Molino Mills: the Maritime Cultural Landscape of a Reconstruction

MOLINO MILLS: THE MARITIME CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF A RECONSTRUCTION

ERA SAWMILL IN MOLINO, FLORIDA

Joseph James Grinnan

B.A., University of Florida, 2009

A thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences The University of West Florida In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

2013

The thesis of Joseph James Grinnan is approved:

______Amy Mitchell-Cook, Ph.D., Committee Member Date

______Gregory D. Cook, Ph.D., Committee Member Date

______John Worth, Ph.D., Committee Chair Date

Accepted for the Department of Anthropology:

______John R. Bratten, Ph.D., Chair Date

Accepted for the University:

______Richard S. Podemski, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School Date

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis was made possible through the generous support of the people and organizations at the University of West Florida. I would like to thank my committee members

Dr. John Worth, Dr. Greg Cook, and Dr. Amy Mitchell-Cook for their insight, patience, and editing assistance. Also, I would like to thank the faculty and staff of the departments of History and Anthropology for all their guidance including Cindy Rodgers, Juliette Moore, Dr. John

Bratten, Dr. Ramie Gougeon, Norine Carroll, Janet Lloyd, Jennifer Melcher, Gabbi Grosse, and

Dr. John Clune. For the guidance, encouragement, and financial support of the Archaeology

Institute and Florida Public Archaeology Network including Dr. Elizabeth Benchley, John

Phillips, Karen Mims, Dr. Bill Lees, Dr. Della Scott-Ireton, Mike Thomin, and Cheryl Phelps, I am especially grateful. I also owe many thanks to the staff at the UWF Marine Services Center:

Steve McLin, Fritz Sharar, and Del De Los Santos for their support, encouragement, and kindhearted entertainment.

The fieldwork necessary for this thesis depended heavily upon volunteers. These individuals included Nicole Bucchino, Nicole Rosenberg-Marshall, Rachel Devan, Sarah

Hooker, Allen Wilson, Tara Giuliano, Colin Bean, Patricia McMahon, Jackie Rodgers, Eric

Swanson, Andy Derlikowski, Ben Wells, Danny Haddock, Cassie Vesper, Bill Lott, Marisa

Foster, Lauren Walls, Ryan Thompson, Colin, Keohane, Lindsey Cochran, Katie Brewer, Stacy

Marshal, Corinna Giles, Matt Gifford, John Krebs, Stephanie Dominici, Stewart Hood, Elaine

Nixon, Kevin Bender, Stephanie Poole, Bob Rutledge, Mark Vadas, Chris Dewey, Sarah

Bennett, Will Wilson, and Danny Allen. These individuals provided time and expertise essential during the excavation of Molino Mills and I am deeply indebted to them.

The communities of Pensacola and Molino provided various types of assistance along the way. Dean Debolt at UWF’s Special Collection in the John C. Pace Library assisted a great deal locating sources of data. The Pensacola Archaeological Society and its members provided financial support and encouragement. The Molino Historical Society and its members helped to open up avenues of research as well as offer encouragement along the way.

Molino Mills sits on property owned by Mr. Richard Marlow. He generously allowed my fellow UWF students and me to come onto his property and excavate the mill. His knowledge of the local landscape and history of the lumber industry also guided my research and opened up new avenues of research. I am grateful for him and his family for their assistance.

I would also like to thank my family: my mother and Phil for all their help and advice throughout graduate school: dad and Maria for their support and guidance, and my grandparents

Papa Jim, Grandmother Mary sue, Gee, Roger, Poppy and Carole for their interest in my topic and support. Finally, for the love of my life Nicole, not only did she help excavate the site and edit my thesis, but her unwavering support and kindhearted nature were essential in the final push to complete this thesis. I could not have completed this thesis without her by my side.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii

ABSTRACT ...... ix

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 5

CHAPTER III. HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 20 A. West Florida Lumber Industry ...... 20 B. History of Molino, Florida ...... 31

CHAPTER IV. METHODOLOGY ...... 48 A. Terrestrial ...... 48 B. Conservation ...... 52 C. Maritime ...... 53 D. Historical Research ...... 57

CHAPTER V. RESULTS ...... 60 A. Terrestrial Fieldwork Results ...... 60 B. Artifact Discussion...... 67 C. Features ...... 69 D. Extant Structures: Structure 1 ...... 75 E. Structure 2 ...... 77 F. Structure 3 ...... 79 G. Maritime Fieldwork Results ...... 81

CHAPTER VI. CONCLUSION ...... 88

REFERENCES ...... 102

APPENDIX ...... 115 A. Table of Artifacts Recovered ...... 116

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Corliss Compound Engine located in Pawtucket R.I...... 25

2. A typical lengthwise section of a cylinder from a Corliss engine...... 26

3. Two views of the prototype of the modern high-speed engine...... 27

4. This is a fully developed sectional watertube boiler from the late nineteenth century...... 28

5. Only known image of Molino Mills...... 46

6. UWF Combined Terrestrial and Maritime Fieldschool students recording the trench/sluiceway exposed by low water levels...... 54

7. UWF Combined Terrestrial and Maritime Fieldschool students using trilateration to record submerged pilings in the Escambia River...... 55

8. Dr. John Worth and the author performing a magnetometer survey in the Escambia River...... 56

9. Aerial view with all units excavated by April 2012 at Mission San Joseph de Escambe/Molino Mills site (8ES3473)...... 61

10. Graphic display demonstrating relative elevation changes in mNAVD88 of Durants Bluff...... 62

11. Close-up aerial view of units targeting Molino Mills...... 62

12. South wall profile of ST 255...... 63

13. South wall profile of ST 257...... 64

14. North wall profile of ST 258...... 65

15. Close-up aerial view of units targeting Molino Mills including the approximate mill boundary...... 66

16. Plain whiteware cup rim found in level 21 (2.199mNAVD88-2.10mNAVD88) of ST 259...... 68

17. “J. Gonzalez” brick found at Molino Mills...... 69

18. Structure 1 looking northeast...... 75

vii

19. Hand drawn sketch looking down at structure 1...... 76

20. Photograph of structure 2 looking north...... 78

21. Photographs of structure 3. Styles A, B, and C are left to right...... 80

22. Scale drawing of structure 3 demonstrating the relative locations of the bolts. ....80

23. Image of trench/sluiceway looking east...... 82

24. Aerial view of Molino displaying contoured data from the magnetometer survey area...... 84

25. Colored contoured survey data...... 85

26. Hand drawn sketch of MMM20 and MMM21...... 86

viii

ABSTRACT

MOLINO MILLS: THE MARITIME CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF A RECONSTRUCTION ERA SAWMILL IN MOLINO, FLORIDA

Joseph James Grinnan

The economic disposition of Molino, Florida, depended on the prosperity of its industries. The lumber industry was the major determinant in the rise or fall of the city for much of the nineteenth century. The largest of these sawmills was a steam-powered mill aptly named

Molino Mills. In 1866, a group of wealthy entrepreneurs built Molino Mills in the hopes of tapping into West Florida’s lush, yellow pine forests. The mill is situated on the banks of the bustling Escambia River in the westernmost portion of Florida; however, the mill itself is not limited to its terrestrial components. Documentary research has revealed a maritime aspect in the culture surrounding the lumber industry, while riverine archaeological investigations have uncovered several structural features that extend into the river. Analysis of terrestrial and maritime fieldwork as well as primary documents delves into the maritime resources surrounding this Reconstruction Era sawmill. The analysis provides a unique viewpoint from which to examine Molino Mills and the West Florida lumber industry.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Early in West Florida’s colonial history, prospectors looked at the land’s vast timber resources and described the wealth that could be garnered from exploiting its forests. Colonists utilized water-powered mills to process felled timber and prepare it for personal, as well as commercial, use. Until the early twentieth century, the forests of West Florida were rich in southern yellow pine. The demand for these pines trees became greater and greater as time progressed from the Colonial Era until the twentieth century. Unfortunately, most sawmills in

West Florida ceased to operate during the Civil War, some destroyed during raids or burned by retreating forces. However, immediately following the war, there was a significant boom in yellow pine production. It is at this point, during Florida’s Reconstruction Era, that Molino Mills was built and became one of the largest mills in West Florida and, possibly, the Southeast.

A group of wealthy northern entrepreneurs purchased the land for Molino Mills in

January of 1866.1 The men selected a small community about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of

Pensacola along the bank of the Escambia River. Milling was not a new concept to the community as it once contained the water-powered Cooper mill in operation from the mid-1830s until the Civil War. The community became known as Molino and was a strategic location for a milling operation. Florida’s Escambia River, referred to as the Conecuh River once it crosses the

Alabama border, travels some 250 miles from its source until it drains into Pensacola Bay.

Molino sits at an important point in the river just before it changes course and the river banks become extremely swampy. Bankrupt in 1875, the mill was sold to another wealthy northerner who revamped and reinvigorated the mill, likely initiating its heyday. In 1881, local lumber

1 Escambia County, Deed Book P, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 581-585. 1

baron Daniel F. Sullivan purchased and operated the mill until a fire destroyed it on September 7,

1884.

The investigation into Molino Mills began as a class project concerning historical documents. This project sparked my interest, eventually becoming the foundation for this thesis.

As the thesis evolved, three research goals developed: first, to determine the mill’s boundary and document the extant remains; second, to investigate the connection between Molino Mills and the Escambia River; and, finally, to determine the importance of Molino Mills in the West

Florida lumber industry.

In order to investigate these research goals, three separate phases were initiated. The first phase required terrestrial fieldwork. Over an eight month period, students from the University of

West Florida excavated 15 test units and documented three extant structures. The collected archaeological assemblage provides a detailed record of life surrounding a mid-nineteenth century steam-powered sawmill, while examined structures illustrate the inner workings of the mill and how laborers operated the machinery.

To explore the connection between the Escambia River and Molino Mills, students from the University of West Florida conducted a pedestrian survey and magnetometer survey, diving on identified anomalies. Maritime fieldwork located and documented a number of previously unknown structures related to Molino Mills that exist either submerged or semi-submerged in the

Escambia River. The results of fieldwork in conjunction with historical documents tell a fascinating story linking Molino Mills and the Escambia River.

Documents were the most significant source utilized to determine the relative importance of Molino Mills. Few documents concerning Pensacola’s Reconstruction Era have survived to the present day: many burned in a downtown Pensacola fire during the 1880s, while those

directly related to Molino Mills likely burned in 1884 with the mill itself. Still, from the few documents that have survived, a detailed history can be told of West Florida’s post-Civil War lumber industry.

Most studies into West Florida’s lumber industry have examined antebellum water- powered sawmills or turn of the twentieth century mill company towns. Molino Mills is a unique site in that it operated almost exclusively during the Reconstruction Era, providing an excellent opportunity to look at an early (in terms of West Florida) steam-powered sawmill in a poorly understood timeframe of the industry. Additionally, sawmill studies typically focus on either the main mill building or the mill worker’s residences. Although the aforementioned resources are some of the best ways to investigate the lumber industry, they often overlook other resources integral to the lumber production process, like transportation. A major aspect of the examination into Molino Mills is the transportation aspect, especially when considering the intricacies of lumber transportation via the Escambia River.

Chapter two lays a foundation for the entire thesis by detailing the theory of maritime cultural landscapes and, to a lesser degree, historical ecology. Maritime cultural landscape theory denotes a perspective from which to view Molino Mills, while historical ecology establishes the chronological timeframe in which to observe the lumber industry. This thesis is the first instance in which these theoretical paradigms have been applied to a sawmill. History is the main theme of chapter three. The chapter begins by portraying an in-depth history of the

West Florida lumber industry, as well as the evolution of the steam engine, then providing a history of the community of Molino and a detailed property record for the mill site itself.

Chapter three ends with a narrative of the history of Molino Mills gathered from numerous primary and secondary sources. Chapter four outlines the archaeological methodology employed

at the Mission San Joseph de Escambe/Molino Mills site. It begins by describing the previous archaeological work done primarily at the mission site and ends with the specific methods utilized during both the terrestrial and maritime portions of the investigation targeting Molino

Mills. The results of both terrestrial and maritime fieldwork are described in chapter five. The terrestrial results are broken down between the excavation and documentation of extant structures, while maritime work is illustrated in one continuous narrative. The final chapter provides an analysis of the fieldwork and archival results framed by the theoretical paradigm outlined in chapter two.

This thesis is significant in a number of ways: first, it examines an often overlooked, yet important, period in the development of West Florida lumber industry. Not only does it examine an era on which little research has been conducted, but the evidence which was recovered and detailed in the subsequent chapters hints that Molino Mills may have been a transitional mill.

Thus, Molino Mills does not fit into traditional mill classifications and may be an early precursor to large company towns common at the turn of the twentieth century. Additionally, submerged resources have been one of the major foci of this project. While many scholars have studied steam-powered sawmills and the lumber industry, only a few have discussed or documented submerged or semi-submerged structures associated with the lumber industry. One of the major focuses of this thesis is, therefore, submerged and semi-submerged structures. Finally, this thesis is unique in that it is the first example of a sawmill being viewed through the lens of the maritime cultural landscape, providing a new and innovative approach with which to analyze industrial resources by viewing them from a maritime perspective

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Liminal locations such as waterfronts and inland waterways are often overlooked by archaeologists. These areas are neither completely reliant on terrestrial nor maritime means for their survival and thus these spaces do not directly reside under the realm of either the terrestrial or maritime archaeologist. Early in the history of maritime archaeology, some archaeologists like Keith Muckelroy believed that maritime archaeology did not include coastal resources; instead, he argued that groups associated with these resources are “more closely related to surrounding communities in their material culture…display[ing] their maritime connections only marginally.”1 Yet, when archaeologists utilize both terrestrial and submerged resources in conjunction with available historical documents, a more holistic understanding of the liminal space, whether it be site specific or over a broad geographic area, can be inferred. Maritime archaeologists over the past 20 years have been developing and refining a theoretical framework that incorporates both terrestrial and underwater resources to create broad, overarching understandings of past populations and their experiences. These studies are significant because they redefine how archaeologists interpret maritime culture. J. R. Hunter notes this significance when he states that “One of the great achievements of maritime archaeology…has been in demonstrating that the contexts of coastal and island sites are maritime as well as terrestrial.”2

Christer Westerdahl coined the phrase “maritime cultural landscape” to describe “the whole network of sailing routes, old as well as new, with ports and harbours along the coast, and

1 Keith Muckelroy, Maritime Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 6.

2 J.R. Hunter, “’Maritime Culture’: Notes from the Land,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 23, no. 4 (1994): 261. 5

its related construction and remains of human activity, underwater as well as terrestrial.”3 In the early 1990s, this was a revolutionary notion because it recognized that maritime archaeology does not end at the shoreline; instead, the maritime milieu should be examined from both maritime and terrestrial contexts. A method to conceptualize and link these resources is through what Westerdahl calls a “transit point.” A transit point exists at “connections with waterways inland and points where vessel or transportation methods change.”4 Such points include where a river flows into a lake, or where roads or railways intersect with the coast, estuaries, or ferry locations. These points are, from an economic and geographic standpoint, the zones connecting the entire system together and “must be taken into account if the maritime cultural landscape is to be understood properly.”5

Westerdahl illustrates five types of archaeological resources that constitute a maritime landscape: shipwrecks, land remains, the study of natural topography, tradition of usage, and place names.6 The first two types consist of the physical remnants of human occupation and their culture including both underwater, the former, and terrestrial, the latter. According to

Westerdahl, shipwrecks are the primary indicators of age and, potentially, the only means of dating an assemblage of cultural material.7 Terrestrial sites, on the other hand, provide clues to the activities that occurred in a given geographic region. These activities are often associated

3 Christer Westerdahl, “The Maritime Cultural Landscape,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21, no. 1 (1992): 6.

4 Ibid., 6-7.

5 Christopher E. Horrell, “Plying the Waters of Time: Maritime Archaeology and History on the Florida Gulf Coast” (PhD diss., Florida State University, 2005), 14; Westerdahl, “The Maritime Cultural Landscape,” 6.

6 Westerdahl, “The Maritime Cultural Landscape,” 7-9.

7 Ibid., 7-8. 6

with what one may consider an inherently maritime activity such as fishing or navigation or, for instance, artifacts recovered from a lighthouse or other structure that exists on land.

The third category pertains to the natural topography or characteristics inherent to the land itself. Westerdahl uses the characteristics of natural havens such as perfect lagoons to describe maritime culture and its use of the natural environment.8 However, he neglects to discuss how humans have modified the natural environment in favor of some activities like, for instance, harbor modifications to enhance or protect shipping. Still, topographic features such as water depth, barrier islands, bends in the river, and elevation changes do provide insight into how or why sites were utilized.

Tradition and usage, as well as place names, incorporate information from both archival research and ethnographic data to draw conclusions. Westerdahl believes that, through the

“mental map” contained within local informants, archaeologists are able to look backward through time at routes and trade networks utilized by humans centuries ago. Place names may include areas such as ship blockages, shipwrecks themselves, or repair sites and their resources.9

These names represent the cultural milieu of a society and demonstrate people’s mental representations and interpretations of the landscape, while also identifying significant activity areas.

Archaeological studies into maritime cultural landscapes originate in locales from around the globe, yet the bulk of these studies have been conducted in Europe.10 Still, many studies

8 Westerdahl, “The Maritime Cultural Landscape,” 8-9.

9 Ibid,. 8-9.

10 Alan Aberg and Carenza Lewis, eds. The Rising Tide: Archaeology and Coastal Landscapes (Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books, 2000); Matesuez Bogucki, “Viking Age Ports of Trade in Poland,” Estonian Journal of Archaeology 8, no. 2 (2004): 100-122; Anders Fischer, “Coastal Fishing in Stone Age Denmark - Evidence from Below and Above the Present Sea Level and from Human Bones,” in Shell Middens in Atlantic Europe, ed. Nicky 7

have also been completed in Australia and Africa.11 Only recently has maritime cultural landscape (MCL) research become popular in North America.12 Worldwide, a wide array of

Milner, Oliver E. Craig, and Geoffrey N. Bailey (Hampshire, UK: Oxbow Books, 2007), 54-69; Joe Flatman, “Cultural biographies, cognitive landscapes and dirty old bits of boat: ‘theory’ in maritime archaeology,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 32, no. 2 (2003): 143-157; Wes Forsythe, “Bantry Bay, County Cork, a Fortified Maritime Landscape,” Historical Archaeology 41, no. 3 (2007): 51-62; Audrey J. Horning, “On the Banks of the Bann: The Riverine Economy of an Ulster Plantation Village,” Historical Archaeology 41, no. 3 (2007): 94-114; Hunter, “’Maritime Culture,’”261-264; Kristin Ilves, “The Seaman’s Perspective in Landscape Archaeology,” Estonian Journal of Archaeology 8, no. 2 (2004): 162-177; Marika Mägi, “’...Ships are their main strength.’ Harbour sites, Arable Lands and Chieftains on Saaremaa,” Estonian Journal of Archaeology 8, no. 2 (2004): 128-155; Marika Mägi, “Maritime Landscapes: Introduction,” Estonian Journal of Archaeology 8, no. 2 (2004): 93-96; N. Marriner and C. Morhange, “Geoscience of Ancient Mediterranean Harbors,” Earth-Science Reviews 80 (2007): 137-194; Thomas McErlean, “Archaeology of the Strangford Lough Kelp Industry in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries,” Historical Archaeology 41, no. 3 (2007):76-93; Thomas McErlean et al., “The Sequence of Early Christian Period Horizontal Tide Mills at Nendrum Monastery: An Interim Statement,” Historical Archaeology 41, no. 3 (2007): 63-75; Thomas McErlean, Rosemary McConkey, and Wes Forsythe, Strangford Lough: An Archaeological Survey of the Maritime Cultural Landscape (Belfast, Northern Ireland: Blackstaff Press, 2003); Aidan O'Sullivan, “Intertidal Archaeological Surveys in the Estuarine Wetlands of North Munster,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24, no. 1 (1995): 71-73; Aidan O'Sullivan, “Place, Memory and Identity among Estuarine Communities: Interpreting the Archaeology of Early Medieval Fish Weirs,” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2004): 449-468; Aidan O'Sullivan and Colin Breen, Maritime Ireland: An Archaeology of Coastal Communities (Gloucestershire, UK: Tempus, 2007); Dietlind Paddenberg and Brian Hession, “Underwater Archaeology on Foot: A Systematic Rapid Foreshore Survey on the North Kent Coast, England,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 37, no. 1 (2008): 142-152; A. J. Parker, “A Maritime Cultural Landscape: The Port of Bristol in the Middle Ages,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 28, no. 4 (1999): 323-342; Johann Rönnby, “Maritime Durées: Long Term Structures in a Coastal Landscape,” Journal of Maritime Archaeology 2, no. 2 (2007): 65-82; Robert Van de Noort and Aidan O'Sullivan, Rethinking Wetland Archaeology (London, UK: Gerald Duckworth and Company, 2006); Christer Westerdahl, “Maritime Cultures and Ship Types: Brief Comments on the Significance of Maritime Archaeology,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 23, no. 4 (1994): 265-270.

11 Aiden Ash, The Maritime Cultural Landscape of Port Willunga, South Australia, Flinders University Maritime Archaeology Monographs Series, no. 4 (Adelaide: Shannon Research Press, 2007); Colin Breen and Paul J. Lane, “Archaeological Approaches to East Africa's Changing Seascapes,” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 469-489; Brad G. Duncan, “The Maritime Archaeology and Maritime Cultural Landscapes of Queenscliffe: a Nineteenth Century Australian Coastal Community” (PhD diss., James Cook University, 2006); Veronica M. Morriss, “Islands in the Nile Sea: The Maritime Cultural Landscape of Thmuis, an Ancient Delta City” (master’s thesis, Texas A&M University, 2012); Andrea Smith, “The Maritime Cultural Landscape of Kangaroo Islands, South Australia: A Study of Kingscotie and West Bay” (master’s thesis, Flinders University, 2006).

12 James Delgado, Frederick H. Hanselmann, and Dominique Rissolo, “The ‘Richest River in the World’: The Maritime Cultural Landscape of the Mouth of the Río Chagres, Republica de Panamá,” in The Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes, ed. Ben Ford (New York: Springer, 2011), 233-246; Jeffery B. Glover, Dominique Rissolo, and Jennifer P. Matthews, “The Hidden World of the Maritime Maya: Lost Landscapes Along the North Coast of Quintana Roo, Mexico,” in The Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes, ed. Ben Ford (New York: Springer, 2011), 195-216; Horrell, “Plying the Waters of Time”; Krista Jordan-Greene, “A Maritime Landscape of Deadman’s Island and Navy Cove” (master’s thesis, University of West Florida, 2007); Kendra Kennedy, “Between the Bayous: The Maritime Cultural Landscape of the Downtown Pensacola Waterfront” (master’s thesis, University of West Florida, 2010); Jennifer F. Mckinnon, “Maritime Cultural Landscapes: Investigations at the Spanish Landing (8Wa247)” (master’s thesis, Florida State University, 2002); David J. Steward, “Gravestones and Monuments in the Maritime 8

sites and resources have been analyzed through the lens established by Westerdahl. Not surprisingly, most studies have taken a large landscape, such as that of a coastal settlement, and explored the area’s immediate connection to the sea, commonly through fishing communities and significant ports.13 Unfortunately, many of these studies focus exclusively on the land-based resources to the exclusion of submerged or semi-submerged cultural resources.

Other archaeologists have instead chosen to inspect a particular aspect or artifact from a coastal setting, such as monuments or fish weirs, and examine their place on the maritime landscape.14 In addition, a few studies have broken away from the focus on coastal settlements and moved further inland to examine lakes that exist great distances from the open ocean but do, in fact, display cultural parallels with human settlement located at the ocean’s edge.15 Even fewer studies have made the leap to the riverine environment and have attempted to establish the presence of maritime culture in a riverine setting.16 This study follows this last example, endeavoring to examine Molino and Molino Mills as a transit point along the Escambia River and explain the existence of a maritime culture in the area.

Cultural Landscape: Research Potential and Preliminary Interpretations,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 36, no. 1 (2007): 112-124.

13 Ash, The Maritime Cultural Landscape of Port Willunga, South Australia; Parker, “A Maritime Cultural Landscape.”

14 Steward, “Gravestones and Monuments in the Maritime Cultural Landscape”; Nigel Bannerman and Cecil Jones, “Fish-trap Types: a Component of the Maritime Cultural Landscape,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 28, no. 1 (1999): 70-84.

15 Benjamin Ford, “Lake Ontario Maritime Cultural Landscape” (PhD diss., Texas A&M University, 2009); K.J. Vrana and G.A. Vander Stoep, “The Maritime Cultural Landscape of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve,” in Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, eds. J.D. Spirek and D.A. Scott-Ireton (New York: Springer, 2003), 17-28; Christer Westerdahl, “Maritime Culture in an Inland Lake?,” in Maritime Heritage, eds. C.A. Brebbia and T. Gambin (Southampton, UK: WIT Press, 2003), 17-26.

16 Kimberly Esser, “Inland Waterways of the California Delta: Identifying and Managing a Maritime Landscape,” in Underwater Archaeology, eds. Adriane Askins Neidinger and Matthew A. Russell (Tucson, AZ: Society for Historical Archaeology, 1999),17-20; Gurly Vedru, “People on River Landscapes,” Estonian Journal of Archaeology 8, no. 2 (2004): 181-198. 9

Westerdahl’s development of MCL revolutionized how archeologists view the shoreline, but, recently, some have criticized MCL, stating inadequacies in its ability to examine maritime culture.17 This critique has spurred further refinement to the theoretical paradigm. For instance,

Christopher Horrell suggests that MCL is problematic for American archaeologists because, while it is successful in changing how archaeologists view maritime or terrestrial contexts, it focuses solely on points of interaction or transit points and fails to provide or describe the mechanism(s) necessary for analyzing human interaction and exchange.18 Essentially, Horrell feels that MCL, as described by Westerdahl in the 1990s, is merely a descriptive tool, rather than an analytical one. Kendra Kennedy also critiques MCL in her statement that the “…general lack of explicit theory in MCL studies is unfortunate because the use of a landscape framework allows for more than just an inventory of local resources.”19

The first endeavor to improve upon MCL stems from the writings of Anthony Firth.20

Firth utilizes the archaeology of practice to build upon the foundation of MCL, thereby combining a descriptive tool with an analytical one. Drawing from the work of Anthony

Giddens, Firth utilizes what Giddens termed a “locale.”21 Locale refers to the setting in which an individual’s actions and reactions occur. It is an integral part of any archaeological study because it “identifies material culture as an active medium of social reproduction rather than as a

17 Horrell, “Plying the Waters of Time,”15; Hunter, “’Maritime Culture,’” 261-262; Kennedy, “Between the Bayous,” 8; David Berg Tuddenham, “Maritime Cultural Landscapes, Maritimity and Quasi Objects,” Journal of Maritime Archaeology 5, no. 1 (2010): 5-16.

18 Horrell, “Plying the Waters of Time,” 15.

19 Kennedy, “Between the Bayous,” 8.

20 Antony Firth, “Three Facets of Maritime Archaeology: Society, Landscape, Critique” (Southhampton, UK: University of Southhampton Department of Archaeology), 1995.

21 Antony Firth, “Three Facets of Maritime Archaeology: Society, Landscape, Critique” (Southhampton, UK: University of Southhampton Department of Archaeology), 1995; Anthony Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis (London: Macmillan, 1979), 206-207. 10

passive backdrop.”22 The concept of locale is applicable to a wide array of settings, from site specific to broad landscapes, and aids in drawing connections between human behavior and the natural environment. In this regard, Giddens had developed an analytical tool capable of linking society and the natural landscape.

Giddens’s tool consists of a four step process, the first step relates to the ‘social space,’ or location in which a group is associated, while the second details the legitimization of a group’s use of space. The third step examines the social system and the institutions that comprise the social system, while the final step appraises how individuals’ view themselves within the social hierarchy.23 Firth explains that, through the concept of locale and the four analytical tools described above, it is possible to uncover the underlying facets of a maritime society or, in other words, to identify the social practices that structure a society.24

Firth succeeds in demonstrating that it is necessary to employ a structural framework when investigating maritime societies. Such a framework creates the ability for the application of a flexible maritime label. A society whose whole existence does not revolve around maritime resources, but rather relies on certain aspects of the marine environment and is thus only partially a maritime society, would be an example of a flexible label. Firth, however, like Westerdahl, fails to define exchange and interaction occurring at locales, while also neglecting the mechanisms that reveal changes in community practice. He, again like Westerdahl, places a

22 Antony Firth, “Three Facets of Maritime Archaeology: Society, Landscape, Critique” (Southhampton, UK: University of Southhampton Department of Archaeology), 1995.

23 Anthony Giddens, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, Vol. 1: Power, Property and the State (London: Macmillan 1981), 45-46.

24 Antony Firth, “Three Facets of Maritime Archaeology: Society, Landscape, Critique” (Southhampton, UK: University of Southhampton Department of Archaeology), 1995. 11

significant emphasis on the environment’s effect on society at the expense of describing societal changes and their influence on the way society evolves.

Christopher Horrell’s answer to the shortcomings of MCL was to develop a new model that he terms “The Maritime Economic and Socio-Cultural Relations Model.”25 This model aims to provide an interpretative framework for comprehending the interactions and exchanges that occur, both at transit points as well as within a maritime society. In order to develop this comprehensive framework, Horrell combines the concepts of economy as a social institution, the labor theory of value, and world-systems theory.26

In the concept of economy as a social institution, Horrell first chronicles the history and development of what an “institution” is using research from previous studies like those of

Parsons, Levi, Giddens, Bourdieu, and Douglas.27 Thus, Horrell explains that a society is composed of individual interactions with each other as well as their interactions with an institution, where the institution is the legitimized structural framework within which a society is derived.28 In Horrell’s model, the social institution has taken the form of the economy, an institution that allows for a diachronic examination into a particular locale’s market economy.

25 Horrell, “Plying the Waters of Time,” 18.

26 Ibid., 18.

27 L.J. Levi, “An Institutional Perspective on Prehispanic Maya Residential Variation: Settlement and Community at San Estevan, Belize,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2001): 120-141; T. Parsons, The Social System (New York: The Free Press, 1951); Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory or Structuration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of A Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990); Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986).

28 Horrell, “Plying the Waters of Time,” 19-23.

The next aspect of the maritime economic and socio-cultural relations model is the labor theory of value, which is derived from the work of Karl Marx.29 Horrell believes that the labor theory of value is essential to the study of the economy because it provides the ability to investigate the significance of labor to the development of a community.30 To complete an examination into the labor theory of value, archaeologists must explore the elements of capitalism, including commodity, value, labor, exchange, and consumption. These elements are uniquely intertwined: a commodity (such as raw material or labor) is exchanged following the establishment of its perceived value in the minds of the individuals who comprise a given society. The consumption of goods occurs both before and after exchange. Prior to exchange, certain commodities are consumed during the production of other commodities, as well as the individual’s consumption of a good following an exchange. This cycle of consumption during production, exchange, and consumption following exchange depicts labor and its value within the economic market, as well as its significance to the social institution.31 Horrell states that the labor theory of value is integral to his model because it “will aid in teasing out the importance of maritime labor to these communities as well as facilitating a greater understanding of the socio- cultural processes occurring within these communities and the surrounding region based on their economies.”32

The framework developed by world systems theory and its tenets as described by

Immanuel Wallerstein provide the structure that allows the labor theory of value to be applied on

29 Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (New York: Penguin Classics, 1992).

30Horrell, “Plying the Waters of Time,” 24.

31 Ibid., 24-27; D. Graeber, Toward an Anthropology of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 55.

32 Horrell, “Plying the Waters of Time,” 24.

a regional, national, and global level.33 Wallerstein uses the exploitative nature of cores, semi- peripheries, and peripheries to express interaction in both a social and economic setting. This conceptual tool can be used to understand the morphology of a developing society and how it evolves through time and space.34 Horrell also incorporates Nicholas Kardulias’s idea of

“negotiated periphery” to demonstrate an individual’s actions and decision-making ability within a society, thus revealing links between people and the system.35

The Maritime Economic and Socio-Cultural Relations Model integrates the concepts of economy as a social institution, the labor theory of value, and world-systems theory, where the labor theory of value is necessary to comprehend the social and cultural processes within the economy of a social institution. The patterns resulting from these processes are then teased out through the framework defined in world systems theory. Through the integration of these three concepts, in conjunction with an analysis of archaeological data and historical documents,

Horrell claims that archaeologists are able to provide an anthropological look into maritime society. 36

Kendra Kennedy chose a different route than Horrell in her endeavor to build upon the framework of MCL. She utilized MCL as a base for pondering questions concerning gender, ideology, ethnicity, power, resistance, and agency.37 The focus of her study relies on the works

33 Horrell, “Plying the Waters of Time,” 28; Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World-system: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Academic Press, 1974).

34 Horrell, “Plying the Waters of Time,” 28-29.

35 Ibid., 31; Nicolas Kardulias, ed., World Systems Theory in Practice: Leadership, Production, and Exchange (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999).

36 Horrell, “Plying the Waters of Time,” 34.

37 Kennedy, “Between the Bayous,” 18.

of Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens on habitus, practice, and structuration as they relate to human agency.38 Kennedy explains that an individual’s habitus is composed of their past experiences, where they have learned which actions and reactions are appropriate for a given situation. It is from these experiences that an individual’s practice is manifested.39

Structuration, in this instance, is defined as the way practices “both create and are created by practice itself.”40 The three components of habitus, practice, and structuration form the framework which describes human agency. From an examination into the factors which comprise human agency on the waterfront, Kennedy believes it is possible to understand aspects of an individual’s agency, aspects like power and resistance. In order to examine habitus, practice, and structuration, Kennedy suggests exploring the relationship between the material culture excavated archaeologically, historical documents, and the landscape.41 Kennedy utilizes these concepts to inspect the cultural milieu surrounding the maritime landscape of Pensacola’s downtown waterfront. Although she discusses them, her focus is not on the structural or physical remains on the waterfront, but rather the culture which once existed on the landscape and can be inferred from the resulting modification as observed on the modern landscape.

Johan Rönnby augmented MCL by incorporating Fernand Braudel’s temporal scales.42

Braudel describes three different scales of time including les événements, les conjunctures, and les longues durées. Les événements involve the short military and political history of events,

38 Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory or Structuration.

39 Kennedy, “Between the Bayous,” 19.

40 Ibid., 20.

41 Kennedy, “Between the Bayous,” 20-22.

42 Rönnby, “Maritime Durées,” 65-82.

while les conjunctures are cycles of medium duration that pertain to groups, institutions, economy, and social structures. Finally, the les longues durées are the seemingly unchanging structures located in mentality, technology, and the landscape.43 Rönnby utilizes the concept of les longues durées to examine maritime society around the ever-changing coastal landscape of

Sweden. He examines subsistence techniques of coastal peoples from the Viking and Middle

Ages to more recent techniques filmed in the 1940s, and postulates about the techniques employed by ancient peoples who lived on the now submerged, ancient, coastal landscape.

According to Rönnby, it is possible to make assumptions about utilized techniques because ancient people occupied the same physical landscape as that which exists today, as well as all periods of occupation in-between. Thus, this shared, similar physical maritime landscape suggests the possible existence of shared, long-term mental and social structures among groups throughout time.44

In addition to studies endeavoring to improve upon the groundwork laid out by

Westerdahl, there exist two other concepts relating to MCL, those of seascapes and waterscapes.

Studies into seascapes often view the sea as a fluid, living, and diverse entity. This view provides a new perspective on how individuals in coastal areas developed a sense of place and identity.45 Often, seascape studies focus on activities and resources more strictly associated with the ocean, as opposed to terrestrial resources and their effect on the cultural landscape.46

43 Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II (London: Collins, 1972).

44 Rönnby, “Maritime Durées,” 79.

45 Gabriel Cooney, “Introduction: Seeing Land from the Sea,” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 323.

46 Other examples of seascape studies include: Chris Ballard et al., “The Ship as Symbol in the Prehistory of Scandinavia and Southeast Asia,” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 385-403; Ian Barber, “Sea, Land and Fish: Spatial Relationships and the Archaeology of South Island Maori Fishing,” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 16

In a stark contrast to seascape studies, waterscape studies focus on the physical remains on the terrestrial or coastal landscape. These studies examine the liminal zone connecting the water with the land, thereby describing the waterfront as a landscape, hence the term waterscape.

The waterscape influences human interaction with and access to water.47 One advantage of waterscape studies stems from its basic foundation. MCL, and especially seascape studies, focus on the maritime landscape, often viewing maritime culture as strictly evolving from a direct relationship with the ocean. Waterscape studies, however, focus on the connection between the water and land. Thus, for a waterscape study, the body of water is irrelevant: it must simply interact with land to be considered a waterscape. Waterscape studies can, therefore, be completed in the same locations as MCL and seascape studies, but can also completed in areas further inland, like riverfronts.48

(2003): 434-448; Trevor Bell and M.A.P. Renouf, “Prehistoric Cultures, Reconstructed Coasts: Maritime Archaic Indian Site Distribution in Newfoundland,” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 350-370; Breen and Lane, “East Africa's changing seascapes,” 469-489; Cooney, “Introduction: Seeing Land from the Sea,” 323-328; Chris Gosgen and Christina Pevlides, “Are Islands Insular? Landscape vs. Seascape in the Case of the Arawe Islands, Papua New Guinea,” Archaeology in Oceania 29 (1994): 162-171; Astrid Lindenlauf, “The Sea as a Place of No Return in Ancient Greece,” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 416-433; Ian J. McNiven, “Saltwater People: Spiritscapes, Maritime Rituals and the Archaeology of Australian Indigenous Seascapes,” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 329-349; Ian J. McNiven et al., “Tigershark Rockshelter (Baidamau Mudh): Seascape and Settlement Reconfigurations on the Sacred Islet of Pulu, Western Zenadh Kes (Torres Strait),” Australian Archaeology 66 (2008): 15-32; Tim Phillips, “Seascapes and Landscapes in Orkney and Northern Scotland,” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 371-384; Robert Van de Noort, “An Ancient Seascape: The Social Context of Seafaring in the Early Bronze Age,” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 404-415.

47 Adam Rodgers, “Reimaging Roman Ports and Harbours: the Port of Roman London and Waterfront Archaeology,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 30, no. 2 (2011): 214-216.

48 James Errante, “Waterfront Archaeology: Recognizing the Archaeological Significance of the Plantation Waterscape,” in Carolina’s Historical Landscapes: Archaeological Perspectives, eds. Linda F. Stine, Martha Zierden, Lesley M. Drucker, and Christopher Judge (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1997), 205-209. Other examples of waterscape studies include David Beard, “’Good Wharves and Other Conveniences’: An Archaeological Study of Riverine Adaptation in the South Carolina Low Country,” in Carolina’s Historical Landscapes: Archaeological Perspectives, eds. Linda F. Stine, Martha Zierden, Lesley M. Drucker, and Christopher Judge (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1997), 61-70; Jago Cooper, “Modelling Mobility and Exchange in Pre-Columbian Cuba: GIS Led Approaches to Identifying Pathways and Reconstructing Journeys from the Archaeological Record,” Journal of Caribbean Archaeology extra 3 (2010): 122-137; Angus Graham et al., “Reconstructing Landscapes and Waterscapes in Thebes, Egypt,” Journal of Ancient Studies 3 (2012): 135-142; Adam Rodgers, “Water and the Urban Fabric: a Study of Towns and Waterscapes in the Roman Period in Britain,” 17

This study implements yet another new approach. In addition to the tenets of MCL previously mentioned, this study incorporates some of the concepts integral to the theoretical paradigm of historical ecology. Historical ecology examines the relationship between humans and the environment. This relationship between human behavior and the environment is revealed in the physical attributes of a landscape.49 The landscape acts as a unit of analysis which reveals human practice, including its effects on and how it is affected by the environment.

These interactions, for historical ecology, are not deterministic from either vantage point, but are rather seen as a dynamic dialectic.50 That being said, the premise of historical ecology claims that historical events, rather than evolutionary events, are the principal catalyst for environmental changes that are the result of this dialectic.51 The landscape is viewed as a bridge connecting the historical development of a society with the evolutionary or natural processes at work in the geographic area in which the society occupies.52 These landscapes are only viable to this type of interpretation when viewed over a given period of time. For some studies, the relevant timeframe may be thousands of years, while, for other studies, it may be merely decades.

For the purposes of this study, the region considered will be the West Florida timber lands with a focus on Molino and the Escambia River. Although Molino Mills was in operation

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 41, no. 2 (2012): 327-339; Erik Swyngedouw, “Modernity and Hybridity: Nature, Regeneracionismo, and the Production of the Spanish Waterscape, 1890–1930,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89, no. 3 (1999): 443-465.

49 Carole Crumley, “Historical Ecology A Multidimensional Ecological Orientation,” in Historical Ecology, ed. Carole Crumley (Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press, 1994), 9.

50 Dave Egan and Evelyn A. Howell, “Introduction,” in The Historical Ecology Handbook A Restorationist’s Guide to Reference Ecosystems, eds. Dave Egan and Evelyn Howell (Washington, DC: Island press, 2001), 2.

51 William Balée, “Historical Ecology: Premises and Postulates,” in Advances in Historical Ecology, ed. William Balée (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 13.

52 William Balée, “Introduction,” in Advances in Historical Ecology, ed. William Balée (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 5. 18

for only eighteen years, its relationship with the environment has manifested itself within the local landscape, notable through the mill’s extant remains. Molino Mills operated at a transitory period within the lumber industry, between the earlier, water-powered mills and the later mill company towns. In Molino, there was a working sawmill almost continuously from the mid-1830s until 1927. This study examines the different manners in which the various types of sawmill operations have left their mark on the landscape, including the effects of societal cues and policies on the landscape, in addition to as the effect of the Escambia River and surrounding timber lands on human practice.

CHAPTER III

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

This chapter has a two-fold purpose; it attempts to provide, first, a brief history of the

West Florida lumber industry, and, secondly, a history of Molino, Florida. This history aids in the understanding of the social and economic changes which are observed in Molino’s history.

While the focus remains on the lumber industry, specifically Molino Mills, emphasis is placed on other aspects of Molino’s history, such as previous inhabitants of the area, as well as prominent individuals associated with Molino.

West Florida Lumber Industry

While European colonization of Pensacola began in 1559, it was not until Pensacola’s

British Period (1763-1781) when sawmills were established in the area. Although no mills were in operation during Pensacola’s First Spanish Period, the Spanish did discover the value of West

Florida timber. Prior to Spanish colonization in 1693, a contingent of explorers traveled to

Pensacola Bay and wrote that the banks were “covered almost everywhere by pine trees, from which masts and spars can be taken, even for vessels of 600 tons; there were innumerable oaks.”1

During the First Spanish Period, numerous ships, including the Nuestra Señora del Rosario y

Santiago Apostal, picked up timber from Pensacola. On her final voyage in 1705, Nuestra

Señora del Rosario y Santiago Apostal was scheduled to carry a cargo containing large pine and cypress logs, but, before she set sail, the ship sank in Pensacola Bay.2 The next known documentation of West Florida timber occurred in 1743, when a letter stated that masts produced

1 Irving A. Leonard, Spanish Approach to Pensacola, 1689-1693 (Albuquerque: The Quivira Society, 1939), 152, 164.

2 James W. Hunter III, John R. Bratten, and J. Coz Cozzi, Underwater Field Investigation 1999: The Santa Rosa Island and Hamilton Shipwrecks (Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida Archaeology Institute 2000), 31. 20

from yellow pine were shipped to Cuba.3 Between 1763 and 1781, the British capitalized on the local timber and established at least four water powered sawmills.4 During the later portion of the Second Spanish Period, the Spanish had established approximately 25 sawmills within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of Pensacola.5 An example of one such mill was the Clear Creek mill, erected by Milan de la Carrera and Juan Vincente Folch.6 These early mills probably used the pit saw method to produce timber.7

The Northwest Florida lumber industry began to thrive following Spain’s cession of

Florida to the United States in 1821. During the early Territorial Period (1821-1845), millers erected approximately 37 water powered mills in West Florida, including the Arcadia Mill

Complex, Walston’s Mills, Cooper Mill, and many more.8 The typical water powered mill utilized a Muley saw, a method that vastly improved production outputs when compared to the pit saw method.9

3 William Gober, “Lumbering in Florida,” Southern Lumberman (December 1956):104.

4 Clinton N. Howard, “Some Economic Aspects of British West Florida, 1763-1768,” Journal of Southern History vol. 6, no. 2 (1940): 217; John C. Phillips, "Flood Thy Neighbor: Colonial and American Water-Powered Mills in West Florida," Gulf South Historical Review 12, no. 1 (1998): 143-147.

5 John A. Eisterhold, “Lumber and Trade in Pensacola and West Florida: 1800-1860,” Florida Historically Quarterly 51, no. 3 (1973): 267.

6 Leigh A. Rosborough, “Settlers and Slaves: A Spatial Analysis of a Colonial and Antebellum Mill Community in Escambia County, Florida” (master’s thesis, University of West Florida, 2004), 5, 7-8.

7 The pit saw method had a maximum output of 100-200 board feet per day. For a more detailed description of the pit saw method, please see Richard W. Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914” (PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1960), 155.

8 Brian Rucker, “Arcadia and Bagdad: Industrial Parks of Antebellum Florida,” Florida Historical Quarterly 67, no. 2 (1988): 147-165; John C. Phillips, The Water-Powered Industries of Northwest Florida: An Archaeological Reconnaissance (Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, 1996).

9 A more detailed description of the Muley saw method can be found in: Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914,” 156; Jeffrey Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930 (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), 16. 21

By 1835, Pensacola’s annual lumber export exceeded four million board feet. That year alone, lumber left port in over 85 different vessels to many locales that included New Orleans,

Cuba, Tampico, St. Joseph, Mobile, and Buenos Aires. Twenty years later, in 1855, the city’s annual export had more than quadrupled to over 18 million board feet and was now shipped to

England and Rio de Janeiro.10 Although the quantities of lumber produced by water powered mills were significant, it was not until the invention of the circular saw, in conjunction with its use in steam powered mills, that the amount of lumber exported from West Florida became a significant portion of the nation’s lumber output.

The circular saw was invented in the late eighteenth century and was in wide use by the

English around 1820.11 It took until 1850 for first Florida sawmill to implement the circular saw.12 Some scholars state the earliest use of a circular saw occurred in the 1840s, but do not mention a specific mill or location. By the 1880s, however, Florida mills used circular saws almost exclusively.13 Circular saws continued to improve through the late nineteenth century, becoming more efficient and less wasteful with the addition of an interchangeable and replaceable saw tooth.14

10 Phillips Keyes Yonge, “The Lumber Industry of West Florida,” in Makers of America, an historical and Biographical Work by an Able Corps of Writers Published Under the Patronage of the Florida Historical Society, ed. A.B. Caldwell (Jacksonville, Florida: Florida historical Society, 1909), 73.

11 Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914,” 156.

12 Baynard Kendrick and Barry Walsh, A History of Florida’s Forests (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2007), 194.

13 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 17.

14Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914,” 157-158. 22

The use of steam power had its early origins in the northeastern portion of the United

States when, in 1754, an engine was erected at the Schuyler Copper mine in New Jersey.15 The earliest use of steam power in West Florida was at the Bagdad Mill, erected in 1840.16 In 1860,

Joseph Forsyth and his steam powered Bagdad Mill employed 150 workers who produced nine million board feet of lumber, just over two times the output for all of West Florida only 25 years earlier.17

On the eve of the Civil War, the West Florida lumber industry was bustling with activity with at least 33 operational sawmills in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Jackson, Walton, and Washington counties. Santa Rosa County, boasting 14 mills, was the largest lumber producing county in the entire state.18 The lumber mills of West Florida were hit hard by the Civil War, which created a lack of both labor and resources that dampened lumber output for the duration of the war.

Additionally, in fear of the mills’ equipment falling into enemy hands, many were burnt. The

Bagdad Mill was scorched to the ground in 1862.19

Prior to the Civil War, there were three obstacles that prevented further expansion of the lumber industry: poor markets, a lack of technology, and a shortage of capital. All of these difficulties seemed to disappear in the two decades following the cessation of the Civil War.

15Louis C. Hunter, A History of Industrial Power in the United States 1780-1930 Volume two: Steam Power, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1985), 1.

16 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 18; Kendrick and Walsh, A History of Florida’s Forests, 209.

17 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 18.

18 Ibid., 46; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Manufactures of the United States in 1860; Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eighth Census, prepared by the United States Bureau of the Census under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1865).

19 Archer Stuart Campbell, Studies in Forestry Resources in Florida: II. The Lumber Industry (Gainesville: The University of Florida, 1932), 51. 23

Many areas of the South, and even portions of the North, rebuilt after the devastating fires that wreaked havoc during the war. This devastation opened up many domestic markets for Florida’s virgin, longleaf pine forests. Furthermore, until the Civil War, domestic markets preferred the white pine grown in the Great Lakes regions, but, by the 1870s, these northern forests were nearly depleted.20

At the same time the Northern forests were becoming increasingly barren, technological innovations augmented the miller’s effectiveness in processing timber. These improvements demonstrate the likely type, or types, of machinery, including steam engine and boilers, which were employed at Molino Mills. The advances in steam power can be separated into three distinct types/periods. The first was between 1820 and 1850, when the design of the engine shifted. During the early years of this period, mill engines were composed of simple machines that were produced locally and assembled at the mill. These engines typically utilized a horizontal cylinder containing a small diameter and a long stroke.21 However, by the end of this period, a typical engine had a direct connection between the crosshead and crank via a connecting rod, and operated with a slide valve that maintained a cutoff at half stroke or later.22

With the development of larger industrial complexes just before the Civil War in the

North, and immediately following it in the South, there was great need for a cleaner, more efficient method of obtaining power from steam. The creation of two new types of engines, the

Corliss engine and the Porter-Allen engine, met this demand. The Corliss engine, also known as

20 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 37; Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914,” 19; Laurence C. Walker, The Southern Forest: A Chronicle (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1991), 97.

21 Figure 1 is an example of a horizontal-cylinder mill engine. Another example can be found in Hunter, A History of Industrial Power in the United States 1780-1930 Volume two, 120.

22 Hunter, A History of Industrial Power in the United States 1780-1930 Volume two, 123-124. 24

the automatic variable cutoff engine, contained an automatic variable cutoff. The automatic variable cutoff essentially stopped a piston at one-fifth its maximum stroke. This process greatly diminished the loss or waste of steam when the stroke was allowed to be fully utilized, while also significantly increasing fuel economy.23 The Porter-Allen engine, invented in 1862, contained a new type of valve gear which allowed for a high-speed engine.24 Higher speed engines occupied less space, wasted less steam, and decreased the output cost per unit.25

Figure 1. Corliss Compound Engine located in Pawtucket R.I.

23 Robert Henry Thurston, A History of the Growth of the Steam-Engine, 4th ed. (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1897), 319-320, 502; Hunter, A History of Industrial Power in the United States 1780-1930 Volume two, 255-256.

24 Hunter, A History of Industrial Power in the United States 1780-1930 Volume two, 124, 450.

25 Ibid., 451. 25

Figure 2. A typical lengthwise section of a cylinder from a Corliss engine. The arrows depict the directionality of the steam. Note the upper left and lower right valves are open while the upper right and lower left valves are closed.

The final advancement in the steam engine’s development occurred from 1870 to 1900 with the addition of multi-cylinder expansion engines and section watertube boilers. One of the major causes of loss in the efficiency of a steam engine was the reevaporation of condensed water. Reevaportion occurred when the temperature of the steam decreased to a point lower than the temperature of the cylinder walls, causing the remaining steam to pass through the cylinder without providing any additional force. However, if the cylinder expansion is divided among two or more cylinders, the range of temperature observed in the steam and cylinder walls is reduced and the resulting loss of power is similarly reduced.26 Watertube boilers, when compared to standard boilers, have an enlarged surface area that the exhaust from the fire touches, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the fire and decreasing the fuel needed to

26 Hunter, A History of Industrial Power in the United States 1780-1930 Volume two, 124,633. 26

generate steam. The capacity of the boiler was also augmented, while limiting the formation of scale in the boiler.27

Figure 3. Two views of the prototype of the modern high-speed engine.

27 Hunter, A History of Industrial Power in the United States 1780-1930 Volume two, 336. 27

Figure 4. This is a fully developed sectional watertube boiler from the late nineteenth century.

In addition to the opening of new markets and technology advances, much needed capital began to flow into the South at the close of the Civil War. Some of the capital came from local individuals, such as the Simpson brothers and Benjamin Overman of Bagdad, but the majority came from northern businessmen looking to invest in the growing market for Florida pine, men such as Drs. J. C. and Frederick Ayer of Massachusetts.28 By 1870, the industry of Florida had surpassed its prewar production levels.29 In the mid-1870s, Pensacola had developed into the state’s primary lumbering center, probably as a result of its deepwater port and the plentiful

28 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 25; Escambia County, Deed Book P, 584.

29 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 25. 28

waterways that drained into it. The approximate value of Pensacola’s exports at this time was over 50 million dollars.30

The passage of the Southern Homestead Act on June 21, 1866 put a brief halt to the purchasing of land in the five southern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and

Mississippi.31 The act limited the sale of land to legitimate homesteaders and limited the amount of land that could be purchased to eighty acres.32 The act, however, did not completely prevent lumber companies from obtaining land: a number of entries for homesteaders appear to have been filed by dummy entrymen acting on behalf of the lumber companies.33 The act was finally repealed in 1876, but it took another four years for the General Land Office to make the land available for purchase.34 The repeal of the Southern Homestead Act opened up Florida to a massive influx of northern and local timber speculators who quickly invested in available land.

One such northern investor was James D. Lacey of Grand Rapids, Michigan, who purchased over five million acres between 1880 and 1905.35 A local example was Daniel F. Sullivan, who, in 1878, purchased Molino Mills and eventually purchased nearly 250,000 acres in Alabama and

30 Occie Clubbs, “Pensacola in Retrospect, 1870-1890,” Florida Historically Quarterly 37, No. 3 (1959): 377.

31 The Southern Homestead Act was passed because the states’ representatives felt this would increase homesteaders in the south. Also, it was thought that this act would help poor southerners, both white and black, to become landowners and, thereby, boost the South’s economy.

32 Paul Wallace Gates, “Federal Land Policy in the South 1866-1888,” Journal of Southern History vol. 6, no. 3 (1940): 306; Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914,” 35-36.

33 Dummy entrymen are fake names used by individuals to purchase land. The land would then be utilized by the lumber companies, not homesteaders. Gates, “Federal Land Policy in the South 1866-1888,” 309-310; Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida,”37; Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 37.

34 Gates, “Federal Land Policy in the South 1866-1888,” 313; Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914,” 39.

35 Gates, “Federal Land Policy in the South 1866-1888,” 316. 29

West Florida.36 At his death in 1884, Sullivan was said to have controlled the city of Pensacola through his ownership of piers, railroads, and lumberyards, while his personal fortune was estimated at nearly one million dollars.37

The final major shift in the lumber industry occurred around 1900 with the advent of the company town. Company towns developed out of a necessity for accessible labor.

By this time, most of the readily available lumber had been cut down, making it necessary to transport logs long distances between the long leaf pine stands and the mill. The transportation requirement, combined with the capabilities of the large lumber companies that developed at the end of the nineteenth century, provided the impetus for large company towns.38 These towns varied greatly across the state, from towns like Carbur, which, in 1930, housed over 1200 people and produced over one million board feet per day, to smaller ones such as Pinewood, which housed only 160 people, of which 60 were employed at the Bay Point Mill.39

The lumber industry in Florida was essentially defunct by the close of the 1930s. At that time, most the timberlands had been exhausted. This lack of available timber for harvest, as well as the Great Depression, brought an end to the industry.40 The annual lumber production of

36 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 39.

37 James E. Fickle, The New South and the “New Competition”: Trade Association Development in the Southern Pine Industry (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980), 4.

38 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 179-180.

39 Ibid., 182; Robert A. Moon, “Life in the Company Town: Bay Point Mill Company and Pinewood, Florida” (master’s thesis, University of West Florida, 2001), 38.

40 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 205.

Florida in 1930 was almost 200 million board feet lower than that generated in 1925.41

Furthermore, the number of mills operating in Florida decreased from 469 in 1919 to just 302 in

1929.42 Archer Stuart Campbell summed up the state of the industry best in his 1932 pamphlet on the lumber industry when he stated “At this writing, April 1, 1932, the condition of the lumber industry in Florida is most unsatisfactory and its future uncertain.”43

History of Molino, Florida

The community of Molino, Florida, has a rich cultural heritage which includes prehistoric

Native American occupations, an eighteenth-century Spanish mission, and numerous industrial sites, such as a canning facility and a brick manufacturing plant.44 It was the lumber industry, however, through the operation of sawmills, that was the major factor in the rise and fall of

Molino. In fact, the word “molino” is Spanish for “mill.” Molino Mills was extremely vital to the community’s well-being.

To fully comprehend the importance of Molino Mills to the community of Molino, one must understand the ecological and environmental factors that made the area alluring to humans for the last few thousand years. Native Americans were the first humans to inhabit the area. One known Native American site in the area has been identified on the Florida Master Site Files as

8ES1047. During the excavation at Mission San Joseph de Escambe, archaeologists uncovered a

41 Campbell, Studies in Forestry Resources in Florida, 31.

42 Ibid., 34.

43 Ibid., 78.

44 The earliest documentary evidence that uses the name “Molino” for the area is on a piece of a header from the Pensacola Lumber Company, dated July 12, 1869. J.J. Maguire and Thomas A. Paine to Harrison Reed, July 12, 1869, Governor Harrison Reed Papers: Appointments and Resignations of Escambia County 1868-1872, Florida State Archives, R.A. Gray Building, Tallahassee, Florida, RG 101/S.577, Box 2, Fn. 2. 31

Deptford Period occupation (500 BCE to 200 CE).45 A number of Deptford Period features were identified, including post holes, possibly from a residential structure. Radiocarbon analysis performed on some charred material from this feature roughly dates the structure to 360-290

BC.46 Furthermore, the 2009 UWF Colonial Frontier Fieldschool recovered Woodland Period pottery including Weeden Island Punctate and Swift Creek Incised ceramics (100-900 AD).47

During Pensacola’s First Spanish Period (1559-1763), under the direction of the

Apalachee Chief Juan Marcos Fant, the Spanish established a mission in Molino.48 The mission inhabitants included some 30-50 Apalachee Indians, a Franciscan missionary, and, by 1760, a cavalry unit with 16 Spanish soldiers, one of which was an officer. There is evidence, both documentary and archaeological, for a mission church, convent, barracks, stockade, and

Apalachee residential structures.49 In April of 1761, a group of 28 Creek Indians attacked and burned the mission.50 The mission was subsequently abandoned, with all residents moving to

45 Mission San Joseph de Escambe is a mid-eighteenth-century Spanish mission that sits immediately adjacent to Molino Mills.

46 John Worth, Norma Harris, and Jennifer Melcher, Annual Report 2010 Archaeological Evaluation Mission San Joseph de Escambe (8ES3473) (Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida Archaeological Institute), 8.

47 John Worth, and Jennifer Melcher, Annual Report 2009 Archaeological Evaluation Mission San Joseph de Escambe (8ES3473) (Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida Archaeological Institute), 27.

48 John Worth, Norma Harris, and Jennifer Melcher, “San Joseph de Escambe: A 18th-Century Apalachee Mission in the West Florida Borderlands” (Paper presented at the 2011 Conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Austin, Texas, January 8, 2011); John Worth, “Rediscovering Pensacola’s Lost Spanish Missions” (paper presented at the 65th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina, November 15, 2008).

49 Worth, Harris, and Melcher, “San Joseph de Escambe: A 18th-Century Apalachee Mission in the West Florida Borderlands,” 3, 6; John Worth et al., “Exploring Mission Life in 18th-Century West Florida: 2011 Excavations at San Joseph de Escambe” (paper presented at the conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Baltimore, MD, January 6, 2012).

50 Worth et al., “Exploring Mission Life in 18th-Century West Florida: 2011 Excavations at San Joseph de Escambe,” 5. 32

Presidio San Miguel in modern day downtown Pensacola.51 Archaeological investigations into

Mission San Joseph de Escambe began in the summer of 2009 and have occurred every summer through 2012.52

Little is known about the Molino area during Pensacola’s British Period (1763-1781). A few individuals including David Taitt, Bernard Romans, and Thomas Hutchins traveled between

Pensacola and the Creek Nation, north of Pensacola, documenting their travels via journals.

David Taitt, in a 1771 map, placed the location of what he calls an “Old Spanish Fort mostly burnt down and destroyed by Indians” just south of a series of bluffs along the “River

Scambia.”53

Bernard Romans described the area in two ways. First, he discussed the physical characteristics of the land. He stated that “about twenty miles from Pensacola we begin to meet with some spots of fertile land, varioubly timbered.”54 Romans then discussed what he believed to be a Spanish fort: “Twenty-eight miles from town, and on the banks of this river, on an eminence, are the remains of a Spanish out-guard, or stocado fort.”55 Based on the distance measurements, as well as identifying the river as the “Escambé,” the Spanish fort he described

51 Worth et al., “Exploring Mission Life in 18th-Century West Florida: 2011 Excavations at San Joseph de Escambe,” 6.

52 Worth, Harris, and Melcher, “San Joseph de Escambe: A 18th-Century Apalachee Mission in the West Florida Borderlands”; Worth et al., “Exploring Mission Life in 18th-Century West Florida: 2011 Excavations at San Joseph de Escambe”.

53 David Taitt, “A Plan of Part of the Rivers Tombecbe, Alabama, Tensa, Perdido, & Scambia Rivers in the Province of West Florida” (The National Archives (UK), MPG 1/6; extracted from CO 5/73 (f 103), Copy in Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division, Washington, DC).

54 Bernard Romans, A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida (1775; repr., Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1962), B-303.

55 Ibid., B-303. 33

was most likely Mission San Joseph de Escambe, and the “eminence” is probably Durants

Bluff.56

Thomas Hutchins, like Romans, described both the land and the Spanish fort. Hutchins stated that “about 28 miles from Pensacola by land… is, without doubt, in point of fertility of soil, equal to any thing to be met with in the country.”57 He details all the different types of plants which grew in the area, including pine, oak, and hickory, while stating that the land would be good for growing Indian corn, beans, peas, turnips, potatoes, and rice.58 Additionally, the land was used for cattle and should be utilized for its “excellent timber.”59 In his only mention of Mission Escambe, Hutchins provided some details on the current occupants of the land: “The large island on which Mr. Marshall made his settlement, nearly opposite the old stockaded fort…”60 “Mr. Marshall” was most likely William Marshall who, according the American State

Papers, was granted 7,000 arpents of land 26 miles north of Pensacola, in an island in the middle of the Escambia River.61 The island granted to William Marshall is today known as Parker

Island, named after an early 1800s resident.62 The southern end of Parker Island sits just

56 Durants Bluff is the name of the bluff where both Mission San Joseph de Escambe and Molino Mills were built. Both the spellings “Durands” and Durants” are used in various documents to describe the bluff found in Molino. The likely origin of the bluff’s name is from Lachlan Durant who was a resident of Alabama in the late 1700s.

57 Thomas Hutchins, An Historical Narrative and Topographical Description of Louisiana and West- Florida (1784; repr., Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1968), 79.

58 Ibid., 79-81.

59 Ibid., 81.

60 Ibid., 79.

61 House of Representatives, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875, 8th Congress, 2nd Session (American State Papers, Public Lands: Volume 41), 205. An arpent is approximately 3400m2.

opposite the Escambia River from Molino Mills. The American State Papers state that Joseph

Lamb held property during the British Period that bounded the north side of William Marshall’s property.63 Finally, the papers mention a land owner during the Second Spanish Period, one

Francisco Bonal. In 1817, the Spanish Government granted Bonal the same tract of land that the

British Government had granted to William Marshall some 40 years earlier. In addition, there are statements that Bonal had cleared land and begun to cultivate rice, corn, and potatoes in a seven or eight acre plot on the island.64

Throughout Pensacola’s Second Spanish Period (1781-1821), there was some minor activity in the Molino area. There are records for five separate Spanish land grants. Molino

Mills sits in the present-day township 2N range 31W section 39.65 One grant to the land across the river from Molino Mills’ location, mentioned above, was awarded to Francisco Bonal.66

Immediately north of the mill lies township 2N range 31W section 40, which was granted to Juan de la Rua.67 According to the American State Papers, Rua cleared his land from 1817-1819.68

62 I.E. Allen, “Noted Escambia County Families: Cooper Family and Dr. Parker,” The Pensacola Journal, February 10, 1907. Before the island was known as Parker Island, it may have been known as “Bonal Island.” Emory F. Skinner, Reminiscences (Chicago: Vestal Printing Co, 1908), 174.

63 House of Representatives, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875, 205.

64 House of Representatives, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875, 206; Francisco Bonal, Bonal Land Grant, Spanish Land Grants Collection, R.A. Gray Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

65 Benjamin A. Putnam, “Survey Plat for Florida Township 2 North, Range 31 West”, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Land Boundary Information System, General Land Office Early Records, Tallahassee, Florida.

66 Francisco Bonal, Bonal Land Grant, Spanish Land Grants Collection, R.A. Gray Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

67 John de la Rua, Rua Land Grant, Spanish Land Grants Collection, R.A. Gray Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL; House of Representatives, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875, 181.

Nathan Shackleford was also given two grants in the Molino area, both in township 2N range

31W section 38 and township 2N range 31W section 37.69 Section 38 is immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of section 39, while section 37 is just south of section 38. The final

Spanish land grant in the Molino area was the plot of land on which Molino Mills physically sits.

The Spanish Governor Masot granted that land (township 2N range 31W section 39) to Don

Antonio Collins in July 1817. The area was surveyed by Pedro Reggio on December 24, 1818 and cleared/cultivated from 1817-1818.70

Unlike the previously mentioned Spanish land grants, a copy of the original land grant for

Collins could not be located. A likely explanation is that, by the time the Americans took over

Florida in 1821, Collins no longer owned the property and there was no reason for Collins to put forth a petition claiming the lands as his own. Evidence to support this theory emanates from two sources. First, the maps included in the land claims that were confirmed by the American government, such as those of Shackleford and Rua, list “Shackleford” under township 2N range

31W section 39 instead of “Collins.”71 Finally, the first deed records in the Florida Territorial

Period list Nathan Shackleford as owning the property in 1825.72 A record of the transaction between Collins and Shackleford could not be located, but documentary evidence suggests that,

68 House of Representatives, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875, 181.

69 Nathan Shackleford, Shackleford Land Grant, Spanish Land Grants Collection, R.A. Gray Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL; House of Representatives, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875, 182.

70 House of Representatives, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875, 181.

71 John de la Rua, Rua Land Grant, Spanish Land Grants Collection, R.A. Gray Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL; Nathan Shackleford, Shackleford Land Grant, Spanish Land Grants Collection, R.A. Gray Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

72 Escambia County, Deed Book A, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 384-386. 36

sometime between 1818 when the land was cultivated and 1821 when the Americans took over possession, some type of land transfer occurred.

During Florida’s Territorial Period (1821-1845), the plot of land where Molino Mills is located changed hands a number of times. As mentioned above, Nathan Shackleford appears to have owned the property as the Americans took over Florida. By 1825, Shackleford had passed away, with a judgment against him to the sum of $7,339.82.73 Sheriff William Davidson, with

Sarah Boon as the administrator, put Shackleford’s assets up for public auction. Benjamin D.

Wright was the highest bidder.74 Wright subsequently sold the land in 1833 to Thomas Cooper and Alder A. M. Jackson.75 Thomas Cooper, in 1834, mortgaged his recently acquired property and shortly thereafter purchased several slaves.76 It is likely that the mortgage also financed the building of a water powered sawmill and grist mill on the property.77 Deed records indicate that

Cooper paid his mortgage in full. The Cooper Mill operated for almost 30 years before ceasing operations at beginning of the Civil War.78 Even though Molino appears to have been spared from raids, no records indicate that the mill resumed its operation at the close of the Civil War.

73 Escambia County, Deed Book A, 384-386.

74 Ibid., 384-386.

75 Escambia County, Deed Book B, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 525-526.

76 Escambia County, Deed Book C, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 11-12, 25-26, 149.

77 The deed record found in Escambia County, Deed Book L, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 157-158 is the earliest record of the Cooper Mill being erected.

78 J.H. Daffin, “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida,” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915. 37

Thomas Cooper, in 1853, placed Joseph Vaughn, his son-in-law, and Charles Evans as trustees for his Molino property in the event of his death.79 This transaction seems to have been done hastily, because the land was trusted back to Thomas Cooper on October 19, 1855.80

Thomas Cooper was 75 years old in 1853, so it is likely that ill health was a major impetus for the deed transfer. The following day, Cooper sold the land to Henry Hyer; he canceled this transaction, however, on January 29, 1857.81

Thomas Cooper sold portions of his property to the Alabama-Florida Railroad Company in 1860.82 That same year, he also leased the use of a spring on his property to the railroad.83

The Florida-Alabama Railroad, by 1861, was the only railroad which had connections, not only out of the state of Florida, but also all the way to the northeastern United States.84 Most of this railroad was destroyed during the Civil War, but it was rebuilt under the direction of the

Pensacola and Louisville Railroad Company in 1868.85 By 1870, the railroad connected

Pensacola to the northern United States via Montgomery and Nashville.86 However, it was not

79 Escambia County, Deed Book L, 157-158.

80 Ibid., 157-158; Escambia County, Deed Book M, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 101-103.

81 Escambia County, Deed Book M, 105-106.

82 Escambia County, Deed Book P, 83-85.

83 Ibid., 84.

84 George Rogers Taylor and Irene D. Neu, The American Railroad Network 1861-1890 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), III. The Florida-Alabama Railroad and the Alabama-Florida Railroad appear to be the same railroad. The portion of the railroad in Alabama is called the Alabama-Florida Railroad while the portion in Florida is called the Florida-Alabama Railroad.

85 George W. Pettengill Jr., The Story of Florida Railroads 1834-1903 (Boston: The Railway & Locomotive Historical Society, Inc. 86, 1952), 114-115; Dudley Sady Johnson, “The Railroads of Florida 1865- 1900” (PhD diss., Florida State University, 1965), 114.

86 Charles H. Hildreth, “Railroads Out of Pensacola, 1833-1883,” Florida Historical Quarterly 37, no. 3 (1959): 410. 38

until May 9, 1872 when the Pensacola & Louisville Railroad Company took control of the

Alabama & Florida Railroad company.87 The Pensacola and Louisville Railroad was sold to

Sullivan and the Pensacola Railroad Company on May 6, 1878.88 Sullivan sold the company and all its property, except timber lands, to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad on February 27,

1880, but the merger was not official until October 1, 1880.89

At the close of the American Civil War, many northern entrepreneurs sought to expand or make their fortunes in the industry-poor South. Three such northerners, Nehemiah Knight,

Edwin Hoyt, and Frederick Ayer purchased a large tract of land in the Molino area from Joseph

Vaughn in January of 1866.90 On the property, Knight, Hoyt, and Ayer erected what has been called one of the largest sawmills in West Florida at an estimated cost of $200,000.91 Molino

Mills had a capacity between sixty to one hundred thousand feet of lumber daily (18 million to

31.2 million annually) and employed 125-200 men.92 A broadside listing the sale of the

Pensacola Lumber Company in 1875 provided a significant amount of detail concerning the mill.

It stated the dimensions of the mill at 85’ x 206’, the engine and boiler house at 65’ x 75’, and

87 Edward W. Hines, Corporate History of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and in Its System (Louisville, KY: John P. Morton & Company, 1905), 198.

88 Daniel F. Sullivan owned all the stock (3,000 shares) of the Pensacola Railroad Company. Ibid., 115; Johnson, “The Railroads of Florida 1865-1900,” 114, 118.

89 Johnson, “The Railroads of Florida 1865-1900,” 114, 118.

90 Escambia County, Deed Book P, 581-585. Nehemiah Knight, Edwin Hoyt, and Frederick Ayer also had ties to the local railroad business. They were a part of the firm W. F. Teat & Co., which was involved in the foreclosure of the Alabama & Florida Railroad Company on May 24, 1871 prior to its acquisition by the Pensacola & Louisville Railroad Company in 1872. Hines, Corporate History of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and in Its System, 198.

91 J.H. Daffin, “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida,” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915; George Woodward Hotchkiss, Industrial Chicago The Lumber Interest (Chicago: The Goodspeed Publishing Company, 1894), 474.

92 Henry C. Armstrong, History of Escambia County, Florida (St. Augustine, FL: The Record Company, 1930), 116; J.H. Daffin, “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida,” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915. 39

the machine shop and fixing room at 38’ x 50’. Additionally, the broadside provided a list of machinery that includes “8 Boilers, 2 Engines, 2 Double Circular Saws, 1 Gang, 2 Gang Edgers,

Lath Machine, Cutting-off Saws, 2 Screw Cutting Lathes, 1 Planer (iron), 1 Schenck Wood.”93

Finally, this document mentions an offshoot of the railroad leading into the mill.94 Another source stated that the mill was outfitted with all the “late modern mill improvements” including one large circular and two double gang and edger saws.95 The smokestack of the mill was described as “twenty feet across at the bottom and sixty feet high, tapering to six or eight feet.”96

Beginning in 1869 and ending in 1873, there was a dispute as to the legitimate property owners of the land on which Molino Mills sat.97 Artemas Stone claimed that he was the legitimate owner of one-half the land purchased in 1833 by Thomas Cooper and Alder A.M.

Jackson. Stone stated that Cooper and Jackson were joint owners of the property, but claimed that, in 1834, Jackson sold his portion to him.98 He asserted that the portion of the land sold following the death of Thomas Cooper in 1863 was illegal because Stone was the legal owner of

93 Edgar C. Smith, Assignee's Sale in Bankruptcy, of Steam Saw Mill, Timber Lands, Stores, Houses and Furniture, Logs, Steamer, Lighters and Booms, &c., Situated in Florida and Alabama, Florida Broadside Collection, R.A. Gray Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

94 Ibid.

95 Benjamin Robinson, An Historical Sketch of Pensacola, Florida Embracing a Brief Retrospect of the Past and a View of the Present (Pensacola, FL: Advance Gazette, 1882), 65; J.H. Daffin, “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida,” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915.

96 Heritage Book Committee, The Heritage of Escambia County, Florida Volume 1 (Canton, AL: Heritage Publishing Consultants Inc., 2004), 61.

97 Constantine C. Esty as administrator of Artemas Stone, Artemas Stone, Elizabeth Stone, Mary Stone, Arthur K. Stone v. Joseph B. Vaughn, Caroline Vaughn, Franklin Vaughn Harriet Vaughn, Eugene Bonifay, M.L. Cooper/Bonifay, H.S. Cooper, Gamalial Bell, Sarah Bell, Jessie B. Cooper, Thomas Parker, Edwin Hoyt, Nememiah Knight, and Frederick Ayer, Case No. 4454 1871, Escambia County Official Records. Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives. Pensacola, Florida, 1-91.

98 Stone did purchase Jackson’s portion in 1835. Escambia County, Deed Book C, 82-83.

the land.99 Constantine C. Esty took over Stone’s plight following Stone’s death in late 1869.100

The defendants, Vaughn et al., rebutted by stating that, in 1835, Thomas Cooper purchased

Stone’s half for two notes of $1,008.33 each.101 The case went to trial in March of 1873. The judge for the trial declared that, without further evidence, which was unlikely to arise since the death of Artemas Stone, the covenant between Cooper and Stone from 1835 would be upheld, and that Stone, as of 1835, was no longer the legitimate owner of the property on Durants

Bluff.102

Between 1866 and 1875, Hoyt, Knight, and Ayer acquired and leased numerous tracts of land in the Molino area. They struck deals with residents, probably in order to harvest the timber growing on the land.103 Coincidently, large portions of their holdings were trusted to the

Pensacola Lumber Company, including the land on which Molino Mills resides.104 The

99 Constantine C. Esty as administrator of Artemas Stone, Artemas Stone, Elizabeth Stone, Mary Stone, Arthur K. Stone v. Joseph B. Vaughn, Caroline Vaughn, Franklin Vaughn Harriet Vaughn, Eugene Bonifay, M.L. Cooper/Bonifay, H.S. Cooper, Gamalial Bell, Sarah Bell, Jessie B. Cooper, Thomas Parker, Edwin Hoyt, Nememiah Knight, and Frederick Ayer, Case No. 4454 1871, Escambia County Official Records. Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives. Pensacola, Florida, 20-23.

100 Constantine C. Esty (1824-1912) graduated from Yale in 1845. He studied law and became an attorney in Middlesex County, Massachusetts (the same county from which Artemas Stone originated). Esty served in the state senate in the late 1850s and was elected to congress in 1872-1873. He maintained a practice in Middlesex County until his death. U.S. Congress, “ESTY, Constantine Canaris, (1824-1912),” Biographical Directory of the United States, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=E000225 Congress, (accessed September 18, 2012).

101 Constantine C. Esty as administrator of Artemas Stone, Artemas Stone, Elizabeth Stone, Mary Stone, Arthur K. Stone v. Joseph B. Vaughn, Caroline Vaughn, Franklin Vaughn Harriet Vaughn, Eugene Bonifay, M.L. Cooper/Bonifay, H.S. Cooper, Gamalial Bell, Sarah Bell, Jessie B. Cooper, Thomas Parker, Edwin Hoyt, Nememiah Knight, and Frederick Ayer, Case No. 4454 1871, Escambia County Official Records. Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives. Pensacola, Florida, 41-42.

102 Ibid., 68-70.

103 One such deal occurred with Thomas Moreno. Escambia County, Deed Book T, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 590-592; Escambia County, Deed Book P, 590-592.

104 The deed relating to the property containing Molino Mills is in Escambia County, Deed Book S, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 41

Pensacola Lumber Company was incorporated under the laws of the state of New York. In 1872,

James C. Ayer, Frederick Ayer, And Edwin Hoyt owned all but one share of the Pensacola

Lumber Company.105 A few of the New York City directories provide some information relating to the Pensacola Lumber Company. The 1872 New York City Directory listed Edwin Hoyt as the President of the Pensacola Lumber Company, while listing James C. Ayer as the Secretary.106

The 1874 New York City Directory lists Edwin Hoyt as the president, but Frederick H.

Trowbridge as the secretary. It also states that the company has $300,000 in capital.107 John

Bracket, in his master’s thesis, states that the Pensacola Lumber Company, which owned mills in

Molino, was the largest producer of cut timber in West Florida in 1868.108 He goes on to say that the company employed some 400 people who lived in Molino, shipping timber out of

Pensacola Bay to both domestic and foreign markets.109

Between 1868 and 1875, no documents survive which provide any information pertaining to Molino Mills, but, on June 21, 1875, the Pensacola Lumber Company declared bankruptcy with Charles Edgar Smith appointed the assignee for the bankruptcy process.110 The following

566-570. Additional leased lands in the area can be found in Escambia County, Deed Book S, 563-566, 570-572, 572-575.

105 “Suing the Hoyt and Ayer Estates,” New York Times, June 15, 1882.

106 John F. Trow, The New York City Register (New York: The Trow City Directory Company, 1874), 39.

107 John F. Trow, The New York City Register (New York: The Trow City Directory Company, 1876), 40.

108 The only mill operating in Molino in 1868 was Molino Mills.

109 John M. Brackett, ““The Naples of America,” Pensacola During the Civil War and Reconstruction” (master’s thesis, Florida State University, 2005), 58-59; J.J. Maguire and Thomas A. Paine to Harrison Reed, 12 July 1869, Governor Harrison Reed Papers.

110 Escambia County, Deed Book U, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 387-388. 42

year, on February 2, the holdings, which included nearly 50,000 acres and numerous buildings, were trusted to Dana Sargent.111

When Dr. J.C. Ayer passed away in 1878, he named his brother Frederick the executor of his will and left many of his assets to him.112 On January 15, 1881, Daniel F. Sullivan purchased land from Ayer and many others (including Dana Sargent), as well as the holdings of the

Pensacola Lumber Company, totaling nearly 50,000 acres.113 In addition, Sullivan purchased a significant portion of the Florida-Alabama Railroad, which ran through the property on which the mill was located.114 Daniel Sullivan became one of the largest property owners and one of the largest lumbermen in Escambia County. He continued to purchase more land in and around

Molino that would produce lumber for the mill.115

Daniel Sullivan died June 14, 1884, leaving his estate to his brother Martin Sullivan.116

Molino Mills burned to the ground less than three months later on Sunday, September 7, 1884.117

The Pensacola newspaper, The Pensacolian, estimated the financial loss of the mill at $180,000

(about $4.25 million today), of which only $10,000 was insured.118

111 Escambia County, Deed Book U, 503-512.

112 Will of Dr. J.C. Ayer, “The Profits of the Pill Business Divided Among Relatives,” special dispatch of the New York Times July 17, 1878.

113 Escambia County, Deed Book X, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 232-233; Escambia County, Deed Book U, 503-512.

114 J.H. Daffin, “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida,” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915.

115 Escambia County, Deed Book Y, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 341; Escambia County, Deed Book X, 20, 174.

116 J.H. Daffin, “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida,” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915.

117 “Molino Mills Burned,” The Pensacolian, September 13, 1884.

118 Ibid.; S. Morgan Friedman, “The Inflation Calculator,” S. Morgan Friedman, http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ (accessed November 26, 2010).

Documentary records for Molino Mills are scant, yet a few sources provide some detailed information pertaining to Molino Mills and individuals associated with the mill. Unfortunately, no further information could be located that references Nehemiah Knight’s interest in the company. Edwin Hoyt and Dr. J.C. Ayer were business partners who asked Mr. George E. Scott to be the general manager of the “Hoyt & Ayer Lumber interests in Molino, Florida.”119 The first superintendent of the mill was the Confederate General William Miller.120

There are two court cases concerning the Molino Mills which divulge a wealth of information concerning the mill and its operation. The first court case was held before the

Supreme Court of Alabama in December, 1884.121 The case describes a very complicated situation involving at least three companies, as well as personal interests of no less than three individuals. Once deciphered, the case provides a tremendous amount of information regarding the Molino Mills Company. For instance, the decision of the case implies that Martin Sullivan was a silent partner in the company along with Daniel Sullivan.122 It also suggests that Matthew

L. Davis was a partner with Daniel Sullivan: Mr. Davis owned 25% of the holdings of the

Molino Mills Company, with Daniel Sullivan owning (in silent partnership with his brother) the remaining 75%. The case also detailed the holdings of the Molino Mills company, which included “mill-site, machinery, mill-house, dwelling-house, store-houses, planning-mills, dry

119 Hotchkiss, Industrial Chicago The Lumber Interest, 474.

120 J.H. Daffin, “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida,” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915.

121 JNO. W. Shepherd, “Davis v. Sowell & Co,” in Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama, During the December Term, 1884 Volume LXXVII (Montgomery, AL: Joel White, 1886), 262-275.

122 Ibid., 275.

kiln, locomotives, cars, railroad bed and tracks, docks for stacking lumber, booms, live-stock, office furniture, logs, and between fifty and sixty thousand acres of land.”123

The second court case was tried before the Supreme Court of Florida on December 16,

1890.124 This case provides only a small amount of information pertaining to the mill, but it describes a contract between Daniel Sullivan and two business partners Mr. McMillan and Mr.

Wiggins. This contract, signed August 24, 1882, called for the transportation of 100 logs per day for two years from Hall Creek to McMillan and Wiggins. The thrust for McMillan and Wiggins to sue arose because Sullivan, or, rather, his heirs, defaulted on the contract. The payment for the logs was to be made at the Molino Mills, but, because the mill burned, the contract could not be fulfilled.125 The case also states that Mr. M. L. Davis was the superintendent of Molino Mills at the time the contract was agreed upon.126 Although few records do exist, a single sketch of

Molino Mills survived.127 The sketch is located in a pamphlet created by the railroad tycoon

William Dudley Chipley. The pamphlet was intended to bring tourism to the Gulf Coast, with

Molino being a major selling point for the area.

123 JNO. W. Shepherd, “Davis v. Sowell & Co,” in Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama, During the December Term, 1884 Volume LXXVII (Montgomery, AL: Joel White, 1886), 263.

124 West Publishing Company, “Sullivan et al. v. McMillan et al.” in The Southern Reporter, Containing the Decisions of the Supreme Courts of Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi Volume 8 (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1891), 450-464.

125 Ibid., 452.

126 Ibid., 454.

127 William Dudley Chipley, Pensacola (the Naples of America) and Its Surroundings Illustrated: New Orleans, Mobile, and the Resorts of the Gulf Coast (Louisville: Courier-Journal Press, 1877), 30.

Figure 5. Only known image of Molino Mills.

It was not until 1902 that Molino had another sawmill in operation. Frank and Fred

Johnson purchased land just north of the Molino Mills site.128 There, they erected the Molino

Brick and Lumber Company.129 Their involvement in the firm was short lived because financial troubles forced its sale in 1907 to Henry C. Jacobi and his son, James A Jacobi, who promptly changed the name to the Jacobi Lumber Company.130 The Jacobi Lumber Company closed its doors in 1927. The current landowner of the Molino Mills site is Mr. Richard Marlow, who has

128 Escambia County, Deed Book 28, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 552.

129 J.H. Daffin, “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida,” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915.

130 Escambia County, Deed Book 47, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 278; Escambia County, Deed Book 48, Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL, 442-445. 46

allowed the University of West Florida to come onto his property and conduct the archaeological excavations for this and other research projects.

Archival research has provided critical information throughout the investigation into

Molino Mills. Documents have established the context within which an analysis of Molino Mills can be understood more fully by providing some of the greatest detail concerning individuals integral to the mill’s operation, as well as the inner workings of a Reconstruction Era sawmill.

The above background history of Molino Mills and the lumber industry has established a context which allows the archaeological material recovered to be comprehended. It is through this context that a lens is developed; this lens aids in an analysis of the social and natural cues observed in the material assemblage and modifications to the landscape. The next chapter discusses the methodology utilized in the archaeological investigation of Molino Mills. It is essential when developing a methodology to understand what types of material to expect throughout the excavation. The methodology is followed by the results of the excavation. The final chapter will draw from both the historical archival research and the archaeological investigation to generate conclusions about Molino Mills.

CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

Archaeological investigation into Molino Mills originated with UWF’s 2009 Colonial

Frontiers Fieldschool under the direction of Dr. John Worth. While the focus of the Colonial

Frontiers Fieldschool was to identify and locate the remains of a First Spanish Period mission,

San Joseph de Escambe, artifacts relating to other structures and timeframes, such as Molino

Mills and the Reconstruction Era, were encountered. Over the subsequent three summers, the

Colonial Frontiers Fieldschool attempted to delineate and further define the mission and its components. While the bulk of the excavation occurred on the upper terrace of Durants Bluff, one shovel test, ST116, was excavated on the lower terrace. This shovel test was completed in order to determine the geographical extent of the mission period occupation. Shovel test 116 is only 10 meters east of structure 1 and lies inside the boundary of the mill. Throughout the course of the fieldschools, UWF identified mill period remains that exist, stratigraphically, above the mission period remains. This material was excavated as part of the mission, but provenienced and recorded separately, including any encountered mill period features.

Terrestrial excavations that specifically delved into Molino Mills occurred between July 2011 and March 2012, while maritime fieldwork occurred between June and September 2011.

Terrestrial

In order to determine the boundary for Molino Mills, the author, under the supervision of

Dr. John Worth, conducted terrestrial excavations. This excavation followed closely the standards and procedures utilized during the Colonial Frontiers Fieldschools.1 Most of the

1 A more detailed description of the excavation procedures can be found in Worth and Melcher, Annual Report 2009 Archaeological Evaluation Mission San Joseph de Escambe (8ES3473); Worth, Harris, and Melcher, Annual Report 2010 Archaeological Evaluation Mission San Joseph de Escambe (8ES3473). 48

terrestrial fieldwork was conducted on the lower terrace and floodplain of Durants Bluff.

Fieldwork began by extending the arbitrary grid, established during the 2009 fieldschool, to encompass the remainder of Durants Bluff. The grid maintained horizontal and vertical control across the survey area. The principal investigator at the Colonial Frontier Fieldschool gave an arbitrary designation of 1001.83N and 1006.79E to a USGS marker in the Molino area. He also designated the USGS marker at a height of 8.19 meters NAVD88, which allowed for a standardized vertical measurement.2 UWF students extended the grid by clearing heavy brush with the use of machetes, axes, and hand saws, and then established additional datums using a

Sokkia Total Station. The datums were composed of either metal rebar hammered into the ground or portions of the extant mill period structures.

In order to locate the mission, fieldschool students completed shovel tests at an arbitrary

20 meter interval, which was later extended throughout the remainder of the bluff in order to locate the boundary for the mill. A number of shovel tests were offset because of the presence of existing structures or large trees. Archaeologists excavated additional shovel tests in between the interval, in order to further define the mill boundary, for a total of 15 shovel tests. A Sokkia

Total Station helped students to more accurately lay in shovel tests, allowing for sub-centimeter accuracy in the placement of shovel tests. Metal rebar doubled as both datums and shovel test markers, and were thus placed in the southwest corner of each unit. Data from the shovel tests were recorded on standardized UWF shovel test forms. Each test unit consisted of a 50cm x

50cm square, excavated in 10cm arbitrary levels, while following the natural stratigraphy when possible. For instance, if, in the middle of a 10cm level, a natural clay layer was encountered,

2 “NAVD88” is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. NAVD88 is a vertical control datum located at Father Point/ Rimouski, Quebec, Canada. The datum utilizes mean sea level as the vertical control from this one site as the standard orthometric height measurements elsewhere. 49

the clay layer was collected separately from the stratigraphically different upper layer. If the clay layer extended below what would have been the end of the aforementioned 10cm layer, the provenience would be discontinued and excavations resumed with a new 10cm arbitrary level.

Excavation in each shovel test ceased after two sterile 10cm levels or the inability to excavate further, often when structural remains prevented additional digging. Archaeologists drew plan views and photographed units only if a feature was present or to further document a significant attribute in a unit. Additionally, a minimum of one wall profile was drawn and photographed in each shovel test. Often, because of the large amount of cultural material present and breaks in soil stratigraphy, the profiling of more than one wall occurred. Following both photographic and hand drawn documentation, the backfilling of shovel tests commenced.

Depth measurements were recorded by taking a depth below surface measurement with a line level and folding rule that was subtracted from the starting height recorded by the total station in mNAVD88. All depth measurements utilized the southwest corner as a point of origin.

The site has tremendous elevation changes within each terrace of the bluff, especially when considering the entirety of Durants Bluff. This method of measurement allowed for relative depths to be documented and even compared across the entire site. When possible, features were noted, assigned numerical designations, and excavated separately. Levels were described using mNAVD88 so that a height of 8.04mNAVD88 would have been located in level 80 while a height of 5.68mNAVD88 would have been designated as level 56.

Archaeologists screened material through at least 1/8” mesh screen, with features screened through 1/16” mesh. Most of the recovered material was wet screened, especially portions that contained clay. Soaking the clay in water with baking soda facilitated the clay’s dissolution in water and this mixture was subsequently wet screened through the appropriate size

mesh. All recovered material, save for organics such as roots, leaves, and twigs, was bagged and brought back to UWF’s Historical Archaeology Lab for further processing.

On site, the abundance of bricks necessitated the enforcement of a unique brick collection policy. The goal was to collect a representative sample from every provenience in every unit, though archaeologists recovered all bricks in select units. For the sample proveniences, all bricks containing a maker’s mark were retained. Size and color were the main attributes taken into consideration, and archaeologists attempted to collect an adequate sample of varying sizes and colors. All bricks greater than 1/2” and destined to be discarded were first counted, weighed, and recorded on the shovel test forms prior to disposal.

In total, archaeologists recovered 165 proveniences and all were brought into the laboratory for further analysis. The initial step for artifacts brought back into the lab was to provenience each collected bag. Every provenience was recorded into a provenience log and had its designated number written on each bag. The Historical Archaeology Lab Director Janet

Lloyd allocated the provenience numbers 3500-3564 for the Molino Mills excavation. This is a continuation of the provenience numbers utilized for UWF’s Colonial Frontiers Fieldschool.

Both projects were excavated under the same site number (8ES3473) and thus all data is recorded in the same database. Archaeologists spread out proveniences onto trays and allowed the material to air dry prior to rebagging. The author fully processed all material in UWF’s

Historical Archaeology Lab under the direction of Dr. John Worth and Janet Lloyd. Lab procedure requires recovered material to be screened through 1/4” mesh over 1/16” mesh. The author scanned and discarded objects that fell through the 1/16” screen. All organic matter was removed and discarded from the material that fell through 1/4” mesh. The author scanned the remaining material for objects that should not have fallen through the screen and other smaller

artifacts, such as lead shot and sherdlets. When encountered, the author removed and bagged these artifacts separately. All material that did not fall through the 1/4” mesh was fully processed in accordance with UWF standards.

During laboratory analysis, the author labeled unidentifiable Native American ceramics smaller than 1/2” as sherdlets, while fully processing Native American ceramics greater than

1/2” and subsequently writing provenience information on the back side of these larger ceramics.

The author fully processed and identified historic ceramics and glass regardless of size. Lab standards required separation of metal first by basic elemental composition (like iron or lead), followed by the grouping of all identifiable metallic objects with similar object types. Nail separation included different types, such as hand wrought, cut, or wire, in addition to, if complete, size. Brick classification included both greater than and less than 1/2” brick. In proveniences with a large amount of brick, retention rates differed; the author retained only a sample of the greater than 1/2” brick and the entirety of the less than 1/2” brick. The author counted, weighed, and recorded on UWF code sheets both the discarded and retained greater than 1/2” bricks. Analysis procedures for noncultural stone were similar. Finally, the author coded and entered all proveniences into a UWF Microsoft Access database to facilitate further analysis

Conservation

All conservable metal artifacts were sent to the UWF Conservation Lab. The author first x-rayed iron concretions to determine if any of the original iron remained. Once deemed viable for conservation, all artifacts were photographed and drawn prior to beginning treatment. After mechanically cleaning the artifact, the author placed it an electrolysis tank that contained a 5% solution of sodium bicarbonate and water. At the completion of the electrolysis process, artifacts

went through three consecutive baths of boiling tap water to remove sodium bicarbonate and were subsequently coated in a mixture of tannic acid with the surfactant Mazon 40, with at least three coats covering each artifact. The final step involved coating iron artifacts in microcrystalline wax to prevent from further deterioration. Some iron artifacts, like many of the cut iron nails, were in an excellent state of preservation.3 Some of the annealed nails were left untreated, while other nails needed mechanical cleaning with dental picks, wire brushes, and a dremel. Following the removal of rust and concretion, Krylon sprayed on the nails helped to display their natural color. The recovery of a single, extremely fragile, iron button necessitated a unique conservation strategy, involving x-raying, mechanical cleaning, and subsequent coating with Acryloid B-72. Post-conservation drawings and photographs were taken before the artifacts were returned to the appropriate provenience.

Maritime

The methodology utilized in the maritime portion of the project included remote sensing, circle searching, and mapping of exposed features. Because of low visibility and strong currents, some aspects of the maritime reconnaissance had to be completed when rainfall was negligible and resulted in significantly deflated water levels. Low water levels in June of 2011 exposed a trench/sluiceway feature, and this circumstance provided an opportunity for students from the

2011 Combined Terrestrial and Maritime Fieldschool to map the structure. Fieldschool students established an elevated baseline over the trench/sluiceway by suspending a reel between a metal rebar and a fiberglass probe. A line attached to the baseline allowed for the maintenance of horizontal integrity. Archaeologists used folding rulers and plumb bobs to measure the dimensions of the trench/sluiceway and recorded this data with pencils on Mylar. Additional

3 Some of the cut nails were purple in color. This is potentially a result of an annealing process from when Molino Mills burned in 1884. 53

photographs helped to further document the trench/sluiceway’s size and state of preservation. A

GPS coordinate for the trench, obtained using a Garmin GPSMAP 76 and recorded in WGS 84 with UTMs, aided to visualize the trench’s position relative to the other remains of the mill.4

Figure 6. UWF Combined Terrestrial and Maritime Fieldschool students recording the trench/sluiceway exposed by low water levels.

The 2011 Combined Terrestrial and Maritime Fieldschool also recorded a number of pilings exposed by low water levels. A dive flag and large red buoy placed at both the northern and southern ends of the work area signified the student’s presence to passing boaters. Students waded into the water and performed a systematic search for pilings and other features in the river. They mapped all cultural material located using probes, reels, and folding rulers. A baseline established alongside the line of pilings began at the northernmost piling and extended over 64m (210ft) to the southernmost piling. The use of trilateration allowed for the creation of

4 WGS 84, or World Geodetic System as defined in 1984, is a standard coordinate system used in navigation to provide a position on Earth. 54

an accurate map, recorded with pencils on Mylar. Garmin GPSMAP 76 coordinates for the northernmost and second southernmost pilings recorded in WGS 84 using UTMs provide a fixed location to the generated map.

Figure 7. UWF Combined Terrestrial and Maritime Fieldschool students using trilateration to record submerged pilings in the Escambia River.

Following a significant rainstorm in July of 2011, a magnetometer survey of the river was performed with a SeaSPY Overhauser Magnetometer made by Marine Magnetics. The survey, completed in a 10ft Jon boat with a trolling motor, included a total of seven lines that extended from approximately 200 meters north of the mill to 400 meters south of the mill. Because of the possibility of submerged trees, the lines surveyed did not have standardized lane spacing, but, instead, provided full coverage of the entire breadth of the Escambia River. The data, analyzed in HYPACK, revealed 21 magnetic anomalies. Out of the recorded 21 targets, two deemed high priority necessitated further investigation.

Figure 8. Dr. John Worth and the author performing a magnetometer survey in the Escambia River.

The water level had significantly receded by September of 2011, allowing divers to safely enter the river. UWF graduate students placed a dive flag and a large red buoy at the northern and southern ends of the work area. Using a GPS coordinate taken from HYPACK a buoy dropped on the coordinates acted as an anchor for a circle search. The circle search used fiberglass probes and reels. During the course of the search, divers encountered a large wooden structure and subsequently documented the feature. The graduate students mapped the structure with reels and folding rulers while recording the measurements on Mylar with pencils.

Underwater photography was limited due to a large amount of particulates and poor visibility; it was not, therefore, utilized to any extent.

Historical Research

Historical documents created a more holistic interpretation of the Molino community and

Molino Mills. Oral tradition in Molino states that a number of sawmills had been erected and subsequently destroyed over the course of history, but it remained unclear how many or when.

The first task was to identify the specific mill or mills whose extant remains currently rest on Mr.

Richard Marlow’s property. The author accomplished this identification through numerous trips to the Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives to examine deed records. The first phase of this research was to understand the succession of landowners; once identified, a number of keywords relating to the mill, including the names of property owners and company names, assisted in future research.

Unfortunately, primary documents relating to the Reconstruction Era for Pensacola are relatively scarce. In December of 1880, a fire destroyed approximately five blocks of downtown

Pensacola, including the U.S. Customs House, Escambia County Tax Collectors Office, and the

Pensacola Gazette (local newspaper). Many documents, such as the shipping records of Molino

Mills and the rest of the lumber industry, were likely destroyed during this fire. Additionally, any records or documents held in the mill itself were destroyed when Molino Mills burned in

1884. That being said, a substantial amount of primary documents do survive. These documents were located through numerous trips to various archives, including the Escambia County Official

Records’ Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, the Pensacola

Historical Society, the West Florida Genealogy Library, the University of West Florida’s

University Archives and West Florida History Center, Florida State University’s Robert M.

Strozier Library, the University of Florida’s P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, and the State

Archives of Florida R.A. Gray Building. The author used keywords to search through any folder

which related to the lumber industry or any pertinent individuals. Some of the major folder headings which the archivists retrieved were labeled “lumber industry,” “industry,” “labor,”

“shipping,” “sawmills,” “Naval stores,” “turpentine,” and “railroads.”

A surprising source of documentary information was the internet: many libraries and archives have digitized documents or, at least, have online databases that provide descriptions of document collections. Several “Google” searches using different combinations of the keywords and geographic locations identified a wide array of documents from all over the country.

Sometimes these documents could be viewed online, while other times it necessitated travel to the archive itself.

This thesis employed a wide array of documents including deed records, U.S. census records, state census records, Spanish and British land grants, city directories, newspapers, U.S.

Governmental records such as the American State Papers, Florida and Alabama State Supreme

Court records, local court case records, company headers, personal letters, photographs and drawings, journals, maps, broadsides, and machinery specifications.

Some potential sources of documents relating to Molino Mills remain untapped, including The Lumber Trade Journal, printed from 1882-1931 in New Orleans. Some issues from the early 1900s exist online and list specific Pensacola lumber companies, often including their export values. Earlier issues might provide data on Molino Mills; however, these early issues could not be located. Although deed records for Escambia County, Florida, were utilized, deed records were not consulted for either Santa Rosa County, Florida, or Baldwin County,

Alabama. Both of these counties border the Escambia River (or the Conecuh River, as it is referred to in Alabama), and the Pensacola Lumber Company likely owned timberlands in these two counties.

A potential for documents exists outside of West Florida as well, particularly in the northeastern United States. James C. Ayer, Frederick Ayer, and Edwin Hoyt were all prominent businessmen in the northeast, the former two in Lowell, Massachusetts, and the latter in New

York, New York. The Pensacola Lumber Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, suggesting that documents concerning the Pensacola Lumber Company might be found in archives in the northeast. A few recommended locations would be the Lowell

Historical Society, the New York Historical Society, and the University of Massachusetts

Lowell’s Center for Lowell History. Finally, Auburn University Special Collections and

Archives maintain the Alabama and Florida Railroad Collection, which may have resources pertinent to Molino.

The historical archaeology methodologies utilized for the Molino Mills project were chosen to aid in answering the questions posed at the beginning of the project. These procedures incorporated previous archaeological investigations and their research designs, as well as considered the ultimate goals for this project to formulate the most appropriate methodology.

The succeeding chapter discusses the results of the research design, including both the terrestrial and maritime components of the archaeological investigation.

CHAPTER V

RESULTS

The investigation into Molino Mills follows a holistic approach, utilizing historical documents, terrestrial excavations, and maritime survey/documentation. Although it is beneficial to incorporate all of these resources into a final conclusion, each is described here, separately, prior to the final interpretation.1 This chapter not only describes the results of the excavation/survey/recording, but provides an interpretation of these results.

Terrestrial Fieldwork Results

One of the goals for this project was to define the boundary for Molino Mills while documenting extant remains. In order to define the mill boundary, archaeologists conducted a shovel test survey consisting of 15 shovel tests; additionally, three structures have survived, including a potential boiler location, machinery anchor, and a series of iron anchor bolts.2 Figure

9 denotes the locations of all units excavated at the Mission San Joseph de Escambe/Molino

Mills site (8ES3473). Figure 10 demonstrates the stark elevation changes that exist on Durants

Bluff.3 The bulk of the remains relating to Molino Mills are located on the lower terrace; however, some of the mill’s remains are on both the upper terrace and floodplain.

Additionally, the majority of Mission San Joseph de Escambe is situated on the upper terrace, but some remains relating to the mission were recovered from units on the lower terrace. The lowest level of the bluff contains the modern day flood plain. Low water levels observed in the

1 The historical research results can be found in Chapter III.

2 For a complete list of all artifacts recovered from the 15 shovel tests, please see Appendix A. A total of 16 shovel tests have been excavated below the upper terrace of Durants Bluff in association with Molino Mills, 15 during the terrestrial excavations for this project and 1 shovel test (ST116) excavated in the summer of 2010 during the Colonial Frontiers Fieldschool.

3 The elevations utilized for this figure are derived from data recovered during this project, as well as the 2009-2012 Colonial Frontiers Fieldschool. 60

winter of 2011-12 allowed for a number of shovel tests on the flood plain. Figure 11 is a close- up of the exact positions of the 15 shovel tests excavated for this project.

Figure 9. Aerial view with all units excavated by April 2012 at Mission San Joseph de Escambe/Molino Mills site (8ES3473).

Figure 10. Graphic display demonstrating relative elevation changes in mNAVD88 of Durants Bluff. This image if overlain on an aerial view would run west to east (left to right), where the mission is west of the mill and the flood plain east of the mill.

Figure 11. Close-up aerial view of units targeting Molino Mills.

Stratigraphic profiles for excavated units varied greatly throughout the excavation.

Consistent profiles exist, however, in shovel tests located inside the mill boundary (Figure 12).

These units are typified by a top layer containing approximately 20-30cm of mixed context material spanning all periods of occupation, from the prehistoric eras up until modern day. The next 20-30cm consisted of reddish clay with exclusively mill period artifacts including cut nails

Figure 12. South wall profile of ST 255.

and bricks stamped with “J. Gonzalez.”4 The subsequent 20-40cm contained a dark gray to black humic layer comprised of material predating the mill period, such as mission period Apalachee pottery and earlier pre-Columbian check-stamped pottery.5 Finally, the units exhibited a 20 cm light gray layer that continues below the excavated depth and is completely devoid of cultural material. Stratigraphic profiles for shovel tests excavated outside the mill boundary varied depending on their location on the bluff. If the shovel test was positioned on the lower terrace,

Figure 13. South wall profile of ST 257.

4 The presence of prehistoric artifacts located above pristine deposits is likely the result of fill brought into the site. Changes to the landscape have not ceased since the mill’s destruction; landowners since Daniel Sullivan have moved and shifted dirt across the site for the last 138 years. It is possible that some of the excess dirt removed from the ground was deposited on top of intact mill deposits.

5 A complete list of all Native American (both mission period and pre-Columbian) artifacts can be found in Appendix A. 64

then the typical profile was a mix of cultural material from all periods of occupation postdating the mission period for 20-60cm, followed by a 20-30cm gray to black humic layer containing exclusively Native American material dating from 1761 and earlier. Finally, these units ended with 20cm of sterile soil (Figure 13). If the shovel test came from in the floodplain, the typical profile consisted of exclusively mixed contents from all time periods intermixed with oscillating layers of root-mat and alluvial sand (Figure 14). This profile is likely a result of numerous flooding and drought episodes. During periods of drought, the forest undergrowth extended into areas once inundated and, as river levels rose, the undergrowth was once again covered by water.

The river then deposited the observed alluvial sand over the now dead undergrowth.

Figure 14. North wall profile of ST 258.

An examination of soil profiles for completed shovel tests revealed a clear outline of the mill. The mill extends approximately 30m x 60m (98.5ft x 197ft) angled northwest to southeast

(Figure 15). This angle matches with the 1877 sketch of Molino Mills located in William

Chipley’s Pensacola (the Naples of America) and its surroundings illustrated: New Orleans,

Mobile, and the resorts of the Gulf Coast.6 Additionally, these dimensions match with those designated in an 1875 Florida Broadside for the main mill building of Molino Mills at 85ft x

205ft or 26m x 62.8m.7

Figure 15. Close-up aerial view of units targeting Molino Mills including the approximate mill boundary. Boundary is defined by white line and terrace edges defined by blue lines.

6 Chipley, Pensacola (the Naples of America) and Its Surroundings Illustrated, 30.

7 Smith, Assignee's Sale in Bankruptcy, of Steam Saw Mill, Timber Lands, Stores, Houses and Furniture, Logs, Steamer, Lighters and Booms, &c., Situated in Florida and Alabama, Florida Broadside Collection. 66

Artifact Discussion

Excavation at Molino Mills produced a wide array of artifacts spanning thousands of years of human occupation. Because of the area’s rich and diverse history, diagnostic artifacts dating exclusively to the Molino Mills period (1866-1884) are difficult to discern and small in number. Mill period deposits were typically identified by the presence of one or two specific artifacts, or, more commonly, by the absence of artifacts diagnostic to other periods of occupation. For instance, although numerous historic ceramics were recovered, only one post- dates the mission period.8 A single, plain whiteware cup rim fragment was recovered in ST 259.

Whiteware ceramic’s post-1820 date places it firmly in the American Territory Period. In addition, the ceramic’s placement near handmade “J. Gonzalez” bricks provides a tighter,

Molino Mills-era date.

Bricks stamped with the maker’s mark “J. Gonzalez” provided the most accurate artifact date for the Molino Mills period. J. Gonzalez was a brick maker in the Pensacola area that operated from 1838-1877.9 Although this date coincides with that of the Cooper Mill, there exists no record that the Cooper Mill’s influence extended to the Molino Mills site. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that closed contexts containing handmade bricks stamped “J. Gonzalez” date to Molino Mills. 10

8 During the excavations targeting Molino Mills, a number of historic ceramics were identified; however, most artifacts were Native American historic ceramics dating to the mission period. Only two artifacts were European in origin: one, a very small pierce of indeterminate lead glazed coarse earthenware, the other, a piece of plain whiteware.

9 Janet Lloyd, “University of West Florida Laboratory Procedures and Artifact Classification Manual” (Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida Archaeological Institute), 2001.

10 The Cooper Mill was a water-powered saw/gristmill in operation from the mid 1830’s until the Civil War and situated only a few hundred yards away from Molino Mills. 67

Figure 16. Plain whiteware cup rim found in level 21 (2.199mNAVD88-2.10mNAVD88) of ST 259.

One final diagnostic artifact relating to the Molino Mills period is the cut nail. Most cut nails were in excellent condition, requiring very little conservation. Many were purple in color, likely resulting from the mill’s destruction, which would have annealed the nails, promoting preservation. All recovered cut nails appear to have a stamped head, which dates the nails to after 1825 (cut nails were likely eclipsed by wire nails around 1900).11 Cut nails post-date the mission period and are therefore identified with the Molino Mills Period. Additionally, cut nails

11 Eric Sloane, A Reverence for Wood (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1965), 25. 68

were often found in the same context as “J. Gonzalez” bricks, further reinforcing their association with Molino Mills.

Figure 17. “J. Gonzalez” brick found at Molino Mills.

Features

Excavations encountered and recorded a number of features. The features were designated numbers 300-311.12 Features 301-304 and 306-311 relate to Molino Mills, in addition to a number of features relating to Molino Mills identified during the 2009-2012

12 Feature numbers 1-299 and 400-499 were reserved for excavations that occurred during the 2009-2012 Colonial Frontiers Fieldschool. Feature numbers 300-399 were reserved for features identified during the 11H Molino Mills excavations. 69

Colonial Frontiers Fieldschools. Any identified features not related to the mill period, such as features 300, 305 and 306, are not discussed in this paper.

Features (F.) 301, 307, and 311 are cut boards. F. 301 was located within ST 252 at a depth of 4.799m NAVD88 and immediately adjacent to structure 2. The board has no distinguishing characteristics and is approximately 20cm (7.9in) wide, 4cm (1.6in) thick, and extends the entire length of the unit. Its proximity to structure 2 and F. 302 suggests that the cut board is a structural element related to the structure 2’s foundation. F. 307 was located in ST

259 at a depth of 1.93mNAVD88, measures approximately 24cm (9.5in) wide and 4cm (1.6in) thick, and extends the entire length of the unit. ST 259 was located in the floodplain just beyond the drop off and contains one of two European historic ceramics located below the upper terrace of Durants Bluff. Additionally, the unit consisted almost entirely of brick, none of which were complete, suggesting that this location was a trash dump. Although not readily apparent, the cut board was probably defective or broken and thus discarded. F. 311 was located in ST 261 at a depth of 1.94m NAVD88, measures 24cm (9.5in) wide and 4cm (1.6in) thick, and extends the entire length of the unit. ST 261 was, like shovel test 259, located in the floodplain and the unit also appears to be a trash dump. Although no defects were observed, F. 311 was probably discarded because of an imperfection.

F. 302 was located within the eastern wall of ST 252 and immediately adjacent to structure 2. The feature is an intact wall structure composed of bricks that extends at least 30cm from top to bottom. The final depth could not be ascertained because F. 301 inhibited further excavation. The feature’s association with structure 2 indicates a subsurface structural component.

As a result of F. 303’s complexity, it was separated into 5 sections, 303A-E. F. 303 was located in ST 250, which is in-between the four granite blocks of structure 1. The feature began at 5.11m NAVD88 and extended to a depth of 4.85m NAVD88.13 All five feature sections are portions of burnt material consisting of either charred logs or a carbonized wood layer. F. 303A and 303C are intact, burnt logs and were not excavated. F. 303B was a layer of carbonized wood excavated and screened through 1/16” mesh. Broken bits of brick and granite were identified within this layer. F. 303D and 303E were very fragile burnt timbers and, because of their fragility, they were left unexcavated. This feature’s location and burnt composition makes it likely that it is the remnant of a fire that heated up the mill’s boilers.14

F. 304 was encountered in ST 255 at a depth of 5.09m NAVD88. It was partially excavated before being identified and was, therefore, approximately 10 cm in height ending at

5.04m NAVD88.15 The feature was composed of semi-compact sandy clay, linear in nature, and extended across the entire unit. The presence of brick supports a mill period date. The feature is possibly a clay floor associated with Molino Mills, but further investigation is necessary to ascertain a more accurate conclusion.

F. 308 was located in ST 260 at a depth of 4.95m NAVD88. The feature consisted of an extremely dense clay layer that became softer and more consistent with a sandy loam as excavation progressed, ending at a depth of 4.65m NAVD88. The contents of the feature were exclusively mill period artifacts, including brick, cut nails, iron, and coal. This unit was located

13 This unit was not excavated to sterile soil because the feature prevented further excavation.

14 For more detail, please see the section discussing structure 1 later in this chapter.

15 Its full height can be observed in the south wall profile of ST255. 71

within the mill boundary and is, therefore, probably a clay floor hardened during the mill’s burning episode.

F. 309 was located in ST 262 and separated into two sections: 309A and 309B. Section

A consisted of a compact clay, while section B was a compact sandy loam. Section A was semi- circular in shape and extended into the northwest corner of the unit. Section B was also semi- circular in nature and existed just outside of section A. Neither section contained any cultural material post-dating the mill period: section A was comprised mostly of brick and cut nails, while section B contained brick, cut nail fragments, and a single Native American ceramic. The unit’s location just outside the mill boundary, in addition to its bowl-like shape, insinuates that this feature is likely a hearth.

F. 310 was located in ST 261, in the floodplain of Durants Bluff. The feature began at

2.22m NAVD88 and ended 22cm deeper. This feature was separated into 2 sections: section A was a loose sandy loam, and section B was a semi-compact sandy loam. Both sections are half circular in shape, with section B existing underneath section A. The feature is below a whiskey bottle dating from 1935-1964 and above a mill period cut board (F. 311). The lack of diagnostic artifacts from within this feature leaves a wide date range spanning 1866-1964. The shape and contents do suggest, however, that F. 310 was a hearth feature.

In addition to the features excavated for the project, three features exist directly related to

Molino Mills (F. 131, 157, and 213) that were excavated as part of UWF’s Colonial Frontiers

Fieldschool. F. 131 was first identified in the summer of 2010, further excavated in 2011, and reencountered in 2012. F. 131 is a brick-filled trench resting on the remnants of a wooden box supported by iron nails. In 2010, F. 131 was identified in the 2m x 2m unit 1090N 1242E and divided into four sections (A-D). Sections A and D are the same section: because of section D’s

post-like shape, it was separated from A, but later determined to be, in fact, the same section of the same feature. Section A denotes the main, brick-filled trench, as well as the wooden box with vertical nails located below the bricks, while sections B and C are the fill surrounding section A. Section B was on the northwestern side of section A, while section C was located on the southeastern side. Section A contained numerous hand-made bricks (identified as possible ladrillos), mission period Native American pottery, seed beads, and iron nails. Section B contained hand-made bricks, while section C contained no diagnostic artifacts. In 2011, F. 131 was identified in two units, 1090N 1242E and 1088.2N 1241.5E, and, in the latter, separated into three sections: BA, BB, and BC.16 Excavation in 1090N 1242E was not completed in 2010 and eventually excavated to sterile in 2011.

The unit 1088.2N 1241.5E was opened to target F. 131 in order to further investigate the origins and characteristics of the feature. Unit 1088.2N 1241.5E was a 1m x 1.5m placed off grid in order to observe the entire feature.17 Section BA is the brick portion of the trench, not including the remnants of the wooden box and nails, which, in 2011, was designated section BB.

Section BC refers to the fill found around either side of section BA. Section BA contained bricks stamped “J. Gonzalez.” Section BB contained Native American ceramics and iron nails, while section BC contained brick fragments and iron nails. In 2012, F. 131 was encountered in the wall of 1082N 1236.5E. The feature was only partially excavated before excavation ceased for

16 During the Colonial Frontiers Fieldschool, sections of the same feature are given extra letters to designate years. For instance, in 2010, sections for given feature sections may have been designated A, B, C, etc., while, in 2011, the same feature (from the same or a different unit) would have sections designated BA, BB, BC, etc., and, in 2012, sections would have been designated CA, CB, CC, etc., and so on. This does not preclude the possibility that they correspond to the same section from the same unit, but rather designates which year the feature was excavated. For instance, feature 131A and 131BA/131BB are the same portions of the same brick trench feature, but were excavated in different years (and just happen to be from different units).

17 The unit walls for 1088.2N 1241.5E did not have N-S directionality. The walls maintained the same NE- SW directionality as F. 131. 73

the summer; material excavated in 2012 is currently waiting for processing. The presence of numerous bricks stamped with portions of the “J. Gonzalez” maker’s mark firmly dates this feature to the Molino Mills period. The presence of earlier mission period ceramics are likely the result of digging through mission period remains to construct the brick trench. F. 131 began at F. 157/213. Probing revealed that it terminates at least 15m later, following a northeastern heading. The feature heads directly from F. 157/213 toward structure 1. This feature is interpreted as an aqueduct meant to transport water from 157/213 to structure 1.

F. 157 was first identified in 2010 in unit 1080N 1235E. F. 157 was approximately 74cm x 50cm (29.1in x 19.7in) and contained Native American ceramics, majolica, and wrought nails.

Archaeologists during the 2010 Colonial Frontiers Fieldschool originally identified the feature as a corner of F. 10.18 The presence of a tree fall obscured the feature’s true nature. During the summer of 2011, the feature was better defined as excavation progressed, and it became clear that F. 157 was a builder’s trench surrounding a well. Section A was therefore designated as the internal well, while section B denoted the builder’s trench surrounding the well. The principal investigator of the Colonial Frontiers Fieldschool redesignated the better-defined feature with a new feature number, 213. F. 213, section A refers to the inside portion of the well, while sections B and C refer to the builder’s trench surrounding the well. F. 213 contained whiteware, a gunflint fragment, lead shot, and several types of Native American ceramics. Based on cultural material present and the feature’s characteristics, the principal investigator determined the feature to be an artesian well dating to the mill period.

18 Feature 10 has been interpreted as a stockade wall from Mission San Joseph de Escambe and, therefore, will not be discussed in this thesis. More information on this feature or other mission components can be found in Worth and Melcher, Annual Report 2009 Archaeological Evaluation Mission San Joseph de Escambe (8ES3473); Worth, Harris, and Melcher, Annual Report 2010 Archaeological Evaluation Mission San Joseph de Escambe (8ES3473). 74

Extant Structures: Structure 1

Structure 1 contained four large granite blocks, each block consisting of four threaded anchor bolts on top of a brick foundation with an overall dimension of 3.5m x 3.5m (11.5ft x

11.5 ft).19 Figure 18 is a photograph of the structure and Figure 19 is a hand-drawn sketch. The granite blocks rest on a brick foundation through which the anchor bolts penetrate. A brick foundation connects the northeastern and southeastern blocks, while a separate brick foundation connects the two blocks on the western side. These foundations run relatively north-south.

Figure 18. Structure 1 looking northeast.

19 A description of anchor bolts and their function in the steam industry can be found in Emory Edwards, The American Steam Engineer, Theoretical and Practical, with Examples of the Latest and Most Approved American Practice in the Design and Construction of the Stem Engines and Boilers of Every Description (Philadelphia: Henry Carey Baird & CO, 1889), 189-191.

There is a hole in the western side of the brick foundation beneath the northeastern granite block that measures 17cm x 17cm (6.7in x 6.7in), as well as sister void in the foundation beneath on the eastern side of the northwestern granite block. There are similar matching holes in the foundations beneath the southwestern and southeastern granite blocks. A timber may have fit into these holes and connected the blocks; these timbers would have created a sturdier foundation for the structure. An unknown author wrote in Scientific American that “A brick foundation with granite capstones with anchor bolts from the bottom is the best.”20

Figure 19. Hand drawn sketch looking down at structure 1.

20 “Notes & Queries,” Scientific American 48 (1883): 363. 76

As mentioned, the well, F. 157/213, appears to flow through the brick trench supported by a wooden box (F. 131) directly toward structure 1. Additionally, the burned F. 301 was excavated in the center of structure 1. The presence of these features in conjunction with the massive size of the structure itself suggests that structure 1 is the location of one or more boilers for the mill. The well (F. 157/213) and trench (F. 131) would have brought fresh spring water into the boiler. Utilizing a well in combination with a trench to transport water was a common practice in the area. The Escambia River is a freshwater river, but it contains many particulates that, when boiled, would have limited the life of the boiler. The rapid boiling action would rapidly move particulates around the inside of the boiler, slowly wearing away the boiler’s integrity.

Structure 2

Structure 2 has a brick foundation with an overall dimension of approximately 2.5m x

1.1m (8.2ft x 3.6ft), with the 2.5m (8.2ft) side positioned almost perfectly north-south. The brick foundation has a number of brick layers extending approximately 40cm (15.7in) above ground surface. In the center of the structure, there is a void in the foundation measuring 45cm x 20cm

(17.7in x 7.9in) that extends to a depth of 85cm (33.5in). There are seven iron anchor bolts of varying lengths, similar in diameter to those found in structure 1. Four of the anchor bolts have been cut below the threading, while the three northernmost anchor bolts still display threading.

The bolts containing threading extend 85cm (33.5in), 83cm (32.7in), and 45cm (17.7) above the brick surface. A portion of the subsurface brick foundation was exposed in ST 252 and identified as F. 302. Although the feature was not completely exposed, the foundation extends at least 60cmbs. The structure is substantial in size and extremely solid in construction; it is likely that the structure is an anchor for some type of machinery. Historical documents describe a wide

array of machinery in operation at Molino Mills including “8 Boilers, 2 Engines, 2 Double

Circular Saws, 1 Gang, 2 Gang Edgers, Lath Machine, Cutting-off Saws, 2 Screw Cutting

Lathes, 1 Planer (iron), 1 Schenck Wood.”21 Based on the structure’s location, it is unlikely to be connected to the boilers. Rather, its robust construction suggests it is associated with one of the saws. Saw machinery requires a fairly substantial support structure to overcome the vibrations generated by the saw itself. Lathes and planar machines are generally more forgiving and require a smaller foundation, but their placement on structure 2 cannot be completely ruled out.

Figure 20. Photograph of structure 2 looking north.

21 Smith, Assignee's Sale in Bankruptcy, of Steam Saw Mill, Timber Lands, Stores, Houses and Furniture, Logs, Steamer, Lighters and Booms, &c., Situated in Florida and Alabama, Florida Broadside Collection. 78

Structure 3

Structure 3 is not so much a structure as it is a series of seven exposed metal bolts located

7.5m (24.6ft) north of structure 2 and positioned in two rectangles. One of the rectangles is missing a fourth corner; however, the missing bolt is likely buried beneath a small mound that is located in its approximate position. Among the seven bolts there are three styles. The first style, designated style A, consists of four bolts containing a rectangular hole with all four bolts positioned in the same rectangle. The partial rectangle containing the other two styles is 1.9m

(6.2ft) east-northeast of the complete rectangle containing the first style. In the partial rectangle, the northeastern bolt is missing. The two southern bolts are anchor bolts consisting of threaded caps and are designated style B. These anchor bolts are similar to the anchor bolts found in structures 2 and 3. The northwestern bolts are anchor bolts like those of style B, but also have a nut and two round cap washers attached. These bolts were designated style C. The round cap washers distributed the force of the machinery across a now deteriorated foundation. The bolt feature likely represents the location of a machinery anchor.22 Style A contains a hole suitable for the connection via a drive pin that could be easily driven in and out.23 Structure 3 would have supported a smaller piece of machinery, like a lathe, or was possibly used in conjunction with another, yet unidentified, structure to support a larger piece of equipment. Time constraints prevented any excavation to investigate the subsurface portions of the bolts.

22 Anchor bolts nearly identical in shape and size to the style C bolts are found in the building that houses the Florida Public Archaeology Network’s Destination Archaeology Resource Center, located in downtown Pensacola. The Florida Public Archaeology Network building was originally constructed in 1903 as a depot for the Louisville and Nashville Railroad.

23 These pins or bolts were likely similar to drift bolts or clench bolts as described in Michael McCarthy, Ships’ Fastenings from Sewn Boat to Steamship (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2005), 180-181. 79

Figure 21. Photographs of structure 3. Styles A, B, and C are left to right.

Figure 22. Scale drawing of structure 3 demonstrating the relative locations of the bolts.

Maritime Fieldwork Results

One method utilized to determine the relationship between Molino Mills and the

Escambia River involved maritime fieldwork to determine if any extant submerged remains relating to Molino Mills exist. An examination of these submerged remains, in conjunction with historical documents, helped determine the nature of the aforementioned relationship. Low water levels experienced during the summer of 2011 exposed a number of previously unknown features, which aided in the discovery and documentation of remains located in the Escambia

River.

One of these features was designated as a trench, extending approximately 5m (16.4ft) out of the river bank (Figure 23). Its construction can be likened to a ship, which contains outer hull planking attached to frames with the equivalent of ceiling planking on the innermost portion.

The trench is 1.1m (3.6ft) wide with a depth (the distance between the top of the wood to the bottom of the trench) of approximately 50cm (1.6ft). It is angled about 30° west of north. No excavation took place to further investigate the trench itself, but a number of other wooden features resembling the trench were identified throughout the floodplain. These trenches appear to be related and form a discernible path through the landscape. The trench is most likely a portion of a log canal which transported logs from the river into the mill and potentially further downstream toward Pensacola Bay. Additionally, canal remnants appear to cut through the oxbow bend located next to Molino Mills. An oxbow bend creates a hazard when large quantities of logs are floated downriver. The bend can create a bottleneck which increases the likelihood of a log jam. This oxbow cut would have allowed logs to be transported directly from the mill to the wharf or landing. The logs were then tied into rafts and sent downriver to

Pensacola Bay.

Figure 23. Image of trench/sluiceway looking east.

Richard Massey, in his dissertation on the lumber industry of Alabama and West Florida, describes a structure similar to the trench located in the Escambia River. He states that lumbermen in West Florida dug ditches 3 to 4 feet deep and lined them with scrape boards.

These ditches allowed for logs to be floated freely into the mill by avoiding water level hazards, as well as sharp curves.24 His description appears to be partially derived from an earlier account written by Herman H. Chapman in 1951.25 In his article, Chapman describes the ditches, or sluiceways, as “4 feet wide, and from 3 to 4 feet deep, timbered on both sides with 1-inch thick lumber and flitches nailed inside 4-inch posts.” All dimensions, except the depth measurement,

24 Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914,” 82-83.

25 Herman H. Chapman, “An Ancient and Original Transportation System for Logs in Southern Alabama,” Journal of Forestry March (1951): 209-210. 82

are identical to those found on the trench located in Molino.26 Chapman continues by explaining the process through which a dam is raised and water flows into the trench, thereby floating logs along the trench into the mill. This process provided an efficient and cost-effective method of short-distance log transportation. Chapman describes the earliest recorded instance of log transportation via a trench or sluiceway conducted by Major William Wallace, who, in 1874,

“used to float logs to his mill near Molino, Florida.”27 William Wallace is listed in the 1880 U.S.

Census as living in precinct 9. According to this census, precinct 9 is Bluff Springs, Florida.

Bluff Springs is approximately 15 miles north of Molino on the Escambia River.28

As a result of low water levels in the summer of 2011, a number of pilings were also observable just below the Escambia River’s surface. This observation prompted a pedestrian survey of the Escambia River, conducted by students from the 2011 Combined Maritime and

Terrestrial Fieldschool. The survey revealed a total of 32 pilings, 16 of which ran in a straight line in the middle of the river. The line extends approximately 64m (210ft) in a northwest/southeast direction, terminating at a pier structure (MMM20 and MMM21). The pilings are rectangular or circular in shape and there appears to be no pattern in piling location based on shape or size. Massey describes a similar structure and how it was utilized:

As they [logs] came down the river, the various mills located on the river would collect their own. This was done by driving pilings in the middle of the river about a half mile above the mill. A swinging boom from the bank could be attached to the piling, thus completely blocking off the river and stopping all logs. As the logs came down, a man would jump on them, turn them over, if necessary,

26 This does not preclude the possibility that what remains of the trench found in Molino is only a portion of a complete trench, where a portion of the trench has not survived to the present day.

27 Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914,” 83.

28 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Schedules of the Tenth Census of the United States, Washington DC, National Archives Microfilm Publications, Micro-copy no. T-9, Florida, Election Precincts 7-9, 14, University of West Florida Library Special Collections, Pensacola, FL. 83

to see the brand, and then either let them continue down the river of place them over against the pilings.29

Records that list “boom tender” as an occupation, including the 1870 and 1880 U.S. censuses, indicate that a boom was used in Molino. 30

Figure 24. Aerial view of Molino displaying contoured data from the magnetometer survey area.

29 Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914,” 82-82.

30 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Schedules of the Ninth Census of the United States, Washington DC, National Archives Microfilm Publications, Micro-copy no. 593, Florida, Molino Election Precincts, 155, University of West Florida Library Special Collections, Pensacola, FL; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Schedules of the Tenth Census of the United States, 27. 84

Figure 25. Colored contoured survey data. Purple represents the highest recorded nT readings, while green signifies the ambient magnetic field.

In addition to a pedestrian survey, students conducted a magnetometer survey of the

Escambia River. Contouring of the recovered data resulted in the identification of 21 targets with a magnitude greater than 15nT (nanotesla), the highest of which was 753nT. These targets were designated MMM (Molino Mills Magnetometer) 1-21. Most of the targets could be associated with structures visible on the landscape, such as a railing at the county fairground/boat ramp, Mr. Richard Marlow’s steel dock, a floating dock, or a beached boat (Figure 25). Two

targets, MMM20 and MMM21, could not be associated with any known structure and warranted further investigation.

Figure 26. Hand drawn sketch of MMM20 and MMM21.

MMM20 and MMM21 had a magnitude of 202nT and 329nT respectively. A circle search revealed the remains of a collapsed dock structure (Figure 26). The structure runs in succession with the line of 16 pilings. The area demarcated by the pilings and structure is likely the southern end of a holding pen for logs destined to be processed. The wall measures approximately 11.7m (38.4ft) long and is angled almost perfectly north; it then takes a southeastern turn in line with the directionality of the 16 piling row. A portion of the decking has broken off and rests just east of the walled portion. The walled portion consisted of long cut 86

boards stacked side by side and held together with large iron spikes that continue into the sediment.

The information laid out in this chapter represents the work of over 30 UWF students and faculty members taking place over a 14-month period between February 2011 and April 2012.

The analysis, discussion, and conclusion resulting from this fieldwork are discussed in the following chapter.

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

The investigation into Molino Mills began as a class project, when the extant remains located adjacent to Mission San Joseph de Escambe were then unidentified. The class project entailed combing through numerous archives to pinpoint the mill’s identity. Four possibilities for the mill’s identity were uncovered: the Cooper Mill, Molino Mills, the Molino Lumber and

Brick Company, and the Jacobi Lumber Company. The only mill which corresponded with a mission location, however, was that of Molino Mills. With its identity confirmed, the class project evolved into a thesis. This thesis entailed extensive archival research into a poorly documented era, terrestrial excavations that revealed a material assemblage consistent with a

Reconstruction Era mill, and a riverine survey that determined if any submerged mill remains survived the last 130 years. The research design established three distinct goals: to determine the mill’s boundary and document extant remains, to define the relationship between Molino Mills and the Escambia River, and, finally, to ascertain the importance of Molino Mills in the West

Florida lumber industry.

Determining the extent of the mill’s footprint by identifying its boundaries at first appeared to be a minor goal, but, upon a closer inspection of documentary evidence, defining the boundary became a rather important one. Early in the investigation, the only available documentary evidence that described the mill was a sketch found in William Dudley Chipley’s

Pensacola (the Naples of America) and its Surroundings Illustrated: New Orleans, Mobile, and the Resorts of the Gulf Coast.1 The sketch depicts the mill from a vantage point across the river, looking north. It illustrates the main mill building with accompanying smokestack, lumber

1 Chipley, Pensacola (the Naples of America) and Its Surroundings Illustrated, 30. A copy of this image can be found in Chapter III (Figure 6). 88

drying racks, wharf structure, log rafts, and two vessels. As such, a shovel test survey was the most appropriate method to uncover the location of the mill and its extents. The resulting terrestrial survey provided evidence to support a mill 30m x 60m (98.5ft x 197ft) in dimension, which closely coincided with dimensions from historical documents.

Shortly following the shovel test survey’s completion, a new document came to light that described not only the relationship between Molino Mills and the Pensacola Lumber Company, but also provided an inventory of company assets. The document was a broadside detailing the

Pensacola Lumber Company’s sale at public auction in New York City.2 The broadside lists numerous buildings for sale, including “One large Steam Saw Mill; 28 Dwelling Houses, and

Furniture in Manager’s house; 1 Store, Blacksmith and Carpenter Shop and Tools; Wharf and

Landing; …1 Grist Mill.”3 This list includes only buildings that are within the community of

Molino, and do not include those outside Molino, such as a store in Whiting, Alabama.

Numerous trips to the Escambia County’s Clerk of Court Archives failed to divulge the location of these additional structures. Therefore, while the project was successful in identifying the main sawmill’s position, it failed to identify the location of the additional 30 known structures.

Further archival research may pinpoint a general location of these buildings, and, when followed by additional shovel testing, could uncover the structures’ exact positions.

A riverine survey aided in determining the relationship between Molino Mills and the

Escambia River. Upon completion of the survey, few documents had been located that described the Molino waterfront. Two deeds records indicate that river landings once existed on Durants

2 Smith, Assignee's Sale in Bankruptcy, of Steam Saw Mill, Timber Lands, Stores, Houses and Furniture, Logs, Steamer, Lighters and Booms, &c., Situated in Florida and Alabama, Florida Broadside Collection.

3 Ibid. 89

Bluff.4 Neither record, however, provided any details concerning layout or size. A layout first appears in Chipley’s 1877 mill image.5 The image depicts a massive wharf structure, including a boat house, log rafts, a vessel (possibly a tug), and a barge. Based on the image’s directionality, extant pilings related to the wharf structure have survived in the Escambia River. The river conditions were not conducive to a pedestrian survey of this area; therefore, a portion of the river north of the mill was surveyed.

The riverine survey revealed several structures relating to the Reconstruction Era. These included a trench or sluiceway in an excellent state of preservation, as well as remains of 32 pilings (16 of which ran in a straight line) and a collapsed dock. Drawings of all the aforementioned features were recorded. From this scant amount of evidence, it appears that the mill did, in fact, utilize the river, but archaeological evidence did not reveal to what degree the mill utilized the river. A major hindrance was that Daniel Sullivan owned a railroad with connections through Molino that had an extension running into Molino Mills.6 During a conversation with Dr. John Worth, he revealed that the Colonial Frontiers Fieldschool exposed archaeological evidence for a railroad bed, but the extents of the bed have yet to be determined.

Daniel Sullivan’s railroad interests and the archaeological evidence do suggest a reliance on transportation via rail over transportation via the river; however, several documents, recently uncovered, severely altered this assumption.

4 Escambia County, Deed Book B, 525-526, Escambia County, Deed Book P, 581-585.

5 Chipley, Pensacola (the Naples of America) and Its Surroundings Illustrated, 30.

6 Daniel Sullivan owned Molino Mills from 1878 until the mill’s destruction in 1884.

The first document was a Florida broadside advertising the sale of the Pensacola Lumber

Company.7 This document lists riverine structures such as “Wharf and Landing” and “between

30 and 40 thousand Pine Logs, in the stream, together with the Booms.”8 In addition, the company maintained river-going vessels listed as “One Large Stern-Wheel Steamer” and “7

Skiffs; 1 Yawl Boat.” This document indicates the river’s importance to the mill and elucidates that the mill did use a boom and wharf structure for floating logs into the mill. The document also states that Molino Mills is located “on the line of the Pensacola & Louisville Railroad, whose tracks run into the Mill Yard.”9 This statement insinuates that the railroad was the primary mode of transporting lumber; however, other documents found in the Dana Sargent papers suggest otherwise by describing the riverine and maritime influences on Molino Mills.

Dana Sargent owned, along with a few others, a stake in Molino Mills from 1876 until

1881. The collection contains approximately 70 pages of documents and provides, as of yet, the only known shipping records and personal letters relating to Molino Mills.10 These documents detail the use of the Escambia River and contain the most comprehensive source of information pertaining to riverine use by Molino Mills. In a letter from Ale Conn to Dana Sargent, Mr. Conn asked for permission to break up a raft and re-raft the longest timber before sending the rafts

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 The Dana Sargent Papers are located at the P.K. Yonge Library at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida.

down river.11 The letter provides one of the only definitive descriptions of rafting procedure at

Molino Mills. In a letter from W.D. Chipley to Dana Sargent, Chipley expresses that Molino

Mills utilized the river for the bulk of their log transportation needs. Furthermore, the mill used rail only when they could not fill an order through riverine transportation. Chipley adds that the lumber industry was depressed and that it would be cheaper to ship timber via water, as opposed to rail.12 Moreover, Chipley appeared angered by Joseph Vaughn’s attempts to steal business from his railroad by undercutting shipping prices, and stated that Chipley was very interested in obtaining the mill’s business.13 Two weeks later, Chipley sent another letter to Sargent, this time making a business proposition. The proposition involved Chipley shipping “all except square sawn stuff 6 X 6 & upwards.”14 If Sargent agreed to the business proposition, Chipley would

“replace track at once & will give… prompt and faithful service.” Additionally, if given twenty- four hours’ notice, Chipley offered to pay all fees due to “failure of service.”15 Unfortunately, this is last known letter between the two individuals; it is not known if Sargent agreed to the deal or continued to use rail transportation as a secondary means.

In addition to river rafting, the Dana Sargent papers provide evidence for oceangoing shipping. A wide array of documents including personal letters, broker contracts, cargo lists, and

11 Based on the letters in the Dana Sargent Papers, Ale Conn is likely the superintendent of Molino Mills. Ale Conn to Dana Sargent November 28, 1876, Dana Sargent Papers, P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

12 W.D. Chipley was a railroad tycoon who built two railroads in the Florida panhandle and even served a term as Pensacola’s mayor. W.D. Chipley to Dana Sargent August 14, 1877, Dana Sargent Papers, P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

13 Joseph Vaughn was a boom tender, according to U.S. census records, and likely managed or at least had many contacts involving riverine shipping. The document insinuates that Vaughn oversaw timber transportation via the river; therefore, Vaughn was undercutting Chipley by charging cheaper fees for transporting logs.

14 W.D. Chipley to Dana Sargent August 27, 1877, Dana Sargent Papers, P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

15 Ibid. 92

schooner schedules suggest shipments that involved at least fifteen different vessels. Timber was loaded onto both schooners and barks and subsequently transported numerous places, including

Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and Melbourne, Australia.16

Finally, Dana Sargent, in 1876, mentioned that Molino Mills received the tug Water

Witch. The Water Witch was worth approximately $2,737.00.17 Additionally, on June 16, 1877, a survey of the river indicated that Molino Mills had about 128,000 ft2 of timber in the Escambia

River.18

It would be impossible to quantify the relationship between Molino Mills and the

Escambia River, yet some final conclusions can be deduced. First, based on a few documents and extant remains, it is apparent that, throughout the mill’s operation, large quantities of logs were floated into the mill from timber grounds north of the mill. A newspaper article from 1868 describes a log jam caused by Molino Mills: “We are told that the Conecuh and Escambia River, for a distance of 200 miles, are literally jammed with saw logs, belonging to the Pensacola

Lumber Company, and destined for Molino. Experienced log men estimate their number at not less than 40,000, or about 9,000,000 feet.”19 No records indicate that felled trees were shipped by rail or by any other means from timber grounds into Molino Mills. Secondly, records specify that, at least for a significant portion of the mill’s existence, the river acted as the main thoroughfare for timber transportation along the Escambia River (at least prior to August 1877).

16 Shipping records and cargo lists found in Dana Sargent Papers, P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

17 Dana Sargent note, March 6, 1877, Dana Sargent Papers, P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

18 Specification of old timber in River, June 16, 1877, Dana Sargent Papers, P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

19 “200 Miles of Logs,” The Daily Phoenix, August 25, 1868. 93

Whether this trend continued following Dana Sargent’s tenure as a part owner of the mill remains unknown. It is likely that, when Daniel Sullivan purchased Molino Mills, he utilized rail transportation over river (considering he also owned the railway), although no documents conclusively indicate either way. Finally, the records reveal that timber processed in Molino

Mills was shipped via oceangoing ships to the northeastern United States. No documents describe timber shipped via rail to the northeast, even though railway connections did exist, suggesting a reliance on the water over rail transportation.

Additionally, the riverine survey, as well as terrestrial fieldwork, aided to uncover how

Molino Mills and the town of Molino interacted within and upon the maritime landscape. In this case, the landscape or locale analyzed is Durants Bluff, with Hoyt, Knight, and Ayer selecting this landform because of its inherent features conducive to a sawmill operation. Durants Bluff consists of an elevated area that exists immediately adjacent to the river. This elevation allowed for the mill erected to reside close to the water, yet out of danger from annual water level rises.

The close proximity to the river decreased the distance necessary to transport logs from the river into the mill. Still, for the mill owners, this close proximity was not small enough, and the owners or mill manager commissioned the creation of a water-filled trench that allowed for logs to be floated through the flood plain to a point immediately adjacent to the mill building. The creation of a trench increased the workers' reliance on the maritime or, in this case, riverine environment and thus expanded the riverine influence on the mill's culture. Furthermore, an increased riverine space necessitated the mill manager to hire more raftsmen or individuals to control the logs while in the trench. A similar increase arose from the mill manager’s erection of the boom and piling structure, identified during the remote sensing survey and subsequent target diving on MMM 20 and 21. This structure modified the riverine environment and increased the

mill’s reliance on the environment, and thus the maritime influence on the culture, while also likely increasing profits.

The mill’s location at that point along the Escambia River, in conjunction with the erection of numerous structures in and on the riverine landscape, transformed that landscape into a transit point. A transit point exists at “connections with waterways inland and points where vessel or transportation methods change.”20 Although the area of Durants Bluff, under this definition, was not a transit point prior to the erection of Molino Mills, it certainly was during its operation. At the mill, a mecca for riverine activity occurred in which transportation methods changed from riverine to possibly rail, or continued, albeit in a different form, in the river. A great deal of documentary evidence exists, such as the census records or the Dana Sargent papers, that describes logs being floated into the mill or logs and processed timber floated to

Pensacola Bay for subsequent worldwide distribution. In fact, recall that Dana Sargent chose to become more dependent on Joseph Vaughn and his riverine transport, as opposed to William

Chipley and his rail transport. This may have been for a purely economic reason; however, it also demonstrates the connection between Molino Mills and the river, thus displaying the societal maritime influences. Without Molino Mills and the modifications of the riverine landscape, this area may have remained just another bend in the river instead of an important economic zone.

The final goal for this project was also difficult to discern and nearly impossible to quantify. Studies into West Florida’s lumber industry have typically focused on either antebellum water-powered sawmills or turn-of-the-twentieth-century mill company towns, leaving a large gap in the history of West Florida’s lumber industry lasting from 1865 until

20 Westerdahl, “The Maritime Cultural Landscape,” 6-7. 95

approximately 1885. Unfortunately, it is exactly during this timeframe when Molino Mills operated. Although difficult, it is still possible to glean an idea of Molino Mills’ importance to the industry. One way to establish significance is to examine the value of the mill to the community of Molino. According to most documents, Molino Mills employed somewhere between 125-200 men, although a secondary source places this number at 400 employees.21 U.S. census records indicate that Molino had a population of 260 in 1870 and approximately 310 in

1880.22 An 1869 note written by J.J. Maguire and Thomas Paine places this number closer to

400.23 Depending on the source utilized, the mill employed some 30-100% of the community’s inhabitants. In addition, most of the other residents of Molino may have been employed in supporting roles, such as post office employees, grocers, etc. Such numbers attest to the economic importance, at least locally, of Molino Mills.

Arguably, one of the best methods of examining Molino Mills’ place in the industry would be to scrutinize the mill’s total output and to determine the proportion of West Florida’s total lumber output. Unfortunately, in December of 1880, a fire destroyed approximately five blocks of downtown Pensacola, including the U.S. Customs House, the Escambia County Tax

Collectors Office, and the Pensacola Gazette offices. Shipping records would have been held at these locations, or possibly at the mill itself. As a result, very few shipping records exist from the Reconstruction Era. Extant sources have estimated Molino Mills’ annual output at between

21 Armstrong, History of Escambia County, Florida, 116; J.H. Daffin, “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida,” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915; Brackett, ““The Naples of America,” Pensacola During the Civil War and Reconstruction,” 58.

22 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Schedules of the Ninth Census of the United States; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Schedules of the Tenth Census of the United States.

23 J.J. Maguire and Thomas A. Paine to Harrison Reed, 12 July 1869, Governor Harrison Reed Papers.

18 and 32 million board feet.24 Documents from the Dana Sargent papers state that, in 1876, approximately 500,000 board feet were shipped, and, in 1877, the mill shipped 1.5 million board feet, while an additional 314,000 board feet could not be attributed to a specific year.25

Little data exists concerning West Florida lumber industry’s timber output; therefore, a comparison with the scant data on Molino Mills’ lumber output is difficult to formulate. Richard

Massey states that, in 1883, Pensacola’s total lumber export was 102,370,000 feet of lumber;

Molino Mills would therefore account for 18-32% of the area’s total annual export.26 According to John Brackett, a mill operating in Millview, Florida, had a daily output of 35,000 board feet in

1868.27 Brackett estimates Pensacola Lumber Company’s (Molino Mills) daily output at 60,000 board feet, almost double that of Millview’s output.28 Another source indicates that, in 1885, a large mill in north Florida produced 10 million board feet annually.29 All sources suggest that, in terms of production, Molino Mills was one of the largest mills in West Florida.

Another possible method to determine the importance of Molino Mills is to examine the size of the mill itself. Descriptions regarding Molino Mills’ size include one noting that the

24 Armstrong, History of Escambia County, Florida, 116; J.H. Daffin, “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida,” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915.

25 Dana Sargent Papers, P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

26 Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914,” 89; Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 32.

27 Millview is located on the Perdido Bay, about 8 miles west of Pensacola. By1868, the Pensacola and Perdido railway was completed, connecting Millview with Pensacola, and allowing for rail transportation of timber from Millview to the Port of Pensacola.

28 Brackett, ““The Naples of America,” Pensacola During the Civil War and Reconstruction,” 58-59.

29 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 30.

“largest producer of freshly cut timber in 1868 was the Pensacola Lumber Company.”30 Another source calls the mill “one of the largest sawmills in the south.”31 An 1880s estimate states that a mill needed a capital outlay of $60,000.00 and working capital between $25,000.00 and

$40,000.00.32 One estimate states that Molino Mills was erected at a cost of $200,000.00.33 In addition, when the mill burned in 1884, it was an $180,000.00 loss.34 In other words, in 1866,

Molino Mills had a capital outlay over three times more than was necessary, insinuating that the mill was very large.

Jeffrey Drobney states that, shortly following the Civil War, the largest mill in the

Blackwater Bay was located at Bagdad and was owned by the Simpson & Company Lumber

Company. The aforementioned Bagdad Mill produced about 30 million board feet annually.35

Additionally, he describes the largest mill in the Millview area as the Perdido Mill at 175ft x 55ft and containing a single engine, one gang saw, two circular saws, and six boilers, with a 10-hour output of 150,000 board feet.36 Molino Mills was documented with a size of 85ft x 206ft and, based on the archaeological investigation, measures approximately 98.5ft x 197ft.37 Also, the

30 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 58.

31 J.H. Daffin, “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida,” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915.

32 Massey, “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914,” 170.

33 Hotchkiss, Industrial Chicago The Lumber Interest, 474.

34 “Molino Mills Burned,” The Pensacolian, September 13, 1884.

35 Drobney, Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930, 29-30.

36 Jeffrey Drobney states that, in 1880, the annual output for all mills in Millview (including the Perdido mill and Abercrombie mill) was 30-40 million board feet. Ibid., 29-30.

37 Smith, Assignee's Sale in Bankruptcy, of Steam Saw Mill, Timber Lands, Stores, Houses and Furniture, Logs, Steamer, Lighters and Booms, &c., Situated in Florida and Alabama, Florida Broadside Collection.

mill contained two engines, two double circular saws, one gang, two gang edgers, and eight boilers.38 If the broadside listing Molino Mills’ characteristics is correct, that would make

Molino Mills the largest sawmill in Northwest Florida during the Reconstruction Era.

Based on size and production estimates, Molino Mills was likely a major player, if not the major player, in the West Florida lumber industry during the Reconstruction Era. Based on available documents, Molino Mills’ annual lumber output was one of, if not the largest in West

Florida. Finally, the mill was likely the lynchpin for the community of Molino. A significant portion of the community would have worked in the mill itself, and another large portion of the population would likely have worked in occupations that supported either the mill or mill employees.

While records indicate that Molino Mills played a central role in the West Florida lumber industry, they do not demonstrate the importance of this study. The mill operated in a difficult time during reconstruction following the Civil War. It also acted as a prime example of a transitional sawmill for both the national lumber industry and the lumber industry of Florida. In regard to the national lumber industry, the industry saw a shift from northeastern and midwestern forests to southeastern timber lands in the mid-1800s. By 1870, northern timberlands were completely depleted and a new source of timber was in desperate need. During the late 1800s, the completion of numerous railroads crisscrossing the South aided in the development of extremely large sawmill complexes. Molino Mills fits perfectly within this general trend and exemplifies a transitional mill that was one of the early, large southern sawmills operating before and shortly after the railroads were completed. Molino Mills’ transitional nature and importance can also be observed when examining the West Florida lumber industry.

38 Ibid. 99

West Florida prior to the Civil War was typified by small-scale, locally-used timber, hewn and processed at water-powered mills.39 Following the Civil War, larger steam-powered mills, such as Molino Mills, were commonplace. At first, these mills utilized riverine transportation, but, as railroads began to open up virgin timberlands, these mills transformed into the giant mills typically seen at the beginning of the twentieth century. These early, twentieth- century mills were company towns and, for all intents and purposes, their own fully independent communities. Molino Mills likely played a major role in the community of Molino’s prosperity.

A small community existed prior to Molino Mills, but it was not until the community took the name “Molino” following the erection of Molino Mills that the community prospered.

Additionally, it is possible that Molino Mills represents a precursor to large mill company towns.

Molino was prospering and growing quickly during the time the mill operated. In fact, all documentary evidence suggests that the town of Molino was named after the mill itself.

Furthermore, during the Reconstruction Era, Molino appears to have no other industrial development, nor large, job-creating facilities, outside those dedicated to supporting the sawmill industry. It is impossible to know if, had Molino Mills not burned, the community of Molino would have turned into a company town. Based on documentary evidence, however, it appears

Molino may have been headed in that direction.

Most studies have focused on what some may deem “glamorous” mill sites, such as early, often family-run, water powered mills or the easily identifiable large scale company town mills, leaving a large void in the scientific community’s understanding of West Florida’s lumber industry. Unfortunately, vast collections containing documents relating to Reconstruction Era mills in West Florida simply do not exist, but, with a little patience and diligence, a clearer

39 There are some exceptions, such as the larger, water-powered mills in Bagdad and a few early, steam- powered sawmills. 100

picture of these mills can be obtained. Additionally, archaeological investigations into these mills reveal little documented and poorly understood aspects of the lumber industry, like log rafting and riverine resources. This study has attempted to elucidate one particular sawmill,

Molino Mills, demonstrate its significance in West Florida’s lumber industry during the

Reconstruction Era, and reveal the possibility of its role in the evolution of the development of the milling industry from small, water powered mills to steam powered sawmills, precursors to the large mill company towns. If nothing else, this study has demonstrated that these sawmills are significant and worthy of future investigation.

101

REFERENCES

“200 Miles of Logs.” The Daily Phoenix, August 25, 1868.

Aberg, Alan, and Carenza Lewis, eds. The Rising Tide: Archaeology and Coastal Landscapes. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books, 2000.

Allen, I. E. “Noted Escambia County Families: Cooper Family and Dr. Parker.” The Pensacola Journal, February 10, 1907.

Armstrong, Henry C. History of Escambia County, Florida. St. Augustine, FL: The Record Company, 1930.

Ash, Aiden. The Maritime Cultural Landscape of Port Willunga, South Australia. Flinders University Maritime Archaeology Monographs Series, no. 4, Adelaide: Shannon Research Press, 2007.

Babcock & Wilcox Company. Steam: Its Generation and Use With the Catalogue of the Manufactures of the Babcock & Wilcox Co. London: Babcock and Wilcox Company, 1896.

Balée, William. “Historical Ecology: Premises and Postulates.” In Advances in Historical Ecology, edited by William Balée, 13-29. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

_____. “Introduction.” In Advances in Historical Ecology, edited by William Balée, 1-12. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

Ballard, Chris, Richard Bradley, Lise Nordenborg Myhre, and Meredith Wilson. “The Ship as Symbol in the Prehistory of Scandinavia and Southeast Asia.” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 385-403.

Bannerman, Nigel and Cecil Jones. “Fish-trap Types: a Component of the Maritime Cultural Landscape.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 28, no. 1 (1999): 70-84.

Barber, Ian. “Sea, Land and Fish: Spatial Relationships and the Archaeology of South Island Maori Fishing.” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 434-448.

Bell, Trevor and M. A. P. Renouf. “Prehistoric Cultures, Reconstructed Coasts: Maritime Archaic Indian Site Distribution in Newfoundland.” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 350-370.

102

Beard, David. “’Good Wharves and Other Conveniences’: An Archaeological Study of Riverine Adaptation in the South Carolina Low Country.” In Carolina’s Historical Landscapes: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Linda F. Stine, Martha Zierden, Lesley M. Drucker, and Christopher Judge, 61-70. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1997.

Bogucki, Matesuez. “Viking Age Ports of Trade in Poland.” Estonian Journal of Archaeology 8, no. 2 (2004): 100-122.

Bonal, Francisco. Bonal Land Grant. Spanish Land Grants Collection. R.A. Gray Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of A Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

_____. Outline of A Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

_____. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.

Brackett, John M. ““The Naples of American,” Pensacola During the Civil War and Reconstruction.” Master’s thesis, Florida State University, 2005.

Braudel, Fernand. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II. London: Collins, 1972.

Breen, Colin and Paul J. Lane. “Archaeological Approaches to East Africa's Changing Seascapes.” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 469-489.

Campbell, Archer Stuart. Studies in Forestry Resources in Florida: II. The Lumber Industry. Gainesville: The University of Florida, 1932.

Chapman, Herman H. “An Ancient and Original Transportation System for Logs in Southern Alabama.” Journal of Forestry, March (1951): 209-210.

Chipley, William Dudley. Pensacola (the Naples of America) and Its Surroundings Illustrated: New Orleans, Mobile, and the resorts of the Gulf Coast. Louisville: Courier-Journal Press, 1877.

Clubbs, Occie. “Pensacola in Retrospect, 1870-1890.” Florida Historically Quarterly 37, No.3 (1959): 377-396.

Cooney, Gabriel. “Introduction: Seeing Land from the Sea.” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 323-328.

103

Cooper, Jago. “Modelling Mobility and Exchange in Pre-Columbian Cuba: GIS Led Approaches to Identifying Pathways and Reconstructing Journeys from the Archaeological Record.” Journal of Caribbean Archaeology extra 3 (2010): 122-137.

Crumley, Carole. “Historical Ecology A Multidimensional Ecological Orientation.” In Historical Ecology, edited by Carole Crumley, 1-16. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press, 1994.

Daffin, J.H. “The Story of the Town of Molino, Florida.” The Molino Advertiser, March 26, 1915.

Delgado, James, Frederick H. Hanselmann, and Dominique Rissolo. “The ‘Richest River in the World’: The Maritime Cultural Landscape of the Mouth of the Río Chagres, Republica de Panamá.” In The Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes, edited by Ben Ford, 233-246. New York: Springer, 2011.

Douglas, Mary. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986.

Drobney, Jeffrey. Lumbermen and Log Sawyers Life, Labor and Culture in the North Florida Timber Industry, 1830-1930. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997.

Duncan, Brad G. “The Maritime Archaeology and Maritime Cultural Landscapes of Queenscliffe: a Nineteenth Century Australian Coastal Community.” PhD diss., James Cook University, 2006.

Edwards, Emory. The American Steam Engineer, Theoretical and Practical, with Examples of the Latest and Most Approved American Practice in the Design and Construction of the Stem Engines and Boilers of Every Description. Philadelphia: Henry Carey Baird & CO, 1889.

Eisterhold, John A. “Lumber and Trade in Pensacola and West Florida: 1800-1860.” Florida Historically Quarterly 51, No.3 (1973): 267-279.

Egan, Dave, and Evelyn A. Howell. “Introduction.” In The Historical Ecology Handbook A Restorationist’s Guide to Reference Ecosystems, edited by Dave Egan and Evelyn Howell, 1-23. Washington DC: Island Press, 2001.

Errante, James. “Waterfront Archaeology: Recognizing the Archaeological Significance of the Plantation Waterscape.” In Carolina’s Historical Landscapes: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Linda F. Stine, Martha Zierden, Lesley M. Drucker, and Christopher Judge, 205-209. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1997.

Escambia County. Deed Book 28. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

104

_____. Deed Book 47. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book 48. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book A. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book B. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book C. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book L. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book M. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book P. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book S. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book T. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book U. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book X. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Deed Book Y. Escambia County Deed Records, Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives, Pensacola, FL.

Esser, Kimberly. “Inland Waterways of the California Delta: Identifying and Managing a Maritime Landscape.” In Underwater Archaeology, edited by Adriane Askins Neidinger and Matthew A. Russell, 17-20. Tucson, AZ: Society for Historical Archaeology, 1999.

105

Esty, Constantine C. as administrator of Artemas Stone, Artemas Stone, Elizabeth Stone, Mary Stone, Arthur K. Stone v. Joseph B. Vaughn, Caroline Vaughn, Franklin Vaughn Harriet Vaughn, Eugene Bonifay, M. L. Cooper/Bonifay, H. S. Cooper, Gamalial Bell, Sarah Bell, Jessie B. Cooper, Thomas Parker, Edwin Hoyt, Nememiah Knight, and Frederick Ayer. Case No. 4454 1871. Escambia County Official Records. Escambia County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Archives. Pensacola, Florida.

Fickle, James E. The New South and the “New Competition”: Trade Association Aevelopment in the Southern Pine Industry. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980.

Firth, Antony. “Three Facets of Maritime Archaeology: Society, Landscape, Critique.” Southhampton, UK: Department of Archaeology, University of South Hampton, 1995.

Fischer, Anders. “Coastal Fishing in Stone Age Denmark - Evidence from Below and Above the Present Sea Level and from Human Bones.” In Shell Middens in Atlantic Europe, edited by Nicky Milner, Oliver E. Craig, and Geoffrey N. Bailey, 54-69. Hampshire, UK: Oxbow Books, 2007.

Flatman, Joe. “Cultural biographies, cognitive landscapes and dirty old bits of boat: ‘theory’ in maritime archaeology.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 32, no. 2 (2003): 143-157.

Ford, Benjamin. “Lake Ontario Maritime Cultural Landscape.” PhD diss., Texas A&M University, 2009.

Forsythe, Wes. “Bantry Bay, County Cork, a Fortified Maritime Landscape.” Historical Archaeology 41, no. 3 (2007): 51-62.

Friedman, S. Morgan. “The Inflation Calculator.” S. Morgan Friedman. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ (accessed November 26, 2010).

Gates, Paul Wallace. “Federal Land Policy in the South 1866-1888.” Journal of Southern History vol. 6, no. 3 (1940): 303-330.

Giddens, Anthony. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, Vol. 1: Power, Property and the State. London: Macmillan, 1981.

_____. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: Macmillan, 1979.

_____. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory or Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

106

Glover, Jeffery B., Dominique Rissolo, and Jennifer P. Matthews. “The Hidden World of the Maritime Maya: Lost Landscapes Along the North Coast of Quintana Roo, Mexico.” In The Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes, edited by Ben Ford, 195-216. New York: Springer, 2011.

Gober, William. “Lumbering in Florida,” Southern Lumberman, December (1956): 104-105.

Gosgen, Chris and Christina Pevlides. “Are Islands Insular? Landscape vs. Seascape in the Case of the Arawe Islands, Papua New Guinea.” Archaeology in Oceania 29 (1994): 162-171.

Graeber, D. Toward an Anthropology of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Graham, Angus, Kristian D. Strutt, Morag Hunter, Sarah Jones, Aurélia Masson, Marie Millet, and Benjamin Pennington. “Reconstructing Landscapes and Waterscapes in Thebes, Egypt.” Journal of Ancient Studies 3 (2012): 135-142.

Heritage Book Committee. The Heritage of Escambia County, Florida Vol1. Canton, AL: Heritage Publishing Consultants Inc., 2004.

Hildreth, Charles H. “Railroads Out of Pensacola, 1833-1883.” Florida Historical Quarterly 37, no. 3 (1959): 397-417.

Hines, Edward W. Corporate History of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and in Its System. Louisville, KY: John P. Morton & Company, 1905.

Horning, Audrey J. “On the Banks of the Bann: The Riverine Economy of an Ulster Plantation Village.” Historical Archaeology 41, no. 3 (2007): 94-114.

Horrell, Christopher E. “Plying the Waters of Time: Maritime Archaeology and History on the Florida Gulf Coast.” PhD diss., Florida State University, 2005.

Hotchkiss, George Woodward. Industrial Chicago The Lumber Interest. Chicago: The Goodspeed Publishing Company, 1894.

House of Representatives. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875, 8th Congress, 2nd Session. American State Papers, Public Lands: Volume 41.

Howard, Clinton N. “Some Economic Aspects of British West Florida, 1763-1768.” Journal of Southern History vol. 6, no. 2 (1940): 201-221.

Hunter, J. R. “’Maritime Culture’: Notes from the Land.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 23, no. 4 (1994): 261-264.

107

Hunter, James W. III, John R. Bratten, and J. Coz Cozzi. Underwater Field Investigation 1999: The Santa Rosa Island and Hamilton Shipwrecks. Pensacola, Fl: University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, 2000.

Hunter, Louis C. A History of Industrial Power in the United States 1780-1930 Volume two: Steam Power. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1985.

Hutchins, Thomas. An Historical Narrative and Topographical Description of Louisiana and West-Florida. 1784. Reprint, Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1968.

Ilves, Kristin. “The Seaman’s Perspective in Landscape Archaeology.” Estonian Journal of Archaeology 8, no. 2 (2004): 162-177.

Johnson, Dudley Sady. “The Railroads of Florida 1865-1900.” PhD diss., Florida State University, 1965.

Jordan-Greene, Krista. “A Maritime Landscape of Deadman’s Island and Navy Cove.” Master’s thesis, University of West Florida, 2007.

Kardulias, Nicolas, ed. World Systems Theory in Practice: Leadership, Production, and Exchange. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999.

Kendrick, Baynard and Barry Walsh. A History of Florida’s Forests. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2007.

Kennedy, Kendra. “Between the Bayous: The Maritime Cultural Landscape of the Downtown Pensacola Waterfront.” Master’s thesis, University of West Florida, 2010.

Leonard, Irving A. Spanish Approach to Pensacola, 1689-1693. Albuquerque: The Quivira Society, 1939.

Levi, L. J. “An Institutional Perspective on Prehispanic Maya Residential Variation: Settlement and Community at San Estevan, Belize.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2001): 120-141.

Lindenlauf, Astrid. “The Sea as a Place of No Return in Ancient Greece.” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 416-433.

Lloyd, Janet. “University of West Florida Laboratory Procedures and Artifact Classification Manual.” Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida Archaeological Institute, 2001.

Mägi, Marika. “’...Ships are their main strength.’ Harbour sites, Arable Lands and Chieftains on Saaremaa.” Estonian Journal of Archaeology 8, no. 2 (2004): 128-155.

108

_____. “Maritime Landscapes: Introduction.” Estonian Journal of Archaeology 8, no. 2 (2004): 93-96.

Maguire, J.J. and Thomas A. Paine to Harrison Reed. July 12, 1869. Governor Harrison Reed Papers: Appointments and Resignations of Escambia County 1868-1872/ Florida State Archives, R.A. Gray Building, Tallahassee, Florida, RG 101/S.577, Box 2, Fn. 2.

Marriner, N. and C. Morhange. “Geoscience of Ancient Mediterranean Harbors.” Earth-Science Reviews 80 (2007): 137-194.

Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. New York: Penguin Classics, 1992.

Massey, Richard W. “A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880- 1914.” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1960.

McCarthy, Michael. Ships’ Fastenings from Sewn Boat to Steamship. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2005.

McErlean, Thomas. “Archaeology of the Strangford Lough Kelp Industry in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries.” Historical Archaeology 41, no. 3 (2007): 76-93.

McErlean, Thomas, Caroline Earwood, Dermot Moore, and Eileen Murphy. “The Sequence of Early Christian Period Horizontal Tide Mills at Nendrum Monastery: An Interim Statement.” Historical Archaeology 41, no. 3 (2007): 63-75.

McErlean, Thomas, Rosemary McConkey, and Wes Forsythe. Strangford Lough: An Archaeological Survey of the Maritime Cultural Landscape. Belfast, Northern Ireland: Blackstaff Press, 2003.

Mckinnon, Jennifer F. “Maritime Cultural Landscapes: Investigations at the Spanish Landing (8Wa247).” Master’s thesis, Florida State University, 2002.

McNiven, Ian J. “Saltwater People: Spiritscapes, Maritime Rituals and the Archaeology of Australian Indigenous Seascapes.” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 329-349.

McNiven, Ian J., Joe Crouch, Marshall Weisler, Noel Kemp, Lucia Clayton Martinez, John Stanisic, Meredith Orr, Liam Brady, Scott Hocknull, and Walter Boles. “Tigershark Rockshelter (Baidamau Mudh): Seascape and Settlement Reconfigurations on the Sacred Islet of Pulu, Western Zenadh Kes (Torres Strait).” Australian Archaeology 66 (2008): 15-32.

“Molino Mills Burned.” The Pensacolian, September 13, 1884.

Moon, Robert A. “Life in the Company Town: Bay Point Mill Company and Pinewood, Florida.” Master’s thesis, University of West Florida, 2001.

109

Morriss, Veronica M. “Islands in the Nile Sea: The Maritime Cultural Landscape of Thmuis, an Ancient Delta City.” Master’s thesis, Texas A&M University, 2012.

Muckelroy, Keith. Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

“Notes & Queries.” Scientific American 48 (1883): 362-363.

O'Sullivan, Aidan. “Intertidal Archaeological Surveys in the Estuarine Wetlands of North Munster.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24, no. 1 (1995): 71-73.

_____. “Place, Memory and Identity among Estuarine Communities: Interpreting the Archaeology of Early Medieval Fish Weirs.” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2004): 449- 468.

O'Sullivan, Aidan and Colin Breen. Maritime Ireland: An Archaeology of Coastal Communities. Gloucestershire, UK: Tempus, 2007.

Paddenberg, Dietlind and Brian Hession. “Underwater Archaeology on Foot: A Systematic Rapid Foreshore Survey on the North Kent Coast, England.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 37, no. 1 (2008): 142-152.

Parker, A. J. “A Maritime Cultural Landscape: The Port of Bristol in the Middle Ages.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 28, no. 4 (1999): 323-342.

Parsons, T. The Social System. New York: The Free Press, 1951.

Pettengill, George W. Jr. The Story of Florida Railroads 1834-1903. Boston: The Railway & Locomotive Historical Society, Inc. 86, 1952.

Phillips, John C. "Flood Thy Neighbor: Colonial and American Water-Powered Mills in West Florida." Gulf South Historical Review 12, no.1 (1998): 143-147.

_____. The Water-Powered Industries of Northwest Florida: An Archaeological Reconnaissance. Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, 1996.

Phillips, Tim. “Seascapes and Landscapes in Orkney and Northern Scotland.” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 371-384.

Porter, Charles T. Engineering Reminiscences Contributing to “Power” and “American Machinist.” New York: J Wiley & Sons, 1908.

Robinson, Benjamin. An Historical Sketch of Pensacola, Florida Embracing a Brief Retrospect of the Past and a View of the Present. Pensacola, FL: Advance Gazette, 1882.

110

Rodgers, Adam. “Reimaging Roman Ports and Harbours: the Port of Roman London and Waterfront Archaeology.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 30, no. 2 (2011): 207-225.

_____. “Water and the Urban Fabric: a Study of Towns and Waterscapes in the Roman Period in Britain.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 41, no. 2 (2012): 327-339.

Romans, Bernard. A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida. 1775. Reprint, Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1962.

Rönnby, Johann. “Maritime Durées: Long Term Structures in a Coastal Landscape.” Journal of Maritime Archaeology 2, no. 2 (2007): 65-82.

Rosborough, Leigh A. “Settlers and Slaves: A Spatial Analysis of a Colonial and Antebellum Mill Community in Escambia County, Florida.” Master’s thesis, University of West Florida, 2004.

Rua, John de la. Rua Land Grant. Spanish Land Grants Collection. R.A. Gray Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Rucker, Brian. “Arcadia and Bagdad: Industrial Parks of Antebellum Florida.” Florida Historical Quarterly 67, no. 2 (1988): 147-165.

Sargent, Dana Papers. P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesvile, FL.

Shackleford, Nathan. Shackleford Land Grant. Spanish Land Grants Collection. R.A. Gray Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Shepherd, JNO. W. “Davis v. Sowell & Co.” In Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Alabama, During the December Term, 1884 Volume LXXVII, 262-275. Montgomery, AL: Joel White, 1886.

Skinner, Emory F. Reminiscences. Chicago: Vestal Printing Co, 1908.

Sloane, Eric. A Reverence for Wood. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1965.

Smith, Edgar C. Assignee's Sale in Bankruptcy, of Steam Saw Mill, Timber Lands, Stores, Houses and Furniture, Logs, Steamer, Lighters and Booms, &c., Situated in Florida and Alabama. Florida Broadside Collection. R.A. Gray Building, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Smith, Andrea. “The Maritime Cultural Landscape of Kangaroo Islands, South Australia: A Study of Kingscotie and West Bay.” Master’s thesis, Flinders University, 2006.

111

Snow, Walter Bradlee and Walter S. Leland. The Steam Engine; A Practical Guide to the Construction, Operation, and Care of Steam Engines, Steam Turbines and their Accessories. Chicago: American School of Correspondence, 1908.

Steward, David J. “Gravestones and Monuments in the Maritime Cultural Landscape: Research Potential and Preliminary Interpretations.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 36, no. 1 (2007): 112-124.

“Suing the Hoyt and Ayer Estates.” New York Times, June 15, 1882.

Swyngedouw, Erik. “Modernity and Hybridity: Nature, Regeneracionismo, and the Production of the Spanish Waterscape, 1890–1930.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89, no. 3 (1999): 443-465.

Taitt, David. “A Plan of Part of the Rivers Tombecbe, Alabama, Tensa, Perdido, & Scambia Rivers in the Province of West Florida.” The National Archives (UK), MPG 1/6; extracted from CO 5/73 (f 103), Washington, DC.

Taylor, George Rogers and Irene D. Neu. The American Railroad Network 1861-1890. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956.

Thurston, Robert Henry. A History of the Growth of the Steam-Engine. 4th ed. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1897.

_____. A Manual of the Steam-Engine. For Engineers and Technical Schools; Advanced Courses. New York: J Wiley & Sons, 1891.

Trow, John F. The New York City Register. New York: The Trow City Directory Company, 1874.

_____. The New York City Register. New York: The Trow City Directory Company, 1876.

Tuddenham, David Berg. “Maritime Cultural Landscapes, Maritimity and Quasi Objects.” Journal of Maritime Archaeology 5, no. 1 (2010): 5-16.

U.S. Congress. “ESTY, Constantine Canaris, (1824-1912),” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=E000225 (accessed September 18, 2012).

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Manufactures of the United States in 1860; Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eighth Census. Prepared by the United States Bureau of the Census under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1865.

112

_____. Population Schedules of the Ninth Census of the United States. Washington DC: National Archives Microfilm Publications, Micro-copy no. 593, Florida, Molino Election Precincts. University of West Florida Library Special Collections, Pensacola, FL.

_____. Population Schedules of the Tenth Census of the United States. Washington DC: National Archives Microfilm Publications, Micro-copy no. T-9, Florida, Election Precincts 7-9. University of West Florida Library Special Collections, Pensacola, FL.

Vrana, K. J. and G. A. Vander Stoep. “The Maritime Cultural Landscape of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve.” In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, edited by J.D. Spirek and D.A. Scott-Ireton, 17-28. New York: Springer, 2003.

Van de Noort, Robert. “An Ancient Seascape: The Social Context of Seafaring in the Early Bronze Age.” World Archaeology 35, no. 3 (2003): 404-415.

Van de Noort, Robert, and Aidan O'Sullivan. Rethinking Wetland Archaeology. London, UK: Gerald Duckworth and Company, 2006.

Vedru, Gurly. “People on River Landscapes.” Estonian Journal of Archaeology 8, no. 2 (2004): 181-198.

Walker, Laurence C. The Southern Forest: A Chronicle. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1991.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World-system: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press, 1974.

West Publishing Company. “Sullivan et al. v. McMillan et al.” In The Southern Reporter, Containing the Decisions of the Supreme Courts of Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi Volume 8, 450-464. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1891.

Westerdahl, Christer. “Maritime Culture in an Inland Lake?” In Maritime Heritage, edited by C.A. Brebbia and T.Gambin, 17-26. Southampton, UK: WIT Press, 2003.

_____. “Maritime Cultures and Ship Types: Brief Comments on the Significance of Maritime Archaeology.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 23, no. 4 (1994): 265- 270.

_____. “The Maritime Cultural Landscape.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21, no. 1 (1992): 5-14.

Will of Dr. J.C. Ayer. “The Profits of the Pill Business Divided Among Relatives.” Special dispatch of New York Times, July 17, 1878.

113

Worth, John. “Rediscovering Pensacola’s Lost Spanish Missions.” Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina, November 15, 2008.

Worth, John, and Jennifer Melcher. Annual Report 2009 Archaeological Evaluation Mission San Joseph de Escambe (8ES3473). Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida Archaeological Institute.

Worth, John, Norma Harris, and Jennifer Melcher. Annual Report 2010 Archaeological Evaluation Mission San Joseph de Escambe (8ES3473). Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida Archaeological Institute.

_____. “San Joseph de Escambe: A 18th-Century Apalachee Mission in the West Florida Borderlands.” Paper presented at the 2011 Conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Austin, Texas, January 8, 2011.

Worth, John, Norma Harris, Jennifer Melcher, and Danielle Dadiego. “Exploring Mission Life in 18th-Century West Florida: 2011 Excavations at San Joseph de Escambe.” Paper presented at the 2012 Conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Baltimore, Maryland, January 6, 2012.

Yonge, Phillips Keyes. “The Lumber industry of West Florida.” In Makers of America, an Historical and Biographical Work by an Able Corps of Writers Published Under the Patronage of the Florida Historical Society, edited by A.B. Caldwell, 71-78. Jacksonville, FL: Florida Historical Society, 1909.

114

APPENDIX

115

Appendix A

Table of Artifacts Recovered

The following table contains a list of selected artifacts recovered during the shovel test survey performed at Molino Mills. The data includes only artifacts recovered during the 15 shovel tests conducted specifically for this thesis; therefore, it does not contain any artifacts from previous investigations, such as those recovered during any of the UWF Colonial Frontier

Fieldschools. In the attempt to make looking through the follow table easier, non-diagnostic artifacts were excluded. These artifacts included cinder/slag, carbonized wood, non-cultural sandstone, non-cultural stone, <1/4”scanned, and land snail shell. Additionally, to condense the table and save space, a number of abbreviations were created, these include 30cm rdm = 30cm

Rim Diameter, btm = bottom (as in cup bottom base), Embd = Embossed, Indet = Indeterminate, and frag = fragment. A complete list of all artifacts recovered is located at the University of

West Florida’s Archaeology Institute.

116

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3501 1 1 1 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3501 2 10 1 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3501 3 2 0.3 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3501 4 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3501 5 4.5 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3501 6 1 0.7 Nail Frags Iron 3501 7 0.1 Land Snail 3501 8 14 53.7 Indet Brick >1/2" 3501 9 12.3 Indet Brick <1/2" 3501 10 1.3 Fired Clay 3501 14 0.1 Indet Object Styrofoam 3502 1 4 2.5 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3502 2 1 0.1 Bottle Glass Plain, Curved, Amber 3502 3 22.8 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3502 4 2 0.1 Nail Frags Iron 3502 5 45.2 Mortar 3502 6 35 622.9 Indet Brick >1/2" 3502 7 1 1433.3 Handmade Brick 3502 8 24.4 Indet Brick <1/2" 3503 1 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3503 2 0.8 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3503 3 19.9 Indet Brick <1/2" 3503 4 32 7045 Indet Brick >1/2" 3503 5 1 2297.4 Handmade Brick 3503 6 1 1195.9 Handmade Brick 3503 7 8.2 Mortar 3504 1 2 0.5 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3504 2 1.5 Indet Metal Frags Pewter 117

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3504 3 1 0.6 Nail Frags Iron, Hand Wrought 3504 4 1 1 Nail Frags Iron 3504 5 0.2 Metal Container Iron 3504 6 2.3 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3504 7 28.9 Mortar 3504 8 38.6 Mortar 3504 9 1 2123 Indet Brick >1/2" 3504 10 2 1232 Handmade Brick 3504 11 2 1416 Handmade Brick 3504 12 82 6549.7 Indet Brick >1/2" 3505 1 1 1.8 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3505 2 1 1.6 Nail, Whole Iron, 40mm, Machine Made 3505 3 5 22.4 Nail Frags Iron 3505 4 57.4 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3505 5 95.1 Indet Brick <1/2" 3505 6 101 1282.4 Indet Brick >1/2" 3506 1 1 2.1 Jefferson Roughened var Conecuh Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3506 2 1 0.3 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Light Olive Green 3506 3 2 3.5 Nail, Whole Iron, 38.7mm, Cut 3506 4 4 9.9 Nail Frags Iron 3506 5 15.9 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3506 6 5 141 Strap, Metal Iron 3506 7 79 809.6 Indet Brick >1/2" 3506 8 101.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3507 1 1 0.3 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3507 2 5 0.2 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3507 3 1 5.8 Nail Frags Iron 3507 4 0.5 Indet Metal Frags Iron 118

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3507 5 22.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3507 6 15 68.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3508 1 1 1 Nail Frags Iron 3508 2 2 57.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3508 3 1 0.4 Indet Brick <1/2" 3508 4 1 0.3 Lithic Chunk Granite 3509 1 0.1 Shell, Indet 3509 2 0.1 Land Snail 3509 3 6 52 Indet Brick >1/2" 3509 4 9.6 Indet Brick <1/2" 3509 5 1 0.2 Lithic Chunk Granite 3510 1 1 0.1 Indet Coarse Eartherware Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3510 2 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear, Tooled 3510 3 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3510 4 1.7 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3510 5 1.4 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3510 6 1 0.8 Tack, Metal Iron 3510 7 3 2 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3510 8 0.1 Indet Metal Frags Bronze 3510 9 0.1 Shell, Indet 3510 10 0.1 Land Snail 3510 11 0.1 Reptile bone 3510 12 0.1 Fish Spine 3510 13 75 Mortar 3510 14 238.5 Indet Brick <1/2" 3510 15 236 6616.1 Indet Brick >1/2" 3510 16 1 526.3 Handmade Brick 3510 17 1 689.3 Handmade Brick 119

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3510 18 1 849.8 Handmade Brick 3510 19 25 33.8 Lithic Chunk Chert 3510 21 5.5 Coal 3511 1 0.9 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3511 2 1 1.1 Tack, Metal Iron, 17.5mm, Hand Wrought 3511 3 0.8 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3511 4 1 0.1 Land Snail 3511 5 5 7.4 Lithic Chunk Granite 3511 6 7.3 Mortar 3511 7 92 6014.4 Indet Brick >1/2" 3511 8 75 Indet Brick <1/2" 3511 9 1 857.4 Handmade Brick 3511 10 1 1111 Handmade Brick 3511 12 11.7 Coal 3512 1 1 2.1 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3512 2 1 1.6 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3512 3 16.9 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3512 4 0.1 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3512 5 1 615.9 Handmade Brick 3512 6 1 1220.3 Handmade Brick 3512 7 25 1028.3 Indet Brick >1/2" 3512 8 42 Indet Brick <1/2" 3512 9 11 26 Lithic Chunk Granite 3512 10 3.7 Mortar 3512 13 2.2 Coal 3512 14 0.9 Unmodified Clay 3513 1 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Soda Lime 3513 2 1 7.5 Bottle Glass Plain, Curved, Clear, Cup btm 120

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3513 3 2 0.3 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3513 4 2 0.4 Wine Bottle Glass Plain, Curved, Light Olive Green 3513 5 1 0.7 Wine Bottle Glass Plain, Curved, Light Olive Green 3513 6 1 0.1 Shot, Metal Lead, 3.6mm Diameter, Cast 3513 7 0.1 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3513 8 1 6.9 Nail, Whole Iron, 77mm, Cut 3513 9 1 0.5 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3513 10 2.3 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3513 11 0.1 Flat Iron, Metal Iron 3513 12 8.1 Mortar 3513 13 189 10471.4 Indet Brick >1/2" 3513 14 129.1 Indet Brick <1/2" 3513 15 1 937.3 Handmade Brick "J Gonzalez" 3513 16 1 1106.6 Handmade Brick 3513 17 1 586.7 Handmade Brick 3513 18 1 920.7 Handmade Brick 3513 19 159 2251.9 Lithic Chunk Granite 3513 22 0.1 Coal 3513 27 12.9 Unmodified Clay 3514 1 3 5.7 Walnut Roughened var McKee Island Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3514 2 2 1.4 Incised Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3514 3 2 1.2 Plain Grit Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 2 3514 4 16 2.1 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3514 5 1 0.1 Flake, Lithic Flint/Chert 3514 6 4 0.1 Flake, Lithic Chert 3514 7 0.1 Fishbone, Indet 3514 8 0.1 Fulgurite 3514 9 3.5 Indet Brick <1/2" 121

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3514 10 5 5.2 Indet Brick >1/2" 3515 1 1 5.6 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3515 2 1 1.6 Incised Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3515 3 1 8.1 Escambia Roughened var Escambia Indet form, Straight Rim, 30cm rdm, MVC: 1 3515 4 3 1.1 Plain Shell/Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3515 5 8 0.7 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3515 6 1 0.3 Flake, Lithic Coastal Plain Chert 3515 7 2 Fired Clay 3515 9 1 0.2 Flake, Lithic Sandstone 3516 1 2 1.7 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 2 3516 2 2 0.9 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3516 3 1 3 Plain Grit Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3516 4 10 1.1 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 3 3516 5 1 0.1 Flake, Lithic Chert 3516 6 1.2 Indet Brick <1/2" 3517 1 1 10.2 Check Stamp Grit Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3517 2 1 3.4 Pensacola Incised, variety unspecified Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3517 3 1 10.6 Weeden Island Plain Indet form, Thickened Rim, MVC: 1 3517 4 3 0.4 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3517 5 0.6 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3517 6 1 10.3 Indet Brick >1/2" 3517 7 0.6 Indet Brick <1/2" 3519 1 1 5.6 Bottle Glass Plain, Curved, Clear, Machine Made 3519 2 8 8.7 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3519 3 1 0.9 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Purple 3519 4 8 8.9 Wine Bottle Glass Plain, Curved, Light Olive Green 3519 5 1 0.1 Tack, Metal Iron, 12.1mm 3519 6 7.6 Indet Metal Frags Iron 122

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3519 7 3 0.7 Shot, Metal Lead, 4.7mm Diameter, Molded 3519 8 1 0.1 Shot, Metal Lead, 3.7mm Diameter, Cast 3519 9 12.8 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3519 10 0.1 Shell, Indet 3519 11 0.1 Land Snail 3519 12 17.2 Mortar 3519 13 130 602.1 Lithic Chunk Granite 3519 14 387.5 Indet Brick <1/2" 3519 15 335 8594 Indet Brick >1/2" 3519 16 1.2 Coal 3520 1 2.2 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3520 2 1 1.6 Nail, Whole Iron, 38.5mm, Cut 3520 3 0.9 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3520 4 31 175 Indet Brick >1/2" 3520 5 20.1 Indet Brick <1/2" 3520 6 40 19.1 Lithic Chunk 3521 1 1 4.9 Machine Part, Metal Indet 3521 2 2 2 Nail Frags Iron 3521 3 1 41.9 Nail, Whole Iron 3521 4 2.6 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3521 5 1 2 Button, Metal Pewter 3521 6 0.1 Gastropod, Indet 3521 7 51.7 Indet Brick <1/2" 3521 8 77 1582.3 Indet Brick >1/2" 3521 9 1 1305.5 Handmade Brick 3521 11 0.6 Coal 3522 1 4.6 Indet Metal Frags Pewter 3522 2 2 1.6 Nail Frags Iron 123

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3522 3 1 26.4 Nail Frags 59.7mm 3522 4 273 Mortar 3522 5 77 9403.8 Indet Brick >1/2" 3522 6 54.3 Indet Brick <1/2" 3522 9 0.1 Fulgurite 3522 10 1 1080.7 Lithic Chunk Sandstone 3522 11 8 Wood Sample 3523 1 2 0.6 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3523 2 21.2 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3523 3 1 21.8 Nail Frags Iron 3523 4 4.5 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3523 5 134 8098 Indet Brick >1/2" 3523 6 1 2295.4 Handmade Brick 3523 7 102.4 Indet Brick <1/2" 3523 8 544.9 Mortar 3524 1 0.2 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3524 2 1 0.3 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3524 3 1 1.2 Nail Frags Iron 3524 4 19.8 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3524 5 13 25.8 Lithic Chunk Granite 3524 6 15.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3524 7 29 4165.6 Indet Brick >1/2" 3524 8 1 1093.2 Handmade Brick 3525 1 1 5.6 Nail, Whole Iron, 63.6mm, Cut 3525 2 1 2.9 Nail Frags Iron 3525 3 16.7 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3525 4 15.4 Indet Brick <1/2" 3525 5 27 504 Indet Brick >1/2" 124

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3525 6 1 1453.5 Handmade Brick 3525 7 2 2292.9 Handmade Brick 3525 8 57.3 Coal 3526 1 0.1 Land Snail 3528 1 3 24.7 Bottle Glass Curved, White, Molded 3529 1 18.6 Wood Sample 3530 1 1 0.6 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3530 2 1 30.7 Spike, Metal Iron 3533 1 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3533 2 2 5.1 Nail Frags Iron 3533 3 4 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3533 4 0.1 Land Snail 3533 5 14 68.2 Indet Brick >1/2" 3533 6 24.9 Indet Brick <1/2" 3534 1 1 0.9 Nail Frags Iron 3534 2 1 0.1 Flake, Lithic Quartz 3534 3 5 15.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3534 4 4.3 Indet Brick <1/2" 3536 1 44.4 Unmodified Clay 3537 1 13 0.9 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3538 1 5 0.7 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3538 2 4 1.2 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Soda Lime 3538 3 1 132.7 Nail, Whole Iron 3538 4 4 6.6 Nail Frags Iron 3538 5 3.9 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3538 6 0.2 Seed, Indet 3538 7 1 0.1 Land Snail 3538 8 5 6.7 Indet Brick >1/2" 125

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3538 9 6 Indet Brick <1/2" 3539 1 1 721.1 Nail, Whole Iron 3540 1 1 0.2 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3540 2 1 0.4 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Patinized 3540 3 1 0.1 Flake, Lithic Tallahatta Quartzite 3540 4 0.9 Seed, Indet 3540 5 5.9 Indet Brick <1/2" 3540 12 3 9 Nail Frags Iron 3541 1 13 2.8 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3541 2 3 9.7 Nail Frags Iron 3541 3 14.2 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3541 4 3 9 Indet Brick >1/2" 3541 5 5 Indet Brick <1/2" 3542 1 0.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3543 2 0.1 Coal 3544 1 1 11 Nail, Whole Iron, 83mm 3545 1 1 20 Wood Sample 3548 1 1 434.7 Rod, Metal Iron 3548 2 1 363 Rod, Metal Iron 3549 1 1 1.7 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3549 2 4 0.7 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3549 3 5 0.2 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3549 4 3 0.3 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3549 5 1 0.4 Shot, Metal Lead, 4.3mm Diameter, Molded 3549 6 0.9 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3549 7 10 2.3 Screen, Metal Brass 3549 8 3 0.2 Tack, Metal Iron 3549 9 1 1.1 Screen, Metal Iron 126

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3549 10 9 37 Nail Frags Iron 3549 11 60.1 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3549 12 0.1 Bone, Indet 3549 13 0.1 Shell, Indet 3549 14 329.7 Indet Brick <1/2" 3549 15 170 1524.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3549 17 2 0.6 Lithic Chunk Granite 3549 18 8.1 Coal 3550 1 1 4 Jefferson Check-stamped, variety Leon Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3550 2 1 1.2 Chattahoochee Roughened var Chattahoochee Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3550 3 1 0.2 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3550 4 2 0.3 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3550 5 1 0.2 Hardware Screw, Metal Brass 3550 6 15.9 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3550 7 2 0.9 Lithic Chunk Granite 3550 8 69 1080 Indet Brick >1/2" 3550 9 149.5 Indet Brick <1/2" 3551 1 7 33.8 Indet Brick >1/2" 3551 2 5.6 Indet Brick <1/2" 3553 1 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3553 2 29.7 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3553 3 29 1495.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3553 4 33.7 Indet Brick <1/2" 3553 5 10.1 Concrete 3554 1 1 1.9 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3554 2 1 44.5 Nail, Whole Iron, 117mm 3554 3 2 2.8 Nail Frags Iron 3554 4 7.6 Indet Metal Frags Iron 127

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3554 5 0.3 Nail, Whole Brass 3554 6 0.3 Bone, Indet 3554 7 8.4 2043.2 Indet Brick >1/2" 3554 8 136.6 Indet Brick <1/2" 3554 9 47 Concrete 3555 1 2 1 Nail, Whole Iron 3555 2 4 4.7 Nail Frags Iron 3555 3 19.3 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3555 4 0.3 Bone, Indet 3555 5 17 151.7 Indet Brick >1/2" 3555 6 34.6 Indet Brick <1/2" 3556 1 2 0.6 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3556 4 0.7 Indet Metal Frags Brass 3556 5 6 50.6 Nail Frags Iron 3556 6 3.6 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3556 7 12 141.8 Indet Brick >1/2" 3556 8 12.2 Indet Brick <1/2" 3556 9 7 1.3 Nail, Whole Iron, Cut 3556 10 4 7.5 Nail, Whole Iron 3557 1 1 140 Hardware Chain, Metal Iron 3557 2 1 1069.7 Handmade Brick 3558 1 2 1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3558 2 1 13.4 Nail, Whole Iron 3558 3 1 116.7 Nail, Whole Iron 3558 4 11 34.6 Nail Frags Iron 3558 5 11 1.9 Nail, Whole Iron 3558 6 30.7 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3558 7 2 0.1 Shot, Metal Lead, 4mm Diameter, Cast 128

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3558 8 0.1 Bone, Indet 3558 9 1 743.3 Handmade Brick 3558 10 1 951.4 Handmade Brick 3558 11 24 3301.4 Indet Brick >1/2" 3558 12 80.7 Indet Brick <1/2" 3558 14 0.5 Coal 3558 18 1 0.1 Indet Object Rubber 3560 1 3 3.8 Nail Frags Iron 3560 2 0.5 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3560 3 1 709.9 Indet Brick >1/2" 3560 4 5 131.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3560 5 5.3 Indet Brick <1/2" 3562 1 2 6.3 Walnut Roughened var McKee Island Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3562 2 1 15 Plain Grog Tempered Bowl, Straight Rim, MVC: 1 3562 3 6 14.5 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 2 3562 4 5 6.4 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 2 3562 5 15 2.3 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3562 6 0.8 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3562 7 3.7 Indet Brick <1/2" 3563 1 1 0.4 Incised Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3563 2 1 0.4 Incised Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3563 3 3 11.9 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3563 4 5 6.4 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3563 5 1 0.2 Burnished Shell Tempered, Plain Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3563 6 1 2.2 Burnished Shell Tempered, Plain Indet form, Straight Rim, MVC: 1 3563 7 47 4.5 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3563 8 1.9 Indet Brick <1/2" 3564 1 1 0.2 Incised Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 129

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3564 2 1 0.8 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Straight Rim, MVC: 1 3564 3 3 3.7 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3564 4 18 1.4 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3565 1 1 0.1 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3568 1 1 0.4 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3568 2 1.7 Seed, Indet 3568 3 15 225 Indet Brick >1/2" 3568 4 20.7 Indet Brick <1/2" 3569 1 2 1.1 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3569 2 3 1.9 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3569 3 2 0.1 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3569 4 1 Indet Metal Frags Brass 3569 5 18.2 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3569 6 19 128.4 Indet Brick >1/2" 3569 7 9.7 Indet Brick <1/2" 3569 11 0.2 Indet Object Plastic 3570 1 1 3.4 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Straight Rim, MVC: 1 3570 2 9 12.1 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3570 3 5 1.2 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3570 5 3 7.1 Indet Brick >1/2" 3570 6 10.9 Indet Brick <1/2" 3571 1 1 0.6 Plain Grit Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3571 2 8 9.1 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3571 3 6 1 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3571 4 0.6 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3571 5 0.8 Concretion 3572 1 1 1.9 Walnut Roughened var McKee Island Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3572 2 1 2 Moundville Incised, variety Snow's Bend Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 130

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3572 3 7 16.4 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3572 4 3 1.4 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3572 5 24 3 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3572 6 1.2 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3573 1 2 2.5 Incised Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3573 2 3 1.4 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3573 3 3 1.1 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3574 1 6 0.1 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3576 1 2 36.2 Indet Brick >1/2" 3577 1 2 0.4 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3577 2 1 0.2 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3577 3 2 6 Nail Frags Iron 3577 4 3 Indet Metal Frags 3577 5 0.1 Land Snail 3577 6 0.4 Seed, Indet 3577 7 1 1865.8 Handmade Brick 3577 8 978.6 Handmade Brick 3577 9 8 403.2 Indet Brick >1/2" 3577 10 46.9 Indet Brick >1/2" 3577 13 0.6 Coal 3577 16 1 1192.1 Indet Brick >1/2" 3578 1 1 262.3 Tack, Metal Iron, Hand Wrought 3578 2 1 54.1 Spike, Metal Iron 3578 3 1 36 Nail, Whole Iron 3578 4 3 0.6 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3578 5 1 0.3 Wine Bottle Glass Plain, Curved, Light Olive Green 3578 6 2 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3578 7 8 8.9 Nail Frags Iron 131

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3578 8 15.7 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3578 9 0.4 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3578 10 1 1 Nail, Whole Lead 3578 11 156 3504.2 Indet Brick >1/2" 3578 12 263.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3578 13 1 841.9 Handmade Brick 3578 14 1 735.5 Handmade Brick 3578 15 1 774.7 Indet Brick >1/2" 3578 16 1 516.9 Handmade Brick 3578 17 3 4.8 Lithic Chunk Granite 3578 20 19 Coal 3578 25 0.1 Indet Object Fabric 3578 26 1 768.6 Indet Brick >1/2" 3578 27 1 831.5 Handmade Brick 3578 28 1 749.3 Handmade Brick 3578 29 1 1268.2 Handmade Brick 3578 30 1 996.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3578 31 1 888.7 Handmade Brick 3578 32 1 755.7 Handmade Brick 3578 33 1 1471.5 Handmade Brick 3578 34 1 1522.4 Handmade Brick 3578 35 1 1024.8 Handmade Brick 3579 1 3 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3579 2 1 3.9 Nail Frags Iron 3579 3 1 6.6 Nail, Whole Iron, 63mm 3579 4 1 18.5 Trim, Metal Iron 3579 5 7.4 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3579 6 112 7333.2 Indet Brick >1/2" 132

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3579 7 154.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3579 8 1 572.6 Handmade Brick 3579 9 1 1175.5 Handmade Brick 3579 10 1 614.1 Handmade Brick 3579 11 1 502.3 Handmade Brick 3579 14 1.6 Coal 3579 16 1 0.6 Chunk, Lithic Utilized Quartz 3579 18 1 717 Handmade Brick 3579 19 1 544.4 Handmade Brick 3579 20 1 686.8 Indet Brick >1/2" 3579 21 1 817.3 Handmade Brick 3580 1 2 4.3 Nail Frags Iron 3580 2 1.1 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3580 3 48 1048.2 Indet Brick >1/2" 3580 4 57.1 Indet Brick <1/2" 3580 5 1 728.8 Handmade Brick 3580 6 1 1163.5 Handmade Brick 3580 7 1 1096.4 Handmade Brick 3580 11 693.4 Indet Brick >1/2" 3580 12 1 746.2 Indet Brick >1/2" 3580 13 1 1038.7 Indet Brick >1/2" 3581 1 2 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3581 2 1 1.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3581 3 2 0.6 Nail Frags Iron 3581 4 0.3 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3581 5 0.1 Shell, Indet 3581 6 281.7 Indet Brick <1/2" 3581 7 260 6470.4 Indet Brick >1/2" 133

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3581 8 1 720.7 Handmade Brick 3581 9 1 924.8 Handmade Brick 3581 10 1 649.9 Handmade Brick 3581 11 0.1 Hardware Ring, Metal 3581 13 0.1 Fired Clay 3581 17 1 1318 Handmade Brick 3581 18 1 1275.3 Indet Brick >1/2" 3581 19 1 490.4 Indet Brick >1/2" 3581 20 1 1069.9 Indet Brick >1/2" 3582 1 1 2.2 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3582 2 1 0.4 Chattahoochee Roughened var Chattahoochee Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3582 3 3 5.8 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3582 4 4 1.5 Nail, Whole Iron 3582 5 406 5164.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3582 6 253.3 Indet Brick <1/2" 3582 7 1 1130 Handmade Brick "J Gonzalez" 3582 8 1 697.9 Handmade Brick 3582 9 1 1234 Handmade Brick 3582 10 1 1311.7 Handmade Brick 3582 15 1 1012.7 Handmade Brick 3582 16 1 1442.1 Indet Brick >1/2" 3582 17 1 1515.4 Handmade Brick 3582 18 1 698.2 Handmade Brick 3582 19 1 777.3 Indet Brick >1/2" 3582 20 1 1249.3 Handmade Brick 3582 21 1 713 Indet Brick >1/2" 3583 1 2 3 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3583 2 2 0.2 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 134

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3583 3 1 8.9 Plain Whiteware Cup, Straight Rim, 10cm rdm, MVC: 1 3583 4 1 0.1 Lead Glaze Coarse Earthenware Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3583 5 1 3.8 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3583 6 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3583 7 1 0.1 Flake, Lithic Tallahatta Quartzite 3583 8 0.2 Seed, Indet 3583 9 8 3 Nail Frags Iron 3583 10 538 6838.8 Indet Brick >1/2" 3583 11 327.4 Indet Brick <1/2" 3583 12 1 853.5 Handmade Brick 3583 13 1 1355.7 Handmade Brick 3583 14 1 657.1 Handmade Brick 3583 15 1 538.3 Handmade Brick 3583 20 0.1 Indet Object Rubber 3583 21 1 421.6 Indet Brick >1/2" 3583 22 1 593.5 Handmade Brick 3583 23 1 606 Handmade Brick 3583 24 1 1547.4 Handmade Brick 3583 25 1 999.7 Handmade Brick 3583 26 1 1317.5 Handmade Brick 3583 27 1 1524.7 Handmade Brick 3584 1 1 18.8 Hardware Ring, Metal Iron 3584 2 4 0.8 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3584 3 2 0.6 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3584 4 40 848.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3584 5 70.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3585 1 68.3 Indet Brick <1/2" 3585 2 49 1022 Indet Brick >1/2" 135

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3585 3 1 581.8 Handmade Brick 3586 1 11.2 Wood Sample 3587 1 0.2 Shell, Indet 3587 2 2.7 Unmodified Clay 3588 1 0.5 Seed, Indet 3589 1 0.4 Shell, Indet 3590 1 1 0.1 Flake, Lithic Flint/Chert 3590 2 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3590 3 18.8 Wood Sample 3590 4 1.6 Indet Brick <1/2" 3590 5 0.1 Fulgurite 3591 1 2 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3591 2 1 0.4 Nail Frags Iron 3591 3 5 10.6 Indet Brick >1/2" 3591 4 12.1 Indet Brick <1/2" 3591 5 3.5 Coal 3592 1 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3592 2 1.2 Indet Brick <1/2" 3592 3 0.2 Shell, Indet 3592 10 1 0.1 Flake, Lithic Flint/Chert 3593 1 1 0.2 Bottle Glass Embd, Curved, Clear, Molded 3593 2 18 796.6 Indet Brick >1/2" 3593 3 40.4 Indet Brick <1/2" 3594 1 2 4.6 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Straight Rim, MVC: 1 3594 2 19 18.4 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3594 3 44 4.1 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3594 4 4.6 Nail, Whole Brass 3594 5 5 61.5 Nail Frags Iron 136

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3594 6 1.2 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3594 7 55.7 Indet Brick <1/2" 3594 8 51 1394.3 Indet Brick >1/2" 3594 9 1 1083.3 Handmade Brick 3594 10 1 724.4 Handmade Brick 3594 13 0.3 Coal 3595 1 0.1 Shell, Indet 3598 1 1 0.1 Wine Bottle Glass Plain, Curved, Light Olive Green 3598 2 0.1 Land Snail 3598 3 3 14.4 Indet Brick >1/2" 3598 4 9.5 Indet Brick <1/2" 3598 5 1 1555.6 Handmade Brick 3598 6 1 853.5 Handmade Brick "J Gonzalez" 3598 7 1 717.4 Handmade Brick "J Gonzalez" 3599 1 1 0.6 Plain Grog Tempered Indet form, Flat Rim, MVC: 1 3599 2 1 1.1 Wine Bottle Glass Plain, Curved, Light Olive Green 3599 3 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3599 4 2 0.5 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3599 5 1 1.5 Nail, Whole Iron, 39mm, Cut 3599 6 9 10.6 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3599 7 2.6 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3599 8 2 1.2 Nail, Whole Copper, Machine Made 3599 9 0.2 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3599 10 1 0.1 Lithic Chunk Granite 3599 11 1 0.1 Graphite Graphite 3599 12 75 655 Indet Brick >1/2" 3599 13 86 Indet Brick <1/2" 3600 1 3 3 Nail Frags Iron 137

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3600 2 1 0.3 Flake, Lithic Quartzite 3600 3 0.1 Land Snail 3600 4 2.1 279 Indet Brick >1/2" 3600 5 19.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3601 1 4 2.1 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3601 2 4 0.1 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3601 3 2.8 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3601 4 4 21.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3601 5 2.3 Indet Brick <1/2" 3604 1 1 2.6 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3604 2 3 0.8 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3604 3 1 8.7 Nail, Whole Iron, 78.2mm, Cut 3604 4 1 2.3 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3604 5 1 2.5 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3604 6 1 2.5 Nail Frags Iron 3604 7 0.6 Indet Brick <1/2" 3605 1 1 1.4 Alachua Cob Marked Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3605 2 5 5.2 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 2 3605 3 9 9.8 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 4 3605 4 29 9.7 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3605 5 2 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3605 6 2 11.5 Trim, Metal Iron, Cut 3605 7 1 5 Nail, Whole Iron, 62.4mm, Cut 3605 8 6 10.5 Nail, Whole Iron, 37mm, Cut 3605 9 15 23 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3605 10 29.1 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3605 11 1.6 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3605 12 3 1.1 Lithic Chunk Granite 138

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3605 13 1 0.1 Flake, Lithic Tallahatta Quartzite 3605 14 20 122 Indet Brick >1/2" 3605 15 35.6 Indet Brick <1/2" 3605 16 41.6 Mortar 3605 17 0.2 Coal 3606 1 4.4 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3606 2 0.2 Indet Brick <1/2" 3607 1 1 2 Hardware Screw, Metal Iron, 40.5mm, Machine Made 3607 2 1 2.4 Nail, Whole Iron, 55.5mm, Machine Made 3607 3 2 3.5 Nail Frags Iron 3607 4 2.9 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3607 5 0.1 Land Snail 3607 6 6 28.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3607 7 24.3 Indet Brick <1/2" 3608 1 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3608 2 3 10.8 Nail Frags Iron 3608 3 181.5 Indet Brick <1/2" 3608 4 37 146.9 Indet Brick >1/2" 3609 1 1 6.2 Nail, Whole Iron, 75.8mm, Cut 3609 2 2 3.2 Nail, Whole Iron, 37.5mm, Cut 3609 3 11 22.2 Nail Frags Cut 3609 4 10 45.6 Nail Frags Iron 3609 5 19.9 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3609 6 0.1 Land Snail 3609 7 424.4 Indet Brick <1/2" 3609 8 248 731.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3609 9 635.4 Concretion 3610 1 1 0.3 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 139

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3610 2 1.2 Indet Brick <1/2" 3611 1 2 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3611 3 3.4 Indet Brick <1/2" 3611 7 3.1 Plastic Bag Plastic 3612 1 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3612 2 0.9 Indet Metal Frags Iron, Machine Made 3612 3 3 314.9 Indet Brick >1/2" 3612 4 3.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3613 1 1 384.1 Bottle Glass, Flask Embd, Curved, Clear, Cup btm, Iridescent 3614 1 0.1 Fossil 3614 2 2 16.4 Indet Metal Frags Iron, Machine Made 3614 3 1 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3614 4 10.9 Indet Brick <1/2" 3614 5 14 152.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3615 1 2 1.5 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3617 1 4 3.2 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3617 2 4 13 Nail Frags Iron 3617 3 2.9 Unmodified Clay 3617 4 14.3 Fired Clay 3618 1 2 0.7 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3618 2 4 2.1 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 2 3618 3 7 1.7 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3619 1 12 26.9 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3619 2 94 31.2 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3619 3 3 17.7 Nail, Whole Iron, 75.5mm, Cut 3619 4 1 1.7 Nail, Whole Iron, 38.5mm, Cut 3619 5 1 1.2 Staple, Metal Iron 3619 6 8 53.7 Indet Metal Frags Iron, Cut 140

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3619 7 21.2 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3619 8 34.4 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3619 9 1 0.1 Lithic Chunk Flint, Gray 3619 10 78 265.7 Indet Brick >1/2" 3619 11 108 Indet Brick <1/2" 3619 12 206.7 Concretion 3620 1 0.8 Fired Clay 3622 1 2 0.3 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3622 2 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3622 3 10.7 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3622 4 0.1 Bone, Indet 3622 5 13 126.6 Indet Brick >1/2" 3622 6 38 Indet Brick <1/2" 3622 12 1 0.2 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Soda Lime 3622 13 0.2 Shell, Indet 3623 1 1 15.1 Concretion 3623 2 0.9 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3623 3 1 0.1 Shot, Metal Lead, 3.6mm Diameter, Dropped 3623 4 3.7 Indet Brick <1/2" 3624 1 1 10.8 Nail, Whole Iron, 60.5mm 3624 2 1.3 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3624 3 1.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3625 1 4 1.3 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3625 2 3.1 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3625 3 2 0.4 Hardware Ring, Metal Iron 3625 4 4 8.1 Nail Frags Iron 3625 5 19 56.6 Indet Brick >1/2" 3625 6 30.6 Indet Brick <1/2" 141

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3626 1 1 0.6 Button, Metal Iron 3626 2 1 25.9 Spike, Metal Iron, 96.8mm 3626 3 12 50.2 Nail Frags Iron 3626 4 5.1 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3626 5 193.1 Wood Sample 3626 6 15 36 Indet Brick >1/2" 3626 7 15.5 Indet Brick <1/2" 3627 1 2 1.8 Nail Frags Iron 3627 2 1.3 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3627 3 2 5.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3628 1 1 0.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Clear 3628 2 2 25 Nail Frags Iron 3628 3 12.6 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3628 4 8 57.9 Indet Brick >1/2" 3628 5 12.6 Indet Brick <1/2" 3629 1 1 25.4 Nail, Whole Iron, 115.3mm 3629 2 1 0.4 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3629 3 4 1.1 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3629 4 1 1.5 Nail Frags Iron 3629 5 0.9 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3629 6 9 255.3 Indet Brick >1/2" 3629 7 17.2 Indet Brick <1/2" 3630 1 1 1.2 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 3630 2 2 4.9 Nail Frags Iron 3630 3 0.1 Bone, Indet 3630 4 25 335.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 3630 5 31.9 Indet Brick <1/2" 3631 1 6 1.9 Glass, Indet Plain, Flat, Clear 142

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3631 2 1.3 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3631 3 67 1710.7 Indet Brick >1/2" 3631 4 55.5 Indet Brick <1/2" 3631 5 0.2 Coal 3632 1 3.5 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3632 2 0.1 Seed, Indet 3632 3 13 469.6 Indet Brick >1/2" 3632 4 36.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3633 1 1 0.7 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Flared/Excurvate Rim, MVC: 1 3633 2 22.5 Wood Sample 3633 3 0.2 Shell, Indet 3633 4 2 3.2 Indet Brick >1/2" 3633 5 4.2 Indet Brick <1/2" 3634 1 1 0.1 Fossil 3635 1 1 79.8 Wood Sample 3636 1 3 5.4 Nail, Whole Iron, 37.6mm, Cut 3636 2 0.1 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3636 3 2.9 Indet Brick <1/2" 3637 1 1 3.2 Nail, Whole Lead 3637 2 2 10 Nail Frags Iron 3637 3 0.1 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3637 4 2.5 Indet Brick <1/2" 3639 1 1 1.8 Nail Frags Iron 3639 2 0.4 Indet Brick <1/2" 3640 1 1 0.1 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3640 2 5 0.1 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3640 3 0.2 Fired Clay 3641 1 1 6.5 Indet Brick >1/2" 143

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3642 1 1 0.1 Lithic Chunk Flint, Gray 3642 2 1 0.9 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3642 3 3 1.3 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3642 4 0.2 Indet Brick <1/2" 3644 1 1 20.1 Strap, Metal Iron 3645 1 1 21.1 Bottle Glass Embd, Curved, Aqua, Molded 3646 1 37 337.7 Indet Brick >1/2" 3646 2 38.5 Indet Brick <1/2" 3647 1 1 0.1 Shot, Metal Lead, 3mm Diameter, Dropped 3647 2 1.2 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3647 3 0.4 Land Snail 3647 4 3 20.1 Indet Brick >1/2" 3647 5 4.5 Indet Brick <1/2" 3648 1 2 2 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3648 2 1 0.2 Glass, Indet Plain, Curved, Amber 3648 3 1 1.8 Nail, Whole Iron, 37.1mm, Cut 3648 4 2 3.4 Nail, Whole Iron, 40.7mm, Cut 3648 5 7 5.4 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3648 6 14 209.5 Nail Frags Iron 3648 7 0.7 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3648 8 39 39.8 Wire, Metal Iron 3648 10 0.9 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3648 11 10 1401.1 Indet Brick >1/2" 3648 12 33.7 Indet Brick <1/2" 3648 13 3119 Concretion 3649 1 4.8 Indet Metal Frags Lead 3649 2 1 16.1 Nail, Whole Iron, 78mm, Cut 3649 3 18 86.9 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 144

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3649 4 1 203.2 Spike, Metal Iron, 133.5mm, Cut 3649 5 1 33.3 Nail, Whole Iron 3649 6 1 371.9 Nail, Whole Iron 3649 7 3 72.9 Nail, Whole Iron 3649 8 5 48 Wire, Metal Iron 3649 9 1 6.9 Hardware Screw, Metal Iron 3649 10 1 41.4 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3649 11 10.1 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3649 12 2 1449.3 Bolt, Metal Iron, 209.8mm 3649 13 0.1 Land Snail 3649 14 44 150.2 Indet Brick >1/2" 3649 15 70.6 Indet Brick <1/2" 3649 16 72.8 Fired Clay 3649 18 1671 Concretion 3650 1 7 0.2 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, , MVC: 1 3650 2 1 242.4 Bolt, Metal Iron 3650 3 1 76.5 Nail, Whole Iron 3650 4 2 1.4 Nail, Whole Iron, 27.8mm, Cut 3650 5 5 16.4 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3650 6 94.1 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3650 7 0.4 Bone, Indet 3650 8 165.2 Indet Brick <1/2" 3650 9 1 411.6 Handmade Brick 3650 10 1 870 Handmade Brick 3650 11 153 2009.3 Indet Brick >1/2" 3650 13 0.7 Coal 3651 1 3 12.8 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3651 2 1 78.7 Spike, Metal Iron 145

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3651 3 4 1 Nail, Whole Iron 3651 4 144 3800 Indet Brick >1/2" 3651 5 157.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3652 1 4 13.2 Nail Frags Iron, Cut 3652 2 116 2004 Indet Brick >1/2" 3652 3 1 675.2 Handmade Brick 3652 4 125.8 Indet Brick <1/2" 3653 1 6.3 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3653 2 0.1 Land Snail 3653 3 1.5 Fired Clay 3654 1 2 2.9 Nail Frags Iron 3654 2 0.8 Fired Clay 3655 1 0.6 Indet Metal Frags Iron 3656 1 1 7.2 Nail, Whole Iron 3658 1 0.7 Indet Metal Frags Iron, 47.8mm 3659 1 1 1.7 Incised Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3659 2 1 2.1 Incised Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3659 3 11 15.2 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 3 3659 4 2 1 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3659 5 34 3.9 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3659 6 0.1 Bone, Indet 3659 7 13 136.8 Indet Brick >1/2" 3659 8 17 Indet Brick <1/2" 3660 1 3 22.9 Check Stamp Sand/Grit Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3660 2 2 2.1 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 2 3660 3 1 1.8 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3660 4 1 0.9 Plain Grit Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3660 5 35 4.2 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 146

Prov. Catalog Count Weight (g) Artifact Type Comments 3661 1 1 3.6 Plain Sand Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3661 2 3 0.8 Sherdlet <1/2" Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1 3661 3 1.4 Indet Brick >1/2" 3664 1 1 1.5 Plain Shell Tempered Indet form, Body Sherd, MVC: 1

147