charles Orser and Brian Fagan (1995:18) place historical archaeology‘s goal of seeking to ―understand the global nature of modern life‖ as the primary objective of archaeology. Attempting to understand that global nature,

Mark Leone and Parker Potter (1988:19) state that:

Whether or not historical archaeology is to be an archaeology of the emergence

and development of capitalism has been settled in the affirmative. There has

never been a choice, even those who were indifferent or hostile to the issue… In

other words we can either know our social context, which is the context of

advanced industrial capitalism, or be prisoners of it (Leone and Potter in Little

1994:52).

However, interpreting the 19th century through an entirely capitalist perspective can be problematic. Orser (1996:72) notes, ―the abundant complexities of advocating a strictly capitalist interpretation.‖ Among which, he cautions against the ideologically

12 charged nature of the subject (1996:72). However, one consensus opinion can be reached regarding capitalism and the modern world. Most all agree that capitalism had two major forms throughout the last five centuries. The first was the merchant phase, and the second, the industrial phase. During merchant capitalism, European powers colonized the known world in effort to gain new resources and capital. Industrial capitalism, which came later, resulted in the formation of large factories and industry. One major theme that is pervasive in capitalist theory is a division of labor between proletariat workers and the bourgeoisie entrepreneurs (So 1990:178). However, Wallerstein (1987:318) has argued that this model of capitalism has actually been a minority situation in the modern world. For example, a forced labor situation has been a more common situation when considering the entire world over the past 500 years (So 1990:178). Wallerstein claimed that understanding the development of global capitalism could not be fully accomplished by concentrating exclusively with Europe (Gosden 2004:11-12). Wallerstein argued that the proletariat/ bourgeoisie relationship should not be reflected onto the whole world throughout the entire 500 years. To reconcile this observation, Wallerstein chooses to look beyond the capitalist model to introduce the notion of the historical system. This term is used to describe the totality of social, economic, and political trajectory in the formation of the modern world. (Wallerstein 1979:320; So 1990:179). According to

Wallerstein, core/periphery relationships developed during the formation of this modern world system.

Therefore, using the concept of the historical system to explain the overall global conditions of the past five centuries is the goal of Wallerstein and world systems theory.

The formation and condition of the modern world, viewed through the lens of the

13 historical system, defines world systems analysis. One of the major tenants of this analysis is a three-tiered system consisting of the core, semi-periphery, and the periphery

(Wallerstein 1979:70). Within this historical system, core areas change, although the characteristics of core areas persist through time. Domination of global commerce, channeling of extracted commodities, and regulating economies and commodity values defined core areas. Periphery areas are generally synonymous with frontier areas and extractive activities (So 1990; Gosden 2004:12-17). For example, in the 19th century in the Midwestern United States, extractive activities included the fur trade, followed by logging industries, followed by aggressive surplus agricultural production (Groover

2004:12). The semi-periphery includes those areas that mediate commerce between the core and periphery. These areas typically developed networks of transportation, information, and political importance (Wallerstein 1979; So 1990; Groover 2004). In the

19th century United States, eastern port cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore are major semi-periphery areas.

Despite the label, world system theory is more a description than a theory

(Gosden 2004:17). This description argues that historical particulars specific to individual sites cannot be completely understood except when viewed through the lens of the larger world system. Although differentiated by Wallerstein, the capitalist and world systems operated on roughly the same model which stresses ―ceaseless accumulation‖, surplus production, and reinvestment of capital in a cyclical fashion (Gosden 2004:13).

World systems theory can be used to show the link between surplus agricultural production practiced by the Huddleston family and the massive exportation of those agricultural products. Transporting the agricultural surplus along networks of

14 infrastructure developed links between production and consumption. The Huddleston house articulated with the regional, local, and global economy in many ways. First, the farm complex profited from the frontier transportation system by catering to the wagon trade. John Huddleston ran a general store, livery, blacksmith shop, road construction company, campground, and inn which all served the needs of frontier travelers. Also, surplus agricultural production sold for profit linked the Huddleston family to the international economy. Therefore, world systems theory is an excellent interpretive framework through which to view the Huddlestons‘ daily activities. In this case, transporting large quantities of agricultural commodities to European markets shows the connection between the Huddleston family and the larger global system. The result of this exchange is evident in both the archaeological and documentary record. Surplus production by the Huddlestons and exportation of agricultural commodities by the United

States demonstrates the core/ periphery relationship between Western Europe and the

Western United States during the 19th century. World systems theory, therefore, can be used to link commercial farmers like the Huddleston family to the larger global system.

Therefore this thesis combined several methods in order to understand the relationship between the Huddleston family and the larger world system. As previously mentioned this research design used both archaeological and documentary evidence to interpret the site. This is one of the hallmarks of historical archaeology. Archaeological evidence was used to address numerous topics in this thesis: chronology, the affects of household succession on the landscape, and matching assemblages to specific households. Archaeological evidence has many advantages. Although it is interpreted, not unlike primary documents, the archaeological record is the actual preserved remnants

15 of human activity. They are often undisturbed and can be viewed directly. However, although the archaeological record is preserved, it is often fragmentary and broken. Very seldom are entire sites able to be excavated. In most cases, information is obtained through sampling a small portion of the total. In addition, taphonomy results in broken and disassembled evidence. Also, the archaeological record is ineffective in providing information on ephemeral events. Archaeology is a particularly poor method for analyzing on the evenements, or short range temporal scale. Even when an events and locations are well known, archaeological evidence is often very sparce. Archaeological evidence is best suited for showing general conditions and processes rather than specific events (Barber and Berdan 1998:261). However, archaeological evidence remains the principal source of information.

The use of documentary evidence has several advantages but some limitations as well. Exchange of agricultural commodities as enumerated on sheets might seem mundane. American production during this time usually has focused on manufacturing and technology (Rosenburg 1976; Hounshell 1984). However, farming was the major influence on the rural economy and landscape of 19th century Indiana. Leone et al. state,

―commodified relations are not the same as artifacts…but our task as archaeologist is to tie the two together so that the archaeological circumstances can be better understood‖(Leone et al 2006:17,18). Therefore, this data source should be used extensively to gain context. Two main goals are accomplished through the use of documentary sources in this thesis. To begin, rich contextual data pertaining to individual members of the household was obtained. Much of this information is simply not present in the archaeological record. Names, birth dates, occupations, and household

16 size are typically gained through documentary research. At the very least, this information can be used to ―impart an aesthetic appreciation of and an empathy with the human conditions of the past‖ (Deagan 1982:22). In addition to humanistic particulars, primary historical documents can be used to create databases from which the sites occupants can be compared. Census information, property tax records, and probate inventories are examples of common documentary sources historical archaeologists have used.(Horn 1986; Friedlander 1991; Groover 2003, 2004, 2008; Blanch 2007; Laswell

2008)

Field Methods.

Therefore, the analytical methods applied in this thesis , both to archaeological and documentary evidence, interpreted the site through multiple scales of analysis. By considering multiple temporal scales, consistent with the Annales school, and attempting to link this site to the larger global system via commodities exchange consistent with world systems theory, the articulation of the household to larger networks is possible.

Several different methods emphasizing multiple scales of analysis have been developed by Groover (2001, 2003, 2004, 2008). These methods involve analyzing both documentary and archaeological evidence. Regarding archaeological evidence, the process begins during excavation. In order to allow for a diachronic analysis of the artifacts, units must be excavated in thin section levels. The field methods used to help locate the structure and recover artifacts began with a spatial analysis of the 2002 shovel test pit (STP) survey (Zoll 2002). The location and artifact density of each STP was

17 quantified and used to produce the spatial artifact density distribution map. This spatial information was then used to determine the probable location of a structure. Then, test units were strategically placed above the areas of highest artifact concentration. Ten (10) test units were systematically excavated. The size of the test units were 3 feet-x-3 feet

(with the exception of unit 5 which measured 3 x 4 feet) and were excavated using thin levels of 0.20 feet in English engineer‘s scale. The units were excavated with trowels and the soil was screened through ¼ inch wire mesh. All cultural materials were segregated and bagged by provenience. Level depth was maintained throughout. These field methods are addressed more thoroughly in Chapter 7. By excavating in this way, a time sequence analysis can later be performed. Time sequence analysis is a diachronic analytical method with the ability to more precisely date deposits in order to more accurately link household succession to landscape transition and material culture change.

Laboratory Methods

The artifacts recovered from the 2007 excavation were analyzed using time sequence analysis. First, the units were excavated in thin section levels. As previously stated, the preferred level depth interval at historic site is 0.20 feet, which is approximately 2 3/8 inches. This was the depth interval used at the 2007 Huddleston

House excavation. Next, a mean artifact date (MAD) was calculated for each level. This step was accomplished by assigning a date, based on the mean date of manufacture, to each temporally diagnostic artifact. Mean dates used in this analysis are presented in

Appendix E. A total mean date was derived by combining the values of all the mean

18 artifact dates within a level, multiplying by the total count for each type, and then dividing by the overall total of combined temporally diagnostic artifacts.

After the mean artifact date (MAD) was calculated for each level, the third step was to chronologically sort each level regardless of the unit from which it came. Fourth, the MAD of each level was assigned to the specific decade, for example, the 1860s,

1870s, 1880s, and so forth. Fifth, the numbers of artifacts per type within each decade level were totaled. Sixth, these decade interval results were plotted on a timeline to show artifact distribution over time.

The results of a time sequence analysis of the Huddleston House artifact assemblage are presented in Chapter 7. The main purpose of excavating the Huddleston

House site in thin sections, and analyzing the artifacts through time sequence analysis, was to match diachronic interpretive theory to an analytical method which uses time depth.

Documentary Analysis Methods

In addition to the methods developed to interpret the archaeological record at

Huddleston house, specific methods were designed to analyze the documentary record.

Several different primary historical sources were consulted. Specific to linking interpretive theory to analytical methods, federal agricultural census schedules were utilized. The results of this analysis are presented in Chapter 6. The first step in the diachronic agricultural census analysis was to locate the Huddleston household on the enumeration sheet for each census year. These records are located on microfilm at the

Indiana State Archives. The results were transcribed onto a data table. Next, 30 individuals were selected (15 listed immediately before and after) for the comparative data set (Groover 2003:86; Blanch 2007). Neighbors were often next to one another on the enumeration sheets, due to the order in which they were enumerated. Local and small-scale level trends were examined by using this sampling method. Therefore, all comparative data was transcribed as well. The average land holdings, production amounts, and associated values were then determined. The average amounts as determined by arithmetic mean and standard deviation were calculated and then used for comparison. In doing so, the Huddleston household was compared to the local sample.

In turn, the local sample was compared to state and national trends. Average production quantities were also used to identify primary commodities, or the farm products in which the majority of the sample was most aggressively engaged.

Several different categories from the census sheets were combined to determine wealth value. In 1850, the amounts for these categories were added to determine total wealth value: cash value of farm, value of farming implements, value of livestock, and value of animals slaughtered. In the 1860 census, the same categories were used, however, additional categories included: value of orchard products, value of home manufacturers, and value of market gardens. These additional categories were not present on the 1850 census. Likewise, the category, value of forest products, appears in

1870 and after, but not before. At any rate, these categories were added to determine the total wealth value of each member of the sample. Once a wealth value was determined for each individual, a local average was figured.

In addition to analyzing wealth data in relationship to that arithmetic mean and standard deviation, the sample was divided into wealth groups. Determining these groups consisted of plotting the wealth value totals on a scatter plot and then spatially identifying reasonable clusters. Likewise, the sample was examined to determine average landholdings and production quantities. Disproportionately large amounts of certain products identified primary commodities. Average production values of primary commodities were also used to compare the sample through time. In addition, changes in average farm acreage among the sample were compared to county, state, and national averages to evaluate compliance.

The agricultural census analysis had several objectives. First, the results were used to identify the primary commodities being produced by local farmers. Second, county, state, and national amounts were identified to which the Huddleston family was compared. Also, by doing this type of statistical research for several different decades, a diachronic picture of national and household trends was able to be reconstructed. After compiling the data, changes in land ownership, centers of commodity production, and levels of exported goods were detected. This is a very straightforward way of linking the

Huddleston household to worldwide economic trends that occurred through time. This was also an excellent way of linking analytical method to interpretive theory.

In conclusion, the methods and theories used in this thesis examined the site from multiple scales, both spatially and temporally. This research design was adapted from the methods repeatedly utilized by Mark Groover (2003, 2004, 2008). Central to this theory is a combination of the Annales school of French social history, and world systems theory. Similarly, the methods rely on numerous different lines of evidence.

Specifically, archaeological evidence was analyzed in such a way as to identify diachronic trends. In addition, documentary evidence was considered on both a diachronic level and for its comparative potential. In addition to the use of documentary and archaeological data, this research design uses a multi-scalar approach in the temporal and spatial realm.

CHAPTER 3 REGIONAL CULTURE HISTORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW

In an effort to develop optimal interpretive context for the Huddleston House, a reconstruction of the significant historical events and trends of the time period was necessary. Several different factors influenced the Huddleston family through time.

Geographic location, religious ideology, and occupation were some of the most significant issues influencing the Huddleston family. Therefore, factors such as the

National Road, Quaker migration, Native American removal, and industrial transition are discussed. Each one of these topics played an important role in shaping the character of

Indiana and the farm families who settled there. Relevant literature with similar topics was also reviewed.

The National Road

As previously mentioned, the Huddleston farmstead lies along the National Road.

The completion of the National Road and subsequent migration westward was a significant catalyst to frontier settlement in the middle 19th century. The National Road was first commissioned by Thomas Jefferson in 1806 in the hopes of connecting eastern commerce to western markets. When complete in 1839, the road stretched from

Cumberland, Maryland in the east to Vandalia, Illinois. The path of the National Road is shown on Figure 3.1. Although the road played an extremely significant role in shaping

23 the western frontier, it never fully developed into what Jefferson had envisioned.

Because of the railroad and due to the fact that automobiles would not traverse the road until a century later, the National Road was ―both obsolete and premature‖ (Raitz 1996).

However, the influence the National Road had on shaping Indiana history was significant.

In Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois one stipulation to statehood was contingent upon allotting federal land sale proceeds to finance the road (Crumrin 1994). Furthermore, local merchants and politicians lobbied and bribed to ensure the road passed through their towns. Hundreds of thousands of wagons filled with migrant pioneer settlers and supplies negotiated the National Road in the 19th century (Burns 1919; Crumrin 1994;

Raitz 1996)

The necessity for a western route was recognized as early as the Revolutionary

War. Strategic military motives notwithstanding, the National Road also hoped to bring products to settlers in the west as an alternative to the trade network of the Spanish national road, the Mississippi River (Crumrin 1994). However, the National Road was also utilized by settlers seeking passage to cheap farmland. Cities and towns began to emerge along the National Road (Burns 1919; Crumrin 1994; Raitz 1996; Groover 2007;

Hunnicutt 2007). The impact of the road was evident in Indiana. Indeed, the population quadrupled during the period from 1820 to1840. Wayne County grew in population due to the heavy traffic and fertile land, and during these early decades of the 19th century, it had the highest population in the state (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1820, 1840, 1850).

Undoubtedly, the National Road had a significant impact on Wayne County. However, equally important were the contributions of Quakers in the founding and settling of the county.

FIGURE 3.1. Path of the National Road (red arrow equals location of Huddleston House, image courtesy of http://www.explorepahistory.com/images).

Quakers

Wayne County was first settled at the end of the 18th century, primarily by

Quakers from North Carolina like the Huddleston family. (Russell 1942:274; Rudolph

1995; Laswell 2008:30). Today Wayne County is among the most densely populated

Quaker counties in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, see Figure 3.3).

Moreover, a greater number of Quakers live in Indiana than any other state (Samuel

1999). The 1795 Treaty of Greenville first recognized Wayne County, and the Twelve

Mile Purchase of 1811 expanded it to the current boundaries (Young 1872). The Quakers founded cities and towns, created a Quaker college (Earlham), and were very instrumental in electing Indiana‘s first governor, Jonathan Jennings (Young 1872;

Bigham 2001).

At the end of the 18th century, Quakers from the south began to migrate north to escape the institution of slavery. Jonathan and Phoebe, moved from Guilford County,

North Carolina along with hundreds of other Quakers during this migration (Weeks

1896:v-viii ; Hunnicutt 2007:4). Their son, John Huddleston, later built the house and established the farmstead on the Wayne County property adjacent to the National Road.

Quaker beliefs were inspired by the philosophy of George Fox in 17th century England

(Richmond 1995). Traditional Quaker beliefs include: direct dialogue with God, virtues of modesty and simplicity, a commitment to pacifism, racial and gender equality and educational advocacy; and abstinence from tobacco and alcohol (Saunders 2004;

Hunnicutt 2007:3). Therefore, Quakers were motivated to flee the immoral and inhumane institution of slavery. Also, Quakers sought to help relocate slaves (Laswell

2008:29-31). The issue of slavery not only drove Quakers from their southern

26 homelands, but was also the catalyst in the separation of the Indiana Meeting of Friends

(Rudolph 1995, minutes of Indiana Meeting of Friends). Wayne County was a known stop on the Underground Railroad. Famous Railroad ‗conductor‘ Levi Coffin, also born in Guilford County, reportedly helped thousands of slaves escape to freedom from his

Wayne County home in Newport [presently Fountain City](Hunnicutt 2007:3,

WayNet.org). There was no evidence of the Underground Railroad at Huddleston House.

A map which accompanies the book Southern Quakers and Slavery was consulted to demonstrate the magnitude and depth of the Quaker migration from the South (Weeks

1896, Figure 3.2). This map shows extant and extinct Quaker communities and meetinghouses. Quakers were in great number and broadly dispersed on the landscape of the south. However, as a result of migration due mainly to slavery, many of these Quaker moved north. From the map one can also see that in spite of the migration, Guilford

County, North Carolina was able to maintain a large population of Quakers. Today

Guilford County, like Wayne County is populated with one of the highest percentages of

Quakers (U.S. Census 2000, Figure 3.3). Many of the Quakers that left the south did so for a cause, not because they were aimless wanders or destitute. They left because of slavery, not to seek great opportunity in the vast expanses of the new frontier.

Native American Groups

Near the end of the 18th century, the Miami were the largest group of native people occupying the Indiana Territory. At this time the Miami included the Wea and

Piankeshaw tribes (Rafert 1996). The Treaty of Greenville, signed August 3, 1795,

27 essentially established a boundary between the native and European civilizations (Young

1872). Near the turn of the 19th century the Delaware, displaced from the Chesapeake

Bay, settled between the White and Ohio Rivers in present day Wayne County (Hoxie

1996:157-159). The Kickapoo also moved into the area around this time period. The

Nanticoke and the Mohegan came to Indiana during this time too, but had left by 1818

(Wilson 1966:21). The Potawatomi, originally from the Michigan Territory and against the protests of the Miami, moved down the Wabash River into Indiana in 1795

(Vanderstel 1985). By the late 18th century, the Shawnee began using Indiana as a hunting ground. Some Shawnee moved to east central Indiana in 1798 at the invitation of the Delaware. These Shawnee lived between the White and Mississinewa Rivers. Most of the Delaware left Indiana between 1818 and 1821 after ceding their lands in the Treaty of St. Mary‘s, Ohio. It was estimated that the White River Delaware numbered less than one thousand people at the time of their removal to present day Kansas and Oklahoma

(Hoxie 1996:157-159)..

From the time of the Treaty of Greenville, the Shawnees led the fighting against

European encroachment. At the White River settlement, a Shawnee medicine man,

Tenskwatawa, also known as the Prophet, emerged as a powerful influence among the tribes. He encouraged his people to return to the ways of their ancestors and to shed the white ways (Bigham 2001). This led to suspicion on the part of the United States government. Around 1808, the Prophet and his brother Tecumseh founded a village at

Tippecanoe which became the site of their defeat at the hands of General William Henry

Harrison (Trigger 1978). Very little is known regarding the interaction between the

Huddleston family and native groups.

FIGURE 3.2. Existing and Extinct Quaker Communities (Weeks 1896)

FIGURE 3.3. Quaker residence in U.S. counties (image courtesy of http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/quaker).

Industrial Transition

National and regional trends during the 19th century include the processes of modernization and industrialization (Carter 1946; McGregor and Cline 2001). The decades of the mid 19th century brought with them vast changes to the Indiana landscape and to social patterns of Hoosiers. Indiana was transformed from wilderness frontier to tamed farmland and later, after the Civil War, from merchant dominated manufacture to industrial specialization (McGregor and Cline 2001:2). As forests were cleared and farmlands planted, many farmers were able to raise crops and make a meager profit. In the 1850s and 1860s land ownership rather than industrial profits provided the primary source of income for Hoosiers (Carter 1946:107). This situation left author Harvey

Carter to comment: ―The Jeffersonian ideal of a predominantly agrarian democracy was realized by the Hoosiers during the pre-Civil War decade‖ (Carter 1946: 108). However, after 1860 a shift in regional and national economics occurred. Regional resources and assembly were replaced with industrial products from the east. These products could be produced cheaply and transported quickly due to the influence of improving roads, canals, and especially railroads (McGregor and Cline 2001:2,4-5).

Previous archaeological excavations have been reported concerning the National

Road. One such article documents the construction techniques and materials, and original location of a section of the National Road (Michael 1975). Although much of the old road bed currently underlies U.S. 40, several sections deviate from the present course (Michael 1975:1). John Huddleston was said to have contributed to the construction of the National Road as it passed through western Wayne County (Evolution

31 of the Huddleston Farmhouse [EHF] n.d.; Groover 2008: pers. comm.). Crumrin (1994) provides a description of the road from an account by J. Gould, who traveled the entire length of the road in 1839. He noted:

The National Road was for the most part Macadamized and finished in the most

desirable manner as far as Columbus in Ohio. In Indiana, about four miles at

Richmond, a short piece at Centerville, about six miles at Indianapolis, and

three miles at Terre Haute, together with a few bridges, are completed in the same

substantial manner. However in some areas of the Hoosier state the road bed had

been formed with earth and in wet weather holes wash out and logs must be

thrown in, often by travelers themselves.

This sentiment is echoed in a rhyme that travelers would chant when traveling the

National Road:

The roads are impassable-- Hardly jackassable; I think those that travel 'em Should turn out and gravel 'em.(Huddleston 2008)

Similarly, the undesirable conditions of the National Road were exacerbated in eastern

Indiana where swamps abound. A swampy area just west of Huddleston House made it difficult for wagons to pass. It was not uncommon for a settler to spend an entire day crossing this swamp (Hunnicutt 2007). The modern USGS 7.5‘ map on Figure 3.4 shows several ponds and reservoirs in this area suggesting prior drainage difficulties.

Investigation into the extent of John Huddleston‘s involvement in the construction, maintenance, and improvement of the National Road would be significant in interpreting the past.

0 0.5 Mi 0 2000 Ft

Huddleston Property

Figure 3.4. USGS 7.5’ Topographic Map, Cambridge City Quadrangle, 1:24000, T 16.0N,

R12.0E, Sec 28, 1984, Image courtesy of Mapcard, http://www.mapcard.com/maps/

Quaker Archaeology

Archaeological excavations of North American Quaker homes and meeting houses have been conducted in Massachusetts, Virginia, and Rhode Island. (Brown 1987;

Samford 1990; O‘Donnell 2002; Bailey 2003). However, few have taken place within the culture history period or culture region as the Huddleston House (one such report will be discussed later, Rotman et al. 1998). Patricia Samford (1990) used historical documentary evidence as well as archaeological methods at the Bates site. Samford compared the artifact assemblage and store inventory of a wealthy Quaker planter and merchant to that of other contemporary merchants. The excavation took place in Virginia and the site was an early 18th century residence The Bates family, although among the wealthiest people in the county, were using the same types of ceramics and glass that middle-class households commonly purchased from their store (Samford 1990:27) Tolles

(1963) noted that despite Quaker beliefs which commanded plainness in all aspects of daily life, archaeological and documentary evidence show that many New England

Quakers owned finery similar to non-Quaker neighbors. Brown (1987) also studied colonial period Quakers. Brown‘s research at the Mott site in Rhode Island concluded it was continually occupied by Quakers from 1640 to1800. Similar to the Huddleston

House, a diachronic dimension was applied to the Mott site. Likewise, Brown (1987) discussed the same difficulty of recognizing Quaker occupations in archaeological assemblages noticed by Tolles (1963) and Samford (1990).

The notion of ―Quaker Plainness‖ was refuted by the investigation at Hoopes

House. Daniel Bailey began field work at the Hoopes House in London Grove

Township, Pennsylvania in 2003 (Rahn 2004). The house, which was a built by a

Quaker in 1786, was found to contain historical artifacts from decades prior to construction of the extant house. Through further research and excavation, the location of an older log cabin was discovered. Furthermore, the Hoopes House excavations recovered numerous artifacts. The artifacts suggest that the Quakers at Hoopes House live in a life style similar to their non-Quaker neighbors (Bailey 2003). Wine bottles, smoking pipes, and decorated dinner ware were recovered (Rahn 2004). Likewise, economic status of the Quakers at Hoopes House was seen on the landscape. Because it was one of only two brick houses in the area, the Hoopes wealth was on display (Rahn

2004).

Deborah Rotman et al. (1998) examined African-American and Quaker farmers in

Randolph County, Indiana. This study consisted of a historical records review, interviews with pioneer descendents, and a reconnaissance level survey of 985 acres.

The purpose of the research study was to confirm locations of farmsteads, understand the agricultural practices, determine whether ethnicity can be discerned from archaeology, and identify the catalysts for farmstead abandonment (Rotman et al 1998:5,6). The historical context offered by Rotman et al. provided information regarding Quaker migration from North Carolina to the Wayne and Randolph County area of Indiana. In addition, probate inventories of Randolph County farmers involved in the study are summarized and analyzed. This report indicated no significant differences in material culture attributed to ethnicity. Rotman et al. concluded that the information obtained in the study expanded the knowledge of lifeways of 19th century Quaker farmers in east

35 central Indiana. However, it is noted that farmsteads and rural life in frontier Indiana are poorly understood and require additional research.

Farmstead Archaeology

In the early 1980‘s farmsteads began to be recognized as historically and culturally significant resources (Groover 2008:7). Several different topics have been the focus of farmstead archaeology, including: artifact patterning, landscape reconstruction, architecture, food ways, economics, and status (Groover 2008:10,16). Groover presents numerous frameworks from which to study farmsteads. Using the culture history and culture regional approach to define location and period, Groover provides case studies of several different North American farmsteads over space and through time. National and regional trends are often reflected in individual case studies. This information has been used to reinforce and refute popular notions (Groover 2008:25). Landscape studies often employ a diachronic approach to define changes on the landscape over time (Groover

2008:16).

Landscape archaeology of the American farmstead has proved a fruitful topic of research. Topics such as boundary maintenance, farm layout, farmhouse architecture and function, and reconstructing landscape history are discussed by William Adams (1990).

He argues that these topics provide a basis from which to study historic farmsteads.

Indeed, one main focus of this research is to reconstruct the changing landscape through time at the Huddleston House. Adams provides references to several mid 19th century books that became rather popular for farm building placement, and design. Famous

36 abolitionist author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe shares authorship of one such book on farm building placement and design (Adams 1990:98). In addition, journals such as American Agriculturalist, American Farmer, and Prairie Farmer circulated 250,000 copies by 1860 (Adams 1990:96). This type of planned landscape design is present at the Huddleston farmstead. This information demonstrates a certain level of conformity to a shared ideal. Adams concludes that farmsteads should be studied as a whole system. Because the farm system had to respond to a number of outside forces and ideas, the changes on the landscape of the farm often mirror the changes in broader societal context. Therefore, the degree of change may reflect the level of conservatism of the farmer (Wilson 1990:100-101).

Recently, Ben Ford addressed the issue of land use and the extent of commercial production at a farmstead in Londonderry, New Hampshire (2008). Ford provided a diachronic comparison through time at the Pettengill farmstead. As demand for activity space increased, the farm grew as outbuildings were constructed. The sprawling

Londonderry farmstead included several buildings which were all connected around 1855

(Ford 2008:66). The connected nature of the buildings caused this type of farms to be called a connected farm. This ―connected ell‖ shape served several purposes. First, from a functional perspective, this was a physical block from nor‘easter winds for workers in the yard (Ford 2008:61). Secondly, this arrangement was more energy efficient, both in terms of proximity and heating efficiency in the winter (Ford 2008:62). Also, less space taken by buildings meant the more space for cultivation. However, Ford also offers another motive for constructing a connected farm. The façade and the front yard was virtually the only portion of the farm which was visible to passersby on the street (Ford

2008:70). This meant that a very small portion of the farm needed to be maintained and painted in a way to provide the desired public presentation of self to neighbors and the community (Ford 2008:70-71).

With some notable exceptions, few historic farmsteads have been thoroughly studied in Indiana. Christopher Koeppel (2002) investigated a Davies County farmstead and concluded that farmsteads of the early French-Canadian settlement period were situated in long, narrow lots along rivers rather than divided by the British township arrangement. This type of landscape formation is still prevalent in the southwestern part of the state along the Wabash River including areas near Vincennes. Also, Deborah

Rotman et.al (1998) has investigated several farmsteads in Indiana. One conclusion of

Rotman‘s research was related to the change in farm dynamics prior to 1850 and up to the turn of the 19th century. The overall settlement and economic trend that Rotman observed involved the changing status of the self-sufficient, early rural towns in Indiana, which were devoted to simple agricultural economy. With increased competition from large scale farming industries, many small farm families chose not to compete. By the turn of the century many former farm families had migrated from rural areas into growing cities in search of wage labor (Rotman et al.1998, Koepple n.d.). In addition, Rotman et al. attempted to reveal ―ethnic signatures‖ contained within artifact assemblages of certain groups, for example Quakers and African Americans.

Recent archaeological investigations by students from Indiana University-Purdue

University at Ft Wayne (IPFW) were conducted at a 19th century Swiss farmstead in

Switzerland County (Strezewski 2004). One notable result from this excavation was the revelation that many Swiss farmers in the region grew grapes for producing wine rather

38 than growing grain (Koepple n.d.). This lifestyle was obviously developed in Europe and later transplanted by the people who settled in this area of Indiana along the Ohio River.

Mark Groover has previously addressed diachronic trends of farm households in the South (Groover ,1998,2003,2008). A quintessential implementation of this research design is exemplified in the 2003 book, An Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism:

The Gibbs Farmstead in Southern Appalachia 1790-1920. Groover explored several different interrelated topics which examine the relationship between temporal process, material life and household succession (2003:4-5). Using agricultural geography and comparative census data, Groover (2003) establishes core/periphery relationships consistent with world systems theory. Groover argues that family-operated farms are

―historically typical, yet archaeologically atypical‖ (2003:7). Therefore, although small farms were a majority condition for rural residents during the 19th century, they are underrepresented in the archaeological literature (Friedlander 1990:104 in Groover 2003).

For this reason, the Huddleston farmstead represents an equally relevant research topic.

In addition, the near century long occupation by the Huddleston family at the farm provides adequate time depth with which to examine these topics in a similar way.

In conclusion, although few archaeological investigations have been conducted in

Indiana on historic farmsteads, a modest amount of preliminary information has been obtained. In addition, historical context was gained by reconstructing local historical events and themes. These events were significant in influencing farm families such as the Huddlestons. In addition, the research design and interpretive methods and theory which were used by Groover in the past to study eastern and southern farmsteads can be implemented in the Midwest. Interestingly, the goals and research questions which are

39 addressed through Groover‘s research design are able to answer the same questions advocated in the Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology mission statement (Groover 1998, 2004, 2008; Koepple n.d.).

CHAPTER 4 EXTENDED FAMILY AND PROPERTY HISTORY

The genealogy presented in this chapter was obtained by consulting the

Manuscripts and Visual Collections Department at the Indiana Historical Society‘s

William Henry Smith Memorial Library (Wilmont 2005). In addition, information was obtained from the Wayne County Genealogical Society Library, in Richmond, Indiana.

This genealogy focused primarily on the patrilineal line of descent to John Huddleston, the man who built Huddleston House. From there, the genealogy focused on the people descended from John Huddleston that would later own the property. United States Bureau of the Census (USBC) enumeration forms and Wayne County property transfer books were also consulted. Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 present the Huddleston genealogy chart and corresponding names. The shaded individuals on the chart in Figure 4.1 and Table

4.1 represent the ancestors from who John Huddleston was descended. From that point, at number 77 on the chart, the shaded individuals represent Huddleston House farmstead property owners.

The Huddleston family history begins in North America in 1660 when Catherine

Chatham, a Quaker, immigrated to Boston. (Wilmont 2005; Wayne County Genealogical

Society [WCGS] 2009; Don Cordell, pers. comm.). In about 1663 Catherine Chatham

41 married widower John Chamberlain and they had three children. However, John

Chamberlain died in 1666. Meanwhile, Valentin Huddleston had immigrated to Calvert

County, Maryland in 1663. Valentine and Catherine Chatham-Chamberlain were subsequently married although the date is unclear. Land transactions recorded in

Newport, Rhode Island indicate that Valentin and Catherine were married and living there at this time. Valentine and Catherine had four children, one of whom was Henry.

Henry was born in Rhode Island in 1673 and married Sara Case, of Dartmouth

Massachusetts. Henry Huddleston and Sarah case Huddleston had seven children, one of whom was Seth, who was born and 1715 in Dartmouth Massachusetts. Seth married

Elizabeth Fish and they had four children all of whom were female with the exception of

Seth Jr., the baby, born in 1746. Ironically, Seth Jr. and his wife Lydia Gifford, also had several daughters and only one son. His name was Jonathan, born in 1778. Jonathan had six sisters. Although Jonathan was born in Bristol, Massachusetts, the family moved to

Guilford County, North Carolina sometime after 1787. Jonathan Huddleston married

Phoebe Gardner in Guilford County North Carolina sometime before the turn of the 19th century. They had thirteen children, eight boys and five girls. The second of their eight sons was John, born 1807, who would later build the Huddleston House site in Wayne

County, Indiana. Jonathan‘s first entry in Quaker records was for a list of application for membership in 1817 at the Deep River, North Carolina meeting Listed in the same volume are also several ―high jinks‖ committed by Jonathan. (Heiss 1962:259; Wilmont

2005:9). Similar transgressions would later result in Jonathan being excommunicated from the Quaker faith. Motivated by a number of reasons including anti-slavery,

1 2

3 4 5 6 = 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 = = = = 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

19 20 21 22 23 24

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 33 34 35 36 37 38 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 39, 40 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103,104 105,106 107,108 109,110 111 112,113 114,115 116

137,138 139,140 ..1,..2 ..3 ..4,145 ..6,..7 ..8,..9 150,..1 ..2,153 180 181 154 155,156 157,158 159 160 161 162 123 124 125,126 133 134 135 136

117 118 119 120 121 122 127,128 129,130 131,132 176 174 175 Figure 4.1. Huddleston Genealogy Chart 163 164 165 (See Table 4.1 for names that correspond with 166,167 168,169 170,171 = = = numbers) 178 172 173

179 FIGURE 4.1. Huddleston genealogy 177 chart (see Table 4.1 for names that correspond with numbers)

TABLE 4.1. Index to Huddleston Genealogy Chart 1 Katherine Chatham 61 Laviniah (b. 1777) 121 John C. (b. 1862) 2 Valentine Huddleston 62 Jonathan (b.1778- 122 Lydia Jenkins (1628-1727) d.1866) 3 Henry (b.Sept. 21, 1673) 63 Phoebe Gardner 123 William E. (b.1864) 4 Sara Case 64 Mary (b. 1780) 124 Ella Halstead 5 George 65 James Brown 125 Ocia (b. 1866) 6 Mercy Case 66 Hanna (b. 1784) 126 Josie Patock 7 Katherine 67 Jesse Lane 127 Eldora (b.1868) 8 Joseph Collins 68 Rachel (b. 1788) 128 James Thomas 9 Jes (b. May 1, 1702) 69 John Eccle 129 Elmer (b. 1871-d.1936) 10 Samuel King 70 Sarah (b.1800) 130 Mary Keiser 11 Pelig (b. 1702) 71 Pleasant Johnson 131 Charles H. (b.1873-d.1930) 12 Mary Quithill 72 David (b. 1801) 132 Wilmina Price 13 Elizabeth (b. 1704) 73 Eliza Powell 133 Otto H. (b.1876-d. 1958) 14 Rich Price 74 William (b. 1804) 134 Cathi Van Ausdall 15 William 75 Lydia (b. 1806-d. 135 Walter (b.1878- d.1935) 1885) 16 Eliza Wilcox 76 William Gardner 136 Ona Hines 17 Mary 77 John (b.1807-d. 137 Olive M. 1877) 18 Luke Hart 78 Susannah Moyer 138 Jacob Rummel Jr. (Myer) 19 Anna 79 Anna (b. 1810-d. 139 Viola Ann 1875) 20 Job Merrihew 80 Peter Connitta 140 Oliver Sebring 21 Seth (b. 1715) 81 Jesse (b. 1812) 141 Elbert 22 Elizabeth Fish 82 Edith Brown 142 Viola Lawson 23 ? 83 Eli (b. 1814) 143 Luther P. 24 James (b. 1719) 84 Mary reynolds 144 Homer B 25 Lydia 85 Stephen (b.1816) 145 Eliza Goar 26 Thomas Lake 86 Anna Reynolds 146 Ada D. 27 Isaac 87 Nathan (b.1816-d. 147 Charles Mercer 1871) 28 Elenor Mortimer 88 Sarah Curtis 148 Horace M. 29 Richard 89 Mary (b. 1821-d. 149 Ruby Weed 1885) 30 Sarah Tullman 90 Solomon Cripe 150 Nellie 31 Mercy Jr. 91 Lucinda (b. 1823-d. 151 Albert Smith 1909) 32 Samuel Clerk 92 Levi Burkett 152 Laura M. 33 Catherine (b. 1728) 93 Solomon(1826-1894) 153 Chas. Morgan Hunt

TABLE 4.1, continued. Index to Huddleston Genealogy Chart 34 Francis Brayton 94 Christina Moyer 154 Eva (died in infancy) (Myer) 35 Sybil (b. 1730) 95 Mary Ann (b. 1835- 155 Flora L. d.1895) 36 John Sisson 96 Samuel Doran 156 Charles Gilmore 37 Valentine (b.1732) 97 Levy (b. 1832- 157 Lillie (b.1869) d.1881) 38 Benjamin (b.1734) 98 Sarah M. Payne 158 F.C. Warrick 39 Pelig (b. 1741) 99 Henry (b. 1833-d. 159 Lena (b.1872-d. 1888) 1914) 40 Tabitha Crowell 100 Sarah Jane Jones 160 Blanche (b. 1881-d.1883) 41 Patience (b. 1738) 101 Isaac (b.1835-d.1911) 161 Pearl (b. 1884) 42 James Fisher 102 Martha Conway 162 Daniel Van Du Skirk 43 Alice (b. 1741) 103 Anna Mariah (b. 163 Eva Lena Ware(b.1876) 1837) 44 David Babbit 104 Rev. Edwin Shuey 164 Ada Maude Ware (b. 1879) 45 Sarah (b.1744) 105 Amos (b.1839- 165 Della May Ware (b. 1881) d.1928) 46 Levi Chase 106 Sophia Pemberton 166 Lambert (b. 1885) 47 Seth (b. 1746-d.1794) 107 Jonathan (b. 1842-d. 167 Audrey Farrington 1909) 48 Lydia Gifford 108 Lydia Ogburn 168 Ernest E. (d.1951) 49 Mercy (b. 1729) 109 Pheobe E. (b.1844) 169 Pansy Divergliss 50 William Gaige Jr. 110 David Gronendyke 170 Ethel L. (b.1891) 51 Chloe (b. 1731) 111 Daniel (b.1846- 171 Curtis Grooms d.1846) 52 Thomas Gaige 112 Sarah V. (b. 1847- 172 Kenneth d.1925) 53 George (b. 1733) 113 C. Howren 173 Name Unknown 54 Joseph 114 Lydia C. (b.1849- 174 Henry d.1931) 55 Mary Jane (b. 1738-d. 115 Moses Jay 175 Callie 1794) 56 Joseph Gaige 116 Alpheus (b.1851) 176 Emma Van Du Skirk 57 Jean (b. 1741) 117 Mary Alice (b. 1857) 177 Charlie 58 Eliz 118 John Ware 178 Hazel Eller 59 Sarah (b. 1775) 119 Ann M. (b.1859) 179 Betty 60 Zacheus Macy 120 John Lawrence 180 Clarence 181 Valaris

45 opportunity, and adventure, Jonathan and Phoebe left North Carolina.

The federal census of 1810 indicates Jonathan and Phoebe were living in

Greensboro Township, Guilford County, North Carolina with their six children and a female over the age of 45, presumably Jonathan and/or Phoebe‘s mother. A person named Jonathan Huddleston appears on the 1820 Federal census enumeration sheet of

Springfield Township, Robertson County Tennessee, probably the same Jonathan

Huddleston that left Guilford County, North Carolina and settled in Wayne County

Indiana.

Census data are excellent sources for contextualizing historical archaeological sites. Specifically, in this example, the path of migration can successfully be reconstructed. However, careful analysis of the 1820 census leads to some minor speculation. Figure 4.2 shows the original document with transcribed tables. Although the census sheet signifies one male and one female between the ages of 25 and 45

(presumably Jonathan and Phoebe), the number of children were recorded incorrectly.

The 1810 enumeration from Guilford County, North Carolina, correlates perfectly to the number of children in the confirmed genealogy. As indicated in Figure 4.2 the 1820 census shows Jonathan Huddleston having only two males and two females under the age of 10. However, Jonathan Huddleston had ten children by 1820, six of whom would still be living at home. However, the 1820 census also shows a female over the age of 45.

The presence of this middle age female with a in the household strongly suggests this

Jonathan Huddleston is the same Jonathan Huddleston that left North Carolina sometime after 1817. Assuming that this is the same Jonathan Huddleston, he did not stay in

Figure 4.2. United States Census Bureau enumeration sheet, 1820, Springfield Township, Robertson County Tennessee.

Tennessee long. The 1830s census clearly documented both Jonathan and John settled and farming in Union County, Indiana. Jonathan and his family moved one more time in the ensuing decade of the 1830s, and by 1839, they would be settled in Wayne County, Indiana.

From this point, the bulk of genealogical research focuses on those members of the

Huddleston family that occupied or owned the Huddleston House site in Wayne County,

Indiana. Also, it is necessary to divide the occupation of the property into chronological periods based on ownership. The entire European occupation of this site can be divided into four periods: the Frontier period, the Huddleston period, the Transition period, and the

Restoration period.

The Frontier Period

The frontier period includes the period from first European contact (approximately

1500 A.D.) until the property was acquired by John Huddleston. The frontier period was so labeled because of the forested nature of the landscape. The land was not being used as a means of production by conventional standards. The land was first purchased in 1821

(Wayne County Land Patent Book [WCLPB] 1821:28). The land in section 28 was divided into six different 80 acre plots and one 160 acre plot. Figure 4.3 shows the names of the first owners of Township 12 Range 16 Section 28. Notice that the land the Huddleston farmstead would later occupy was both in the east half of the southeast quarter, but also extends north

Property Owner, Number of Acres Scale: In Feet Date of Patent N 0 250 500 1000

Paul John Custer, Burket, 80 Acres 160 Acres Aug. 27, Eli Aug. 18, 1821 Loffsinger, 1821 80 Acres Aug. 18, 1821 National Road

28 Nathan Pearson, William 80 Acres Butler, Feb. 8, 80 Acres 1823 Aug. 18, 1821 Samuel James Charles, Starbrough, 80 Acres 80 Acres Sept. 11, Aug. 31, 1821 1821

FIGURE 4.3. Original land patent, Wayne County, Jackson Township, IN (T16.0, R12.0, Sec. 28), courtesy of the Office of Wayne County Recorder, (WCLPB 1821 :28).

into the southern portion of the northeast quarter. Therefore, Nathan Pearson and John Burket were the first landowners of European descent. Later, a man by the name of Samuel

Cochran was reported to have been an early resident of the land (Young 1872:519).

Jonathan Pleagor, the man from whom John Huddleston purchased the property was the final frontier period property owner. The frontier period ended in 1839.

The Huddleston Period

The Huddleston period began when John Huddleston purchased the property until the time the farm was sold out of the family. This period began in 1839 and ended in 1934. As previously discussed, the Huddleston house site was passed from one generation to the next for a 95 year. To better contextualize and examine the Huddleston period this 95 year interval should be divided into an early, middle, and late occupation phase, each of which consisting of approximately 30 years. Therefore the early phase began in 1839 and ended in

1877 with the death of John. The middle phase began in 1877 and included the decades in which Levi and Henry occupied and owned the property and ended in 1906. Last, the late phase began in 1906 when Charles purchased the farm from Henry, and ended when Hazel

Eller Huddleston sold the farmhouse out of the family in 1934. The following sections explain the nature, significance, and trends associated with each phase.

TIMELINE OF HUDDLESTON HOUSE PROPERTY HISTORY

Middle Phase: Levi & Henry Huddleston

Early Phase:Phase: John Huddleston

Late PPhase:hase: Chas.Chas && KennethKenneth Huddleston Huddleston

FRONTIER PERIOD HUDDLESTON PERIOD TRANSITION PERIOD RESTORATION PERIOD

1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

FIGURE 4.4. Timeline of Huddleston House property owners.

Early phase: John Huddleston occupation, 1839 to 1877

John Huddleston first acquired the 77 acre parcel of land, the vast majority of which lies in the southeast quarter of Section 28 on August 13, 1839 from Jonathan

Plerager. (Wayne County Transfer Book [WCTB] No. 1 1840-1845:158). He began construction on his home and farmstead shortly thereafter. The buildings and their position on the landscape were established during this time. Undoubtedly several factors were involved in this decision making process. The circumstances motivating these decisions will be discussed later in Chapter 8. John and his wife Suzanne Myer (or

Moyer) were married in 1830 and had 11 children, one of whom, Daniel, died in infancy.

Figure 4.6 shows the Huddleston family Bible with the members of the family written on the first page. As previously stated, John and Susan Huddleston had 11 children, 10 surviving to adulthood. As shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.5 all of their children were married. When John died in 1877 from a kick to the head from his horse, ownership of the farm passed to his heirs (WCTB 1875-1880:H). The particulars of the succession of ownership and inheritance will be discussed later in this section. Information regarding the offspring of four of John and a Susana Huddleston‘s children was obtained. A line that descended from Levi, Henry, Amos, and Jonathan was discovered. Relevant to this discussion are the descendants of Levi and Sarah M. Payne Huddleston, and Henry and

Sara Jane Jones Huddleston.

John and Suzanne‘s first son was Levi Huddleston, born 1832. Levi married

Sarah Payne in 1859 and they had two children James Valaris and Clarence. Levi‘s

FIGURE 4.5. Huddleston family Bible.

53 younger brother, Henry Huddleston was born in 1833. Henry and his wife, Sarah Jones, had 10 children. In 1880 or 1881, Henry and Sarah moved from Henry County, Indiana back home to the Huddleston House (WCTB1875-1880:H). Of their 10 children seven were believed to have joined them. Of the seven Huddleston boys born to Henry and

Sarah, Charles, born fifth, bought the farmstead in 1906. Interestingly, the farmstead was not inherited, but rather purchased by Charles a years before his father‘s death. The details surrounding this transaction are currently not well understood, however this fact will later be used as a way to interpret the documentary and archaeological evidence.

Middle Phase: The Levi and Henry Huddleston occupation, 1877 through 1906

Conflicting reports concerning the ownership status of the property following John‘s death are examined here. According to extensive corroborative evidence, Levi, the eldest son of John and Suzanne inherited the property in 1877 (see Appendix G; Wayne County

Will Book [WCWB] 1881:389; USBC 1880). The particulars of the transaction are not completely clear. Although Levi never appeared in the Wayne County Transfer Books as the official property owner, the probate and will record indicated:

…in the deeds above referred to which has been conveyed by a quit claim deed

dated November 23, 1877 made by the heirs of John Huddleston to Levi

Huddleston during his life time and at his death to his two children Valaris and

Clarence Huddleston is hereby excepted and reserved… (WCWB 1877:389)

Levi had two sons, as the will indicated. According to the will book entry, Levi was to inherit the property, and upon his passing his two sons would be given the

54 opportunity to occupy the house and farm. However, this did not happen. Neither son would carry out the wishes of their grandfather and operate the family farm.

This was a time of extreme transition within the Huddleston household. The

Huddleston farmstead did not appear on the 1880 agricultural census. The only two people with the last name of Huddleston who were enumerated in the 1880 agricultural census in Jackson Township, Wayne County were David, and Nathan, neither of whom were immediate relatives. Also, neither David nor Nathan Huddleston operated a farm the same size as the Huddleston House farmstead (USBC 1880). The 1880 population census indicates that Susannah Huddleston was living with Phoebe, presumably in the farmhouse. Also, the census states that Levi suffered from sciatica and that his occupation was ―broom maker‖(USBC 1880). Because, Levi was disabled, Susannah was approximately 80 years old, and the farmstead was not present in the 1880 agricultural census, it is reasonable to assume the farmstead was in a state of stagnation.

Likely, members of the Huddleston family were not farming the land. Perhaps they rented out the land to other farmers.

At this same time, while the Huddleston farmstead was struggling, Henry

Huddleston was living in Dudley Township, Henry County, Indiana with his wife, Sarah, and their eight children (USBC 1880). His occupation was listed as ―farmer‖. Shortly after this, in 1881, Levi Huddleston passed away and Henry returned home to Wayne

County to operate the farm. Several transactions occurred within the family that

FIGURE 4.6. 1856 Wayne County atlas.

56 culminated in Henry claiming ownership of the farmstead. Henry received 70 acres in the SE quarter and 6.90 acres in the NE quarter on which the farmhouse was located.

Reconstructing the Household particulars during this time period is difficult. However, additional internal family transactions help to provide clues. These include compensation of both cash and property to members descended from John and Suzanne, for example,

Solomon Cripe (WCTB 1875-1880:H) These transactions were significant and they illustrate the size and structure of the farmstead. As a result, during Henry‘s occupation, in the middle phase, the size of the farmstead peaks at 83.25 acres (WCTB 1880-1885:H;

Wayne County Atlas 1884).

As mentioned, the Huddleston farmstead does not appear on the 1880 agricultural census. Also, a fire in the federal building destroyed nearly the entire 1890 census. In addition, the 1900 census indicates that the head of household, Henry, was a ―landlord‖ by occupation (USBC 1900). Only four people are listed as household members: Henry,

Charley H., Elmer E., and Walter S. (USBC 1900). Among the four, only Charley is farming. Machinist and railroad laborer are the listed occupations of Elmer and Walter, respectively.

Late Phase: the Charles and Kenneth Huddleston occupation, 1906 through 1934

In 1906 Charles Huddleston purchased the farmstead from his father, Henry

(WCTB 1905-1910:H). Charles claimed ownership of the land on May16, 1906.

FIGURE 4.7. Wayne County transfer book 1875-1880:H (note the property is not officially transferred to Levi, but rather Susannah is simply marked over John‘s name).

FIGURE 4.8. Undated surveyor‘s sketch map of Mt. Auburn, Indiana, image courtesy of the Office of Wayne County Surveyor.

The farm included the 13.23 acres of land in the northeast quarter of the township and also the 70 acres of farmland south of the railroad in southeast quarter of the township.

What was a bit curious about this transaction is that the property was purchased outright and not inherited. The circumstances surrounding this transition in ownership are not well understood. A record of Henry on an enumeration sheet for the 1910 census was unable to be located. His whereabouts during this period are unknown. Henry did not die for another seven years after the farm was sold, in 1913. Nevertheless, the transition in ownership in 1906 between Henry and Charles provides a benchmark on the timeline of the Huddleston occupation period. This transition from the middle to late occupation phase can be used as a reference point to better explain landscape events and interpret the archaeological record. Indeed, several changes to the property occur during the late phase of Huddleston occupation.

Charles H. Huddleston, born 1873, grew up at Huddleston House. As a young man he married Wilmina Price, and fathered two sons; Kenneth and Henry, In 1906,

Charles bought the farmstead on which he was raised from his father, Henry. Charles lived the remainder of his days on the property. Both Charles and Wilmina died in

January of 1930(Richmond Palladium-Item 1930). Wilmina died from illness (Richmond

Palladium-Item 1930:). Charles committed suicide due to despondency (Richmond

Palladium-Item 1930: January 13). The property was then inherited by their two sons,

Kenneth and Henry. They divided the property. Kenneth inherited 13.2 acres of land north of the railroad including the house. Henry was given the 70 acres of farmland south of the railroad (Wayne County Transfer Book1932-1936:33-34). Kenneth married and had one daughter, named Betty. He later divorced and married Hazel Eller. (Wayne

County Genealogical Society; Don Cordell, pers. comm.). However, only two short years after inheriting the farmstead, Kenneth died and the house was left to his wife

Hazel in May of 1932. In 1934, only two years after the death of her husband, Hazel

Eller Huddleston sold the house and farmstead, and ended 95 years of Huddleston ownership and occupation (Wayne County Transfer Book 1932-1936:33-34)

Transition and Restoration Periods: 1935-Present

Several property transactions occur during the transition period. Table 4.2 lists the property owners during this time. Small, moderately successful business ventures define the transition period. Several of the owners during the transition phase sought to capitalize on the ‗historic‘ nature of the property. For example, period dress of the middle 19th century was customary for workers during one restaurant venture in the

1960‘s (Richmond Palladium-Item 1962:4).

However, the transition period is most accurately described by acknowledging the advanced state of deterioration of the property. Therefore, the restoration period began in the late 1960s when the Historical Landmarks Foundation of Indiana purchased the property. The property remains in a state of constant restoration. Small restoration projects are intermittently undertaken. Currently, the museum is closed to the public for extensive restoration (Historic Landmarks of Indiana).

TABLE 4.2. Transition Period Property Owners (Wayne County Transfer Book).

Property Owner Acquisition Date

Paul L. & Joanna I. Cochran November 23, 1966

Jerome & Edith Dorflein September 16, 1961

Edna E. Muster January 11, 1960

Albert E. Curtis March 29, 1955

FIGURE 4.9. Wayne County Atlas, 1874 (note J. Huddleston listed on map).

N 63

FIGURE 4.10. Wayne County Atlas, 1879 (note J Huddleston listed on map two years after death).

FIGURE 4.11. Wayne County Atlas, 1884 (note Henry. Huddleston listed on map).

FIGURE 4.12. Wayne County Atlas, Mt Auburn plat map,1884 (note Henry. Huddleston listed on map).

FIGURE 4.13. United States Census Bureau enumeration sheet, 1910, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana (note Charles, wife ‗Mina, and sons, Kenneth and Henry).

CHAPTER 5 HISTORICAL CONTEXT: NINETEENTH CENTURY REGIONAL AND GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL TRENDS

As previously mentioned, one of the objectives of this research design is to develop historical context of an area in order to interpret regional trends. A major part of this goal can be accomplished through agricultural geography (Groover 2008:18,128).

Agricultural geography is concerned with identifying the agricultural production history of a particular region. This approach has two advantages. First, by understanding the major production and economic activities throughout a region, core/periphery status can be established. Secondly, because daily activities were structured around agriculture, contextual insight into behavior and motivation can be gained (Groover 2003). In addition, this information can be used to demonstrate how the members of the household are linked to the world system, and their relative socioeconomic class in their community.

Therefore, this section has several objectives. First, a brief overview of the early settlement period of Indiana is presented which focuses specifically on the establishment of farmsteads. This demonstrates the farming tradition that has persisted in Indiana since early statehood. Collaborative data is used to identify the corn/pork commercial agricultural tradition that developed early in the state. A brief discussion about rising labor costs, westward American expansion, farm technology, and their effects on global corn prices in the last half of the 19th and early 20th century follows. Chapter 5

68 concludes by identifying main areas of surplus agricultural commodities production throughout the United States in the 19th century. This enables the identification of core/periphery regions through time. Changes in the locality of core/periphery areas through time mirror the passing of the frontier to the west as the 19th century progressed.

Census figures are used to establish this relationship and demonstrate this point.

Hoosier Farming

Purchasing land in Indiana before 1820 could be done with relative ease.

However 160 acres of land outside of unincorporated areas, was the minimum required purchase. The cost of land at this time was $2.00 per acre (Nation 2005:18). After the panic of 1819, which saw widespread delinquency, Congress lowered the minimum purchase to 80 acres at $1.25 per acre. The minimum purchase was again reduced to 40 acres in 1832, which resulted in boom years between 1834 and 1836. Prices continued to decline and land was purchased quickly (Nation 2005:19-20).

During this early settlement, migrations of people came from multiple places

(Nation 2005:14). Following the French colonial period, European settlement of Indiana generally occurred from the migration of people from two places: the Mid-Atlantic and the upper South. Both migrations can actually be traced back to the Pennsylvania and

Mid-Atlantic area. One of these Migrations into Indiana was along the Ohio River by people coming directly east of the Appalachian ridge. The other was from the upper

South and came through the Cumberland Gap. This migration also began in the

Pennsylvania/Mid-Atlantic area and headed down the Shenandoah Valley into Virginia

69 and North Carolina. The large majority of people, who came to Indiana along this southern route, can actually be traced to the Mid-Atlantic region. The early Indiana settlers that came from the upland South should not be associated with the plantation culture of the lowland South (Clifton 1977:158-61). In southeastern and east central

Indiana, several different ethnic enclaves developed. Most notably, German Catholics and Quakers came to the area in sizable numbers. (Nation 2005:14-17).

Almost all these early settlers came to farm. Census statistics from 1820 to 1850 indicate that in some counties over 97 percent of the workforce engaged in agricultural activities (USBC 1820-1850). This did not come easy. To early settlers like John

Huddleston, the initial cost of land would have been only a portion of the expense for the first year. The land would need cleared, structures built, sod busted and mouths fed.

Often times early frontier farmers would not see a profit for several years (Nation 2005).

Atack and Bateman (1987) perform a cost analysis to determine the advantage of investing in a frontier Midwestern farm in the early 19th century verses buying an established farm further east. They conclude that the cost to maintain a farm increased in areas of higher population density at a greater rate than production outputs. Simply put, no advantage exists in maintaining a large farm in densely populated areas in the eastern states. Land was much more expensive in the eastern, more densely populated states compared to the sparsely populated western frontier. Consequently, a farm of equal acreage would increase in value the further east it was located. Because of this, eastern farms were more prone to specialize in commodities other than grains which could be produced on a larger scale and at a cheaper price further west (Danhof 1941:319, Ankli

1969). Recently, Gibbs et al.(2009) have examined the transformation of the dairy

70 industry from primarily a household production model to a mass produced factory system in the 1860s. A noticeable change from sheep and grain agriculture to dairy specialization in Chenango County, New York impacted the 19th century farmsteads.

This evidence reiterates the advantages of operating a grain and livestock farm, such as the corn/swine production prevalent to Indiana, in larger farms located further west geographically.

However, establishing the farmstead was just the tip of the iceberg. Success was difficult, and by deciding to engage in surplus agricultural production, several risks were at stake. The Huddleston family and their farming neighbors were beholden to not only mother nature but also world markets. A tradition of surplus corn production became the way of life for many Hoosiers, and the Huddlestons were no different. Although most

Hoosier farmers were engaged in surplus production of agricultural commodities, they did not want to run the risk of having to buy back from a merchant at an inflated price

(Nation 2005:105). Therefore, one major advantage to hog and corn farming was a steady source of food for the farmer‘s family (Nation 2005:78).

Corn Laws

When the Importation Act of 1846 repealed the Corn Laws, grain tariffs were lifted leaving markets wide open to American products (Pickering and Tyrell 2000).

Imports of corn to Britain and other European countries steadily increased from 1850 through 1880 (USBC 1850-1880). Cereal prices continued to increase until they begin to stabilize in the 1870s. Corn prices began to fall as increased productivity and westward expansion increased output capability. Farm mechanization and infrastructure

71 improvements allowed for increased productivity. However, they did not increase the average yield per acre (Aldridge et al 1986; Jurgenheimer 1985). Because of this many farmers with small amounts of land had no advantage to invest in machinery. Neither machinery nor intense labor was required in corn production (Nation2005:105).

However, when prices began to fall, increased acreage and productivity was required to maintain an equal economic status relative to the previous decade.

The second half of the 19th shows a more rapid increase in labor wage than in the cost of land (Van Zanden 1991:215-16). This created a situation in which productivity and efficiency was of primary concern. Early in the 19th century, even when surplus agricultural production was the goal, no great advantage was attached to efficiency.

Unlike southern cash crops, and even wheat, corn could be harvested at any time without intense labor. Many farmers did not need to hire much additional labor than what their family could provide (Nation 2005:96-109). However, improved infrastructure and farm implements placed a premium on efficiency and spurred the movement of farmland westward. William Parker states:

With or without new agricultural technology the westward movement of

agriculture would have taken place. That it occurred at the speed it did in the

presence of commercialization and with the release of labor that allowed

industrialization to proceed in mid-America was due to the technical

environment (1988:125).

Due in part to rising labor costs, increasingly large, and efficiently operated farms in the west, cereal prices peaked at the mid-century mark and began to steadily

72 decline after 1870. Severe economic crisis in the early 1890s created a volatile commodities market. The economic Panic of 1890 and Depression of 1893, caused by high unemployment, excessive railroad and mining speculation, stagnate and flooded world commodities markets, and widespread farm mortgage indebtedness resulted in falling grain prices (Whitten 2001). In 1896, for example the price of most cereals was less than half of what it had been in 1870 (Van Zanden 1991: 227). The price of corn fell to $0.10 a bushel in Kansas in 1889, about half the cost of production (Whitten 2001).

Many farmers tried to combat this by producing more crops; however, this only depressed the flooded markets further (Hoffman 1970; Whitten 2001).

A favorable British market near the turn of the 20th century increased demand for imports but did not match the increase in production due to expanded infrastructure and mechanization. (Fishlow 1985:396). Corn could simply be more cheaply and efficiently produced, and in larger quantities than it had a half century before. To make matters worse for farmers like the Huddleston family, the cost of farming tripled between the years 1867 in 1914, although output increased six fold. (Parker 1988:126). Because land was cheaper than labor, many of these lands were worked ―extensively rather than intensively‖ (Atack and Bateman 1987:217). Fluctuating yields per acre, with a larger total production at a lower cost was the result (Atack and Bateman 1987:217). However, the final decades of the 19th century also witnessed an increased demand for livestock products. Therefore, Hoosier farmers that were engaged in corn and swine farming could meet the challenges of falling grain prices by supplementing their income with hogs (Van

Zanden 1991:228). Figures 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, and 5.13 present the price, production, and yield of corn from 1866-1940 in the United States.

J.R. Elliott‘s, American Farms, published in 1890, contextualizes this perspective.

This first-hand account of the dire situation among American farmers near the turn of the

20th century suggests numerous difficulties and hardships for owner operated farmsteads.

Elliot compares the wages of a farm laborer to the earnings of a farm owner. He comes to the bleak conclusion that in 1890 it was far less worrisome and more worthwhile to work on a farm rather than own a farm. Elliott then states: ―the value of farm land has seldom been lower in the last 30 years than now‖ (1890:3). Census data reveals that 60% of the nation's wealth was possessed by farmers in 1850. This total fell to 53% in 1860, and by 1890 had fallen to 35% (Elliot 1890:37). Between 1909 and 1914 known as the

―parity years‖ farm prices rose slightly compared to other segments of the economy

(Young 2000:91). However, as the Great Depression worsened, farmers began to suffer badly. Congress enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933, which formed the modern foundation of United States farm policy (Council for Agricultural Science and

Technology 1992). However, this act came only a year before the Huddleston farmstead was sold and was therefore ineffective in helping the family retain their ancestral home.

Therefore, the overall relative trend of farming in Indiana has followed: a period of establishment (statehood-1840), followed by a steady increase in production and value

(1841 through 1875), followed by a three decade decrease in relative value (1876-1908), punctuated by a rise and a leveling-off (1909-1914), and concluding in a downward direction into the 1930‘s.

This trend of fluctuating economic markets was very prevalent in the 19th century. Global and local economies exhibited cyclicity over time. These were seen in boom and bust cycles. (Kondratieff 1979). Economic expansion and contraction

74 generally operated on about a 50 year cycle in 19th century, called Kondratieff waves, or

K-waves (Pruden 1978:63-70; Kondratieff 1979; Groover 2003:11) Solomou (1986:165-

169) debated the precision of the Kondratieff wave model. He agreed that the world economies of the 19th century were quite volatile and fluctuated in a cyclical fashion.

However, he stated that evidence suggests that differential growth rates in world economies were base on waves of less irregularity and greater amplitude than the K-wave

(Solomou 1986:169). Nevertheless, the K-wave model provides a general representation of the trajectory of 19th century macroeconomic fluctuation (see Figure 5.1). These macroeconomic cycles definitely influenced the Huddleston families on the farm. Some early households benefited from favorable while others suffered from weak economic conditions

Census statistics from the 19th century were consulted in the hopes of identifying farming trends and locating main areas of surplus agricultural commodities production throughout the United States in the 19th century. This information established core/periphery regions and relationships throughout the United States during this time period. Changes in the locality of core/periphery areas through time are particularly interesting, anthropologically speaking because it helps to indicate the likelihood of culture change. Therefore, the follow section uses census figures to establish this relationship and demonstrate this point.

Agricultural Geography

Identifying national and regional trends provides a barometer from which to

FIGURE 5.1. Kondratieff wave (Pruden 1978:65).

76 measure local or community level adherence or deviation. Moreover, the Huddleston household was then compared to the local sample in order to gauge their level of compliance to the community trend. The following section identifies major areas of surplus agricultural commodities. Using agricultural geography to identify the production history of a region enables the reconstruction of land use. Diachronic land use trends can be identified on the regional level. Therefore, local or community level of compliance or deviation can be determined. Therefore, a world systems approach is an ideal perspective. As previously mentioned, this is useful when establishing core/periphery relationships. Sampling of census data reveals regions throughout the country which are most heavily engaged in farming.

Census mapping is a useful method for quickly identifying major areas of production. First, the states ranking in the top ten (10) for a category were segregated. In this case, the top corn producing states were considered. Then, these ten were divided in half: 1) top tier and 2) second tier states. Table 5.1 presents this data. Next, these results were plotted on a map of the United States. Top tier states and second tier states were then shaded with different colors. This process was repeated for each decade. Regions of the country which specialize in specific commodities can be easily identified this way.

From a world systems perspective, core/periphery regions emerge. Not only does this enable identification of core/periphery areas, but it also is able to track changing core/periphery/semi-periphery relationships though time.

Census mapping revealed that Indiana was a major producer of corn in the United

States during the 19th century. However, as indicated by Figures 5.2-5.6, this method is

TABLE 5.1. Top Corn Producing States with Percentage of Total U.S. Crop 1840 1850 Rank State % of Total State % of Total 1 Tennessee 12 Ohio 10 2 Kentucky 11 Kentucky 10 3 Virginia 9 Illinois 10 4 Ohio 9 Indiana 9 5 Indiana 7 Tennessee 9 6 North Carolina 6 Missouri 6 7 Illinois 6 Virginia 6 8 Alabama 6 Georgia 5 9 Georgia 6 Alabama 5 10 Missouri 5 North Carolina 5 1860 1870 State % of Total State % of Total 1 Illinois 14 Illinois 17 2 Ohio 9 Iowa 9 3 Missouri 9 Ohio 9 4 Indiana 9 Missouri 9 5 Kentucky 8 Indiana 7 6 Tennessee 6 Kentucky 7 7 Iowa 5 Tennessee 5 8 Virginia 5 Pennsylvania 5 9 Alabama 4 Texas 3 10 Georgia 4 North Carolina 2 1880 Rank State % of Total 1 Illinois 18.5 2 Iowa 15.7 3 Missouri 11.5 4 Indiana 6.6 5 Ohio 6.4 6 Kansas 6 7 Kentucky 4.2 8 Nebraska 3.7 9 Tennessee 3.6 10 Pennsylvania 2.6 USBC, 1880 Table L-LI (p. 470-71)

= Top Tier States

= Second Tier States

FIGURE 5.2. Top corn producing states, 1840.

= Top Tier States

= Second Tier States

FIGURE 5.3. Top corn producing states, 1850.

= Top Tier States

= Second Tier States

FIGURE 5.4. Top corn producing states, 1860.

= Top Tier States

= Second Tier States

FIGURE 5.5. Top corn producing states, 1870.

= Top Tier States

= Second Tier States

FIGURE 5.6. Top corn producing states, 1880.

81 also effective in tracking the movement of top corn producing regions from the South and southeast to the Midwest and western portion of the country.

At this point, terms should be defined to eliminate confusion. In world systems theory, as previously mentioned, one of the major tenants is a three tiered system consisting of the core, semi-periphery, and the periphery (Wallerstein 1979:70). Within this historical system, core areas change, although the characteristics of core areas persist through time. Domination of global commerce, channeling of extracted commodities, and regulation of economy‘s and commodity values define core areas. Periphery areas are it generally synonymous with frontier areas and extractive activities (So 1990;

Gosden 2003:12-17). For example in the 19th century in the Midwestern United States, extractive activities included the fur trade, followed by logging industries, followed by aggressive surplus agricultural production (Groover 2003:12). Therefore, referring to these areas of intense surplus agricultural as ―core‖ regions of production should be avoided. Although these regions may be the nucleus of production, by definition they are not ―core‖ areas, but rather periphery areas because they aggressively engage in extractive activities and industries.

The same census mapping analysis was performed with data at the county level for the state of Indiana. Table 5.2 presents the leading Indiana counties for corn and swine production during two decades of the mid 19th Century. Because Indiana contains over 90 counties, the counties ranking in the top twenty were used in the analysis. Top tier and second tier counties are presented in Table 5.2 alphabetically.

TABLE 5.2. Corn and Swine Production for Leading Indiana Counties, 1850 and 1870

Corn 1850 Swine 1850 Corn 1870 Swine 1870

1 Bartholomew Gibson Bartholomew Bartholomew

1 Marion Lawrence Henry Hamilton

1 Montgomery Montgomery Madison Jackson

33,101 Head 33,101 -

1 Morgan 1,050,386 Morgan Marion Knox -

1 Parke Parke Montgomery Montgomery

47,389 Head 47,389 40,525 1 Putnam Putnam - Morgan Morgan

1 Rush Rush Rush Parke 64,294 1 Shelby Shelby Shelby Rush

1 Wayne Wayne Wayne Wayne

Between 1,685,000 Between Bushels Bushels Over 1,000,000

2 Dearborn Bartholemew Clinton Clinton

2 Fayette Decatur Decatur Decatur

2 Fountain Franklin Hamilton Hamilton

2 Gibson Hendricks Jackson Harrison

28,255 Head 28,255 -

2 Harrison Bushels 838,238 Henry Knox Hendricks

- 35,294 Head 35,294

2 Henry Johnson - Parke Johnson 2 Lawrence Madison Posey Madison 2 Owen Posey Putnam Randolph

2 Posey Shelby Tippecanoe Shelby 32,030 Between

2 Warren Vigo Vigo Sullivan

Between 1,024,386 Between 44,869 Between 832,000 over 1,000,000 Under

Figures 5.7 and 5.8 reveal that corn production is particularly concentrated in the central portion of the state. The areas including Wayne and adjacent counties, as well as those of equal latitude appear to produce to highest amount of corn during this time throughout the state. In addition, this method was successful in identifying Wayne County as a major producer of pork during the 19th Century. However, Figures 5.9 and 5.10 illustrate that the counties with the greatest number of swine were less concentrated than the top corn producing counties. This may be attributed to environmental factors such as topography and soil type. Regardless, this area of central Indiana was among the most productive corn and pork regions of the country.

In addition to agricultural census information, the USDA Economic Research

Database files were consulted to understand the changing agricultural commodities market in the 19th century. In particular, corn prices were specifically considered. As previously stated, corn prices fluctuated from year to year throughout the second half of the 19th century. Some years the price was up, some years it was down, but the overall trend is in a downward direction until just before the turn of the century. Figure 5.11 presents the average price of corn for each year starting in 1866. Figure 5.12 presents this same price data compared to total quantity produced (Bushels of Corn), and average yield (Bushels per Acre). The inverse relationship between supply (Bushels of Corn) and price is clear between approximately1875-1900. This trend happens to coincide with the middle phase of site occupation, when Henry owned the farm.

In conclusion, macroeconomic cycles were identified by reconstructing the 19 century economy. Census mapping was used to identify core/periphery areas, and also

84 tracked changing core/periphery/semi-periphery relationships though time. These macroeconomic cycles definitely influenced the Huddleston families on the farm. Some early households benefited from favorable while others suffered from weak economic conditions.

Top Corn Producing Counties (1870)

= Over 1,000,000 Bushels

= Under 1,000,000-832,000 Bushels

FIGURE 5.7. Top corn producing counties (USCB 1870).

Counties with Greatest Number of Swine (1870)

= 40,525-33,101 Head

= 32,030-28,555 Head

FIGURE 5.8. Top swine producing counties (USCB 1870).

Top Corn Producing Counties (1850) = Between 1,685,000-1,050,386 Bushels

= Between 1,024,386-838,238 Bushels

FIGURE 5.9. Top corn producing counties (USCB1850).

Counties with the Greatest Number of Swine (1850)

= 64,294-47,389 Head

= 44,869-35294 Head

FIGURE 5.10. Top swine producing counties (USCB1850).

1.6 Corn Prices over Time

1.4

1.2

0.8

Dollars per Bushelper Dollars 0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Price

1888 1892 1914 1918 1866 1868 1870 1872 1874 1876 1878 1880 1882 1884 1886 1890 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1916 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 YEAR

Figure 5.11. Price of corn exports, 1866-1840.

Prices received by farmers Yield per harvested acre Harvested Acrage

1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Year FIGURE 5.12. Corn prices, yield, and acrage 1866-1940.

50 40 30 20

10 Millions of Acres of Millions 0 Bushels of Corn 1860 1880 1900 Year 1920 1940 1960 FIGURE 5.13. Total harvest acreage, 1866-1950.

150

100

Bushels per Acre per Bushels 0 Bushels per acre

1866 1870 1874 1878 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 FIGURE 5.14. Corn; yield, 1866-1974.

CHAPTER 6 HISTORICAL CONTEXT: RECONSTRUCTING LOCAL ECONOMIC TRENDS

Details of a diachronic economic analysis involving John Huddleston and his neighbors are presented in the following section. This analysis used longitudinal data involving 40 years of statistics compiled from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (USBC)

Agricultural schedules. Diachronic trends were examined by quantifying the results of the census analysis. To establish relative wealth, the Huddleston family was compared to the local community average. Average landholding and production values were also considered. Not only are these factors commonly accessible in the documentary record, but they also are an excellent indicator of relative socioeconomic class in the study community (Groover 2003:85).

Methods

The first step in the agricultural census analysis was to locate the household on the enumeration sheet for each census year. These are located on microfilm at the

Consequently, all comparative data was transcribed as well. The average land holdings, production amounts, and associated values were then determined. The average amounts as determined by arithmetic mean and standard deviation were calculated and then used for comparison. In doing so, the Huddleston household was compared to the local sample. In turn, the local sample was compared to state and national trends. Average production quantities were also used to identify primary commodities, or the farm products in which the majority of the sample was most aggressively engaged.

In addition to analyzing wealth data in relationship to that arithmetic mean and standard deviation, the sample was divided into wealth groups. Determining these groups consisted of plotting the wealth value totals on a scatter plot and then spatially identifying reasonable clusters. Likewise, the sample was examined to determine average landholdings and production quantities. Disproportionately large amounts of certain products identify primary commodities. Average production values of primary

93 commodities are also used to compare the sample through time. In addition, changes in average farm acreage among the sample can be compared to county, state, and national averages to evaluate compliance.

Wealth

To establish relative wealth status, the Huddleston family was compared to the local community average. Average landholding and production values of Wayne County, the state of Indiana, and the nation were also considered. These factors are commonly accessible in the documentary record and serve as an excellent indicator of relative socioeconomic class (Groover 2003). As previously mentioned, secondary source information states that Indiana farmers were heavily engaged in corn and swine production at surplus levels. The analysis of farmers from Jackson Township, Wayne

County, Indiana determines these farmers level of concurrence to this stated local trend.

The relative wealth status of the Huddleston household was evaluated in two ways: averaging and grouping. After determining total wealth value, the sample was divided into Upper, Middle, and Lower wealth groups. The Upper wealth group contains those households that are the wealthiest. The Lower group represents the least wealthy farms.

Results

In the 1850 census, the Upper Group contained those farmers who reported values between $ 3,000 and $8,000. Next, the Middle Group consisted of farmer who reported values between $1,000 and $ 3,000 . Lastly, farmers reporting values of less than $ 1,000 were placed in the Lower Group. The Upper Group has 6 members, or 20% of the sample, and comprises 66% of the total wealth. 8 members of the sample are placed in

94 the Middle Group, or 27% of the sample. The Middle Group accounts for 26% of the total wealth. The Lower Group contains 16 members, 53% of the total sample. The

Lower Group comprises 8% of the total wealth. According to the previously mentioned criteria, the Huddleston household would be placed in the Upper Group, with a total wealth value of $4,500.

In the 1850 census, the sample of Jackson Township farmers had a mean wealth value of $1,589 with a standard deviation of $2,154. Farms with a wealth value between

$1,588 and $0 are in first standard deviation below the mean. Those households with a wealth value between $1,590 and $3,742 are in the first standard deviation above the mean. Wealth value amounts between $3,743 and $5,867 represent the households that are two standard deviations above the mean. Therefore, with a wealth value of $4,500 in the 1850 census, the Huddleston household is in the second standard deviation above the mean in 1850. This distribution is presented in Figures 6.1 and 6.3.

In the 1860 census, the Upper Group contained those farmers who reported values between $13,000 and $6,000. Next, the Middle Group consisted of farmer who reported values between $6,000 and $2,000. Lastly, farmers reporting values of less than $2,000 were placed in the Lower Group. The Upper Group had 9 members, or 30% of the sample, and comprises 60% of the total wealth. 12 members or 40% of the sample are placed in the Middle Group. The Middle Group accounted for 33 % of the total wealth.

The Lower Group contains 9 members or 30% of the total sample and had only 7% of the total wealth. According to the previously mentioned criteria, the Huddleston household would be placed in the Upper Group, with a total wealth value of $6,812.

9000

8000

7000 3rd Standard Deviation

above Mean 6000 $5897 2nd Standard Deviation

5000 above Mean John Hudddleston $ 4000 $3743

3000 1st Standard Deviation above Mean 2000 Mean,$1589 st 1000 1 Standard Deviation below Mean

FIGURE 6.1. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1850.

In the 1860 census, the sample of Jackson Township farmers had a mean wealth value of $4,652 with a standard deviation of $3,538. Farms with a wealth value between

$4,651 and $1,113 are in first standard deviation below the mean. Those households with a wealth value between $8,190 and $4,653are in the first standard deviation above the mean. Wealth value amounts between $1,112 and $0 represent the households that are two standard deviations below the mean. Wealth value amounts between $11,729 and

$8,191are households two standard deviations above the mean. Therefore, with a wealth value of $6,812 in the 1860 census, the Huddleston household is in the first standard deviation above the mean. This distribution is presented in Figures 6.2 and 6.3.

In the 1870 census, the Upper Group contained those farmers who reported values between $25,000 and $10,000. Next, the Middle Group consists of farmers who report values between $9,999 and $5,000. Lastly, farmers reporting values of less than $5,000 were placed in the Lower Group. The Upper Group has 9 members, or 30% of the sample, and comprises 61% of the total wealth. 6 members or 20% of the sample are placed in the Middle Group. The Middle Group accounts for 19% of the total wealth.

The Lower Group contains 15 members, 50% of the total sample. The Lower Group comprises 20% of the total wealth. According to the previously mentioned criteria, the

Huddleston household would be placed in the Middle Group, with a total wealth value of

$5,995.

In the 1870 census, the sample of Jackson Township farmers had a mean wealth value of $7,725 with a standard deviation of $6,060. Farms with a wealth value between

14000

12000

$11729

10000 2nd Standard Deviation above Mean $8190 8000 1st Standard Deviation above Mean John Huddleston, $ 6700 6000

Mean, $4652 4000 1st Standard Deviation below Mean 2000

$1113 2nd Standard Deviation below Mean 0

FIGURE 6.2. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1860.

9000 1850 1860 14000 8000

12000 7000

UPPER 6000 10000 UPPER

5000 John Huddleston, $ 4,500 8000

4000 John Huddleston, $ 6,812

6000

3000

MIDDLE 4000 2000 MIDDLE

1000 2000

LOWER LOWER

0 0

FIGURE 6.3. Wealth group distribution of Jackson Township sample, 1850 and 1860.

7,724 and $1,664 were in first standard deviation below the mean. Those households with a wealth value between $13,785 and $7,726 were placed in the first standard deviation above the mean. Wealth value amounts between $1,663 and $0 represent the households that were two standard deviations below the mean. Wealth value amounts between $19,847 and $13,787 were two standard deviations above the mean. Therefore, with a wealth value of $5,995 in the 1870 census, the Huddleston household is in the first standard deviation below the mean. This distribution is presented in Figures 6.4 and 6.6.

In the 1880 census, the Upper Group contained those farmers who reported values between $18,000 and $8,000. Next, the Middle Group consisted of farmers who report values between $7,999 and $4,000. Lastly, farmers reporting values of less than $3,999 were placed in the Lower Group. The Upper Group had six members, or 20% of the total sample, and comprises 44% of the total wealth. 11 members, or 40% of the sample were placed in the Middle Group which accounts for 37.5% of the total wealth. The Lower

Group contained 13 members, 43% of the total sample and only18.5% of the total wealth.

In the 1880 census, the sample of Jackson Township farmers had a mean wealth value of $ 6,065with a standard deviation of $4,319. Farms with a wealth value between

$6,064 and $1,746 are in first standard deviation below the mean. Those households with a wealth value between $6,066 and $10,384 are in the first standard deviation above the mean. Wealth value amounts between $14,704 and $10,885 represent households two standard deviations above the mean. Wealth value less than $1,785 represent households two standard deviations below the mean. This distribution is presented in

Figures 6.5 and 6.6.

100

25000 rd 3 Standard Deviation above Mean

20000 $19847

2nd Standard Deviation above Mean 15000 $13786

1st Standard Deviation above Mean 10000

Mean, $7725

John Huddleston, $ 5995 5000 1st Standard Deviation below Mean $1664 2nd Standard Deviation below Mean 0

FIGURE 6.4. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1870.

101

20000

18000

$16450 16000

2nd Standard Deviation 14000 above Mean

12000

$10384 10000

1st Standard Deviation 8000 above Mean Mean, $6065.38 6000

1st Standard Deviation 4000 below Mean

2000 $1746 2nd Standard Deviation below Mean 0

FIGURE 6.5. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1880.

102

1870 21000 1880 25000

18000

20000

15000 UPPER UPPER

15000 12000

John Huddleston, $10,000* 9000 10000

MIDDLE

John Huddleston, $ 5,995 6000 MIDDLE 5000

3000

LOWER

0 LOWER

0 *= According to John Huddleston’s probate FIGURE 6.6. Wealth group distribution of Jackson Township sample, 1870 and 1880.

103

Discussion

The Jackson Township sample exhibited a noticeable trend regarding total wealth value. The average reported dollar amount of the farms in the sample continually increased from 1850 to 1870. The average total wealth value then decreased from 1870 to 1880. This reduction did not decrease the value to a level below that of 1860, however. Examining the trend of the total wealth value of the sample from the perspective of the least profitable farms revealed an optimistic trend. The amount which represented the first standard deviation below the mean continued to increase from 1850 to 1880. This amount increased from $0 in 1850, to $ 1,113 in 1860, to $1,664 in 1870, to $1,746 in 1880. In addition, the amount of the total wealth controlled by the Upper

Group remained disproportionate throughout the four decades. However, the level of this disparity fluctuated through time. In the first three decades of the study, the Upper wealth group accounted for 60% or more of the total wealth. However, according to the

1880 census that upper wealth group was responsible for only 44% of the total accumulated wealth value (see Figure 6.6).

Compared to this trend, the Huddleston family farmstead both deviates from and conforms to. Specifically, the Huddleston family‘s relative wealth value declined between 1850 and 1870 when compared to the sample mean. From 1850 to 1870 the average wealth value of the Jackson Township sample steadily increased. Because these are the only three decades on which the Huddleston farmstead was listed in the agricultural census, a direct comparison was made. The Huddleston wealth value increased from $4,500 in 1850 to $6,700 in 1860. The wealth value of the Huddleston farm then declined $5,995 in 1870. This decline in wealth value from 1860 to 1870 was

104 not reflected in the Jackson Township sample, quite the contrary. Evaluating the

Huddleston family against either the mean and standard deviation or wealth group placement reveals the farmstead continually declined with regard to relative wealth value.

Although the Huddleston farmstead did not appear on the 1880 census and cannot be compared directly, by adding this year to this sample, a more clear interpretation of local economic and agricultural conditions was made. For example, the trend of prolonged average wealth value increase was reversed. The average wealth value decreased as determined by the mean. Wealth group ranges were reduced to lower amounts compared to 1870 as well. For example, the Middle wealth group, which in

1870 included wealth group totals between $5,000 and $10,000, was reduced to $4,000 to

$8,000. Therefore, the overall trend in the Jackson Township sample consists of prolonged increase in average wealth value for the first three decades, followed by a moderate decrease in 1880 (see Figure 6.7).

Landholdings

In the following section, landholdings and production commodity amounts of the

Jackson Township sample, through time are presented. A local average to which the

Huddleston household can be compared was established. In addition, the level to which this local average conforms to county, state, and national trends was examined. This analysis considered both improved and total landholdings. In the census, property was generally divided into ―Improved Acers‖ and ―Unimproved Acers‖ (USBC 1850-1880).

Therefore, both are considered and compared in this analysis. The average improved acreage consistently increased through time. For example, in 1850 the mean value of

105

KEY:

Mean Wealth, In Dollars

First Standard Deviation

Second Standard Deviation

John Huddleston

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$0 1850 1860 1870 1880

FIGURE 6.7. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1850-1880.

106 improved acreage was 29.6 acres. By 1880, the average improved acres among the

Jackson Township sample increased to 62.4 acres, and had steadily increased each of the previous decades. The average among the Jackson Township sample for total acreage followed a different path of trajectory. Between the first two decades of 1850 and 1860, the average total acres increase quite substantially from 92.2 acres to 159.5 acres. The average then dropped by over 100 acres in 1870. However, this value increased in 1880 to 77.5 acres. Because the total acreage is less of a representative of farm size, the values for improved acreage should be considered as a more accurate reflection of the actual farming condition. Notice that, when based on improved acreage, a clear trend of increasing average farm size over time was recognized in the Jackson Township sample

(see Figure 6.8 and Table 6.1).

The Huddleston farm size remains above the average based on improved acreage compared to the local sample. However, the number of average total acreage by the

Jackson Township sample was greater than the Huddleston landholdings in the first two decades of the analysis. The Huddleston farm acreage remained nearly equal, at 77 and

78 acres throughout the four decades of the analysis. In the 1870, the average total acreage of the Jackson Township sample dropped below the level of the Huddleston family. In the final decade, 1880, the average total acreage of the sample was almost identical to the Huddleston‘s at 77.5 acres. The Huddleston farmstead maintains a near equal number of acres throughout the four decade analysis. The number of improved acreage the Huddleston farmstead operated increased from 57 to 77 between 1850 and

1860, and then declined back to 57 acres in 1870. Therefore, the Huddleston farmstead maintained greater than average improved acreage compared to the Jackson Township

107

180

160 Average Improved 140 Acreage

120

Huddleston IIMPImproved 100

Acreage 80

60 Average Total Acreage

20 Huddleston TOTAL

0 1850 1860 1870 1880 FIGURE 6.8. Jackson Township landholdings: average acreage.

TABLE 6.1. Jackson Township Landholdings (USBC 1850-1880). Average Average Improved Huddleston Total Huddleston Acreage Improved Acreage Total 1850 29.6 55 92.2 77 1860 44.3 78 159.5 78 1870 47.4 57 59.2 77 1880 62.4 77.5 77

108 sample throughout the four decades. The number of average total acreage of the Jackson

Township sample remained greater than the Huddleston farmstead in first two decades, and then dropped below the Huddleston acreage total in the final two decades.

Perhaps the most interesting insight provided by the local Jackson Township sample, regarding average farm size, involves its divergence from the national, state, and even county averages. Figure 6.8 and Table 6.1 present the average farm size of the

Jackson Township sample compared to the Huddleston House farm. Figure 6.9 and

Table 6.2 present average farm size data for the United States, Indiana, Wayne County, and the Jackson Township sample compared to the Huddleston in the mid 19th century.

Although the national and state average farm size consistently declined throughout the four decades, the Jackson Township sample actually reflected the opposite trend. The

Jackson Township sample continually increased farm size from 1850 to 1880. In Wayne

County, based on acres of improved land in farms, the average size also increased from

1850-1870, then dropped slightly in 1880 (USBC 1850-1870,). This trend deviated from the Gibbs farmstead in East Tennessee, in which the Knox County, the District sample, and the Gibbs family land holding showed a sustained decrease in landholding throughout this time period (Groover 2003:88-90).

The noticeable deviation of the Jackson Township sample from the comparative data requires further investigation. The number of total farms continually increased throughout the 19th century, as did the total number of acres involved in farming, both

109

250

200

150

United States Indiana 100 Wayne Co.

Improved Acres per Farm per Acres Improved Jackson Twnsp. Sample Huddleston 50

0 1845 1850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 Year

FIGURE 6.9. Diachronic comparison of average farm size.

TABLE 6.2. Average Farm Size Comparison, USBC 1850-1880.

Jackson United Wayne Township States Indiana County Sample Huddleston 1850 203 69.9 29.6 55 1860 199 124 76.5 44.3 78 1870 153 112 79.7 47.4 57 1880 134 105 73.1 62.4

110 throughout the nation and in the state of Indiana (USBC 1840-1880; Groover 2003;

Nation 2005). However, the number of farms increased at a greater rate throughout the century than the number of total acres, thereby decreasing the overall average farm size

(on a national level, and within the vast majority of the states). The fact that the Jackson

Township sample and Wayne County, in general, did not correlate to this trend was especially curious. Two factors contribute quite significantly to this trend. First, the total number of farms was considered. Second, the total land surface devoted to farming was examined.

The local number of farms remained nearly constant from 1850 to 1870.

Remarkably, in Wayne County, the number of farms consisted of 1,934 in 1850; 1,987 in

1860; and 1,989 in 1870. In a three decade period the total number of farms increased by only 55 farms. This was less than a 3% increase over a 30 year period. However, in

1880, the total number of Wayne County farms jumps to 2,572. This represents a 30% increase in only one decade. The average farm size in Wayne County only decreased 8% over the same decade (a 6.6 acre decrease from a 79.7 acre average). The fact that such a large increase in the number of total farms caused only a slight decrease in the average acreage per farm is significant. The 1880 Agricultural Census provides statistics which compare the total acres contained within a state to the total acres farmed. Indiana ranked second to Ohio in the highest proportion of land in farms to total land surface. Of

Indiana‘s approximately 22,982,000 acres, 88.9% were being farmed in 1880 according to the census. The significant increase in the number of farms between 1870 and 1880 in

Wayne County, coupled with the lack of vast amounts of available land contributed to the decrease in average farm size on the county level.

111

TABLE 6.3. Total Land Surface Devoted to Farming. Selected States % of Farmland to State Acres in Farmland Total Land Surface (in Acres) Total Land Connecticut 2,453,541 3,100,800 79% Illinois 31,673,645 35,840,000 88% Kentucky 21,495,240 25,600,000 84% Louisiana 8,273,506 29,068,800 26% Maryland 5,119,831 6,310,400 81% Mississippi 15,855,462 29,657,600 54% Missouri 27,879,276 43,990,400 63% New York 23,780,754 30,476,800 78% Ohio 24,549,226 26,086,400 94% Tennessee 20,666,915 26,720,000 77% Indiana 20,420,983 22,982,400 89% Total U.S. 536,081,835 1,856,108,800 29% (USCB 1880: x-xi)

112

Commodities

Figure 6.10, Figure 6.11, Table 6.4, and Table 6.5 present the diachronic distribution of commodities produced by the Huddleston family and the Jackson

Township sample. Both livestock and crop commodities were considered. Figure 6.10 compares the average (mean) livestock commodities of the Jackson Township sample to the Huddleston farmstead (J. Hudd.). Each decade is represented by a bar graph which is chromatically divided to represent individual commodities. The solid red trend line represents the mean. The dotted black line represents the Huddleston household. Figure

6.11 is structured identically only the values represent crop commodities.

Several interesting trends are noticeable when considering livestock ownership by the Jackson Township sample of the mid 19th century. First, swine was the most heavily engaged in livestock venture throughout. Second, relatively no change occurred in the decade between 1850 and 1860 regarding the sample mean. Third, a noticeable decrease in swine and especially sheep was apparent in the 1870 sample. Fourth, the number of sheep dramatically increased in the 1880 sample mean. This issue is discussed in more detail shortly. Fifth, there was little fluctuation in the number of cows throughout the entire survey. This pertained both to the Jackson Township sample mean and the

Huddleston household as well. In the 19th century, before modern refrigeration, each household usually kept a couple of cows to provide dairy products to the family (Gibb

2009:84). The fact that both the sample and the Huddleston household remained nearly constant throughout the survey (at about 2 head) confirms this notion on the local level and would suggest these were not surplus commodities.

113

35 Swine 30 Sheep

25 Horses

20 Milch Cows

15 MEAN trend line

10 Huddleston trend line 5

0 MEAN J. Hudd. MEAN J. Hudd. MEAN J. Hudd. MEAN

1850 1860 1870 1880 FIGURE 6.10. Livestock commodities produced by Jackson Township sample compared to Huddleston household.

TABLE 6.4. Livestock Commodities Produced by Jackson Township Sample. Cows Horses Sheep Swine MEAN 1.7 2 3.8 17.6 1850 J. Hudd. 2 5 0 35 MEAN 1.9 3.5 3.3 16.2 1860 J. Hudd. 1 3 0 7 MEAN 2.1 2.8 0.3 9.9 1870 J. Hudd. 2 2 0 5 1880 MEAN 1.9 3.4 10.6 18.4

114

The Huddleston farm began the decade well above mean in livestock ownership (with the exception of sheep, which the Huddlestons never owned). In the first year of the sample,

1850, the Huddleston farm owned 35 swine, double the Jackson Township sample mean.

However, by the second decade, the Huddleston farm fell below the mean, both in swine and in overall ownership. By 1870, although livestock ownership by the mean decreased, the Huddleston farmstead remained below the average, owning a very modest number of farm animals. Owning only 2 cows, 2 horses, and 5 swine, the Huddleston household was not engaged in livestock production as a major source of income, but rather kept only what the family needed for sustenance.

As mentioned earlier, the average number of sheep owned by the Jackson

Township sample dramatically increased from virtually non-existent in 1870, 0.3 head, to

10.6 head in 1880. The Huddleston family did not own sheep. Beyond the scope of this thesis, investigation into this would make for the basis of an interesting study. Both Sally

McMurry (1995) and James Gibb et al. (2009) were able to link archaeological evidence to changes in agricultural traditions. A similar research design used in this thesis would be well suited for such a project. Using the concept of medium-range time to track the overall regional trend over perhaps a century long interval, and short-range time to isolate the transition, historical context could be gained. Then sites of former farmsteads that participated in the shift to sheep raising could be archaeologically sampled. This would possibly allow for links to be made from the archaeological evidence to specific households. This would be especially effective if sites with adequate time depth before and after the transition could be located.

115

Figure 6.11 and Table 6.5 present the data totals for crop production by the

Jackson Township sample and the Huddleston farm. Corn was the major crop commodity throughout the survey. The sample mean was the least productive in the first decade of the survey, 1850. Total production nearly doubled in 1860, and then remained relatively constant in 1870, before almost doubling again in 1880. Percentages of each crop to the whole remained fairly constant; meaning no great shift from one crop preference to another was noticeable. As was the case with livestock, crop production totals increase dramatically from 1850-1880. By the 1870 census, the Huddleston farm was producing at such a low rate, it is speculated that the Huddleston household were subsistence level producers, with nearly equal amounts of wheat, corn, oats, butter, and potatoes. The trend is fairly self-evident. The average commodities produced by the

Jackson Township sample continues to increased progressively through time, both in crop and livestock commodities while the Huddleston household continually produced less with each successive decade.

In addition to Agricultural Census statistics, probate and tax receipts were obtained and transcribed. Unfortunately, Wayne County does not possess individual inventories for 19th Century residents. However, the value of the estate is totaled and that figure is reported. John Huddleston‘s probate record was filed in the sum of

$10,000.00 on Monday September 17, 1877 (Wayne County Will Book 1877). In addition, the Inventory of the Real and Personal Property of Susannah Huddleston,

Insane Person, dated and notarized April 13, 1889, was obtained courtesy of the Indiana

Historical Society. The record indicates that Susannah was owed from several

116

1600

1400

1200

Potatoes 1000 Butter Oats 800 Corn Wheat 600

400

200

MEAN J. Hudd. MEAN J. Hudd. MEAN 1850 MEAN J. Hudd. trend line 1860 MEAN 1870 Huddleston 1880 trend line

FIGURE 6.11. Crop commodities produced by Jackson Township sample (MEAN) compared to Huddleston household (J Hudd).

TABLE 6.5. Crop Commodities Of Jackson Township Sample Compared to Huddlestons. Wheat Corn Oats Butter Potatoes 1850 MEAN 40.9 200 49.2 63 15.2 J. Hudd. 0 800 500 200 80 1860 MEAN 104.8 460 62.2 151.7 20.9 J. Hudd. 40 500 400 100 4 1870 MEAN 164.2 326 75.2 163.3 33.7 J.Hudd. 40 50 40 50 30 1880 MEAN 267 862 72.4 223.9 88.8

117 promissory notes, three of which are to her son, Henry. The total of all promissory notes, credits, stocks, and cash on hand equal $2,530.86.

In addition to probate records, tax receipts were obtained courtesy of the Indiana

Historical Society‘s William H. Smith Memorial Library. Tax receipts belonging to the

Huddleston family are curated in the Manuscripts and Visual Collections Department

(Huddleston Family Records: 2005). The values of both personal property and real estate were recorded. This allowed for a very accurate assessment of Huddleston wealth value through time. Figure 6.12 presents a diachronic analysis of Huddleston family wealth value. As indicated in Figure 6.12, several different forms of evidence were used which include agricultural census data, tax receipts, and probate records. All sources confirm that the wealth value of the household steadily declined throughout the second half of the

19th century.

In conclusion, a diachronic analysis of the Huddleston family wealth through time was presented. This information was obtained from primary historic documents and was used to gain insight into the relative wealth of the family. This information is used for both qualitative and quantitative purposes. When transcribed on a large enough scale, statistically valid datasets can be constructed, as was accomplished in this survey. Also, richly detailed contextual information can be obtained from these same primary documents which can be use to gain insight into household philosophy, strategy, and ideals. The results of this analysis will prove an invaluable tool from which the archaeologically recovered material culture can be interpreted. By gaining historical context pertaining to the decline in relative wealth of the Huddleston family, this information can be used better interpret the archaeological evidence.

118

12000

10000 Ag. Census Value Probate Real Estate Value 8000 Personal Propery

) Combined RealEstate&PP

6000 Value (Dollars Value

4000

2000

0 1840 1845 1850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 Year

FIGURE 6.12. Huddleston family wealth through time.

118

119

CHAPTER 7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

The archaeological evidence from Huddleston House is described and discussed in this chapter. First, the archaeological evidence is used to reconstruct the landscape.

Architectural changes to the extant structures are also considered. Next, the field and laboratory methods are discussed. A comparative functional analysis, a ceramic description, and a time sequence analysis of the recovered artifacts are included.

Landscape Reconstruction

As previously mentioned, the Huddleston property was first purchased by John

Huddleston in 1839. It contained 77 acres of forested acres and had no structures

(Evolution of Huddleston Farmstead [EHF] n.d.). John Huddleston immediately began to alter landscape. A reconstruction of the historic landscape is presented in this section.

Archaeological and documentary evidence were used to describe the changes that took place during the Huddleston occupation. The map on Figure 7.1 illustrates the landscape at the Huddleston farmstead.

John Huddleston first built a small log house on the property in 1839. This log house was quickly disassembled, and the front hill graded. It was at this time that the first extant structure on the Huddleston farmstead was constructed, the bank barn, or yellow barn. In 1840, He began construction on the house and the several of the outbuildings

120

NATIONAL ROAD (US 40)

LIMESTONE RETAINING WALL FENCE

BANK BARN (YELLOW BARN) SPRING HOUSE FEDERAL STYLE I-HOUSE GARDEN FENCE PROBABLE LOCATION OF BROOM SHOP

Structure 1 ASPHALT DRIVE ASPHALT

SMOKE HOUSE

LOCATION OF 2007 EXCAVATION CARRIAGE HOUSE (RED BARN) GRAVEL DRIVE GRAVEL

PARKING AREA

GRAVEL DRIVE

FEDERAL STYLE I-HOUSE 0 50 FEET

FIGURE 7.1. Map of Huddleston farmstead.

120

121

Figure 7.2. Modern eastern view of Huddleston House.

Figure 7.3. Modern western view of Huddleston House.

122 that would accommodate the needs of a farmstead and the National Road travelers (EHF n.d.). Approximately 100 wagons passed the Huddleston property daily and John sought to milk that proverbial cash cow.

John Huddleston used his property to invest in numerous and diverse business ventures. As previously stated, according to the 1850 agricultural census John

Huddleston had one of the most profitable farms in the Township. He also operated a store and rented travels rooms and kitchen space (EHF n.d.; Groover 2007, 2009). A campground and wagon yard was also available to the National Road travelers that passed by. Presently, several of the buildings associated with the original farmstead remain. The property contains the original federal style I house, the bank barn (or yellow barn), carriage shed (red barn), spring house and smoke house. In addition, a broom shop and recently discovered structure have been located on the landscape. Each of these buildings will be discussed.

Construction on the federal style I house was completed in 1841 (Reed 1972;

Wayne County Interim Report [WCIR] 2001:203). The bricks were fired in a kiln on the property. The house is built into the artificially graded north slope facing the National

Road. The house contains three stories, each of which serves a different purpose. The front, ground story served a public economic function. The center room of the ground floor contained the store. Flanked on both sides to the east and west were travelers‘ kitchens and quarters. These travelers‘ kitchens did not connect to the rest of the house.

The main floor above the shop consisted of four rooms. A formal parlor was situated to the extreme east side of the ground floor, a large family dining room in the center (Figure

7.4), an informal sitting room to the west, and a kitchen in the ell to the south of the

123 sitting room along the west wall of the house (see Figure 7.5). The third floor consisted of the family‘s bedrooms.

Originally a bell tower was on the kitchen ell. Also, a trap door led to stairs which entered the shop on the ground floor from the south. A center door on the north façade allowed travelers to enter the shop. This door was later removed and a window was installed in 1880 as part of a remodeling by Henry Huddleston (EHF n.d.). This is also thought to be time that the east and west kitchens were connected to the shop on the ground floor. The photograph in Figure 7.6 shows that the property was much further from the road. A two-tiered front lawn is noticeable, as well as an iron fence, sidewalk, small curb, trees, and functional shutters. Further renovation occurred to the house in

1930, when windows were added to the east and west wall of the former guest kitchens.

This was shortly after Charles died and Kenneth inherited the house (notice Figures 7.7 and 7.8).

Archaeological excavation in 1977 provided several clues which led to the ability to reconstruct the historic landscape. The excavation documented several features. South of the main house a small lean-to shelter was identified through stratigraphy and the discovery of a corner post. This structure was later reconstructed as it remains today.

The excavation in the yard south of the house also identified the remnants of a barrel- lined, buried refuse pit, an unused well, and evidence of small post holes which were used for a grape arbor in the yard south of the house. A photo from the 1890s confirms the location of the grape arbor. In addition, the 1977 excavation identified a former structure south of the yellow bank barn (Sasser 1977).

124

FIGURE 7.4. Huddleston family kitchen.

FIGURE 7.5. Huddleston family dining room.

125

FIGURE 7.6. Historic photograph of Huddleston House, courtesy of Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana.

125

126

FIGURE 7.7. Western wall of I house.

FIGURE 7.8. Eastern wall of I house (note added windows on bottom floor).

127

Construction of the bank barn was complete in 1839 and predates the house. The barn is approximately 50 x 30 feet. Today the original hand-hewn timbers which frame the barn remain. These beams are spectacular examples of early 19th century construction materials, many of which exceed 15 inches in width. During the 1977 excavation, a wagon and tool shed was discovered to have been attached to the south wall of the barn. However, stratigraphic evidence suggests that this structure was added to the barn after the original construction. This wagon and tool shed was 20 x 14 feet in size and accessed the 28 horse stall below through a steep staircase (see Figures 7.9 and 7.10)

After John Huddleston‘s death in 1877, Henry added the cupola to the barn and installed side vents. Sometime between the years of 1894 and 1904, dirt ramps and concrete retaining walls replaced the original log and plank ramps leading into the western entrance. In 1910 the stalls are removed while during the ownership period of Charles

Huddleston. A photograph from 1940 shows a building with a north facing gable in the area just south of the barn in the current parking area. A round metal corncrib stands next to this structure as well. This is the only known evidence of these buildings. The 1940 photo does not show the wagon and tool shed, suggesting prior removal.

West of the barn and southeast of the house is the location of the carriage house or red barn. The original structure measured 22 x 31 feet in size and contained a woodshed on the western end. In 1909 Charles Huddleston remodeled the carriage house adding 14 feet to the east. The eastern façade was reconstructed but some of the original materials were removed and replaced (EHF n.d.). In other words, the east side was taken off, then extended eastward and put back on.

128

FIGURE 7.9. Bank barn.

128

129

FIGURE 7.10. Southern Portion of barn involved in 1977 excavation (a small shed once attached to the barn in this area).

FIGURE 7.11. Carriage house, or red barn.

130

Directly west of the carriage house is a reconstructed smokehouse. Years of neglect and deterioration made the structure unsafe in its original state. In 1978 with the help of funds obtained through a National Parks Service grant, the smokehouse was reconstructed. All salvageable materials were used in reconstruction. Detailed notes were taken during the deconstruction and a high level of attention was paid to ensure accurate reconstruction. The building measure approximately 10 x 20 feet in size. The family garden was located in the yard just south of the smokehouse.

To the northwest of the smokehouse and directly west of the kitchen ell of the main house is the springhouse, often called the milk house or dairy house. This structure is directly adjacent to the kitchen and was easily accessed by the residents. Also the runoff from the well would run downhill by way of a gutter system and collected in a trough along the National Road (EHF n.d.). The purpose was to provide water for the horses of the weary travelers. Hopefully, while they were stopped to rest, the travelers would purchase something from the store or stay for dinner or overnight. The wooden pump is not original, but is a historically accurate reproduction.

The springhouse contains a large eve on the gable side overhanging the pump.

The north and south walls of the porch are covered in lattice. The land west of the spring house was used as an herb garden. This is typical of a Quaker springhouse and the architectural style is similar to the spring house at Mendenhall Plantation in Guilford

County, North Carolina. Mendenhall Plantation was a non-slave operated farmstead owned by early 19th century Quakers. Currently Mendenhall Plantation functions as a museum similar to Huddleston House. The architecture at Mendenhall Plantation has been used a comparative analog to Huddleston House (Groover 2009).

131

FIGURE 7.12. Reconstructed smokehouse.

132

FIGURE 7.13. Springhouse.

133

FIGURE 7.14. Reconstructed well pump.

FIGURE 7.15. Springhouse at Mendenhall Plantation, Guilford County, North Carolina (image courtesy of http://www.mendenhallplantation.org/Spring%20House.htm).

134

Lean-to shelter; reconstruction based on archaeological evidence from 1977 (Sasser)

FIGURE 7.16. View of Herb Garden Facing East (Image courtesy of WayNet.org http://www.flickr.com/photos/99196028@N00/202845027/).

134

135

Two additional structures which were present on the historic landscape, but which no longer exist will now be discussed. The first to be discussed is the broom shop, probably run by Levi Huddleston. This building is identified on the 1874 Mt. Auburn town map (Figure 7.17). This shop was located west of the house and herb garden. The second building was recently discovered through archaeological excavation. Fieldwork in

2002 (Zoll) and 2007(Groover) identified the probable location of the broom shop but failed to define the dimensions or construction date, method, or materials.

The final structure present on the historic landscape was discovered as a result of the 2007 Historical Archaeology field school at Ball State University, under the direction of Dr. Mark Groover. This building was located west of the smokehouse and south of the broom shop. The results of the previous 2002 shovel probe survey were used as a basis to begin the 2007 excavation. Although nearly1600 artifacts were recovered during the

2002 survey, no features were discovered. However, the artifact density distribution pattern strongly suggested the presence of a structure as indicated by the 2002 artifact density map created by Groover (Figure 7.18).

136

FIGURE 7.17. Plat map of Mt. Auburn, Wayne County Atlas,1874. (note the building labeled shop).

137 1

4 N

8 STRUCTURE 1

Broom shop D

C FIGURE 7.18. Map of 2002 artifact density distribution (image B courtesy of Mark Groover, Artifact Density additional notation by the author). A

138

Objectives of 2007 Field School Excavation

The 2007 National Road Historical Archaeological Field School at Huddleston

House was helped made possible through an emersion grant from Ball State University.

It had several objectives. The primary goal of the excavation was to determine the location, dimension, and function of a former building referred to as structure 1 (Groover,

P.C.). In addition, the recovery of material culture encountered during the excavation of structure 1was of equal priority. Also, a secondary objective of the 2007 excavation was to assess the nature of the culture deposits in order to make future recommendations. All these goals were accomplished through archaeological sampling.

Field Methods

The field methods used to help locate the structure and recover artifacts began with a spatial analysis of the 2002 shovel test pit (STP) survey (Zoll 2002). The location and artifact density of each STP was quantified and used to produce the spatial artifact density distribution map. This information is presented in Figure 7.18. This spatial information was then used to determine the probable location of a structure. Then, test units were strategically placed above the areas of highest artifact concentration. Ten (10) test units were systematically excavated. The size of the test units were 3 x 3 feet (with the exception of unit 5 which measured 3 x 4 feet) and were excavated using thin levels of 0.20 feet in English engineer‘s scale. The units were excavated with trowels and the soil was screened through ¼ inch wire mesh. All cultural materials were segregated and bagged by provenience. Level depth was maintained throughout. A more detailed explanation of the excavation particulars is found in Appendix A (Technical Report).

139

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A

N432 C W89 Datum D N400 E E180

F N380

E160 KEY G = Shovel Test Pit, 2002 Z100.04 = Excavated Unit, 2007 N

SCALE: IN Feet

0 50 100 150

FIGURE 7.19. Map showing location of STP grid and units.

139

140

W72

Feature 2: Structure 1 Foundation stones Feature2: Structure 1 In tact foundation base UNIT 3 UNIT 4 N449 UNIT 5 N447 N447 66 261 W89 W80 130 N444.5/ W67

Tree 173 UNIT 6 UNIT 9 106 UNIT 10 Feature 2: Structure 1 N435/W68 Foundation stones UNIT 7 N432 Feature 1: Post & Posthole 490 W89 302 UNIT 8 N429 W68 Feature 2: Structure 1 516 In tact brick course N426 N426 425 remnant resting atop of 316 W86 W80 limestone foundation UNIT 1 UNIT 2 N KEY: = Brick

00=Artifact Density = Stone

= Structure 1 Limits

SCALE: in Feet

0 4 8 16

FIGURE 7.20. 2007 site excavation.

141

0 N

SCALE: In Feet

0 3 6

1 ’

2 ’ H u H d u d d l d e s l

141 Figure 7.21. Extentt of structure 1foundation. e o s 3 n t ’ o H n o

142

Thin level excavation allows for time sequence analysis to be done on the artifacts contained within the unit. Time sequence analysis is a precise stratification method used in several different contexts throughout historical archaeology (Groover 1998, 2003,

2004, 2008; Blanch 2006). The particulars of time sequence analysis are discussed later in this chapter when laboratory methods are explained. However, this detailed level of analysis begins at the excavation/recovery phase. Although excavation (removal of stratigraphic layers) remains based on an arbitrary unit, the 0.2 foot interval is preferred.

This is approximately 2 3/8 inches which is about half of 10 centimeters.

inches

0.1 feet

Centimeters 5 10 15 Figure 7.22. Scale.

Subsequent excavation discovered a fence post and foundation. The foundation measured 24 x 16 feet in size. Intact courses of brick set on the limestone foundation were encountered in the excavation. The construction materials and methods used in the structure seem to be identical to the main house suggesting a contemporaneous construction. As previously stated, more detailed excavation particulars are present in the

Technical Report in Appendix A.

143

FIGURE 7.23. Southeast corner of structure 1, unit 8 (photo courtesy of Mark Groover).

144

FIGURE 7.24 . Northeast corner of structure 1, unit 5 (photo courtesy of Mark Groover).

145

Laboratory Methods

The first step in the laboratory analysis of the artifacts was to classify each artifact according to Stanley South‘s (1977) functional typology. The second step involved further classification of items within specific artifact groups. The final step was to perform a time sequence analysis on the artifacts. Therefore, initial artifact description and analysis are presented in the following section.

The artifacts recovered from both the 2002 and 2007 fieldwork were classified according to South‘s (1977) functional classification typology. One exception to the classification was made. To better understand the function of all artifacts at the

Huddleston House, an energy group was created to sort artifacts used in heating such as wood, wood ash, coal, slag, as well as gas and electrical hardware and components. The results of the functional classification for the Huddleston House assemblage are presented in Table 7.1 and Figures 7.25-7.28

Despite the difference in recovery context between 2002 (shovel test pits) and

2007 (excavated units), a fairly similar functional distribution occurs. A much greater percent of energy group artifacts was recovered in 2002. Likewise, more Kitchen group artifacts were present in the 2007 sample. This may be attributed to the nature of the survey and deposits.

A much larger horizontal spatial area was assessed during the shovel test pit survey. However, a much smaller percentage of the entire area within the survey boundary was sampled compared to the excavation units in 2007. Because excavation units were placed in a small, well defined area, and measure 3 x3 feet, a much larger percent of area within the survey boundary was sampled in 2007.

146

TABLE 7.1 Quantity of Huddleston House Artifacts per Functional Group Group Year Recovery Context Shovel Test Excavated Unit 2002 2009 Total Architecture Group 912 1312 2224 Kitchen Artifact Group 345 920 1265 Energy Group 228 58 286 Activities Group 12 3 15 Arms Group 0 10 10 Clothing Group 2 15 17 Bone Group 33 70 103 TOTAL 1532 2388 3920

1400

1200

1000

800 Series12002 600

400 Series22007

200

FIGURE 7.25. Quantity of artifact assemblage by functional classification group.

147

Arms group Bone 0% group Clothing group 3% 1% Activities group 0%

Energy group 7%

Kitchen artifact group 32% Architecture group 57%

FIGURE 7.26. Percentages of artifact assemblages by functional group, total combined.

0% 0% 1% Architecture 0% group 3% 1% 0% 2% 2% Kitchen Artifact group 15% Energy group

Activities 39% 22% 55% 60% group Arms Group

Clothing group

FIGURE7.27. 2002, STP . Bone Group FIGURE 7.28. 2007, units.

148

Therefore, this larger percent of energy group artifacts present in the shovel test survey of 2002 is perfectly normal. It is very possible that items such as coal, slag, and wood ash were more indiscriminately discarded and strewn more widely across the house lot. This would result in the recovery of greater numbers of energy group artifacts in shovel test surveys, which encompass larger horizontal areas. In addition, the excavated units sampled areas directly adjacent to structure 1. Undoubtedly, this location would have a higher potential for the presence of more concentrated archaeological deposits due to its proximity to activity areas around the structure. Therefore, slight differences in the percentages of artifacts by functional groups can be explained simply by the nature and location of the recovery context.

Regardless of the recovery context, the 2002 and 2007 functional classification pie graphs presented in Figures 7.26, 7.27, and 7.28 demonstrate an overall similar pattern. A distribution in which approximately 60% of the artifacts belong to the

Architecture group, and 30% belong to the Kitchen artifact group, with the remaining

10% disproportionately divided between the energy group, 7 %, and the Bone group, 3%.

The distribution and percentage of artifacts within functional classification categories can also be used to compare the Huddleston House to other sites throughout the region and nation. A comparison can be made between the Huddleston House, the

Moore-Youse house, and the Gibbs farmstead. The results of this comparative functional analysis are presented in Figures 7.29- 7.30. The Moore-Youse house was located in

Muncie, Indiana, less than 50 miles from Huddleston House. Although the property was within the city of Muncie, evidence suggests much of the yard functioned as an urban

149

TABLE 7.2. Functional Categories of Moore-Youse House (Blanch 2006:177)

Group Quantity Architecture 8140 Bone 961 Energy 1697 Kitchen 947

Kichen 8% Energy 15%

Bone Arch 8% 69%

FIGURE7.29. Percentages of artifact assemblages, Moore-Youse House.

Clothing 8% Activities Furniture 6% 3% Kitchen 47%

Arch. 36%

FIGURE7.30. Percentages of artifact assemblages, Gibbs farmstead.

TABLE 7.3. Functional Artifact Quantities of Gibbs Farm (Groover 2003:199, Table 19) Group Quantity Kitchen 3,772 Architecture 2,905 Furniture 243 Clothing 710 Activities 491

150 farm lot (Blanch 2006:177). The Gibbs farmstead was located in Knox County, in East

Tennessee. Several generations operated the Gibbs farmstead for well over 100 years.

As previously stated, several archaeological investigations have taken place at the Gibbs farmstead (Groover 2003). Compared to the Moore-Youse house, the Huddleston House contained a much greater percentage of Kitchen group artifacts, in spite of recovery context. Also, much more bone was present at the Moore-Youse house, a fact used to demonstrate the point made earlier regarding the function of the yard as farm lot. This large percentage of bone is evidence of onsite butchering (Blanch 2006). Compared to the Gibbs farmstead, the Huddleston House has much fewer personal items. The Gibbs assemblage contains a fair number of items in the Clothing and Activities group. Notice in Figure 7.26, these items are virtually non-existent in the Huddleston House assemblage.

Ceramic Analysis

Ceramics are one of the most frequently analyzed archaeologically recovered materials (Yensh 1991:142). Both Old World and New, the study of prehistoric and historic peoples and cultures commonly use recovered ceramic assemblages to interpret behaviors. The analysis of the Huddleston House ceramic assemblage is presented in the following sections.

Materials

The materials examined for this analysis consist of the ceramic artifacts recovered at the Huddleston House site during the 2007 Ball State University historical archaeology field school excavation. A total of 2,388 artifacts were recovered, processed, and cataloged by Ball State University students as the result of an emersion grant. The bulk of

151 the assemblage consists of architectural artifacts (n=1,312). Artifacts belong to the

Kitchen group in South‘s functional classification system (1977:95). The purpose of this analysis was to segregate the kitchen artifacts recovered in the 2007 excavation and sort the ceramics (n=488) into meaningful categories of ware type, form, and decoration to reconstruct foodways.

Methods

The methods used in this analysis consist of sorting ceramics by ware type and function.. A brief explanation of the composition and definition of the individual ware types follows. These criteria were used to identify and classify the ceramics.

Utilitarian Ceramics

Redware

Redware is so named because of the red color of the body. It is composed of mainly clay which turns red upon firing (Sutton and Arkush 2009:209). Redware was among the earliest American wares (Stelle 2001; Blanch 2006:116). Redware was commonly used as a storage vessel. It is one of the most abundant and inexpensive wares and was typically produced locally (Stelle 2001; Blanch 2006:116; Groover 2008:41). Redware is often treated on the interior surface to aid in sealing the vessel due to its porous and unvitrified nature (Groover 2008:41). The surface treatment applied to the redware recovered at the Huddleston House site are lead glazed and salt glazed finishes. Often times crazing or cracking of the glaze is observed on redware vessels.

Stoneware

Stoneware is an extremely durable ceramic which often came in the form of jugs, crocks and other utilitarian and storage related vessels (Worthy 1982; Stelle 2001; Blanch

152

2006:126). Stoneware is characterized by a thick, heavy body. It is fired at a higher temperature compared to redware (Sutton and Arkush 2009:214, Stelle 2001). Surface treatments encountered in the Huddleston House assemblage include brown Albany slip, whitish Bristol glaze, and salt glazed.

Refined Ceramics

White Bodied Ware/ Ironstone

Ironstone was a very popular ceramic tableware during the second half of the 19th century. It dominated the middle-class market and was very sturdy, hence the name

(Sutton and Arkush 2009:214, Stelle 2001). A date range of 1840 to 1885 is given to heavy-bodied ironstone (Henry and Garrow 1982:466). Improved ironstone throughout the 19th century was often advertised as being ready for ―country trade‖ and became ever-present at frontier homes (Fontana and Greenleaf 1962; Collard 1967). Heavier, undecorated ironstone began to be replaced by relatively lighter-weight and more delicately decorated ironstone between 1870 and 1880 (Majewski and O‘Brien 1987:124)

Molded relief patterns were a very popular decoration among ironstone vessels.

Ironstone was often undecorated, however, transfer printing, decal, and painted decoration types did occur especially after 1870 (Majewski and O‘Brien 1982:123).

Whiteware

Whiteware and white ironstone are very similar (Stelle 2001). The popularity of whiteware began in approximately 1820 two decades before ironstone was developed

(Sutton and Arkush 2009:213-214). Whiteware is more porous than ironstone and can be distinguished through a ―tongue test‖. The whiteware is more ―sticky‖ compared to the ironstone (Stelle 2001). Whiteware was developed early in the 19th century as potters

153 began to add cobalt oxide to pastes and glazes (Lofstrom et al. 1982). Whiteware was almost always decorated (Majewski and O‘Brien 1987:120). The decoration associated with the whiteware at the Huddleston House was underglaze transfer print, overglaze decal, and painted ceramics.

Yellow ware

Yellow ware is earthenware consisting of a cream paste. It is often treated with a clear lead or alkaline glaze (Blanch 2006:119). Yellow ware vessels often take the form of serving containers, large bowls, and tankards (Sutton and Arkush 2009:214). The yellow ware ceramic sherds recovered at Huddleston House are all undecorated.

Porcelain

Porcelain is the most valuable of all the Huddleston House ceramics. It is defined by its translucent characteristic and its vitrified nature (Stelle 2001; Sutton and Arkush

2009:218). Porcelain occurs over a large temporal expanse and therefore is not an ideal time indicator. However, it can be used as an economic indicator (Miller 1980; Blanch

2006:129). Only one, undecorated porcelain sherd was recovered at Huddleston House.

Semi-Porcelain

Semi-Porcelain is the name given to a white bodied earthernware which is similar to porcelain but is not completely translucent or vitrified. They are semivitreous, light bodied, and high quality ceramics produced in the second half of the 19th century. After the Civil War these lightweight refined semivitrious and vitreous ceramics were produced by American manufacturers and competed with British imports (Cheek et al. 1983:103;

Majewski and O‘Brien 1987:115). Molded and transfer printed, specimens were among the decorated semi-porcelain sherds recovered from Huddleston House.

154

Pealware

Pearlware is a porous, off-white earthenware which contains a chalky paste (Sutton and

Arkush 2009:231). A clear glaze was often applied. Pearlware is thinner and less durable than later whiteware or ironstone. Pearlware will often contain a bluish cast. This is due to the cobalt which was added to mimic the look of Chinese porcelain (Mankowitz

1953:4; Blanch 2006:123; Sutton and Arkush 2009:231). Pearlware is a good temporal indicator due to its relatively early introduction (1780s) and peak popularity (1820s-

1830s). Pearlware was often given to later 19th century semivitreous wares that contain a bluish tint to the bodies but not the glaze (Miller 1980:3). All of the pearlware sherds recovered at the Huddleston House site are molded, shell-edged, and contain blue transfer printing. This was a very common style of pearlware in the early 19th century (Miller

1980:18; Stelle 2001; Blanch 2006:123; Sutton and Arkush 2009:231). Porcelain, semi- porcelain, and pearlware are the most expensive ceramics in the Huddleston House assemblage and most likely represent the finest tableware.

Decorated/ Undecorated (Surface Treatment)

After sorting the ceramics according to ware type, the decoration technique used on the sherds was tabulated. The following categories were use to define the type of decoration of the refined ceramics: transfer print, decal, painted, molded/scalloped, and shell edge. In addition, the various surface treatments used to glaze the utilitarian ceramics were noted. The following surface treatments were observed: salt glaze, lead glaze, Bristol glaze, and Albany slip.

155

Results

The results of the sherd count are presented in Table 7.2. The associated pie graph (Figure 7.31) shows the percentage of each ceramic type. White bodied ironstone sherds constitute the highest percentage of the assemblage, followed by whiteware. Very few extravagant ceramic types are represented. As Figure 7.32 and Table 7.3 indicate, refined ceramics outnumber utilitarian vessel nearly 3:1, 354 and 134 respectively.

Oddly, among the utilitarian ceramics, this same 3:1 ratio also exist between the number of stoneware to redware sherds (Figure 7.33). Among the refined ceramics, Ironstone white bodied ware comprises nearly 60% (Figure 7.34). After segregating the ceramics into type, the refined ceramics were described according to decorative style. The utilitarian ceramics were likewise tabulated according to surface treatment. The bulk of the refined ceramics were undecorated. A ratio greater than 6:1 of undecorated (n=307) to decorated (n=46) sherds was noticed. Data pertaining to decoration is presented in

Figures 7.35 and 7.36 as well as Table 7.5.

More information was ascertained from the sorting of the utilitarian ceramics with regard to surface treatment. As Table 7.4 shows the most prevalent surface treatment applied to the Huddleston House assemblage was Albany slip and salt glazed. In addition, nearly 3/4 of the vessel sherds are treated. This was less significant than the large number of undecorated refined ceramics compared to the undecorated ones.

Surface treatment on utilitarian ceramics serves a functional purpose, to seal the vessel.

Decoration on a refined ware on the other hand was merely for that, decoration.

156

TABLE 7.2. Distribution of Ceramics by Ware Type.

WARE TYPE SHERD COUNT Whiteware 113 Ironstone/WBW 206 Yellowware 8 Pearlware 5

Porcelain 2 Semi-Porcelain 20 Stoneware 98 Redware 36 TOTAL 488

Redware 7%

Whiteware 23% Stoneware 20%

Semi-Porcelain 4% Porcelain Ironstone/WBW 1% 42% Pearlware 1% Yellowware 2%

FIGURE 7.31. Percentage of ceramics by ware type.

157

Utilitarian Ceramics 27%

Refined Ceramics 73%

FIGURE 7.32. Percentage of refined to utilitarian ceramics.

TABLE 7.3: Refined to Utilitarian Ceramics. TABLE 7.4: Surface Treatment of CERAMIC TYPE COUNT SHERD SURFACE Utilitarian TREATMENT Ceramics. COUNT Refined Ceramics 354 Utilitarian Ceramics 134 Albany slip 42 Bristol Glaze 5 TOTAL 488 Lead Glaze 10 Salt Glazed 40 TOTAL 97 134-97=37* (*untreated)

Redware (n=38) 27%

Stoneware (n=98) 73%

FIGURE 7.33. Percentage of utilitarian ceramics by ware type.

158

Porcelain Pearlware 1% 1% Yellowware Semi- 2% Porcelain 6%

Whiteware 32%

WBW/ Ironstone 58%

FIGURE 7.34. Percentages of refined ceramics by ware type.

159

Undecorated Transfer Print Decal Painted Molded/Scalloped Shell Edge

1% 1% 2% 3% 6%

87%

FiGURE 7.35. Percentage of refined ceramic by decoration.

TABLE 7.5. Decoration Type. 25

DECORATION SHERD COUNT 20 Transfer Print 20 Decal 10 15 Painted 2 10

Molded/Scalloped 9 Count Shell Edge 5 5 TOTAL 46 0 354-46=307* *Undecorated Sherds

Decoration Type

FIGURE 7.36. Quantity of decorated ceramics.

160

In addition, a hollow ware/flat ware analysis and an examination of vessel form and function are presented in the following section. Analysis of the ceramic artifacts yielded a total of 145 indeterminate pieces that could have been either hollow or flat. Of the ceramics that could be determined, flat tableware outnumbers hollow ware 50 to 11.

Stoneware was not included in this count because all of the stoneware is believed to be hollow storage vessels of varying types. Most of the ceramics recovered in the 2007 excavation were tableware sherds. Very few pieces of redware were recovered. The recovered redware sherds were from storage rather than serving vessels.

Time Sequence Analysis

Using time sequence analysis to date archaeological sites and deposits has several advantages. To begin, it allows for a diachronic perspective. This allows for recognition of trends and patterns in the archaeological record which are simply not visible with other methods of analysis. Whereas reliance on a singular mean date essentially compresses all data, time sequence analysis allows for an artifact distribution to be calculated on a time line. Also, because of this time-depth quality, archaeological deposits can be directly linked to a particular household within the line of succession. Therefore, changes in architecture and the landscape can be matched to individual households. Different archaeological assemblages, associated with different time periods throughout the occupation can be compared (Groover 2003:202-5).

161

2 3/8 inches. This was the depth interval used at the 2007 Huddleston House excavation.

Next, a mean artifact date (MAD) was calculated for each level. This step was accomplished by assigning a date, based on the mean date of manufacture, to each temporally diagnostic artifact. Mean dates used in this analysis are presented in

Appendix E. A total mean date was derived by combining the values of all the mean artifact dates within a level, multiplying by the total count for each type, and then dividing by the overall total of combined temporally diagnostic artifacts.

The results of a time sequence analysis of the Huddleston House artifact assemblage are presented in the following section. Figure 7.37 presents the results of the time sequence analysis. The greatest artifact densities were deposited in the 1880s and

1890s. A large spike in the distribution curve occurred during this time period. Very low artifact densities were deposited before or after this time. Time sequence analysis distribution data for different artifact groups and items are presented in Figures 7.38 -

7.43. Therefore, the archaeological remains sampled in 2007 surrounding structure 1, appear to have been most densely deposited in the 1880s and 1890s during the occupation of Henry Huddleston.

162

Once the artifact distribution data curve is plotted, fluctuations of different artifact patterns through time can often be identified (Groover 2003). As previously mentioned, the changes along the distribution curve often correlate to documented household succession events (Groover 2003). Specifically regarding the Huddleston House assemblage, it is quite clear that the majority of the sample was deposited following

1880. This would strongly suggest that these deposits post-date the occupation of the

John Huddleston household. Because of the relatively short time interval associated with these deposits (only a couple of decades) compared to the known time depth of the

Huddleston family occupation (nearly 100 years), the deposits likely are the major result of a singular household. Figures 7.44 and 7.45 review household succession and compare the time sequence data to the household size, respectively

As shown in Figure 7.45 the early and later occupation periods are not well represented on the artifact density timeline. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the time sequence method, flat window glass and nails are considered.

Flat Glass

Randall Moir (1987) examined the importance of window glass as a temporally diagnostic artifact at 19th century sites. The overall trend of increasing window glass thickness through time occurred during the 19th century (Roenke 1978; Moir 1987:75).

Window glass thickness corresponds with specific manufacture dates. The manufacture dates corresponding to thickness measurements are presented in Appendix D. Therefore,

163

1000 Stoneware Redware 900 Yellowware Porcelain 800 Pearlware Semi-Porcelain 700 Whiteware WBW 600 Total Ceramic Curved Glass 500 TOTAL KITCHEN GROUP Quantity Quantity Flat Glass 400 Cut Wire 300 Total Nails TOTAL ARCH.GROUP 200 GRAND TOTAL

100

0 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 YEAR FIGURE 7.37. Time sequence analysis of Huddleston House archaeological assemblage, 2007.

163

164

300

250

Stoneware 200 Redware Yellowware 150 Porcelain Pearlware Semi-Porcelain 100 Whiteware WBW 50 TOTAL CERAMICS

0 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 FIGURE 7.38. Time sequence analysis of ceramics.

250

200

150 Curved Glass 100

0 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 FIGURE 7.39. Time sequence analysis of curved glass.

165

500 Stoneware 450 Redware

400 Yellowware

350 Porcelain

300 Pearlware

Semi-Porcelain 250

Whiteware

200 Quantity WBW 150 TOTAL CERAMICS 100 Curved Glass

50 TOTAL KITCHEN GROUP

0 Year 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 FIGURE 7.40. Time sequence analysis of kitchen artifacts group.

166

800

700

600

500 Flat Glass 400 Cut

Quantity Wire 300 TOTAL NAILS TOTAL 200

100

0 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 Year FIGURE 7.41. Time sequence analysis of architectural group.

250 300

250 200 Cut 200 150 Wire 150 Flat Glass TOTAL 100 100

50 50

0 0 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 FIGURE 7.42. Flat glass. FIGURE 7.43. Nails.

167

12 Kenneth dies, Hazel Eller Huddleston inherits then John Huddleston dies, sells farm, 1932-1934 10 Levi Inherits farm,1877

Charles H. Huddleston 6 purchases farm,1906

Household Size 4

Levi Huddleston dies, 2 Henry acquires farm, 1881 Chas. H. Huddleston dies, Kenneth & Henry Inherit farm, 1930 0 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940

FIGURE 7.44. Household succession and size through time.

167

168

300 Household Sizex10

250 Nails

200

Flat Glass

150

Ceramic

100

Curved Glass 50

Quantity Relative 0 YEAR Household Size 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 FIGURE 7.45. Time sequence distribution compared to household size.

168

169 all pieces of flat glass were measured using digital calipers to determine the thickness and manufacture date.

Figure 7.46 shows the distribution of window glass based on only the quantity per manufacture year. A peak in the curve appeared from 1860-1910. All decades in a 140 year time interval were well represented, as well. No decade was extremely over represented; however several peaks along the distribution curve were noted. The first increase occurred near 1840 when the building was constructed by John Huddleston. The next increase occurred in the 1870s. This peak represents a renovation of structure 1 and coincides with the beginning of the Henry Huddleston ownership period. The final increase in window glass occurred in the late 19th to early 20th century, during the

Charles Huddleston occupation. Using time sequence analysis on window glass provided a more refined chronology and was useful in identifying the razing of structure 1

(Groover 2003). Figure 7.47 presents the time sequence analysis of window glass. The large increase in glass during the final decades of the 19th century was noted. By using the mean dates of all temporally diagnostic artifacts associated within the thin section, much more sensitive and accurate dating was possible. Recovered window glass quantity dropped dramatically after this period. Therefore, during the Charles Huddleston occupation, near the turn of the century, structure 1 was most likely razed. In conclusion, window glass was used to link household succession to construction episodes. Moreover, time sequence analysis was used to identify the likely razing of structure 1

170

Window Glass 20

0 YEAR 1760 1780 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960

FIGURE 7.46. Window glass quantity per year of manufacture date.

300

250 Mean Date of Manufacture 200

150

Quantity Time Sequence Analysis 100

0 1780 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 Year

FIGURE 7.47. Quantity of window glass.

171

Nails

Another example of a more refined chronology provided by time sequence analysis from the Huddleston artifacts was with nails. The 2007 excavation at

Huddleston House recovered 417 temporally identifiable nails. This analysis sorted the nails into two categories: machine cut nails and wire nails. The mean date of machine cut nails is 1860, and wire nails is 1935 (Nelson 1968: Edward and Wells 1993:17-18;

IMACS 1984; Groover 2003). Table 7.6 and Figure 7.48 present the quantity of nails per type. Wire nails outnumbered machine cut nails 264 to 153, respectively. The mean manufacture date of all combined nails equaled 1907.5. Time sequence analysis of the nails predicted construction and razing events. Time sequence analysis showed the majority of the nails were deposited between 1880 and 1900 (see Figure 7.49).

Wire nails represent 63% of the total nail assemblage and machine cut nails, 37%.

William H. Adams (2002) developed a probability curve to determine construction dates at 19th and 20th century sites based on the percentage of machine cut nails. Buildings constructed in the early decades of the 19th century used machine cut nails exclusively.

However, often times wire nails make up a significant percentage of the nail assemblage at these sites. This is the result of ―extensive repairs made to it [the building] later‖(Adams 2002:75). Adams states that reliable dates for construction and renovation are usually 15 to 20 years earlier than the dates suggested by the manufacturing curve.

This results from manufacturing dates being much earlier than the date they were deposited at a site (Adams 2002:75). According to the manufacturing curve, structure 1

172

TABLE 7.6. Quantity of Nails. Nail Type Count Percent Wire Nails 264 63% Cut Nails 153 37% TOTAL 417

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Wire Nails Cut Nails FIGURE 7. 48. Quantity of wire and cut nails.

300

250 Manufacture Date Mean Date of Manufacture 200 Time Sequence Analysis

150 Quantity

100

0 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 Year FIGURE 7.49. Comparison of time sequence data to mean date, nails.

173

on the Huddleston property, with approximately 37% machine cut nails, underwent a major construction event in approximately 1893. However, as mentioned,

15 to 20 years should be subtracted, according to Adams, for a more accurate date. This dated the renovation to between 1873 and 1878 (see Figure 7.50). This was around the time of John Huddleston‘s death, in 1877, and during a transition in the ownership of the farmstead.

Time sequence analysis of the nails provided an even more accurate prediction of the renovation and razing of structure 1. As Figure 7.49 illustrates, time sequence analysis shows the majority of the deposition occurred between 1880 and 1900. Due to the dramatic decrease in nail density within the deposits after this period, structure 1 was likely destroyed shortly after 1900.

Architectural group artifacts provided several clues to the construction, renovation, and destruction events of structure 1. Fluctuations in window glass quantities over time were used to identify construction episodes near 1840, 1870, and 1900. Adams

(2002) probability curve of cut nail percentages was used to identify a major construction event on structure 1 between 1873 and 1878. Time sequence analysis of window glass and nails strongly suggest structure 1 was razed in the first decade of the 20th century.

Charles Huddleston purchased the farmstead in 1906. Charles was likely responsible for razing structure 1.

174

37%

FIGURE 7.50. Courtesy of Adams 2002:72, the circle on the left side of redline indicates time period when renovation occurred to structure 1.

175

Window glass and nails demonstrate the usefulness of time sequence analysis.

Time sequence analysis was especially useful in linking specific landscape events and archaeological assemblages to particular households throughout family succession. At

Huddleston House, time sequence analysis was used to address this research topic.

Therefore, the time sequence analysis of the artifacts proved to be an excellent tool for linking household succession to changing landscapes and material conditions.

In conclusion, functional analysis of the artifacts recovered in the 2007 excavation showed that they are mainly architectural items and kitchen artifacts. Nails and window glass constitute the bulk of the architectural items. Ceramics can be generally defined as undecorated white bodied ware and stoneware. Personal items were rarely encountered.

Based on time sequence results, maintenance decline occurred in the rear yard during the

Levi and Henry Huddleston period of site occupation. Based on the context and materials deposited around structure 1, its eventual destruction occurred in the early 20th century.

176

CHAPTER 8 SECONDARY ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter exams secondary levels of archaeological analysis and interpretation.

First, the results of faunal analysis are discussed. Next, flatware and hollow ware ratios are re-examined in greater detail. Comparative ceramic economic scaling, and changes in ceramic preferences through time are also discussed. Further examination into the function of structure 1 is also presented. Finally, the concept of maintenance decline is examined. The results of this further inquiry allow for optimal contextual insight.

Specific answers to the research question are confidently answered through this analysis and interpretation. In addition this secondary analysis provides rich qualitative information. This information provides ―an aesthetic appreciation of and an empathy with the human condition‖ (Deagan 1982:155). A perspective sometimes lost in ―a view stressing economic production or belief systems painted with a broad brush‖(Brandon and Barile 2004:6) rather than one focusing on ―the practical actions of daily life‖(Prader

1993:114).

The faunal remains recovered from the Huddleston House excavation of 2007 were analyzed by Dr. S. Homes Hogue, biological anthropologist at Ball State University in May, 2009. The faunal remains were first identified and then weighed. The remains

177 were then grouped by decade level according to the dates resulting from the time sequence analysis.

The results were tabulated by number and weight, and then graphed according to the percentage of that weight to the total. Each decade was considered. Table 8.1 presents the inventory of the faunal remains by provenience. The results of the identification are displayed on Table 8.2-Table 8.4, as well as Figures 8.1 and 8.2.

Domesticated mammals were classified as mostly pork, but also cattle. Wild mammals were either deer, or other identifiable wild mammal species. Chickens and domesticated turkey represent the Domesticated Aves category. Wild aves species include either wild turkey, pheasant, or quail.

The most significant trend of the faunal analysis was a noticeable shift from both wild and domesticated faunal resources in the first two decades (1870 and 1880) to the complete absence of wild faunal remains in the 1890s. This would strongly suggest an exclusive reliance on domesticated species in the last decade of the century.

Interestingly, no transition in property ownership occurred during this time. However, this was the final decade of the Henry Huddleston occupation. Household size was relatively low. In addition, only two of nine Arms group artifacts were deposited in levels dating 1890s or later. This suggests that more hunting occurred prior to 1890. By the 1890s, Henry was becoming elderly and many of his sons had grown and moved away from the farmstead. Perhaps the residents of the Huddleston farmstead were hunting much less than had occurred in the previous decades. This would help to explain the dearth of Arms group artifacts and absence of wild faunal remains in the 1890s deposits.

178

This shift from a mixed subsistence strategy to one totally dependent on domesticated animal resources is particularly interesting considering the decade in which this shift occurred. In Chapter 6 when production commodities were discussed, it was noted that the Huddleston farm experienced a shift in production performance during the three decade survey. In the beginning of the 19th century, the Huddleston farm outperformed the average in crop production and livestock ownership. However, by the last year of the study, the Huddlesons produced an agricultural suite that was diverse, but not abundant (Figures 6.10 and 6.11). With such a small level of production, it is not likely that a surplus existed for sale to markets. The products of the farm, therefore, were most likely used solely by the household. This was a major shift in food production for the Huddleston farm. The shift from mixed, to exclusively domesticated faunal resource exploitation, was a similar trend. The agricultural census data correlates to the faunal assemblage due to the similar shift in food production and dietary preference in the final decade of the 19th century. These similar trends reinforced the validity of both data sets.

In addition, this information is extremely useful in the reconstruction of past foodways at the Huddleston House. Four independent lines of evidence are used to reconstruct the diet and dinning of the Huddleston household: agricultural census data, ceramic analysis, faunal remains, and also the landscape. The Huddleston household had a diet more diverse in meat dishes in the first half of the century. Both wild and domestic mammal species, as well as chicken and turkey were prevalent. Likewise, agricultural

179

TABLE 8.1. Faunal Remains by Provenience.

Unit Level Count Comments Surface Coll. 1 tooth Surface Coll. 1

1 1 1 1 tooth 1 2 9 2 teeth 1 3 5 1 tooth 1 3 2 F.1 Fill, 2 Teeth 2 2 8 2 teeth

2 3 5

3 1 1 tooth 4 2 4 5 2 7 5 3 4

5 4 1

6 2 5 6 3 2 8 1 1 burnt 8 3 1

9 2 1 fossilize d tooth 9 3 3 2 teeth 10 3 7 10 4 1 70 TOTAL

180

TABLE 8.2. Number and Weight for Each Decade Using Faunal Categories (courtesy of S. Homes Hogue).

Shell only

# 1

1860 Weight 1.13 Domestic Wild Unid Domestic Unid Mammal Mammal Mammal Aves Aves Unid Total

# 12 4 8 4 1 2 31 1870 Weight 31.52 11.89 4.07 1.58 0.28 0.52 49.86

Domestic Wild Unid Domestic Unid Mammal Mammal Mammal Aves Aves Unid Total

# 3 2 10 7 0 2 24 1880 Weight 5.42 2.97 7.37 2.32 0 0.62 18.7

Domestic Wild Unid Domestic Unid Mammal Mammal Mammal Aves Aves Unid Total

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1890 Weight 0.29 0 0.78 0 0 0 1.07

TABLE 8.3. Percentage of Bone Weight for all Faunal Categories (courtesy of S. Homes Hogue).

Domestic Wild Unid Mammal Mammal Mammal Domestic Aves Unid Aves Unid 1870 63.21 23.84 8.16 3.17 0.57 1.05 1880 28.98 15.88 39.41 12.41 0 3.32 1890 27.1 0 72.9 0 0 0

TABLE 8.4. Percentage of Bone Weight for Identified Fauna (courtesy

of S.Homes Hogue).

Domestic Mammal Wild Mammal Domestic Aves

1870 70.06 26.42 3.51 1880 50.61 27.73 21.66 1890 100 0 0

181

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1870 1880 1890

Domestic Mammal Wild Mammal UnidMammal Domestic Aves Unid Aves Unid

FIGURE 8.1. All faunal categories, based on weight %(courtesy of S.Homes Hogue ).

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1870 1880 1890

Domestic Mammal Wild Mammal Domestic Aves

FIGURE 8.2. Categories with identified fauna, based on weight % (courtesy of S.Homes Hogue).

182

products such as milk, butter, potatoes, corn, and oats were prevalent in the Huddleston diet. Because the farm was producing above average values, surplus for both the family and markets would have existed.

In the later decades, less farm surpluses and less diverse meat resources became the new trend. However, a diet with a heavy reliance on pork remained constant throughout. Wild resources supplemented the Huddleston diet in the early decades, but not in the later. Because such low agricultural surplus production occurred in the later decades of the Huddleston occupation, and overall wealth decreased through time, it is speculated that the overall diet of the Huddleston household became less diverse.

The dining habits of the Huddleston household are presented in the following section. In addition to determining the types of meals eaten by the Huddleston family, the manner in which they were prepared and served is of interest. As previously stated in

Chapter 7, a flat ware to hollow ware ratio was calculated using the ceramic sherds.

Table 8.5 and Figure 8.3 present this data. Nearly a 5:1 ratio of flatware to hollowware defines the collection.

Otto (1984) used this technique with the ceramics at Cannon‘s Point Plantation,

Georgia to study ethnicity, economic position, and status. Vessel form was used to interpret foodways. Ratios of flatware to bowl were recognized by Otto to be strongly influenced by ones social and economic status. The author found that the more affluent, the higher percentage of flat tableware (such as plates and serving platters) appeared in

183 the archaeological assemblage (Otto 1984). The reverse was also true. A disproportionate number of bowls reflected low economic status individuals. This pattern

30 Hollow Ware 20 Flat ware

0 Hollow Ware Flat ware FIGURE 8.3. Quantity of flat ware to hollow ware sherds.

TABLE 8.5. Hollow: Flatware. Hollow Ware Flat Ware Distinguishable Sherd Count 11 50

was recognized and reflected at many other sites (Deetz 1977; Baker 1980; Smith 1983,

Groover 2003). This phenomenon has been used to correlate vessel form to economics, diet and foodways. Consumption of meals from primarily bowls suggest a diet dominated by soups and stews, while an assemblage favoring flatware vessels suggests meals were served on plates, likely consisting of portioned meals rich in meat .

Therefore, the Huddleston family probably had a diet rich in pork, corn, potatoes, milk, and bread made from wheat. Meals were likely served and consumed on flatware vessels with milk and butter from the cow to spread on the bread. The meals would have been well seasoned with the fresh herbs that were grown just outside the kitchen door in

184 the herb garden. The smell of smoked pork would fill the air coming from the smokehouse.

Ceramics have also been used to interpret wealth and expenditure as well. George

Miller (1980, 1991) introduced an economic scaling system to discern relative wealth and also intra-site expenditure rates, for example between cups, plates, and bowls. He also created a set of values for ceramics based directly from potters‘ wholesale prices of the

17th, 18th, and 19th century (1980, 1991). Yentsch (1991:143) has argued that dependence on ceramic scaling ―de-emphasizes the role of women in colonial society‖.

However, the author does admit that these analytical methods can be used to elicit information about lifestyle, consumer choice, and resource allocation (Yentsch 1991).

Amy Earl et al. (1993) modified the system created by Miller into a four tiered system. This was used by Blanch (2006:166-8) in the analysis of Moore-Youse ceramics.

Table 8.6 compares the Huddleston House to the Moore-Youse ceramics

TABLE 8.6. Economic Huddleston Huddleston Huddleston Moore- Scaling (Earl et al. 1993). House, 2002 House, 2007 Hous e, Total Youse, 2006 (# / %) ( # / %) (# / %) (# / %) Tier 1 (lowest value 65 / 70% 307 / 87% 372 / 84% 238 / 71% ceramics/undecorated) Tier 2 (molded/ edge 21 / 23% 14 / 4% 35 / 8% 25 / 8% decorated) Tier 3 (painted ceramics) 3 / 3% 12 / 3.5% 15 / 3% 18 / 5%

Tier 4 (transfer-printed) 4 / 4% 20 / 5.5% 24 / 5% 58 / 18%

Directly comparing the 2007 ceramic assemblage to the Moore-Youse was somewhat problematic. To begin, the midden sampled in the 2007 Huddleston excavation associated with structure 1 dated to the final decades of the 19th century. The

185 absence of transfer-printed ceramics may be the result of the midden date. Transfer prints were most commonly used from the 1820s to the 1860s (Majewski and O‘Brien

1987:141-6). After that, transfer-prints became less prevalent and were replaced by decal decorated ceramics by the early 20th century (Wegars and Carley 1982:7). The midden associated with structure 1 at the Huddleston farmstead was dated to the second half of the 19th century, after transfer-printed ceramics lost popularity. Time sequence analysis of the Moore-Youse ceramic assemblage revealed that the deposits sampled there were most densely deposited in the 1850s to the 1870s (Blanch 2006:175). In addition, both shovel test pit and unit excavation data were considered in the Moore-Youse analysis

(Blanch 2006:106-111). Therefore, the 2002 shovel test pit data was re-examined in order to provide a more complete ceramic sample and more information regarding earlier ceramics not recovered from the structure 1 midden. The ceramics from the shovel test pits had more edge decorated and molded ceramics. However, very few tier three or tier four sherds were recovered (Zoll 2002). When combined, the 2002 and 2007 ceramics showed a very different distribution than the Moore-Youse assemblage.

When comparing the combined Huddleston ceramic assemblage to the Moore-

Youse, the Huddleston ceramics were not nearly as valuable as those recovered from the

Moore-Youse excavation. By separating the Huddleston House ceramics into categories based on decoration, much information was inferred. Clear patterns such as the distinct preference for undecorated vessels emerged. This was significant because it not only begged questions related to consumer choice and resource allocation, but was also used to examine compliance and conformity to religious ideals. The Huddlestons were Quakers.

The dearth of lavishly decorated or expensive ceramics suggests that the outward

186 expression of plainness was important to maintaining their identity as Quakers.

Likewise, the frequency of ironstone, with its durable qualities, suggests that ceramics were selected and preferred according to practicality, not luxury.

Another factor to bear in mind when considering the value of the Huddleston ceramic assemblage is economics. Perhaps ideology had an important role in determining the choices the Huddleston family made concerning ceramic preference and purchase. However, practicality and frugality should not be overlooked. Market access would have made for a variety of choices. The Huddleston House is in the small town of

Mt. Auburn, but plenty of ceramics would have been available for purchase. Perceived geographic isolation is not the same as commercial isolation, (Adams 1927:3; Boorstin

1958:107; Baugher and Venables 1985:33) and therefore, it should be assumed that the

Huddleston household had a variety of ceramics from which to choose. Market access had more to do with economics and social factors than location (McCusker and Menard

1986:303). Although the ceramic assemblage shows a strong preference toward undecorated and least expensive items, it should not be directly assumed that this was due exclusively to Quaker plainness. In addition to ideology, economics should also be considered a determining factor regarding ceramic choice. Recall that the decades from which the majority of the artifacts were deposited were summarized by increased economic hardships. This was true both at the household and global scale. The

Huddleston family suffered economic decline during the final decades of the 19th century as demonstrated by agricultural census and tax records. The 1890s witnessed global economic depression with the Panic of 1890 and 1893. This brought about widespread business failure, high unemployment, strikes, and extreme financial disorder (Hoffman

187

1970; Whitten 2001). For farm families like the Huddlestons, conditions were especially difficult (Whitten 2001). Examination of the refined ceramic assemblage reflects these economic hardships.

The large frequency of ironstone in the 1870‘s and 1880‘s deposits reflects a clear preference. Ironstone was an expensive ceramic with many indexes ranking it near or equal to some transfer printed whiteware in value (Freeman 1954; Miller 1980; Cook

1982; Spencer-Wood 1984; McBride and McBride 1987). Despite having few expensively decorated items, the Huddleston family owned many high-quality items that were plain in appearance. Moreover, careful observation of the time sequence data reveals an interesting pattern with regard to the ironstone distribution. As Figure 8.4,

Figure 8.5, and Table 8.7 indicate, ironstone is the most prevalent ceramic in 1880.

However, from 1880 to 1890 the number of ironstone sherds dramatically drops.

Ironstone is replaced with whiteware as the refined ceramic tableware of choice. The decrease in ironstone deposits coincides with the decrease in Huddleston wealth in the last decades of the 19th century. This high level of congruence between the archaeological and documentary record demonstrate the importance and necessity of both. Also, the evidence strongly suggests a link between specific archaeological assemblages and household succession.

Therefore, the ability to identify the specific household most responsible for the deposition of artifacts was successful. Most successful, however, was the ability to rule out the early household as the main contributor to the archaeological deposits. The archaeological assemblage from the 2007 excavation was most likely associated with the middle phase of the Huddleston period. As previously mentioned, it was during this time

188 that the family experienced economic decline both in wealth and commodities production. A mixed subsistence strategy, in which both wild and domestic faunal resources were exploited, shifted to exclusive reliance on domestic animals. A change in ceramic preference occurred between 1880 and 1890 as well.

300

Stoneware 250 Redware Yellowware Porcelain 200 Pearlware Semi-Porcelain Whiteware 150 WBW TOTAL CERAMICS

100

0 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920

FIGURE 8.4. Time sequence analysis of ceramics.

189

TABLE 8.7. TSA of Whiteware to Ironstone. 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 Whiteware 0 2 1 18 73 19 0 Ironstone(WBW) 0 0 1 135 70 0 0

140

120

Whiteware 100 Ironstone

0 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900

FIGURE 8.5. Time sequence comparison of whiteware to ironstone.

190

Decline was also visible on the landscape. In addition to the deteriorated condition of the smokehouse which was reconstructed in 1977, structure 1 fell into disrepair and eventually was razed. Increased density of architectural group artifacts according to time sequence analysis suggests structure 1 was razed in the late 1890s to the early 1900s. In addition, time sequence dating of the other archaeological deposits confirms that they were deposited in the later occupation periods. As previously mentioned, John Huddleston operated a store and inn for National Road travelers. In an attempt to generate business, John Huddleston would have presumably sought to keep things tidy around the farm. With frequent people in and out, and a household numbering as many as 11, it would have been more necessary to segregate waste. This is a likely reason for the absence of early phase deposits in the sample area around structure 1. As previously mentioned, the artifacts suggest that Structure 1 was probably an outdoor kitchen or was used to quarter guests. Leslie Stewart-Abernathy has written about the dual function of many outdoor kitchen s in the South. African-American slaves were often forced to use kitchens as dwellings (Stuart-Abernathy in Barlie and Brandon

2004:61) If this dual function were true of the Huddleston House structure 1, then it would help to explain the dearth of items recovered from the early phase. It is probable that travelers made a light footprint on the landscape, leaving behind little evidence of their presence. Couple this with the notion that refuse and waste was segregated to keep the area clean for guests, and the lack of dense early phase deposits becomes very reasonable.

Structure 1began to serve the needs of the household directly and exclusively as time progressed. After John died and Henry began operating the farm, he made several

191

renovations in an effort to imprint his own personality on his surroundings. In addition,

travelers and guests did not frequent the farmstead as they had done in the past.

As a result, less attention was paid to upkeep and repairs. Refuse was more

liberally strewn about, the accumulation of which resulted in the archaeological record.

In addition, Figure 8.6 is a photograph taken near the turn of the century. Notice the ivy

growing up the side of the house. The white paint has chipped away from the brick

exterior and the shutters are no long attached.

This photograph typifies the state of the farmstead during the middle and late

phases. The farm was no longer extremely profitable. Wealth, agricultural production,

and general property maintenance were declining during this time. At this same time

FIGURE 8.6. Photograph taken in the late 1890s (courtesy of Wayne County Assessor).

192 ceramic and dietary changes also occurred, according to archaeological evidences.

Therefore, Chapter 8 has combined the bulk of the research into meaningful statements about the Huddleston House throughout the nearly century long family occupation. The evidence suggests the Huddleston family experienced decline in wealth throughout the 19th century that carried over into other facets of their lives. In conclusion, this interpretation is used in Chapter 9 to readdress research questions, make recommendations, and comment on perceived contributions of this research.

193

CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION

The research presented here attempted to answer questions pertaining to articulation of households to the larger global system, and how visible this articulation is in the archaeological record at the household level. Simply stated, John Huddleston and his heirs were indeed heavily engaged in the world economy. This level of aggressive involvement in the global economy (at least in the agricultural commodities sector) began to steadily decrease. The later generations did not sell surplus crops, and were almost completely reliant on domesticated animals for food, much of which had to be purchased.

This trend is opposite of the local sample which continued to increase in wealth and commodities production.

The Huddleston family was engaged in the production of numerous agricultural activities including corn, oats, wheat, and potatoes. Likewise, this level of production fluctuated through time, as did the design of the house lot and landscape. Furthermore, careful analysis of the artifacts provides archaeological evidence that directly links assemblages to specific households.

Using multiple spatial and temporal scales to analyze the evidence, optimal insight was gained. From a world systems perspective, core/ periphery relationships were established with Indiana operating as member of the periphery at this time, in which

194 extractive industries defined land use practices. The Huddleston family paralleled this trend. However, the level of congruence fluctuated over time. In the early phase of the

Huddleston site occupation (1840‘s-1860s), the farmstead is producing mass quantities of surplus agricultural products while ―The Jeffersonian ideal of a predominantly agrarian democracy was realized by the Hoosiers during the pre-Civil War decade‖(Carter 1946:

108). The other members of the community were producing only small quantities at this point. Curiously, when the local trend reflects greater surplus production, the Huddleston family was engaged in subsistence level agriculture. This illustrated an opposite trend than the local community. Therefore, the Huddleston family deviates significantly from the local trend.

Contributions

This thesis provides a number of positive contributions to farmstead archaeology.

Foremost, the thesis adds to the current state of knowledge pertaining to several academic subjects such as: the local economic history, agricultural trends, and artifact patterning.

In addition to academic contributions, the thesis can be used as a tool to better inform the public.

The research design outlined in this thesis lends itself to comparative analysis between other historic sites. Because of the diachronic dimension of the Huddleston farmstead, comparisons of numerous temporal associations can also be made.

Furthermore, information obtained through agricultural census, tax records, and probate information presented in this thesis can easily be used as a comparative database for further research.

195

In addition to the comparative potential, the thesis also contributes to the current state of knowledge for farmstead archaeology in the Indiana and the Midwest. Very few east-central Indiana historic farmsteads have been investigated archaeologically.

Therefore, this thesis contributes greatly to the understanding of 19th century Indiana economic trends, foodways, and life. Because the property is listed on the National

Register of Historic Places, and is maintained and managed as a museum, the thesis will contribute to public education. Thesis results and conclusions will also be forwarded to administrative officials and curators at the Huddleston farmstead. This data can then be used to more accurately inform the public.

Recommendations

Due to the sensitive nature of the cultural deposits still unexamined at Huddleston

House, future construction and landscaping should only be done after consultation with a qualified professional archaeologist. Archaeological sampling suggests more undisturbed deposits exist on the property. The role of the Huddleston House as a museum allows for protection of those cultural resources, meaning extensive excavation in the near future is neither urgent nor desired.

Due to the minimally invasive nature of pedestrian transect reconnaissance; the cultivated field directly south of the house lot should be sampled. This is the area known to be used as a wagon yard and campground for guests. Moreover, with only a modicum of ground surface visibility, the area could be relatively quickly and easily surveyed to

196 assess the presence or absence of cultural materials. In addition, the area along the railroad could be closely examined to locate foundations of former buildings.

197

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, James T. 1927 Provincial Society, 1690-1763, MacMillan, New York.

Adams, William Hampton 1990 Landscape Archaeology, Landscape History, and the American Farmstead. Historical Archaeology. Vol. 24 No. 4 pp. 92-101. 2002 Machine Cut Nails and Wire Nails: American Production and Use for Dating 19th Century and Early 20th Century Sites. Historical Archaeology. Vol. 36, No. 4 pp.66-88.

Aldrich, S.R., W.O. Scott, and RG. Hoeft. 1986. Modern Corn Production,3rd edition. A & L Publications, Champaign, Illinois.

Ankli, Robert Eugene 1969 Gross Farm Revenue in Pre-Civil War Illinois. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Illinois. Champaign.

Atack, Jeremy and Fred Bateman. 1987 To Their Own Soil: American Agriculture in the Antebellum North. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Bailey, Daniel N. 2003 Material Culture of the Quakers of Rural Southeastern Pennsylvania during the Eighteenth Century: An Archival and Archaeological Study, M.A. Thesis. Penn State University. State College, Pennsylvania.

Bailey, Daniel N. 2004 Plain People or Fancy Friends?: Interpreting a Quaker Farmstead Site in Chester. Paper presented at The 75th Annual Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology.

198

Baker, Vernon G. 1980 Archaeological Visibility of Afro-American Culture: An example from Black Lucy‘s Garden, Andover, Massachusetts. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicy in America. R.L Shchuyler, editor. Baywood Publishing, New York, Pp. 29-38.

Barile, Kerri and Jamie Brandon 2004 Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Barber, Russell J. and Frances F. Berdan 1998 The Emperor’s Mirror: Understanding Culture through Primary Sources. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Baugher, Sherene and Robert W. Venables 1987 Ceramics as Indicators of Status and Class in Eighteenth Century New York., in Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne Spencer-Wood pp. 31-51. Bigham, Darrel E. 2001 Indiana Territory: A Bicentenial Perspective. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Bintliff, John 1991 The Annales School and Archaeology. New York University Press, Washington Square, New York.

Blanch, Christina L. 2006 Because of Her Victorian Upbringing: Gender Archaeology at the Moore-Youse House. Master‘s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.

Boorstin, Daniel 1958 The Americas: The Colonial Experience, Random House, New York.

Braudel, Fernand 1971 The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II. Collins, London, England. 1974 Capitalism and Material Life, 1400-1800. Harper and Row, New York. 1977 Afterthoughts on Material Civilization and Capitalism. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 1981 The Structure of Everyday Life: The Limits of the Possible. Harper and Row, New York.

199

Brown, Marley 1987 Archaeology and Social History of the Jacob Mott Family, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, 1640–1800. Doctoral dissertation, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Burns, Lee 1919 The National Road in Indiana. Indiana Historical Society Publications, VII(1919), 209-37

Cabak, Melanie, Mark D. Groover, Scott J. Wagers 1995 Health Care and the Wayman A.M.E. Church. Historical Archaeology. Vol.29 No. 2 pp. 55-76. Carter, Harvey L. 1946 Rural Indiana in Transition, 1850-1860. Agricultural History, Vol. 20, No. 2 pp. 107-121.

Collard, E. 1967 Nineteenth Century Pottery and Porcelain in Canada. McGill University Press, Montréal.

Crumrin, Timothy 1994 Road through the Wilderness: The Making of the National Road. Previously published in The Magazine of the Midwest Open-Air Museum Coordinating Council. http://www.connerprairie.org/historyonline/ntlroad.html

Danhof, Clarence H. 1941 Change in Agriculture: The Northern United States, 1820-1870. Oxford University Press, London.

Dark, Keith R. 1995 Theoretical Archaeology. Duckworth Publishing, London.

Deagan, Kathleen 1982 Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol.5 Michael B. Shiffer, editor, pp. 151:177. Academic Press, New York.

Deetz, James 1977 In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life, Double Day, New York.

200

Earl, Amy C., Patrick L. O‘Neill, Dennis Williams, Christopher Lintz, W.Nicholas Trierweiler, J. Michael Qigg, Gus Hamblet, Abby C. Treece, and Dan Scurlock 1993 Cultural Resource Investigations in O.H. Ivie Reservoir. Concho, Coleman, and Runnel Counties, Texas. Volume V: Historical Resources. Report to Colorado River Municipal Water District, from Marian Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

Edwards, Jay D. and Tom Wells 1993 Historic Louisiana Nails: Aids to the Dating of Old Buildings. The Fred B. Kniffen Cultural Resource Laboratory Monograph Series, No.2. Geoscience Publications, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisianna State University, Baton Rouge.

Elliot, J. R. 1890 American Farms: Their Condition and Future. G. P. Putnam‘s Son‘s, New York.

Evolution of the Huddleston Farm. (EHF) n. d. Unpublished Huddleston House archives pamphlet

Fishlow, Albert 1985 Lessons from the Past: Capital Markets During the Nineteenth Century and the Interwar Period. International Organization, 39 (30: 383-439).

Fontana, B. L. and J. C. Greenleaf 1962 Johnny Ward‘s Ranch. Kiva 28 (1-2).

Ford, Ben 2008 The Presentation of Self in Rural Life: The Use of Space at a Connected Farm. Historical Archaeology 42 (4):59-74.

Freeman, L. 1954 Ironstone China. Century House, Watkins Glen, New York.

Gibb, James and David J. Bernstein and Stephen Zipp 2009 Farm and Factory: Agricultural Production Strategies and the Cheese and Butter Industry. Historical Archaeology 43(2): 84-108.

Gosdon, Chris 2004 Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

201

Groover, Mark D. 2001 Linking Artifact Assemblages to Household Cycles: An Example from the Gibbs Site. Historical Archaeology 35(4): 38-57. 2003 An Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism: The Gibbs Farmstead in Southern Appalachia, 1790-1920. Plenum Publishers, New York. 2004 House Succession as a Catalyst of Landscape Change. Historical Archaeology. 38(4): 25-42. 2007a Architectural Archaeology at Huddleston Farmstead. Paper presented at 2007 Midwest Archaeological Conference, Notre Dame, IN. 2007b Excavation of Huddleston Farmhouse. May-June 2007 2008 The Archaeology of North American Farmsteads. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 2009 Exploring Hoosier Material Culture: Landscape and Architectural Archaeology at the Moore-Youse House and Huddleston Farmstead. 4(1,2): 162-179.

Heiss, Willard C, 1962 Abstracts of the Records of the Society of Friends in Indiana, Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Henry, S.L. and P.H. Garrow 1982 Ceramic Type Description. In City of Phoenix: Archaeological Investigation of the Original Townsite. Soil System Publications in Archaeology No. 1 pp. 181- 382.

Hoffman, Charles 1970 The Depression of the Nineties, An Economic History. Greenwood Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.

Hoxie, Frederick E. 1996 Encyclopedia of North American Indians. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. Horn, James P. 1988 The Bare Necessities: Standards of Living in England ant the Chesapeake. Historical Archaeology 22(2):74-91.

Hounshell, David A. (1984), From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States, Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press

202

Huddleston Family Records 1829-1930 2005. Processed by Kathryn Wilmont. Manuscript and Visual Collections Department. William Henry Smith Memorial Library. Collection #M 0854, BV 3527, OM 0424 Indiana Historical Society.

Huddleston, B. J. n.d. Huddleston Farmhouse. http://www.huddleston.ourfamily.com/farmhouse.html

Huddleston, John 1837 Monsters of Iniquity. Indiana State Library.

Hunnicutt, Sara 2007 North Carolina Quakers in Indiana: Historical Context of the Huddleston Farmstead. Paper presented at 2007 Midwest Archaeological Conference, Notre Dame, IN.

Jugenheimer, R. W. 1985 Corn Improvement, Seed Production, and Uses. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida.

Knapp, A. Bernard 1992 Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Koepple, Christopher n.d. Farmstead Archaeology. Pamplet distributed by Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology.

Kondratieff, N. D. 1979 The Long Waves in Economic Lives, Review 2:519-562.

Lamberg-Karlovshy, C.C. 1985 Archaeology: The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia. American Anthropologist 87 (30): 727-728.

Lofstrom, E., J. P. Tordoff, and D. C. George 1982 A Seriation of Historic Earthenwares of the Midwest, 1780-1870. The Minnesota Archaeologist 41(1): 3-29.

Laswell, Jeff 2008. Functional Analysis of Probate Inventories and Archaeological Inventories and Archaeological Material of the Lick Creek Community An Antebellum Midwest

203

Biracial Community. Master‘s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

Leone, Mark P. and Parker B. Potter, Jr. 1988 The Recovery of Meaning in Historical Archaeology in the Easter United States. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington , D.C. 1999 Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Leone, Mark P., James M. Harmon, Stephen D. Prince, and Marcia Snyder 2006 LiDAR for Archaeological Landscape Analysis: A Case Study of Two Eighteenth Century Maryland Plantation Sites,. American Antiquity, 71:4:649- 670.

Lofstrom, E., J. P. Tordoff, and D. C. George 1982 A Seriation of Historic Earthenwares of the Midwest, 1780-1870. The Minnesota Archaeologist 41(1): 3-29.

Little, Barbara J. 1992 Text-Aided Archaeology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O‘Brien 1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth Century English and American Ceramicsin Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 11, edited by Michael B. Shiffer, pp. 97-209. Academic Press. New York. McCusker, John J. and Menard, Randall R.. 1986 The Economy of British America, 1607-1789. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

McGregor, John R and Richard Eric Cline 2001 Western Indiana Examples of Small Community Impacts of the Mid-Nineteenth Century Industrial Transition. The Great Lakes Geographer 8(1):1-15.

McMurry, S. 1995 Transforming Rural Life: Dairying Families and Agricultural Change, 1820-1885. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore.

Michael, Ronald L. 1975 Construction of National Road Bed: Historical and Archaeological Evidence. Bulletin of the Associaltion for Preservation Technology 7 (4 ):50-55.

204

Miller, George 1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology, 14: 1-41 1991 A Revised Sett of CC index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25 (1):1-25.

Moir, Randall W. 1987 Socioeconomic and Chronometric Patterning of Window Glass. In: Historic Buildings , Material Culture, and the People of the Prairie Margin, David H. Jurney and Randall Moir, editors, pp 83-96. Richland Creek Technical Series. Vol. V. Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Archaeological Research Program, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.

Nation, Richard F. 2005 At Home in the Hoosier Hills: Agriculture, Politics, and Religion in Southern Indiana, 1810-1870. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana. O‘Donnell, Darby 2002. For Profit and Function : Consumption Patterns and Outward Expression of Quakers as Seen Through Historical Documentation and 18th Century York County, Virginia Probate Inventories, Master‘s. Thesis College of William and Mary.

Orser, Charles E. Jr. 1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. Plenum Press, New York.

Orser, C. E. and Brian M. Fagan 1995 Historical Archaeology. Harper Collins, New York.

Otto, James S. 1984 Cannon‘s Point Plantation 1794-1860: Living Conditions and Status Patterns in the Old South. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Pader, Ellen J. 1993 Spatiality and Social Change: Domestic Space in Mexico and the United State. America Ethnologist. 20(1):114-137. Parker William N. 1988 Quantification in American Agricultural History, 1850-1910: A Re-Examination . Agricultural History, 62(3) Quantitative Studies in Agrarian History: 113-132.

Pickering, Paul A. and Alex Tyrrell 2000 The Peoples Bread: A History of the Anti-Corn Law League. Leicester University Press, London.

Pruden, Henry O. 1978 The Kondratieff Wave. The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 2 No.2 pp. 62-70.

205

Reed, Thomas J. 1972 National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form. United States Department of the Interior, National Parks Service.

Rafert, Stewart, 1996 The Miami Indians of Indiana, Indianan University Press, Bloomington.

Rahn, Kristen 2004 Home Excavation Opens Window on Quaker Past. http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13181675&BRD=2243&PAG=4 61&dept_id=451163&rfi=6

Raitz, Karl 1996 The National Road: Creating the North American Landscape, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. The Richmond Palladium-Item 1930 January 4, 1930. Microfilm on file, Bracken Library, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.

1930b January 13, 1930. Microfilm on file, Bracken Library, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.

Richmond, Jerry 1995 Quaker Customs and Beliefs. Fidonet Genealogy Conference, 1995. Russell, Elbert 1942 The History of Quakerism. MacMillan, New York.

Rosenburg, Nathan 1976. On technological expectations. Economic Journal 86 (September): 523—535.

Rotman, Deborah, Rachel Mancini, Aaron Smith, and Elizabeth Campbell 1998 African-American and Quaker Farmers in East Central Indiana: Social, Political, and Economic Aspects of Life in Nineteenth-Century Rural Communities. Report to Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, INDOT, from Archaeological Resources Management Services, Ball State University, Muncie.

Rudolf, L.C. 1995 Hoosier Faiths: A History of Indiana’s Churches and Religious Groups. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Samford, Patricia M. 1990 The Bates Site: Investigation of a Quaker Merchant. Colonial Williamsburg Research Division.

206

Samuel, Bill 1999 Distribution of Quakers in the U.S.- http://www.quakerinfo.com/quak_us.shtml

Sasser, Ray 1977 Huddleston Farmhouse Inn Museum Archeology Interim Report. Report to Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, Wayne County, from Society of Professional Archeologist, Ball State University, Muncie.

Smith, Samuel D. 1983 Excavation of a Mid-Nineteenth Century Trash Pit, Wynewood State Historic Site, Sumner County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 8(2): 133-181.

So, Alvin 1990 Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency, and World Systems Theories. Sage Publications, London.

Solomou, Solomos 1986 Non-Balanced Growth and Kondretieff Waves in the World Economy. The Journal of Economic History. Vol. 46, No. 1 pp. 165-169.

South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Stelle, Leland J. 2001 An Archaeological Guide to Historic Artifacts of the Upper Sangamon Basin, Central Illinois, Parkland College, Champaign, Illinois.

Sutton, Mark Q. and Brooke S. Arkush 2009 Archaeology: Laboratory Methods, 5th Addition. Kendall Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, Iowa.

Stoianovich, T. 1976 French Historical Method: The Annales paradigm. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Strezewski, M. 2004 An Archaeological Survey of the Thiebud Property in Switzerland County., Indiana University/ Purdue University at Ft.Wayne.

207

Stuart-Abernathy, Leslie 2004 Separate Kitchens and Intimate Archaeology: Constructing Urban Slavery on the Antebellum Cotton Frontier in Washington, Arkansas In Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing on the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology, edited by Kerri S. Barile and Jamie C. Brandon, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 51-74.

Tolles, Frederick B. 1963 Meeting House and CountingHouse; The Quaker Merchants of Colonial Philadelphia 1682-1763.. W. W.Norton, New York.

Trigger, Bruce 1978 Handbook Of North American Indians. Northeast. Vol.15. Smithsonian, Washington.

United States Bureau of the Census (USBC) 1820 The Third Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State Archives, Indianapolis. 1840 The Sixth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library, Richmond 1850 The Seventh Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State Archives, Indianapolis. 1850b The Seventh Census of the United States. Schedule 4. Production of Agriculture, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State Archives, Indianapolis. 1860 The Eighth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library, Richmond 1860b The Eighth Census of the United States. Schedule 3. Production of Agriculture, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State Archives, Indianapolis.

208

1870 The Ninth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library, Richmond 1870b The Ninth Census of the United States. Schedule 2. Production of Agriculture, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State Archives, Indianapolis. 1880 The Tenth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library, Richmond. 1880b The Tenth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State Archives, Indianapolis. 1900 The Twelfth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library, Richmond 1910 The Thirteenth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library, Richmond 1920 The Fourteenth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library, Richmond 1930 The Fifteenth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library, Richmond

Vanderstel, David 1985 Native Americans in Indiana: Resistance and Removal, Conner Prairie Interpretive Resource Manual.

Wallerstein, Immanuel 1974 The Modern World System, Vol. I. Academic Press, New York. 1980 The Modern World System, Vol. II. Academic Press, New York 1984 Long Waves as Capitalist Process. Review 7:559:575 1989 The Modern World System, Vol. III. Academic Press, New York.

Wayne County Archives (WCA) Wayne County Land Patent Book 1820-1821 on file, Office of Wayne County Recorder, Richmond.

209

Wayne County Transfer Books (WCTB) 1840-1845 WCTB, Wayne County: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond. 1846-1850 WCTB, Jackson Township: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond. 1841-1855 WCTB, Jackson Township: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond. 1856-1860 WCTB, Jackson Township: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond. 1861-1865 WCTB, Jackson Township: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond. 1866-1870 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond. 1871-1875 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond. 1876-1880 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1881-1885 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1886-1890 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1881-1895 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1896-1900 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1901-1905 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1906-1910 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1911-1915 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1916-1920 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1921-1925 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1926-1930 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1931-1935 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond

210

1936-1940 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1941-1945 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1946-1950 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1951-1955 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1956-1960 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1961-1965 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond 1966-1970 WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor, Richmond

Wayne County Will and Probate Books (WCWPB) 1877 Will of John Huddleston, WCWPB, Vol: H, on file Office of Wayne County Clerk, Richmond. 1892 Will of Susannah Huddleston, Manuscript and Visual Collections Department. William Henry Smith Memorial Library. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. 1913 Will of Henry Huddleston, WCWPB, Vol: H, on file Office of Wayne County Clerk, Richmond.

Wayne County Genealogical Society 2009 Family History Library, located Educational Building, St. John Lutheran Church.. anonymous primary documents, Richmond.

Wayne County Interim Report 2001 Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. Historic Landmarks of Indiana.

Wilson, Samuel 1990 Hispaniola: The Chiefdom of the Caribbean in the Early Years of European Contact, University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa.

Wood, Suzanne M. 1984 Status, Occupation, and Ceramic Indices: A Nineteenth Century Comparative Analysis, Man in the Northeast 28:87-110. 1987 Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, Plenum Press, New York.

211

Vanderstel, David 1985 Native Americans in Indiana: Resistance and Removal, Conner Prairie Interpretive Resource Manual.

Weeks 1896 Southern Quakers and Slavery: A Study in Institutional History. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Wegars, P., and C. D. Carley 1982 The Very Latest Date Range: Design Trends in Twentieth Century Ceramics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Philadelphia.

Whitten, David 2001 Depression of 1893. EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaple, August 14, 2001, URL http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whitten.panic.1893.

Wilmot, Kathryn M. 2005 Huddleston Family Records, ca 1829-1930. Processed by Kathryn M. Wilmot on file at Indiana Historical Society William Henry Smith Memorial Library, Manuscript and Visual Collection Department, collection number M 0854, BV 3527, 0M 0424 File 1-10.

Wilson, John S. 1990 We’ve Got Thousands of These Things! What Makes an Historic Farmstead Significant? Historical Archaeology. Vol. 24 No.2 pp. 23-33.

Wilson, William E. 1966 Indiana, A History. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Worthy, L. 1982 Classificaton and Interpretation of Late Nineteenth Century and Early Twentieth Century Ceramics. In Archaeology of Urban America: The Search for Pattern and Process, edithed by R.S. Dickens, Jr. Academic Press, New York

Yentsch, Ann 1991 Engendering Visible and Invisible Ceramics Artifact, Especially Dairy Vessels. Historical Archaeology 25(4): 132-155

Van Zanden, J.L.

212

1991 The First Green Revolution: The Growth of Production and Productivity in European Agriculture, 1870-1914. Economic History Review, XLIV 2 (1991) pp. 215-239.

Young, L. J. 2000 Production Agriculture Verses the Environment. Great Plains Research, 10 (1):85-101.

Young, Andrew 1872 History of Wayne County, Indiana, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Zoll, Mitch 2002 Huddleston Farmhouse Inn Archaeological Field Reconnaissance. Report to Historic Landmarks Foundation, Wayne County, from Archaeological Resources Management Services, Ball State University, Muncie.

213

APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL REPORT

The 2007 National Road historical archaeology field school was conducted at Huddleston House (12-Wy-10) in May and June of 2007 under the supervision of Dr. Mark Groover. The objectives of the excavation included investigating the dense midden identified in the 2002 shovel probe survey (Zoll 2002), identify the location, size, form, and function of a former outbuilding, and recover and identify related material culture encountered during excavation.

Investigating the midden feature identified during the 2002 survey was the initial step in the 2007 excavation. The location and density of each shovel probe tests was plotted on an artifact density diagram. Figure A.1 indicates a large area of high density probes. Although several shovel probes contained artifacts, the majority of high density probes were concentrated in one area. Armed with this information, the field crew strategically placed ten (10) test units.

A large dressed limestone foundation with intact bricks was discovered. The structure was referred to as Structure 1. In addition, a fence post was discovered during excavation. Therefore, the excavation results are discussed in this section.

UNIT 1: N426/W80 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)

Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association (LbB2). In the northwest quadrant of the unit a wood ash deposit and soil disturbance were present. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, brick, mortar, and bone were all recovered from Level 1. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Level 1 is 1880.

Level 2- Level 2 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association (LbB2). Slight gray soil modeling was noted. The brown clay loam is lighter in color relative to Level 1. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, nail, brick, and mortar were all recovered from Level 1. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Level 2 is 1888.

Level 3-The soil in Level 3 begins to change from dark brown loam to light tan clayey loam. Large architectural items such as brick fragments were especially present throughout the north half of the unit. Ceramics, curved glass, nails, flat glass, metal, mortar, and bone were also

214 recovered in level three. One sherd of blues shell edged embossed pearlware was recovered from Level 3. Limestone fragments were found at the base of level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within Level 3 is 1888.

Feature 1: Feature 1 was located in Unit 1 and consisted of a posthole containing a wooden locust post from a former fence line. Feature 1 was located in the northwest quadrant of Unit 1, the center point of which lying approximately 1‘ south of the north wall and 0.7‘ east of the west wall. The post measured approximately .3‘ (3.5 in) in diameter. The top of the post was less than 0.1‘ below the ground surface and extended 2.3‘ into the posthole. The southern half of the posthole fill from Feature 1was excavated to a depth of 2 feet below the base of level 3. The fill excavated from the southern half of the posthole of Feature 1 was approximately 1.2‘ in diameter east to west. Among the fill in the posthole were several rocks and brick fragments. Dark brown clay loam describes the soil fill throughout the feature.

UNIT 2: N 426/ W 86 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)

Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association (LbB2). Pieces of mortar, a feather, coal slag, and a percussion cap were among artifacts contained within Level 1. However, an insufficient amount of time sensitive artifacts were recovered from level 1, therefore a mean artifact date was not calculated.

Level2- The dark brown clay loam described in level1continued throughout level 2. Ceramics, curved glass, flat glass, break, mortar, nails, and bone were recovered from level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a level 2 is 1888.

Level 3- A similar dark brown clay loam described in levels 1 and 2 was encountered in level, as well. In addition, a light tan colored clay loam subsoil was encountered in Level 3.Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, nails, brick, mortar, and bone were all recovered from Level 3. Observed disturbances within Level 3 consist of several tree roots. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a level 3 is 1889.

UNIT 3: N447/ W 89 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)

Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association (LbB2). The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, brick, mortar, and several pieces of limestone foundation rubble were all recovered from Level 1. In addition, the several pieces of limestone

215 predicted the presence of probable feature. Tree roots were noted throughout, but most severe in the southeast quadrant. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Level 1 is 1895.

Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground surface, respectively. Several large limestone foundation stones were discovered in Unit 3 Level 2, this feature was labeled, Feature 2, Structure 1. Ceramics, curved glass, flat glass, break, mortar and limestone foundation rubble were recovered from level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a level 2 is 1909.

Level 3- Feature 2 Structure 1 which was identified in Level 2 became more clearly defined following the removal of the soil from Level 3. The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface, respectively. A light tan colored clay loam subsoil was encountered in Level 3. Flat glass, brick, mortar, and nails were recovered from Level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Level 3 is 1862.

Level 4: Feature 2 Structure 1 which was identified in Level 2 became very clearly defined following the removal of Levels 3 and Level 4. The beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6 feet below ground surface to 0.8 feet below ground surface, respectively. A similar dark brown clayey loam soil was contained throughout Level 3 which was described earlier. Brick, mortar, limestone, coal, and burnt wood were contained within Level 4. Level 4 lacked time sensitive artifacts; therefore a mean artifact date was not determined.

Feature 2, Structure 1-Several large limestone foundation stones were discovered in Unit 3. Feature 2, Structure 1 consists of three (3) large limestone foundation blocks measuring: 1) 1.0‘x 0.7‘, 2) 1.1‘ x 0.6‘, and 3) 1.0‘ x 0.9‘. Several smaller pieces of limestone rubble are also present. In addition, stones of various varieties associated with the foundation are present throughout. The three (3) large foundation stones contained within Unit 3 are primarily located in the southeast quadrant of the Unit 3, but extend at least slightly into all four quadrants of the unit.

UNIT 4: N447/ W 80 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)

Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association (LbB2) similar to that previously described. Humus was also found in Level 1. The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, bricks, mortar, and nails were recovered from Level 1. The possible continuation of Feature 2, Structure 1 was noted in the southern half of Unit 4 due to large amounts of construction rubble. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 4 Level 1 was 1886.

Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. In addition, Level 2 consisted of destruction/rubble zone associated with Feature 2, Structure 1. The

216 fill contained brick and limestone rubble with mortar, nails, and window glass. The beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground surface, respectively. The suspected continuation of Feature 2, Structure 1 noted in Level 1 was confirmed by large limestone foundation stones encountered at a depth of 0.3 feet below ground surface in Level 2. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, and nails were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 4 Level 2 was 1881

Level 3- The dark brown clay loam integrated with a destruction/rubble zone associated with Feature 2, Structure 1, described in Unit 4, Level 1 and Level 2 continued throughout Level 3. A light tan colored clay loam subsoil was encountered at the base of Level 3. The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface, respectively. Two large roots were observed running in a perpendicular direction (N-S) to the foundation stones (E-W). Flat glass, bricks, mortar, and nails were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 4 Level 3 was 1873.

Feature 2, Structure 1 – Several large limestone foundation stones associated with Feature 2, Structure 1. The foundation stones trend in an east-to-west direction within Unit 4 and consist of 3 large stones and several smaller fragments. The largest of the 3 limestone foundation stones measures 1.1‘x 0.85‘. It is located in the southeast quadrant of Unit 4, 0.2‘ west of the east wall and 0.85‘ north of the south wall. The remaining 2 large foundation stones appear in the southwest quadrant of Unit 4. The centerline of the foundation within the unit trends approximately 1.3‘ north of the south wall. The remaining limestone and brick fragments lie in the south half of Unit 4. A more dense concentration of artifacts from the architectural group were recovered from the southern half of Unit 4. The portion of the limestone foundation associated with Structure 1 lies at a depth of 0.3‘ below the ground surface and continues approximately 0.25‘ near the base of Level 3. This portion of foundation is a center segment of the northern wall of Structure 1.

UNIT 5: N444.5/ W 67 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)

Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association (LbB2) similar to that previously described, humus and sod were also noted. . The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, curved glass, and bricks were recovered from Level 1. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 5 Level 1 was 1876.

217 glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 5Level 2 was 1882.

Level 3- The soil in Level 3 begins to change from dark brown loam to light tan clayey loam. The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface, respectively. The light tan colored clay loam subsoil was encountered throughout Level 3. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 5 Level 3 was 1884.

Level 4- A light tan color clay loam subsoil continued in Level 4. The lighter colored clay loam throughout mixed with small amounts of the dark brown clay loam described in Level 1,2, and 3. The beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6 feet below ground surface to 0.8 feet below ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 4. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 5 Level 4 was 1880.

Level 5-The light tan color clay loam subsoil encountered in Level 4 continued into Level 5. The beginning and end depth of Level 5 were 0.8 feet below ground surface to 1.0 foot below ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics and curved glass were recovered from Level 5. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 5 Level 5 was 1862.

UNIT6: N435/ W 71 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)

Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association (LbB2) similar to that previously described. The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 1. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 6 Level 1 was 1870.

Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 6 Level 2 was 1885.

Level 3- A lighter colored clay loam was encountered throughout Level 3. The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface, respectively. Feature 2 Structure 1 continued in Unit 6 Level 3 on the west portion of the unit. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, and nails, were recovered from Level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 6 Level 3 was 1886.

218

UNIT 7: N 429/ W 71 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)

Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association (LbB2) similar to that previously described. The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 7 Level 1 was 1879.

Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 7 Level 2 was 1892.

Level 3- The soil in Level 3 begins to change from dark brown loam to light tan clayey loam. The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 7 Level 3 was 1893.

- Level 4- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1ended and light tan colored clay loam subsoil was encountered in Level 4. The beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6 feet below ground surface to 0.8 feet below ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 4. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 7 Level 4 was 1890

Level 5-The light tan clay loam described in Level 4continued throughout Level 5. The beginning and end depth of Level 5 were 0.8 feet below ground surface to 1.0 feet below ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, and nails, were recovered from Level 5. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 7 Level 5 was 1890.

UNIT8: N429/ W 68 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)

Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association (LbB2) similar to that previously described. The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 8 Level 1 was 1902.

219

Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 8 Level 2 was 1899.

Level 3- Feature 2 Structure 1 was encountered in Level 3. This portion of Structure 1 was the southeast corner. The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 8 Level 3 was 1895.

Level 4- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1ended and a light tan colored clay loam subsoil was encountered in Level 4. An intact course of bricks remained in situ atop dressed limestone foundation stones. The beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6 feet below ground surface to 0.8 feet below ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 4. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 8 Level 4 was 1895.

Level 5-The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 5. The beginning and end depth of Level 5 were 0.8 feet below ground surface to 1.0 feet below ground surface, respectively.. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, and nails, were recovered from Level 5. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 8 Level 5 was 1893.

UNIT9: N 435/ W 68 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)

Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association (LbB2) similar to that previously described. The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 9 Level 1 was 1892.

Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 9 Level 2 was 1904.

Level 3- The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal

220 fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 8 Level 3 was 1895.

Level 4- The dark brown clay loam described in Level 1 ceased and light tan color clay loam subsoil was encountered in Level 4. The beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6 feet below ground surface to 0.8 feet below ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 4. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 9 Level 4 was 1873.

UNIT 10: N426/ W 89 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)

Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association (LbB2) similar to that previously described. The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, and nails were recovered from Level 1. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 10 Level 1 was 1883

Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 10 Level 2 was 1896.

Level 3- Large dressed limestone foundation stones were discovered in Unit 10 Level 3. These stones represent the southwest corner Structure 1. The soil in Level 3 begins to change from dark brown loam to light tan clayey loam. The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 10 Level 3 was 1887.

Level 4- A light tan color clay loam subsoil was encountered in Level 4 and also Level 5. The beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6 feet below ground surface to 0.8 feet below ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 4. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 10 Level 4 was 1890.

Level 5-. The beginning and end depth of Level 5 were 0.8 feet below ground surface to 1.0 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, and nails, were recovered from Level 5. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 10 Level 5 was 1887.

221

1 FIGURE A.1. Spatial Distribution of 2002 STP artifacts, red circle indicates location of structure 1.

222

FIGURE A.2. Ball State University students excavating around structure 1, 2007, photograph courtesy of Mark Groover. 22

223

FIGURE A.3. Unit 4, 2007, photograph courtesy of Mark Groover.

224

FIGURE A.4. Units 3, 2007, photograph courtesy of Mark Groover.

224

225

FIGURE A.5. Unit 1, feature 1, posthole, 2007, photograph courtesy of Mark Groover.

226

FIGURE A.6. Artifacts recovered from Huddleston House, photograph courtesy of Mark Groover.

227

1’ 2’ 3’

LINE LEVEL

Unit Base

.5 F e e t

B 1 e l o w

L i 1.5 n e

FIGURE A.7. : Unit 1, Feature 1-North wall.

228

1’ 2’ 3’

LINE LEVEL

Ground Surface .5 F e e t

B 1 e l o w

L i 1.5 n e = Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil =Light Tan Clay Subsoil 2

Huddleston House (12-wy-429)

FIGURE A.8. Unit 1-South wall. Profile

Unit 1 South wall

229

1’ 2’ 3’

LINE LEVEL

Ground surface

.5 F e e t

B 1 e l o w

L =Brick=Brick i 1.5 n =Limestone e = Dark BroBrownwn Clay Loam Topsoil =Light Tan Clay Subsoil =Mortar 2

Huddleston House (12-Wy-429) Profile Unit 6 South Wall

Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)

PProfilerofile Unit 4 West Wall FIGURE A.9. Unit 4, west wall.

230

1’ 2’ 3’

LINE LEVEL

Ground Surface

.5 F e e t

B 1 e l o w

L i 1.5 n e = Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil =Light Tan Clay Subsoil =Limestone (Feature 2) 2

Huddleston House (12-Wy-429) Profile Unit 6 South Wall

FIGURE A. 10. Unit 6, south wall.

231

1’ 2’ 3’

LINE LEVEL

Ground Surface

.5 F e e t

B 1 e l o w

West into Unit 8 L = Brick i 1.5 =Limestone n e = Concrete

= Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil = Compacted Soil Pedestal

=Light Tan Clay Subsoil 2

Huddleston House (12-Wy-429) Profile Unit 7 North Wall

FIGURE A.11. Unit 7, north wall.

232

1’ 2’ 3’

LINE LEVEL

Ground Surface Ground surface

.5 F e e t

B 1 e l

o w

L =Brick=Brick i = Molded Clay Disturbance 1.5 n =Limestone e = Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil

=Light Tan Clay Subsoil =Mortar 2

Huddleston House (12-Wy-429) Profile Unit 8 North Wall

Huddleston House (12-Wy-429) FIGURE A. 12. Unit 8, north wall. Profile

Unit 84 NorthWest Wall Wall

233

1’ 2’ 3’

LINE LEVEL

Ground Surface

.5 F e e t

B 1 e l o w

L i 1.5 n e = Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil = Brick =Light Tan Clay Subsoil = Limestone 2

Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)

Profile Unit 9 South Wall

FIGURE A. 13. Unit 9, south wall.

234 234

1’ 2’ 3’ -1’ LINE LEVEL

Ground Surface

.5 F e e t

B 1 e l o w

Feature 2 L i =Limestone Foundation 1.5 n e = Cobble = Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil

= Mortar =Light Tan Clay Subsoil 2

Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)

Profile Unit 5 South Wall

FIGURE A. 14. Unit 5, south wall.

235 235

W72

Feature 2: Structure 1 Foundation stones Feature2: Structure 1 In tact foundation base UNIT 3 UNIT 4 N449 UNIT 5 N447 N447 261 W89 66 W80 130 N444.5/ W67

Tree 173 UNIT 6 UNIT 9 106 UNIT 10

Feature 2: Structure 1 N435/W68 Foundation stones UNIT 7 N432 Feature 1: Post & Posthole 490 W89 302 UNIT 8 N429 W68 Feature 2: Structure 1 516 In tact brick course N426 N426 425 remnant resting atop of 316 W86 W80 limestone foundation UNIT 1 UNIT 2 N

KEY: 00=Artifact Density = Brick = Stone

SCALE: in Feet

0 4 8 16

FIGURE A.15. 2007 unit locations.

236 236

1’

2’

3’ 1’ 2’ 3’

Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)

Unit 5 Level 5 SCALE: In Feet Feature 2 0 .5 1

FIGURE A.16. Unit 5.

237 237

Huddleston House

(12-Wy-429)

Unit 8 Level 4 SCALE: In Feet

0 .5 1

FIGURE A.17. Unit 8.

238 238

Huddleston House

(12-Wy-429)

Unit 10 Level 4 SCALE: In Feet

0 .5 1

FIGU RE A.18. Unit 10.

239 239

N Scale: In Feet 0 .5 1 Cobble

Brick

Limestone Brick

Cobbles

Tree Roots

Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)

Unit 6 and Unit 9 Level 4

FIGURE A.19. Units 6 and 9.

240

APPENDIX B. Artifact Inventory, 2007.

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

2 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 Bristol salt glazed 2 Ceramics slip int 1915 salt glazed Albany 2 Ceramics slip int 1880 stoneware Albany 2 Ceramics slip 1888 4 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 1 Flat Glass 2.78 clear 1 Flat Glass 1.99 green 1880 Curved 2 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 1 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved

4 Glass dark green 1839 Curved 1 Glass UID 1 Bone tooth 1 Misc Brick sample 1 Misc Cement Sample

Surface Collection Surface 1 Misc Mortar Samples 1 Misc Coal Sample Metal frag large w/ 1 Misc lettering (.sep Metal frag. 1 w/ hook possible go 3 Misc together 1 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 1 Bone 1 Nail Screw/Bolt Brick Sample 2 Misc Large 1 Misc Flagstone 3 Misc Mortar Samples Smal Brick 2 Misc Samples

1 1 3 Ceramics WBW 1875 Blue Transfer 1 1 1 Ceramics Whiteware Print 1848 1 1 1 Ceramics Yellowware 1880 1 1 1 Flat Glass 1.17 clear 1811

1 1 1 Flat Glass 1.69 clear 1855 1 1 1 Flat Glass 1.89 clear 1872 1 1 1 Flat Glass 2.05 clear 1885

241

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

1 1 1 Flat Glass 2.07 clear 1887 1 1 1 Flat Glass 2.27 clear 1904 1 1 1 Flat Glass 2.32 clear 1908 1 1 1 Flat Glass 2.37 clear 1912 1 1 1 Flat Glass 2.54 blue Curved 1 1 1 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 1 1 2 Glass Lt. green 1920 1 1 1 Bone 1 tooth 1 1 2 Misc Brick sample Feature One 1 1 25 Misc Fragments 1 1 1 Misc Mortar Sample 1 1 2 Misc Coal Sample 1 1 1 Misc Walnut Shell

1 2 3 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 1 2 1 Ceramics Pearlware molded Blue Shell Edge 1810 1 2 1 Ceramics Redware 1860 1 2 1 Ceramics Refined Redware Tan Paste 1860 1 2 6 Ceramics Semi-Porcelain 1915 1 2 1 Ceramics WBW Floral Decal 1875 1 2 44 Ceramics WBW 1875 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.38 clear 1829 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.41 clear 1832 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.44 clear 1834 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.45 clear 1835 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.51 clear 1840 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.56 clear 1844 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.57 green 1845 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.62 green 1849 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.63 clear 1850 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.83 clear 1867 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.84 clear 1868 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.85 clear 1869 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.96 clear 1878 1 2 1 Flat Glass 1.97 clear 1879 1 2 1 Flat Glass 2.04 clear 1885 1 2 1 Flat Glass 2.08 clear 1888 1 2 1 Flat Glass 2.19 green 1897 1 2 1 Flat Glass 2.20 clear 1898 1 2 1 Flat Glass 2.20 clear 1898 1 2 1 Flat Glass 2.23 clear 1901 1 2 1 Flat Glass 2.37 clear 1912 1 2 1 Flat Glass 2.36 clear 1912

1 2 1 Flat Glass 2.38 clear 1913

242

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

1 2 1 Flat Glass 2.38 clear 1913 1 2 1 Flat Glass 2.40 clear 1915 Curved 1 2 1 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 1 2 4 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 1 2 8 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 1 2 21 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 1 2 4 Glass Lt. green 1920 Curved 1 2 1 Glass Lt. green Floral decal 1920 1 2 9 Bone 2 teeth 1 2 7 Nail Wire 1935 1 2 5 Nail cut 1860 1 2 15 Nail Nail frag. 1 2 1 Misc Brick sample 1 2 1 Misc Limestone Sample 1 2 1 Misc Mortar Samples 12 ga. "Winchester repeater" shot gun 1 2 1 Misc shell cap 1 2 3 Misc Shoe Grommet 1 2 3 Misc Coal Sample Bone Possible 1 2 1 Misc burnt 1 2 1 Misc Pull tab metal 1 2 1 Misc Threaded knob? 1 2 4 Misc Metal Frag UID Wire 130mm long 1 2 1 Misc .83mm dia.

1 3 8 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 1 3 1 Ceramics Pearlware molded Blue Shell Edge 1810 1 3 1 Ceramics Redware 1860 Salt glazed 1 3 4 Ceramics stoneware 1880 1 3 2 Ceramics WBW Floral Decal 1925 1 3 28 Ceramics WBW 1900 Blue Transfer 1 3 5 Ceramics Whiteware Print 1848 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.20 green 1813 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.39 green 1830 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.40 green 1831 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.47 blue 1832 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.44 clear 1834

243

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.46 clear 1836 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.46 blue 1836 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.46 clear 1836 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.55 clear 1843 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.58 clear 1846 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.67 green 1853 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.68 clear 1854 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.72 green 1858 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.76 green 1861 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.79 clear 1864 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.81 clear 1865 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.80 clear 1865 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.81 clear 1865 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.84 clear 1868 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.84 clear 1868 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.86 blue 1869 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.85 green 1869 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.92 clear 1874 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.93 clear 1875 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.93 clear 1875 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.00 clear 1881 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.03 clear 1884 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.05 clear 1885 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.07 clear 1887 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.08 green 1888 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.09 clear 1889 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.10 blue 1890 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.12 clear 1891 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.14 green 1893 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.15 clear 1894 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.16 clear 1895 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.16 clear 1895 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.19 clear 1897 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.19 clear 1897 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.19 green 1897 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.21 clear 1899 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.26 green 1903 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.32 clear 1908 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.36 clear 1912 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.40 clear 1915 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.42 clear 1917 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.57 clear 1929 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.60 green 1932 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.71 clear 1941 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.80 green 1949 1 3 5 Curved Amber 1920

244

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

Glass Curved 1 3 3 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 1 3 12 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 1 3 6 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 1 3 10 Glass Lt. green 1920 1 3 5 Bone 1 tooth 1 3 2 Bone F.1 Fill, 2 Teeth 1 3 6 Nail Wire 1935 1 3 4 Nail Cut 1860 1 3 1 Nail Screw/Bolt 1 3 8 Nail UID 1 3 10 Nail Nail frag. 1 3 1 Misc Shoe Grommet 1 3 1 Misc Coal Sample 1 3 1 Misc Slag sample 1 3 1 Misc Chert flake Metal Tube/Frag. 1 3 1 Misc Copper? Stone bi-faced heat 1 3 1 Misc treated tip 1 3 2 Misc Metal Frag UID 1 3 3 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 unscalloped rim, 1 3 1 Ceramics Whiteware painted lines 1875 1 3 1 Flat Glass 1.98 clear 1880 1 3 1 Flat Glass 2.10 clear 1890 1 3 1 Flat Glass 3.08 clear Curved 1 3 1 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 1 3 1 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 1 3 1 Glass Lt. green 1920 1 3 1 Nail cut 1860 Brick Sample, F.1 1 3 1 Misc Fill Limestone sample, 1 3 1 Misc F. 1 Fill Mortar Sample, F.1 1 3 1 Misc Fill Coal Sample, F.1 1 3 1 Misc Fill Brick Sample, F.1 1 3 8 Misc Fill 1 3 1 Misc Limestone sample,

245

UnitUnit Level CountCount Artifact Type Thickness DescriptionDescription Comments Mean Date Date

F.1 Fill Wedge stones, F.1 1 3 4 Misc Fill

2 1 1 Misc Brick sample 2 1 4 Misc Coal Sample 2 1 1 Misc Slag sample 2 1 1 Misc Feather

White int, Red 2 2 4 Ceramics Refined Redware ext 1860 2 2 17 Ceramics WBW 1875 Blue Transfer 2 2 1 Ceramics Whiteware Print 1848 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.17 green 1810 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.53 clear 1841 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.53 blue 1841 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.54 blue 1842 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.55 amethyst 1843 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.61 clear 1848 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.63 clear 1850 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.67 green 1853 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.68 clear 1854 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.69 clear 1855 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.74 clear 1859 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.74 clear 1859 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.77 clear 1862 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.79 clear 1864 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.85 clear 1869 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.88 clear 1871 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.88 blue 1871 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.89 clear 1872 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.90 clear 1873 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.90 clear 1873 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.90 clear 1873 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.92 clear 1874 2 2 1 Flat Glass 1.95 blue 1877 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.01 clear 1882 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.01 green 1882 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.03 blue 1884 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.04 blue 1885 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.05 clear 1885 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.06 green 1886 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.12 clear 1891 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.19 clear 1897 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.24 clear 1901

246

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.27 blue 1904 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.28 green 1905 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.31 clear 1907 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.32 clear 1908 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.33 blue 1909 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.40 clear 1915 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.41 clear 1916 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.48 clear 1921 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.52 clear 1925 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.54 green 1927 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.56 blue 1928 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.61 green 1933 2 2 1 Flat Glass 3.06 blue 2 2 1 Flat Glass 3.07 clear 2 2 1 Flat Glass 3.00 blue 2 2 1 Flat Glass 2.84 green 2 2 1 Flat Glass 3.07 clear 2 2 1 Flat Glass 3.07 clear Curved 2 2 2 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 2 2 4 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 2 2 3 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 2 2 8 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 2 2 7 Glass Lt. green 1920 2 2 8 Bone 2 teeth 2 2 15 Nail Wire 1935 2 2 19 Nail cut 1860 2 2 3 Nail UID 2 2 10 Nail Nail frag. 2 2 4 Misc Brick sample Burned brick 2 2 1 Misc sample 2 2 1 Misc Cement Sample 2 2 1 Misc Mortar Sample .50 cal. Shell 2 2 1 Misc casing Button or snap 2 2 1 Misc "Corona" 2 2 2 Misc Metal Button? 2 2 5 Misc Coal Sample 2 2 1 Misc Slag sample 2 2 12 Misc Chert debitage 2 2 1 Misc Foil Metal

2 2 86 Misc Metal fragments

247

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

White plastic frag. 2 2 1 Misc "L 1" 2 2 2 Misc Wire fragments

2 3 3 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 2 3 1 Ceramics Bisque porcelain 1880 2 3 1 Ceramics Semi-Porcelain molded 1865 2 3 1 Flat Glass 1.07 clear 1807 2 3 1 Flat Glass 1.42 clear 1832 2 3 1 Flat Glass 1.41 blue 1832 2 3 1 Flat Glass 1.47 blue 1836 2 3 1 Flat Glass 1.71 clear 1857 2 3 1 Flat Glass 1.92 blue 1874 2 3 1 Flat Glass 1.94 clear 1876 2 3 1 Flat Glass 2.01 clear 1880 2 3 1 Flat Glass 1.99 clear 1880 2 3 1 Flat Glass 2.01 blue 1882 2 3 1 Flat Glass 2.14 clear 1893 2 3 1 Flat Glass 2.28 clear 1905 2 3 1 Flat Glass 2.29 clear 1906 2 3 1 Flat Glass 2.36 clear 1912 2 3 1 Flat Glass 2.73 clear 1943 2 3 1 Flat Glass 2.92 clear 2 3 1 Flat Glass 3.00 clear 2 3 1 Flat Glass 0.59 clear Curved 2 3 4 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 2 3 3 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 2 3 2 Glass Clear 1928 2 3 5 Bone 2 3 4 Nail wire 1935 2 3 1 Nail cut 1860 2 3 1 Misc Brick sample Deteriorating 2 3 1 Misc Limestone Sample 2 3 1 Misc Coal Sample 2 3 1 Misc S-Hook 2 3 1 Misc UID wood artifact

3 1 1 Ceramics Semi-Porcelain 1915 3 1 7 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 3 1 1 Flat Glass 2.22 green 1900 3 1 1 Flat Glass 2.36 green 1912 3 1 1 Flat Glass 2.25 green 1902 3 1 1 Flat Glass 2.76 clear 1945

248

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

3 1 1 Flat Glass 2.24 clear 1901 3 1 1 Flat Glass 1.06 green 1801 3 1 1 Flat Glass 1.04 green 1800 Curved 3 1 1 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 3 1 2 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 3 1 1 Glass lt. aqua 1855 3 1 1 Bone tooth 3 1 2 Misc Brick sample

3 2 4 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 3 2 1 Flat Glass 1.98 green 1880 3 2 1 Flat Glass 2.21 clear 1899 3 2 1 Flat Glass 2.28 clear 1905 Curved 3 2 1 Glass amethyst 1898 Curved 3 2 2 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 3 2 1 Glass UID 3 2 4 Nail wire 1935 3 2 1 Nail cut 1860 3 2 1 Misc Brick sample 3 2 1 Misc Limestone Sample Limestone with 3 2 1 Misc Morter attached 3 2 1 Misc Mortar Samples 3 2 1 Misc Coal Sample 3 2 1 Misc Slag sample 3 2 1 Misc Foil Aluminum 3 2 1 Misc Hook metal 3 2 1 Misc Metal peg 3 2 1 Misc Sandstone sample 3 2 3 Misc Metal Frag UID

Blue Transfer 3 3 1 Ceramics Whiteware Print 1848 3 3 1 Misc Brick sample 3 3 1 Misc Limestone Sample 3 3 4 Misc Mortar Samples 3 3 2 Misc Coal Sample 3 3 1 Flat Glass 2.00 clear 1881 3 3 2 Nail cut 1860 3 3 1 Misc Brick sample 3 3 1 Misc Limestone Sample

249

Unit Level CountCount ArtifactArtifact TypeType Thickness Thickness Description Description Comments Comments MeanMean Date

3 3 1 Misc Metal Frag UID

3 4 1 Misc Brick sample 3 4 1 Misc Decomp. limestone 3 4 1 Misc Limestone Sample 3 4 2 Misc Mortar Sample 3 4 3 Misc Coal Sample 3 4 4 Misc Burnt Wood

4 1 2 Ceramics WBW 1875 4 1 1 Flat Glass 2.32 clear 1908 4 1 1 Flat Glass 1.11 blue 1805 4 1 1 Flat Glass 1.21 blue 1813 4 1 1 Flat Glass 2.74 clear 1943 Curved 4 1 1 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 4 1 1 Glass Clear 1928 4 1 1 Nail wire 1935 4 1 1 Misc Brick sample 4 1 1 Misc Mortar Sample 4 1 1 Misc Coal Sample 4 1 1 Misc Screwdriver

4 2 1 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 4 2 4 Ceramics WBW 1875 4 2 1 Ceramics Yellowware 1880 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.09 clear 1804 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.15 clear 1810 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.21 clear 1899 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.30 clear 1822 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.63 clear 1934 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.65 blue 1852 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.29 clear 1821 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.19 green 1813 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.06 clear 1886 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.20 clear 1813 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.43 clear 1917 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.71 clear 1941 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.92 clear 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.78 blue 1863 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.59 clear 1931 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.93 clear 1875 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.80 blue 1864 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.83 blue 1867 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.15 clear 1810

250

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.51 clear 1924 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.45 clear 1919 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.36 clear 1827 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.53 clear 1926 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.12 clear 1807 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.87 clear 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.11 clear 1805 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.78 clear 1863 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.23 green 1901 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.94 blue 1876 4 2 1 Flat Glass 1.33 clear 1825 4 2 1 Flat Glass 2.46 green 1920 Curved 4 2 3 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 4 2 2 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 4 2 2 Glass Clear 1928 4 2 4 Bone 4 2 2 Nail wire roof 1935 4 2 5 Nail wire 1935 4 2 4 Nail UID 4 2 2 Misc Brick sample 4 2 1 Misc Mortar Sample 4 2 1 Misc Foil Metal

4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.15 clear 1810 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.62 green 1933 4 3 1 Flat Glass 3.02 green 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.42 green 1917 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.14 clear 1809 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.84 green 1868 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.39 green 1914 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.41 blue 1916 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.70 blue 1856 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.77 clear 1862 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.16 blue 1810 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.77 green 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.16 green 1810 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.31 green 1907 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.15 blue 1810 4 3 1 Flat Glass 3.01 green 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.28 clear 1814 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.98 green 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.41 green 1916 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.84 blue 1868

4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.11 blue 1805

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

251

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.21 blue 1813 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.91 clear 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.68 clear 1938 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.33 blue 1825 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.28 clear 1905 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.13 clear 1807 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.37 clear 1912 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.18 clear 1812 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.22 clear 1813 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.82 clear 1866 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.74 clear 1859 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.31 clear 1907 4 3 1 Flat Glass 1.76 clear 1861 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.10 clear 1890 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.75 clear 1944 4 3 1 Flat Glass 2.24 clear 1901 Curved 4 3 4 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 4 3 3 Glass Lt. green 1920 4 3 2 Nail cut 1860 4 3 1 Nail wire 1935 4 3 2 Nail Screw/Bolt 4 3 1 Misc Brick sample 4 3 1 Misc Mortar Sample 4 3 1 Misc Safty Pin Frag.

5 1 2 Ceramics WBW 1875 blue/green 5 1 1 Ceramics Whiteware transfer print 1848 5 1 1 Flat Glass 2.08 clear 1888 Curved 5 1 1 Glass Lt. green 1920 Curved Drip points at 5 1 1 Glass Aqua base 1855 5 1 1 Misc Brick sample 5 1 1 Misc Coal Sample 5 1 1 Misc Slag sample

5 2 1 Ceramics Redware 1860 5 2 11 Ceramics WBW 1875 5 2 1 Ceramics Whiteware yellow glaze ext. 1875 5 2 2 Ceramics Yellowware 1880 5 2 1 Flat Glass 1.16 blue 1810 5 2 1 Flat Glass 1.47 clear 1836 5 2 1 Flat Glass 1.80 clear 1864

252

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

5 2 1 Flat Glass 2.53 blue 1926 5 2 1 Flat Glass 2.71 clear 1941 5 2 1 Flat Glass 2.74 clear 1943 5 2 1 Flat Glass 2.57 clear 1929 5 2 1 Flat Glass 2.27 green 1904 5 2 1 Flat Glass 1.86 green 1869 5 2 1 Flat Glass 1.12 green 1807 5 2 1 Flat Glass 1.17 clear 1810 5 2 1 Flat Glass 1.12 clear 1807 5 2 1 Flat Glass 1.13 clear 1807 5 2 1 Flat Glass 1.39 clear 1830 Curved 5 2 1 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 5 2 4 Glass Aqua 2 w/ drip points 1855 Curved 5 2 7 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 5 2 1 Glass dark green 1839 Curved 5 2 1 Glass Lt. green 1920 5 2 7 Bone 5 2 5 Nail wire 1935 5 2 5 Nail cut 1860 5 2 4 Nail Nail frag. 5 2 7 Nail UID 5 2 1 Misc Brick sample 5 2 1 Misc Cement Sample 5 2 1 Misc Cobble Sample Flat stone 5 2 1 Misc (limestone?) 5 2 1 Misc Mortar Sample .22 shell casings (1 Winchester Super 5 2 2 Misc X) 5 2 2 Misc Coal Sample 5 2 1 Misc Slag sample 5 2 1 Misc Foil Metal 5 2 1 Misc Hook 5 2 3 Misc Paper 5 2 1 Misc Plastic cup frag. 5 2 3 Misc Metal Frag UID 5 2 4 Misc Plastic 5 3 1 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 5 3 1 Ceramics Redware 1860 salt glazed albany 5 3 1 Ceramics slip int 1880

5 3 1 Ceramics Salt glazed 1880

253

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

stoneware 5 3 21 Ceramics WBW 1875 5 3 1 Flat Glass 1.71 blue 1857 5 3 1 Flat Glass 1.75 blue 1858 5 3 1 Flat Glass 2.35 blue 1911 5 3 1 Flat Glass 1.28 blue 1820 5 3 1 Flat Glass 1.41 blue 1832 5 3 1 Flat Glass 2.32 clear 1908 5 3 1 Flat Glass 1.94 clear 1876 5 3 1 Flat Glass 2.34 clear 1910 5 3 1 Flat Glass 2.33 clear 1909 5 3 1 Flat Glass 2.58 clear 1930 5 3 1 Flat Glass 2.17 clear 1896 5 3 1 Flat Glass 1.44 clear 1834 5 3 1 Flat Glass 2.01 clear 1882 5 3 1 Flat Glass 1.72 clear 1858 5 3 1 Flat Glass 2.61 clear 1933 5 3 1 Flat Glass 2.65 clear 1936 5 3 1 Flat Glass 1.45 green 1835 5 3 1 Flat Glass 1.37 green 1828 5 3 1 Flat Glass 1.44 green 1834 5 3 1 Flat Glass 2.50 green 1923 Curved 5 3 6 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 5 3 4 Glass Clear 1928 5 3 4 Bone 5 3 9 Nail wire 1935 5 3 4 Nail cut 1860 5 3 9 Nail UID 5 3 1 Misc Brick sample 5 3 1 Misc Cement Sample Electrical 5 3 1 Misc connector 5 3 1 Misc Mortar Sample 5 3 1 Misc Slag sample 5 3 2 Misc Foil Metal Lithic UID 5 3 11 Misc (rubble?) 5 3 8 Misc Metal Frag UID 5 3 3 Misc Wire fragments

5 4 2 Ceramics Redware 1860 refined 5 4 1 Ceramics earthenware salt glazed albany 5 4 1 Ceramics slip int 1880

254

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

5 4 4 Ceramics WBW 1875 5 4 1 Ceramics Whiteware Floral Decal 1925 5 4 1 Ceramics Yellowware 1880 5 4 1 Flat Glass 2.43 blue 1917 5 4 1 Flat Glass 1.56 blue 1844 5 4 1 Flat Glass 1.70 blue 1856 5 4 1 Flat Glass 2.51 clear 1923 Curved 5 4 3 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 5 4 1 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 5 4 1 Glass Lt. green 1920 5 4 1 Bone 5 4 3 Nail wire 1935 5 4 8 Nail cut 1860 5 4 4 Nail UID 5 4 1 Nail Nail frag. 5 4 1 Misc Granite sample 5 4 1 Misc Mortar Sample 5 4 1 Misc .22 shell casing 5 4 1 Misc Coal Sample 5 4 1 Misc Metal Frag UID 5 4 1 Misc Complete brick

5 5 1 Ceramics Whiteware Floral Decal 1925 5 5 1 Flat Glass 1.72 blue 1858 5 5 1 Flat Glass 1.10 green 1805 5 5 1 Nail UID 5 5 1 Misc Mortar Sample

6 1 1 Ceramics Yellowware 1880 6 1 1 Flat Glass 1.24 clear 1817 Curved 6 1 1 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 6 1 1 Glass Clear 1928 6 1 1 Misc Brick sample 6 1 1 Misc Mortar Sample

6 2 2 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 6 2 1 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 6 2 1 Ceramics Redware 1860 6 2 6 Ceramics WBW 1875 Blue Transfer 6 2 1 Ceramics Whiteware Print 1848 6 2 1 Ceramics Whiteware Green (floral?) 1925

255

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

decal 6 2 1 Flat Glass 2.21 clear 1899 6 2 1 Flat Glass 1.34 blue 1826 6 2 1 Flat Glass 2.00 clear 1881 6 2 1 Flat Glass 1.53 green 1841 6 2 1 Flat Glass 1.49 green 1838 6 2 1 Flat Glass 2.35 blue 1911 6 2 1 Flat Glass 2.36 green 1912 6 2 1 Flat Glass 1.27 green 1813 6 2 1 Flat Glass 2.18 clear 1896 6 2 1 Flat Glass 1.16 green 1810 6 2 1 Flat Glass 2.01 blue 1882 6 2 1 Flat Glass 1.34 blue 1826 6 2 1 Flat Glass 2.30 clear 1906 Curved 6 2 2 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 6 2 5 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 6 2 4 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 6 2 1 Glass Dark red 6 2 5 Bone 6 2 2 Nail wire roof 1935 6 2 5 Nail cut 1860 6 2 6 Nail wire 1935 6 2 2 Nail Nail frag. 6 2 1 Misc Brick sample 6 2 1 Misc Cement Sample Doorknob frag. 6 2 2 Misc ceramic (redware) 6 2 1 Misc Mortar Sample 6 2 1 Misc .22 shell casing 6 2 1 Misc Metal Button 6 2 1 Misc Plastic cup frag. 6 2 1 Misc UID lead? Weight 6 2 2 Misc Lithics UID 6 2 1 Misc Metal Frag UID

6 3 1 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 Blue/white/black 6 3 1 Ceramics Whiteware decal 1925 6 3 1 Flat Glass 3.01 clear 6 3 1 Flat Glass 1.37 blue 1828 6 3 1 Flat Glass 1.85 blue 1869 6 3 1 Flat Glass 2.38 blue 1913 6 3 1 Flat Glass 0.95 green 1793

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

256

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

6 3 1 Flat Glass 1.27 green 1813 Curved 6 3 2 Glass Clear 1928 6 3 2 Bone 6 3 4 Nail cut 1860 6 3 4 Nail wire 1935 6 3 4 Nail UID 6 3 1 Misc Brick sample Lead fitting (probable gas 6 3 1 Misc hardware) 6 3 1 Misc Mortar Sample .22 short shell 6 3 1 Misc casing Styrofoam cup 6 3 3 Misc pieces

7 1 5 Ceramics Redware 1860 Salt glazed 7 1 1 Ceramics stoneware 1880 7 1 1 Ceramics WBW 1875 7 1 1 Flat Glass 2.75 blue 1944 7 1 1 Flat Glass 2.28 clear 1905 7 1 1 Flat Glass 1.52 green 1841 Curved 7 1 1 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 7 1 2 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 7 1 2 Glass Clear 1928 7 1 4 Nail cut 1860 7 1 1 Nail wire 1935 7 1 2 Nail UID 7 1 3 Misc Asphalt Shingle 7 1 1 Misc Brick sample 7 1 1 Misc Mortar Sample 12 ga. "Winchester repeater" shot gun 7 1 1 Misc shell cap 7 1 1 Misc Coal Sample Plastic Clear with 7 1 1 Misc 'UGS' 7 1 1 Misc Plastic Pink frag. 7 1 2 Misc Shoe Grommet 7 1 1 Misc Metal Frag UID

7 2 1 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 7 2 1 Ceramics Porcelain 1880

257

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

7 2 1 Ceramics Redware 1860 salt glazed albany 7 2 1 Ceramics slip int 1880 Salt glazed 7 2 4 Ceramics stoneware 1880 terra cotta tile or 7 2 4 Ceramics pot 7 2 9 Ceramics WBW 1875 7 2 1 Flat Glass 2.84 green ND 7 2 1 Flat Glass 1.92 clear 1874 7 2 1 Flat Glass 2.38 blue 1913 7 2 1 Flat Glass 2.00 blue 1881 7 2 1 Flat Glass 2.40 blue 1915 7 2 1 Flat Glass 2.83 green ND Curved 7 2 2 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 7 2 4 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 7 2 2 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 7 2 6 Glass Clear 1928 7 2 2 Nail wire roof 1935 7 2 12 Nail cut 1860 7 2 8 Nail wire 1935 7 2 3 Nail Nail frag. 7 2 1 Misc Asphalt Shingle 7 2 1 Misc Brick sample 7 2 2 Misc Cement Sample

Ceramic electrical hardware 250V 660W MADE IN 7 2 1 Misc USA 7 2 1 Misc Mortar Sample 7 2 1 Misc Wallpaper frag. 7 2 1 Misc Coal Sample 7 2 1 Misc Slag sample 7 2 1 Misc Metal plate, 3-hole 7 2 1 Misc Plastic frag. 7 2 3 Misc Lithics UID 7 2 1 Misc Metal Frag UID Metal frag. UID 7 2 2 Misc (refit) toy?? 7 2 1 Misc Zipper

7 3 2 Ceramics Bristol salt glazed 1915 Salt glazed

7 3 7 Ceramics stoneware dark brown int. 1880

258

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

7 3 3 Ceramics Stoneware 1860 7 3 1 Ceramics WBW 1875 7 3 1 Flat Glass 1.28 green 1820 7 3 1 Flat Glass 2.74 clear 1943 7 3 1 Flat Glass 1.89 green 1872 7 3 1 Flat Glass 2.06 green 1886 7 3 2 Flat Glass 2.41 blue 1916 7 3 1 Flat Glass 2.47 blue 1921 7 3 1 Flat Glass 2.15 blue 1894 Curved 7 3 3 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 7 3 3 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 7 3 2 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 7 3 3 Glass Clear 1928 7 3 11 Nail cut 1860 7 3 7 Nail wire 1935 7 3 2 Nail wire roof 1935 7 3 3 Nail UID 7 3 5 Nail Nail frag. 7 3 1 Misc Asphalt Shingle 7 3 1 Misc Brick sample 7 3 1 Misc Mortar Sample 7 3 1 Misc Metal Frag UID

Curved 7 3 1 Glass Clear 1928

7 4 1 Ceramics Redware 1860 Salt glazed 7 4 2 Ceramics stoneware dark brown int. 1880 7 4 10 Ceramics WBW 1875 Blue Transfer 7 4 2 Ceramics Whiteware Print 1848 brown floral 7 4 2 Ceramics Whiteware decal 1925 7 4 1 Flat Glass 2.50 blue 1923 7 4 1 Flat Glass 2.41 blue 1916 7 4 1 Flat Glass 1.48 green 1837 7 4 1 Flat Glass 3.53 blue ND 7 4 1 Flat Glass 3.62 blue ND 7 4 1 Flat Glass 1.83 green 1867 7 4 1 Flat Glass 2.05 green 1885 7 4 1 Flat Glass 2.45 clear 1919 7 4 1 Flat Glass 2.44 blue 1919

259

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

7 4 1 Flat Glass 1.79 clear 1864 7 4 1 Flat Glass 4.34 green ND Curved 7 4 3 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 7 4 9 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 7 4 12 Glass Clear 1928 7 4 5 Nail wire 1935 7 4 8 Nail cut 1860 7 4 2 Nail UID 7 4 12 Nail Nail frag. 7 4 1 Misc Brick sample 7 4 1 Misc Mortar Sample 7 4 1 Misc Percussion Cap Metal object UID…. ASK DR. 7 4 4 Misc GROOVER

7 5 6 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 7 5 1 Ceramics WBW 1875 brown line 7 5 1 Ceramics Whiteware painted 1875 7 5 1 Flat Glass 1.24 green 1817 7 5 1 Flat Glass 1.28 green 1820 7 5 1 Flat Glass 1.25 green 1818 7 5 1 Flat Glass 1.71 green 1857 7 5 1 Flat Glass 2.38 clear 1913 7 5 1 Flat Glass 2.07 blue 1887 7 5 1 Flat Glass 2.14 blue 1893 7 5 1 Flat Glass 3.64 blue ND 7 5 1 Flat Glass 1.98 blue 1880 Curved 7 5 3 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 7 5 9 Glass Clear 1928

Curved 7 5 2 Glass Lt. green 1920 7 5 1 Nail UID 7 5 1 Misc Slag sample

Salt glazed 8 1 1 Ceramics stoneware 1880 8 1 3 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 8 1 1 Flat Glass 1.86 blue 1870 8 1 1 Flat Glass 1.73 blue 1858 8 1 1 Flat Glass 2.44 clear 1918

260

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

8 1 1 Flat Glass 1.87 green 1870 Curved 8 1 1 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 8 1 2 Glass Clear 1928 8 1 1 Bone burnt 8 1 5 Nail wire 1935 8 1 1 Nail cut 1860 8 1 1 Misc Brick sample 8 1 1 Misc Mortar Samples Metal frag. 8 1 1 Misc Possible buckle Quartz possible pre. Historic 8 1 1 Misc scraper Plastic hard 8 1 1 Misc Reddish pinkish 8 1 1 Misc Metal Frag UID

8 2 4 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 Bristol Glazed 8 2 1 Ceramics stoneware 1915 Lead Glazed 8 2 1 Ceramics Redware 1800 salt glazed albany 8 2 4 Ceramics slip int 1880 8 2 1 Ceramics Semi-Porcelain 1915 8 2 5 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 8 2 1 Flat Glass 2.17 clear 1896 8 2 1 Flat Glass 2.21 clear 1899 8 2 1 Flat Glass 2.49 clear 1922 8 2 1 Flat Glass 2.42 green 1917 8 2 1 Flat Glass 2.42 green 1917 8 2 1 Flat Glass 2.50 clear 1923 8 2 1 Flat Glass 2.16 clear 1895 8 2 1 Flat Glass 1.83 clear 1867 8 2 1 Flat Glass 2.87 clear 8 2 1 Flat Glass 2.81 green 8 2 1 Flat Glass 3.04 green 8 2 1 Flat Glass 2.23 clear 1901 8 2 1 Flat Glass 1.01 green 1798 8 2 1 Flat Glass 3.31 clear 8 2 1 Flat Glass 1.93 clear 1875 Curved 8 2 4 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 8 2 5 Glass Aqua 1855 8 2 8 Curved Clear 1928

261

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date Glass Curved 8 2 1 Glass Lt. green 1920 8 2 11 Nail Wire 1935 8 2 5 Nail Cut 1860 8 2 5 Nail UID 8 2 3 Nail Nail frag. 8 2 1 Misc Asphalt Shingle Brick sample w/ 8 2 1 Misc mortar 8 2 1 Misc Limestone Sample 8 2 1 Misc Mortar Sample 8 2 1 Misc Button 8 2 1 Misc Coal Sample 8 2 1 Misc Coal Slag Sample 8 2 1 Misc Burnt Wood Metal Frag. 8 2 1 Misc Possible caltrop

8 3 1 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 8 3 93 Ceramics flower pot Lead Glazed 8 3 5 Ceramics Redware 1800 salt glazed Albany 8 3 6 Ceramics slip int 1880 Blue Transfer 8 3 1 Ceramics Whiteware Print 1848 8 3 1 Ceramics Whiteware light blue 1848 8 3 1 Ceramics Whiteware molded 1870 yellow glaze 8 3 1 Ceramics Whiteware ext./int. 1875 8 3 9 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 8 3 1 Flat Glass 3.26 clear 8 3 1 Flat Glass 2.73 clear 1943 8 3 1 Flat Glass 2.59 clear 1931 8 3 1 Flat Glass 2.67 blue 1938 8 3 1 Flat Glass 2.40 clear 1915 8 3 1 Flat Glass 3.45 blue 8 3 1 Flat Glass 1.66 oily 1853 8 3 1 Flat Glass 1.95 clear 1877 8 3 1 Flat Glass 2.70 clear 1940 8 3 1 Flat Glass 1.84 clear 1868 8 3 1 Flat Glass 2.15 clear 1894 8 3 1 Flat Glass 1.37 green 1828 8 3 1 Flat Glass 1.24 green 1817 8 3 1 Flat Glass 1.29 green 1821 8 3 1 Flat Glass 1.28 green 1814

262

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

8 3 1 Flat Glass 2.02 clear 1883 8 3 1 Flat Glass 2.24 clear 1902 8 3 1 Flat Glass 2.67 blue 1938 Curved 8 3 1 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 8 3 2 Glass amber 1920 Curved 8 3 1 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 8 3 6 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 8 3 11 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 8 3 5 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 8 3 5 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 8 3 1 Glass UID Curved 8 3 2 Glass very lt. green 1920 8 3 1 Bone 8 3 1 Nail Spike 8 3 1 Nail Bolt 8 3 36 Nail Wire 1935 8 3 9 Nail Cut 1860 8 3 37 Nail Frag 8 3 1 Misc Asphault Shingle 8 3 1 Misc Brick sample 8 3 1 Misc Mortar Sample 8 3 1 Misc Button 8 3 1 Misc Coal Sample 8 3 1 Misc Coal Slag Sample 8 3 1 Misc Hook 8 3 1 Misc Pipe Plastic hard Redish 8 3 1 Misc pinkish 8 3 11 Misc UID Frag 8 3 2 Misc Wire 8 3 1 Flat Glass 2.25 green 1902 8 3 1 Flat Glass 1.36 clear 1827 Curved 8 3 1 Glass Clear 1928 8 3 1 Nail Wire 1935 8 3 1 Nail bolt 8 3 1 Misc Brick sample 8 3 1 Misc Mortar Sample 8 3 2 Nail Cut 1860

263

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

8 3 4 Misc Possible Gas line

8 4 1 Ceramics Porcelain 1880 salt glazed Albany 8 4 1 Ceramics slip int 1880 8 4 3 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 8 4 1 Flat Glass 1.75 blue 1860 8 4 1 Flat Glass 2.32 blue 1908 8 4 1 Flat Glass 1.72 clear 1858 8 4 1 Flat Glass 1.94 blue 1876 8 4 1 Flat Glass 1.97 blue 1879 8 4 1 Flat Glass 1.82 blue 1866 8 4 1 Flat Glass 2.22 clear 1900 8 4 1 Flat Glass 1.56 green 1844 8 4 1 Flat Glass 1.66 green 1853 8 4 1 Flat Glass 1.90 blue 1873 8 4 1 Flat Glass 1.61 blue 1848 Curved 8 4 8 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 8 4 4 Glass Clear 1928 8 4 16 Nail Wire 1935 8 4 4 Nail Cut 1860 8 4 7 Nail Nail frag. 8 4 1 Misc Brick sample 8 4 1 Misc Limestone Sample 12 ga. "Winchester repeater" shot gun 8 4 1 Misc shell cap 8 4 1 Misc Coal Sample 8 4 1 Misc Burnt Wood Metal frag with 8 4 1 Misc square holes 8 4 1 Misc Metal Frag UID Waterworn rock (possible drippline 8 4 1 Misc rock)

8 5 1 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 8 5 1 Ceramics Pearlware molded Blue Shell Edge 1810 8 5 1 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 8 5 1 Flat Glass 1.88 green 1871 8 5 1 Flat Glass 3.32 clear 8 5 1 Flat Glass 1.88 blue 1871 8 5 1 Flat Glass 2.44 blue 1919 8 5 1 Flat Glass 2.03 blue 1884 8 5 1 Flat Glass 2.01 blue 1882

264

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

8 5 1 Flat Glass 2.05 blue 1885 8 5 1 Flat Glass 1.92 green 1874 8 5 1 Flat Glass 2.53 green 1926 8 5 1 Flat Glass 1.31 blue 1823 8 5 1 Flat Glass 1.96 blue 1878 8 5 1 Flat Glass 1.72 green 1858 8 5 1 Flat Glass 1.96 clear 1878 8 5 1 Flat Glass 2.30 clear 1906 8 5 1 Flat Glass 1.93 blue 1875 8 5 1 Flat Glass 1.91 blue 1873 8 5 1 Flat Glass 2.00 blue 1881 Curved 8 5 1 Glass lt. aqua 1855 Curved 8 5 3 Glass aqua 1855 Curved 8 5 4 Glass Clear 1928 8 5 2 Nail Cut 1860 8 5 9 Nail Wire 1935 8 5 1 Nail Screw/Bolt 8 5 10 Nail Nail frag. 8 5 1 Misc Brick sample 8 5 1 Misc Mortar Sample 8 5 1 Misc Metal Frag UID

9 1 1 Flat Glass 1.90 clear 1872 9 1 1 Flat Glass 0.93 green 1790 Curved 9 1 1 Glass amber 1920 9 1 1 Nail Cut 1860 9 1 3 Nail Wire 1935 9 1 1 Misc Brick sample 9 1 1 Misc Cement Sample 9 1 1 Misc Limestone Sample 9 1 1 Misc Mortar Sample Possible floor tile 9 1 1 Misc or wall plaster 9 1 1 Misc Slate Sample

9 2 1 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 Lead Glazed 9 2 1 Ceramics Redware 1800 9 2 1 Ceramics Semi-Porcelain floral decal 1865 9 2 3 Ceramics Semi-Porcelain molded 1865 molded w/ green 9 2 1 Ceramics Semi-Porcelain coloring 1865 9 2 12 Ceramics Whiteware 1900

265

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

9 2 2 Ceramics Yellowware 1880 9 2 1 Flat Glass 1.84 blue 1868 9 2 1 Flat Glass 1.21 green 1813 9 2 1 Flat Glass 1.97 clear 1879 9 2 1 Flat Glass 1.85 clear 1869 9 2 1 Flat Glass 1.38 clear 1829 9 2 1 Flat Glass 2.15 clear 1894 9 2 1 Flat Glass 1.06 clear 1802 9 2 1 Flat Glass 2.58 blue 1930 9 2 1 Flat Glass 0.89 blue 1789 9 2 1 Flat Glass 1.40 green 1831 Curved 9 2 3 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 9 2 3 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 9 2 1 Glass UID 9 2 1 Bone fossilized tooth 9 2 2 Nail Cut 1860 9 2 38 Nail Wire 1935 9 2 1 Nail Screw/Bolt 9 2 7 Nail Nail frag. 9 2 1 Misc Asphalt Shingle 9 2 1 Misc Brick sample 9 2 1 Misc Caulking 9 2 1 Misc Cement Sample 9 2 1 Misc Limestone Sample 9 2 1 Misc Mortar Sample 9 2 1 Misc Possible floor tile 9 2 2 Misc Coal Sample 9 2 1 Misc Coal Slag Sample 9 2 1 Misc Foil Aluminium Green hard plastic possible cloths 9 2 1 Misc basket piece Kraft Fudgie 9 2 1 Misc Wrapper 9 2 1 Misc Metal Clip 9 2 2 Misc Pencil Lead 9 2 1 Misc Piece Quarts 9 2 1 Misc Plastic Clear 9 2 1 Misc Possible Hook 9 2 1 Misc Rubber Sponge Dirt 9 2 1 Misc soaked 9 2 1 Misc Metal Frag UID 9 2 1 Misc White Plastic

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

266

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date 9 2 4 Misc Wire 9 2 1 Misc Wired Belt 9 2 2 Misc Wood Sample

Lead Glazed 9 3 1 Ceramics Redware 1800 9 3 2 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 9 3 1 Flat Glass 2.13 green 1892 Curved 9 3 3 Glass aqua 1855 9 3 3 Bone 2 teeth 9 3 4 Nail Cut 1860 9 3 9 Nail Wire 1935 9 3 1 Misc Brick sample 9 3 1 Misc Limestone Sample 9 3 1 Misc Mortar Sample 9 3 1 Misc Button (bone) 9 3 1 Misc Coal Slag Sample 9 3 1 Misc Plastic Clear Plastic Clear w. red 9 3 1 Misc and yellow stripes 9 3 1 Misc Seashell 9 3 1 Misc Metal Frag UID 9 3 3 Misc White Plastic 9 3 1 Misc Wire

9 4 1 Ceramics Redware 1860 9 4 1 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 9 4 1 Nail Cut 1860 9 4 1 Nail Nail frag. 9 4 1 Misc Brick sample 9 4 1 Misc Mortar Sample 9 4 1 Misc Lithics UID

10 1 4 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 10 1 1 Flat Glass 1.71 clear 1857 10 1 1 Flat Glass 1.93 blue 1875 10 1 1 Flat Glass 1.22 clear 1817 10 1 1 Flat Glass 1.86 clear 1869 10 1 1 Flat Glass 1.28 clear 1820 10 1 1 Flat Glass 1.76 green 1861 10 1 1 Flat Glass 1.57 clear 1845 10 1 1 Flat Glass 1.94 blue 1876 10 1 1 Flat Glass 1.62 clear 1849

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

267

Unit10 Level1 Count1 ArtifactFlat Glass Type Thickness2.06 clear Description Comments Mean 1886Date Curved 10 1 1 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 10 1 2 Glass Clear 1928 10 1 3 Nail Wire 1935 10 1 1 Misc Brick sample 10 1 1 Misc Limestone Sample 10 1 6 Misc Mortar Sample 10 1 1 Misc Metal Button

Albany slip int/ no 10 2 1 Ceramics glaze ext 1880 10 2 5 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 Lead Glazed 10 2 2 Ceramics Redware 1800 10 2 2 Ceramics Pearlware molded Blue Shell Edge 1810 salt glazed Albany 10 2 5 Ceramics slip int 1880 Molded with 10 2 2 Ceramics Semi-Porcelain floral print 1865 10 2 2 Ceramics Semi-Porcelain 1915 Blue Transfer 10 2 3 Ceramics Whiteware Print 1848 10 2 26 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.49 green 1838 10 2 1 Flat Glass 3.57 clear 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.83 blue 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.95 green 1877 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.46 clear 1920 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.02 clear 1883 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.19 clear 1879 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.68 clear 1854 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.32 clear 1824 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.28 clear 1820 10 2 1 Flat Glass 3.56 clear 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.68 green 1838 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.87 green 10 2 1 Flat Glass 3.14 clear 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.10 clear 1890 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.10 green 1890 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.16 green 1895 10 2 1 Flat Glass 3.17 green 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.05 green 1886 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.35 green 1911

268

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.32 green 1908 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.01 green 1882 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.22 green 1900 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.51 green 1924 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.22 clear 1900 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.15 clear 1894 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.89 clear 1872 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.49 clear 1922 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.22 clear 1900 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.42 blue 1917 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.99 clear 1880 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.95 blue 1877 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.87 clear 1870 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.92 clear 1874 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.28 clear 1905 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.04 clear 1885 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.34 clear 1910 10 2 1 Flat Glass 3.63 clear 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.16 clear 1895 10 2 1 Flat Glass 3.04 clear 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.29 clear 1906 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.29 clear 1906 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.20 green 1898 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.98 clear 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.65 blue 1936 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.96 blue 1878 10 2 1 Flat Glass 0.89 green 1789 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.32 clear 1908 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.89 clear 1872 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.33 clear 1909 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.08 clear 1888 10 2 1 Flat Glass 3.60 clear 10 2 1 Flat Glass 2.28 clear 1905 10 2 1 Flat Glass 1.99 clear 1880 Curved 10 2 1 Glass lt. aqua 1855 Curved 10 2 7 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 10 2 6 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 10 2 7 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 10 2 1 Glass UID Curved 10 2 14 Glass Clear 1928 10 2 1 Curved Clear 1928

269

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

Glass Curved 10 2 1 Glass Clear molded pattern 1928 Curved 10 2 2 Glass lt. aqua 1855 Curved 10 2 1 Glass Lt. green 1920 10 2 1 Nail Screw/Bolt 10 2 9 Nail Cut 1860 10 2 28 Nail Wire 1935 10 2 2 Nail Fencing Nails 10 2 30 Nail Nail frag. 10 2 1 Misc Brick sample 10 2 1 Misc Cement Sample 10 2 1 Misc Limestone Sample 10 2 1 Misc Safty Pin Frag. 10 2 1 Misc Coal Sample 10 2 1 Misc Coal Slag Sample 10 2 2 Misc Foil Aluminium 10 2 1 Misc Lead sprue 10 2 2 Misc Peach pit 10 2 1 Misc Wire Fencing?

10 3 1 Ceramics Albany slip int/ext 1888 10 3 1 Ceramics Semi-Porcelain 1915 10 3 1 Ceramics Stoneware 1860

10 3 25 Ceramics WBW 1875 Blue Transfer 10 3 1 Ceramics Whiteware Print 1848 10 3 1 Flat Glass 3.27 green 10 3 1 Flat Glass 3.47 green 10 3 1 Flat Glass 3.29 green 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.15 blue 1894 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.94 clear 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.29 clear 1906 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.34 clear 1910 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.96 clear 1878 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.14 clear 1893 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.76 clear 1945 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.41 clear 1916 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.37 clear 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.54 clear 1927 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.02 clear 1883 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.40 clear 1831

10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.17 clear 1896

270

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.80 clear 1864 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.78 green 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.83 clear 1867 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.79 clear 10 3 1 Flat Glass 3.28 clear 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.82 clear 1866 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.29 clear 1906 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.89 clear 1872 10 3 1 Flat Glass 3.30 clear 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.90 clear 1873 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.10 clear 1890 10 3 1 Flat Glass 3.27 clear 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.90 clear 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.21 blue 1899 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.75 blue 1860 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.95 clear 1877 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.29 clear 1906 10 3 1 Flat Glass 3.22 clear 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.01 clear 1882 10 3 1 Flat Glass 3.23 clear 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.83 clear 1867 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.80 clear 1864 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.82 clear 1866 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.93 clear 1875 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.67 clear 1853 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.23 clear 1901 10 3 1 Flat Glass 2.07 clear 1887 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.94 clear 1876 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.92 clear 1874 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.64 clear 1851 10 3 1 Flat Glass 1.83 clear 1867 Curved 10 3 5 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 10 3 4 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 10 3 1 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 10 3 14 Glass Clear 1928 Curved 10 3 1 Glass Lt. green 1920 10 3 7 Bone 10 3 5 Nail Wire 1935 10 3 17 Nail Cut 1860 10 3 7 Nail UID 10 3 20 Nail Nail frag. 10 3 1 Misc Brick sample

271

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date 10 3 1 Misc Cement Sample 10 3 1 Misc Limestone Sample 10 3 1 Misc Mortar Sample 10 3 1 Misc Button/snap 10 3 1 Misc Coal Sample 10 3 2 Misc Slag sample 10 3 1 Misc Fossil 10 3 1 Misc Pencil Lead 10 3 10 Misc Metal Frag UID 10 3 1 Misc Wire frag. Kerosene Lamp 10 3 3 Misc Hardware

10 4 14 Ceramics WBW 1875 Blue Transfer 10 4 1 Ceramics Whiteware Print 1848 10 4 1 Flat Glass 2.65 green 1936 10 4 1 Flat Glass 2.26 green 1903 10 4 1 Flat Glass 3.27 green Curved 10 4 1 Glass Amber 1920 Curved 10 4 2 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 10 4 1 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 10 4 5 Glass Clear 1928 10 4 1 Bone 10 4 2 Nail UID 10 4 1 Misc Brick sample 10 4 1 Misc Mortar Sample 10 4 5 Misc Metal Frag UID 10 4 1 Misc Wood sample

10 5 1 Ceramics Semi -Porcelain molded 1865 10 5 1 Ceramics Whiteware 1900 10 5 1 Flat Glass 1.31 green 1823 Curved 10 5 1 Glass Amethyst 1898 Curved 10 5 1 Glass Aqua 1855 Curved 10 5 2 Glass Clear 1928

272

Unit Level Count Artifact Type Thickness Description Comments Mean Date

10 5 1 Curved lt. aqua 1855 Glass 10 5 1 Nail Wire 1935 10 5 1 Misc Brick sample 10 5 1 Misc Mortar Sample 10 5 1 Misc Coal Sample

*Initial identification and classification of artifacts was performed by the 2007 National Road historical archaeology field school students under the supervision of Mark Groover. Additional examination, secondary analysis, functional classification, and time sequence analysis performed by the author.

273

FIGURE B.1. Bottle glass recovered at Huddleston House,2007.

274 FIGURE B.2. Decorated ceramics recovered at Huddleston House, 2007.

275

FIGURE B.3. Undecorated Ironstone (L) and Whiteware (R) recovered at Huddleston House,2007.

276

FIGURE B.4.. Machine cut nails (L) and wire nails (R) recovered at Huddleston House, 2007.

277

FIGURE B.5. Architectural group artifacts recovered at Huddleston House, 2007.

FIGURE B.5. Energy group artifacts recovered at Huddleston House, 2007. 278

FIGURE B.5. Arms group artifacts recovered at Huddleston House, 2007.

279

286

APPENDIX C. DATES AND SOURCES USED TO CALCULATE MEAN ARTIFACT DATES (Adapted from Groover 2003)

Artifact Types Median Date Date Range Sources

Porcelain

Canton 1815 1800-1830 South 1977:212

overglaze enameled 1730 1660-1800 South 1977:212

underglaze blue handpainted 1730 1660-1800 South 1977:212

general 1880 1790-1970 Site Specific*

Stoneware

brown (English) 1860 1820-1900+ South 1977:212

alkaline glaze 1860 1820-1890s Greer 1981:264

salt glazed exterior, dry interior 1845 1830-1860 Carnes 1977:212;

Greer 1981:263

Lebo 1987:130 salt glazed exterior and interior 1834 1792-1875 Lebo 1987:130;

Site Specific

Salt glazed exterior, natural slip int.1880 1860-1900 Greer 1981:263;

Lebo et al. 1988:135

Natural slip exterior and interior 1888 1875-1940 Greer 1981:264

(Albany) Lebo et al. 1988:136

Bristol glazed exterior, natural slip int. 1915 1890-1925 Greer 1981:264;

Lebo et al. 1988:136

287

Appendix C. Dates and Sources Used to Calculate Mean Artifact Dates, continued

Artifact Type Median Date Date Range Sources

Stoneware 1915 1890-1940 Carnes 1977:212;

Greer 1981:264;

Bartovics 1981:203;

Lebo et al. 1988:136

salt glazed, general 1865 1792-1938 Site Specific

Earthenware

Redware 1800 1755-1845 DAACS 2005a;2005b

Creamware

undercorated 1791 1762-1820 South 1977:212

annular ware 1798 1780-1815 South 1977:212

enameled overglaze 1788 1765-1810 South 1977:212

Pearlware

undecorated 1805 1780-1830 South 1977:212

transfer printed 1818 1795-1840 South 1977:212

polychrome, fine line 1805 1795-1815 South 1977:212

polychrome, broad line 1830 1820-1840 South 1977:212

underglaze blue handpainted 1800 1780-1820 South 1977:212

edge decorated 1810 1800-1820 South 1977:212

edge decorated, rococo 1798 1785-1810 Miller & Hunter 1990

288

Appendix C. Dates and Sources Used to Calculate Mean Artifact Dates, continued

Artifact Types Mean Date Date Range Sources

Earthenware

Pearlware

edge decorated, neoclassical 1820 1810-1830 Miller & Hunter 1990

edge decorated,embossed relief 1810 1800-1820 South 1977:212

mocha 1843 1795-1890 South 1977:212

annular wares 1805 1790-1820 South 1977:212

Whiteware

undecorated 1900 1820-1980 South 1977:212

Site Specific

transfer printed 1865 1830-1900 South 1977:212;

Majewski & O‘Brien 1987

light blue 1848 1831-1865 Bartovics 1981:203

red, green, brown 1839 1828-1850 Majewski & O‘Brien 1987

later style 1886 1856-1915 Bartovics 1981:203

edge decorated 1845 1830-1860+ Smith 1983

edge decorated,

nonscalloped rim, relief, thin band 1850 1840-1860 Miller & Hunter 1990

289

Appendix C. Dates and Sources Used to Calculate Mean Artifact Dates, continued

Artifact Types Mean Date Date Range Sources

Earthenware

Whiteware

edge decorated,

nonscallopped rim, no relief, thin band 1875 1860-1890 Miller & Hunter 1990

Miller & Hunter 1994

handpainted 1865 1830-1900 Bartovics 1981:203

mocha 1850 1830-1870+ Smith 1983

annular 1865 1830-1900 Bartovics 1981:203

flow blue 1870 1840-1900 Bartovics 1981:203

sponge 1850 1830-1870 Bartovics 1981:203

cut sponge 1880 1840-1920 Finlayson 1972:55

molded/embossed 1870 1840-1900 Lewis & Haskell 1981:124

decal 1925 1900-1950 Bartovics 1981:203

gilded 1925 1870-1980 Miller 1991:10;Site Specific

hotel ware 1913 1875-1950 Miller 1991:7

fiestaware 1945 1920-1970 Moir 1982:141

Ironstone

undecorated 1915 1850-1980 Smith 1983;Site Specific

molded or embossed 1865 1840-1890 Lewis & Haskell 1981:124

Yellow ware 1880 1830-1930 Smith 1983

290

Appendix C. Dates and Sources Used to Calculate Mean Artifact Dates, continued

Artifact Types Mean Date Date Range Source

Curved Glass

solarized 1898 1880-1915 Moir 1982:141

Brooks and Crass 1991:7

dark green 1839 1792-1885 Newman 1970; Site Specific

milk 1938 1890-1980 IMACS 1984:472.4;

Site Specific

aqua 1855 1800-1910 IMACS 1984:472.4

lite green 1920 1860-1980 IMACS 1984:472.4

Site Specific

amber 1920 1860-1980 IMACS 1984:472.4

Site Specific

cobalt 1935 1890-1980 IMACS 1984:472.4

Site Specific

clear 1928 1875-1980 IMACS 1984:472.4

carnival 1915 1890-1940 Deiss 1981:86

depression 1930 1920-1940 Klamkin 1973:1

color label 1957 1934-1980 Jones & Sullivan 1958:16;

Site Specific

3-piece plate bottom mold 1887 1858-1915 Deiss 1981:91

improved tool finish 1898 1870-1925 Deiss 1981:94

291

Appendix C. Dates and Sources Used to Calculate Mean Artifact Dates, continued

Artifact Types Median Date Date Range Sources

Curved Glass

―Duraglass‖ in script 1960 1940-1980 Toulouse 1969:170;

Site Specific

Architectural Artifacts

cut nails 1860 1830-1890 Nelson 1968;

Edwards & Wells

1993:17-18;

IMACS 1984

Wire nails 1935 1890-1980 Nelson 1968;

Edwards & Wells

1993:17-18;

IMACS 1984

Window glass by fragment Moir 1987b

*Site Specific: for artifacts with long manufacture date ranges, the initial or terminal manufacture dates were adjusted to parallel historically known initial or terminal occupation dates for the site. This adjustment was made to refine the artifact based chronology of site.

292

APPENCIX D. WINDOW GLASS DATES (Moir 1987)

Thickness Date Thickness, (cm) Date Thickness, (cm) Date (cm)

1780 0.8 1846 1.58 1896 2.17 1789 0.9 1847 1.59 1897 2.19 1792 0.94 1848 1.6 1898 2.2 1793 0.95 1849 1.62 1899 2.21 1795 0.98 1850 1.63 1900 2.22 1797 1 1851 1.64 1901 2.23 1798 1.01 1852 1.65 1902 2.25 1799 1.02 1853 1.66 1903 2.26 1800 1.03 1854 1.68 1904 2.27 1801 1.05 1855 1.69 1905 2.28 1803 1.07 1856 1.7 1906 2.29 1804 1.08 1857 1.71 1907 2.31 1805 1.1 1858 1.72 1908 2.32 1807 1.12 1859 1.74 1909 2.33 1809 1.14 1860 1.75 1910 2.34 1810 1.15 1861 1.76 1911 2.35 1812 1.18 1862 1.77 1912 2.36 1813 1.19 1863 1.78 1913 2.38 1814 1.28 1864 1.79 1914 2.39 1815 1.29 1865 1.81 1915 2.4 1816 1.3 1866 1.82 1916 2.41 1817 1.24 1867 1.83 1917 2.42 1818 1.25 1868 1.84 1918 2.44 1819 1.26 1869 1.85 1919 2.44 1820 1.28 1870 1.87 1920 2.46 1821 1.29 1871 1.88 1921 2.47 1822 1.3 1872 1.89 1922 2.49 1823 1.31 1873 1.9 1923 2.5 1824 1.32 1874 1.92 1924 2.5

1825 1.33 1875 1.93 1925 2.52

293

Appendix D. Window Glass Dates (Moir 1987)

Thickness, Date Thickness, (cm) Date Thickness, (cm) Date (cm) 1826 1.34 1876 1.94 1926 2.53 1827 1.36 1877 1.95 1927 2.54 1828 1.37 1878 1.96 1928 2.56 1829 1.38 1879 1.97 1929 2.57 1830 1.39 1880 1.98 1930 2.58 1831 1.4 1881 2 1931 2.59 1832 1.41 1882 2.01 1932 2.6 1833 1.43 1883 2.02 1933 2.61 1834 1.44 1884 2.03 1934 2.63 1835 1.45 1885 2.04 1935 2.64 1836 1.46 1886 2.06 1936 2.65 1837 1.48 1887 2.07 1937 2.66 1838 1.49 1888 2.08 1938 2.67 1839 1.5 1889 2.09 1939 2.69 1840 1.51 1890 2.1 1940 2.7 1841 1.52 1891 2.12 1941 2.71 1842 1.54 1892 2.13 1942 2.72 1843 1.55 1893 2.14 1943 2.72 1844 1.56 1894 2.15 1944 2.75 1845 1.57 1995 2.16 1945 2.76

294

APPENDIX E. MEAN DATES FOR ARTIFACT GROUPS

Mean Mean TOTAL UNIT LEVEL Mean CURVED Mean FLAT Mean

CERAMIC GLASS KITCHEN NAIL GLASS ARCH Artifact

ARTIFACTS TOTAL TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTIC TOTAL TOTAL date date TOTAL date date TOTAL Date 42 21 22742 13007 13007 1880 1880 1880

1900 24642 37649

24642 37649 39529

Surface 13 7 20 1 1 21

1895 1858 1882 1880 1880 1882 1 1 49 16 5 3 8 0 8 8 16 9350 5692 15042 15036 15036 30078

1870 1898 1881 1879 1879 1880

1 2 175 133 1878 1908 1890 1903 1874 1883 1888 49 36 85 10 50 60 145

92584 68322 160906 19050 93888 112938 273844 1 3 179 145 1889 1897 1893 1905 1877 1882 1888 1 3 Featur e Fill 28 10 4 3 7 1 2 3 10 7539 5746 13285 1860 3770 5630 18915

1884 1915 1897 1860 1885 1876 1891 1 3 Total *207 *155

2 2 270 124 41163 45861 87024 64365 82725 147090 234114 22 24 46 34 44 78 124

1871 1910 1891 1893 1880 1885 1888

2 3 47 34 9409 17101 26510 9600 28115 37715 64225

5 9 14 5 15 20 34

1881 1900 1893 1920 1874 1885 1888

3 1 22 19 15215 7639 22854 13161 13161 36015

8 4 12 7 7 19

1901 1909 1904 1880 1880 1895

3 2 29 15 7600 5754 13354 9600 5684 15284 28638 4 3 7 5 3 8 15

1900 1918 1907 1920 1894 1910 1909

3 3 15 4 1848 1848 3720 1881 5601 7449

1 1 2 1 3 4

1848 1848 1860 1881 1867 1862

295 Appendix E. Mean Dates For Artifact Groups

Mean Mean TOTAL UNIT LEVEL

GNOSTIC Mean CURVED Mean FLAT Mean

CERAMIC GLASS KITCHEN NAIL GLASS ARCH Artifact

ARTIFACTS TOTAL TEMPORALLY DIA TOTAL TOTAL date date TOTAL date date TOTAL Date 4 1 13 9 3750 3826 7576 1935 7469 9404 16980 2 2 4 1 4 5 9

1875 1913 1894 1935 1867 1880 1886 4 2 63 49 11268 13260 24528 13545 54115 67660 92188 6 7 13 7 29 36 49

1878 189 1886 1935 1866 1879 1881

4 3 52 42 13352 13352 5655 59678 65333 78685

7 7 3 32 35 42

1907 1907 1885 1864 1866 1873

5 1 9 6 5598 3775 9373 1888 1888 11261

3 2 5 1 1 6

1866 1887 1874 1888 1888 1876 5 2 94 53 28120 26595 54715 18975 26083 45058 99773 15 14 29 10 14 24 53

1874 1899 1886 1897 1863 1877 1882

5 3 110 68 46883 18842 65725 24855 37570 62425 128150 25 10 35 13 20 33 68

1875 1884 1877 1911 1878 1891 1884

5 4 42 29 16905 9413 26318 20685 7540 28225 54543 9 5 14 11 4 15 29

1878 1882 1879 1880 1885 1881 1880 5 5 5 3 1925 1925 3663 3663 5588

1 1 2 2 3

1925 1925 1831 1831 1862

6 1 6 4 1880 3783 5663 1817 1817 7480

1 2 3 1 1 4

1880 1891 1887 1817 1817 1870 6 2 69 49 22547 20827 43374 24780 24241 49021 92395 12 11 23 13 13 26 49

1878 1893 1885 1906 1864 1885 1885

6 3 31 17 3813 3856 7669 15180 9216 24396 32065

2 2 4 8 5 13 17

1906 1928 1917 1897 1843 1876 1886

296 Appendix E. Mean Dates For Artifact Groups

Mean Mean UNIT LEVEL TOTAL Mean CURVED Mean FLAT Mean

CERAMIC GLASS KITCHEN NAIL GLASS ARCH Artifact

ARTIFACTS TOTAL TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTIC TOTAL TOTAL date date TOTAL date date TOTAL Date 7 1 34 20 13055 9464 22519 9375 5690 15065 37584 7 5 12 5 3 8 20

1865 1892 1876 1875 1896 1883 1879

7 2 84 57 31903 26710 58613 41670 7583 49253 107866 17 14 31 22 4.00 26.00 57

1876 1907 1890 1894 1895 1894 1892

7 3 65 53 24445 22876 47321 37875 15168 53043 100364

13 12 25 20 8 28 53

1880 1906 1892 1893 1896 1894 1893 7 4 86 62 31916 45591 77507 24555 15130 39685 117192 17 24 41 13 8 21 62

1877 1899 1890 1888 1891 1889 1890

7 5 33 30 15078 26757 41835 14885 14885 56720

8 14 22 8 8 30

1884 1911 1901 1860 1860 1890

8 1 24 17 7580 5711 13291 11535 7516 19051 32342

4 3 7 6 4 10 17

1895 1903 1898 1922 1879 1905 1902

8 2 82 61 30202 34299 64501 30585 20810 51395 115896 16 18 34 16 11 27 61

1887 1905 1897 1911 1891 1903 1899

8 3 290 125 46709 64241 110950 92055 33891 125946 236896 25 34 59 48 18 66 125

1868 1889 1880 1917 1882 1908 1895

8 4 63 48 9460 22552 32012 38400 20565 58965 90977

5 12 17 20 11 31 48

1892 1879 1883 1920 1869 1902 1895 8 5 53 38 5598 15132 20730 21135 30084 51219 71949 3 8 11 11 16 27 38

1866 1891 1884 1921 1880 1897 1893

9 1 13 7 1920 1920 7665 3662 11327 13247

1 1 4 2 6 7

1920 1920 1916 1831 1887 1892

297 Appendix E. Mean Dates For Artifact Groups

UNIT LEVEL Mean Mean TOTAL Mean CURVED Mean FLAT Mean

CERAMIC GLASS KITCHEN NAIL GLASS ARCH Artifact

ARTIFACTS TOTAL TEMPORALLY DIAGNOSTIC TOTAL TOTAL date date TOTAL date date TOTAL Date 9 2 117 77 39573 11349 50922 77250 18504 95754 146676 21 6 27 40 10 50 77

1884 1891 1886 1931 1850 1915 1904

9 3 36 20 5600 5565 11165 24855 1892 26747 37912

3 3 6 13 1 14 20

1866 1855 1860 1911 1892 1910 1895

9 4 7 3 3760 3760 1860 1860 5620

2 2 1 1 3

1880 1880 1860 1860 1873

10 1 29 20 7600 5711 13311 5805 18555 24360 37671 4 3 7 3 10 13 20

1900 1903 1901 1935 1855 1873 1883

10 2 225 169 90444 76146 166590 70920 82995 153915 320505

48 40 88 37 44 81 169

1884 1903 1893 1916 1886 1900 1896 10 3 181 110 54386 47959 102345 41295 64022 105317 207662 29 25 54 22 34 56 110

1875 1918 1895 1877 1883 1880 1887

10 4 38 26 28098 17211 45309 3839 3839 49148

15 9 24 2 2 26

1873 1912 1887 1919 1919 1890 10 5 12 9 3765 9464 13229 1935 1823 3758 16987 2 5 7 1 1 2 9

1882 1892 1889 1935 1823 1879 1887

298

APPENDIX F. TIME SEQUENCE DATA

TABLE F.1. Total Mean Dates per Level used in Time Sequence Analysis.

UNIT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 1880 1895 1886 1876 1870 1879 1902 1892 1883

2 1888 1888 1909 1881 1882 1885 1892 1899 1904 1896 3 1888 1889 1862 1873 1884 1886 1893 1895 1895 1887

LEVEL 4 1880 1890 1895 1873 1890 5 1862 1890 1893 1887

TABLE F.2. Time Sequence Distribution for Kitchen Artifacts.

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 Stoneware 0 0 1 30 65 2 0 Redware 0 0 6 5 24 1 0 Yellowware 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 Porcelain 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Pearlware 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 Semi-Porcelain 0 0 0 8 7 5 0 Whiteware 0 2 1 18 73 19 0 WBW 0 0 1 135 70 0 0 TOTAL CERAMICS 0 2 9 206 242 29 0 Curved Glass 0 0 12 178 219 15 0 TOTAL KITCHEN GROUP 0 2 21 384 461 44 0

TABLE F.3. Time Sequence Distribution for Architectural Artifacts.

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 Flat Glass 0 2 40 262 209 20 0 Cut 0 2 7 56 83 4 0 Wire 0 0 2 73 144 45 0 TOTAL NAILS 0 2 9 129 227 49 0 TOTAL 0 4 49 393 436 69 0

299

APPENDIX G: WILL OF JOHN HUDDLESTON