Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2008 Historical Archaeology at the Cedar Shake House (8LE1947): The African-American Heritage of Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park Triel Ellen Lindstrom
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE CEDAR SHAKE HOUSE
(8LE1947): THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN HERITAGE OF ALFRED B.
MACLAY GARDENS STATE PARK
By
TRIEL ELLEN LINDSTROM
A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2008 The members of the Committee approve the Thesis of Triel Ellen Lindstrom defended on March 31, 2008.
Glen Doran Professor Directing Thesis
Bill Parkinson Committee Member
Bruce Grindal Committee Member
Approved:
Glen Doran, Chair, Anthropology
Joseph Travis, Dean, College of Arts and Science
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I could not have completed this project without the help of many individuals, to whom I am greatly indebted. My partner Kris Barrios helped me in every way imaginable and ways unimaginable, including hours spent in the field, in the lab and at the computer on my behalf, as well as months and months of intensive care while I recuperated from an injury sustained at the park. My parents Jean and Jon Lindstrom helped me financially, enabling me to buy the equipment and supplies I needed, take time off work, and pay for my health insurance. This project was made possible, in part, by the generosity and assistance of park management and staff at Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, which gave me permission to conduct fieldwork, access to the Cedar Shake House site, use of park equipment, and access to historical archives. My supervisors at the Florida Park Service, Steve Martin and Phil Werndli, also supported the project as well as the larger vision by allowing me a flexible work schedule, and garnering agency support and financial backing for the additional archaeological work currently underway by the National Park Service. Thanks too to my thesis advisors Glen Doran and Rochelle Marrinan, and thesis committee members William Parkinson and Bruce Grindal. Last but by no means least, thanks to my friends, family and everyone else who has supported or contributed to the project in any and every way, including Jill DeBuono, Rosemary Havrilak, Tom Lorch, Hank Kratt, Mini Sharma, Rachel Wentz, Greg Sutton, Daniel Kuncicky, Tony Countryman, George Lewis, Dave Thulman, Prakash Sankar, and Sweta Chandra. My apologies for any omissions.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... ix Abstract ...... xvi
1. Introduction ...... 1
2. Background Information and Methodology ...... 10
Previous Research...... 10 Critique of Previous Historical Research...... 15 Critique of Previous Archaeological Research...... 18 Critique of Historic Preservation in the Florida Park Service ...... 19 Methodology...... 22 Historical...... 22 Field Investigation ...... 24 Lab Work & Analysis ...... 28 Summary ...... 31
3. African-American Tenancy on the Killearn Plantation ...... 33
Tenant Farming...... 33 Plantation Employment...... 38 Tenancy’s Tenancy ...... 42 Summary ...... 44
4. African-American Land Ownership in the Lake Overstreet and Lake Hall Area ...... 46
An Unlikely Seller: Mariano and Fanny Papy...... 48 The Land in Question – The Papy Plantation...... 64 The Buyers: An Unusual Purchase ...... 67 Freedom is Not So Clear...... 74 Summary ...... 79
iv 5. Life in the Hills ...... 81
Families ...... 82 Homes ...... 84 Farms ...... 85 Material Sustenance...... 89 Community ...... 91 Summary ...... 95
6. At Home in the Cedar Shake House ...... 97
The House ...... 98 The Robinson Family...... 99 The Sawyer Family...... 105 Summary ...... 107
7. Cedar Shake House (8LE1947): The Site...... 108
Aerial Photography...... 108 Oral History, Ethnography and Historical Research ...... 111 Site Components ...... 114 Structures...... 114 Roads and Ditch...... 114 Secondary Vegetation and Succession Forest ...... 116 Historic Vegetation...... 120 Fence Lines ...... 121 Depressions...... 123 Artifact Scatters ...... 125
8. Cedar Shake House (8LE1947): Artifacts ...... 130
Artifact Scatters Revisited ...... 131 Artifact Classification and Distribution by Functional Group ...... 136 Functional Group #1: Activities ...... 138 Functional Group #2: Building...... 140 Functional Group #3: Clothing...... 145 Functional Group #4: Farmstead ...... 146 Functional Group #5: Hardware ...... 147 Functional Group #6: Household...... 152 Functional Group #7: Kitchen ...... 163 Functional Group #8: Munitions...... 175 Functional Group #9: Natural Resource ...... 175
v Functional Group #10: Personal ...... 177 Functional Group #11: Prehistoric...... 178 Functional Group #12: Transportation ...... 184 Functional Group # 13: Unidentified...... 185 Summary...... 190 Artifact Scatter Dates...... 195 Artifact Scatter A...... 198 Artifact Scatter B ...... 198 Artifact Scatter C ...... 198 Artifact Scatter D...... 199 Artifact Scatter E ...... 199 Artifact Scatter F...... 199 Artifact Scatter H...... 200 Artifact Scatter I...... 200 Artifact Scatter J ...... 201 Artifact Scatter K...... 201 Artifact Scatter L ...... 201 Artifact Scatter M ...... 202 Artifact Scatter N...... 202 Artifact Scatter O...... 203 Summary ...... 204
9. Conclusion ...... 205
Summary of Project ...... 205 History ...... 205 Archaeology...... 209 Recommendations...... 211
APPENDICES ...... 220
A Permits ...... 220 B Cedar Shake House Surface Artifact Catalog...... 226 C Artifact Classification and Date Tables...... 297 D Glass Container Dates...... 321
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 337
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 351
vi LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1. Property Transactions: The Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet Area.... 52
Table 4.2. Leon County Tax Rolls for Residents of the Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet Area ...... 66
Table 4.3. African-American Purchasers of the Papy Plantation ...... 67
Table 4.4. African-American Residents of the Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet Area in 1870 ...... 72
Table 6.1. Robinson Family Property Transactions ...... 104
Table 7.1. Historic Archaeological Features of Cedar Shake House...... 115
Table 7.2. Native and Exotic Species at Cedar Shake House...... 118
Table 7.3. Artifact Scatters 1 - 19 at Cedar Shake House ...... 129
Table 8.1. New Artifact Scatters A - I ...... 134
Table 8.2. Artifact Scatters by Functional Group...... 194
Table 8.3. Maker’s Marks in the Cedar Shake House Surface Artifact Assemblage 197
Table B.1. Cedar Shake House Surface Collection Artifact Catalog ...... 227
Table C.1. Functional Groups by Count and Weight ...... 298
Table C.2. Functional Groups, Revised Kitchen, by Count and Weight...... 298
Table C.3. Functional Sub-Groups by Count and Weight...... 299
Table C.4. Classes by Count and Weight ...... 299
Table C.5. Types by Count and Weight...... 302
Table C.6. Kitchen Tableware Material by Count and Weight ...... 306
Table C.7. Kitchen Tableware Material and Class by Count and Weight...... 307
vii Table C.8. Kitchen Tableware Material and Type by Count and Weight ...... 307
Table C.9. Natural Resource Material by Count and Weight ...... 307
Table C.10. Natural Resource Material and Class by Count and Weight ...... 308
Table C.11. Natural Resource Material and Type by Count and Weight ...... 308
Table C.12. Functional Groups by Artifact Scatters...... 309
Table C.13. Functional Groups by Artifact Middens ...... 309
Table C.14. Functional Sub-Groups by Artifact Scatters ...... 310
Table C.15. Functional Sub-Groups by Artifact Middens...... 311
Table C.16. Classes by Artifact Scatters...... 312
Table C.17. Classes by Artifact Middens ...... 315
Table C.18. Kitchen Tableware Material by Artifact Scatters ...... 316
Table C.19. Kitchen Tableware Material by Artifact Middens ...... 317
Table C.20. Natural Resource Material by Artifact Scatters ...... 317
Table C.21. Natural Resource Material by Artifact Middens...... 317
Table C.22. Glass Dates by Artifact Scatters...... 318
Table D.1. Glass Container Dates...... 322
viii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Regional Map of Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park ...... 2
Figure 1.2. Areal Map of the Cedar Shake House (8LE1947) ...... 4
Figure 1.3. The Cedar Shake House, December 2003...... 5
Figure 2.1. Cedar Shake House Site Field Crew, April 2004 ...... 24
Figure 2.2. Cedar Shake House before Vegetation Removal 2004 ...... 25
Figure 2.3. Cedar Shake House during Vegetation Removal 2004 ...... 25
Figure 2.4. Map of Grid/Collection Units, Cedar Shake House (8LE1947) ...... 26
Figure 3.1. Killearn Plantation Employees and Overseer Fred Farrell...... 39
Figure 3.2. Man in Wagon at Killearn Gardens 1923 (PR 10615) ...... 40
Figure 3.3. Depew Smith Planting a Camelia (NO471026) ...... 40
Figure 3.4. The Hadley Family circa 1935 ...... 43
Figure 4.1. Mariano Papy (RC03705) ...... 49
Figure 4.2. The Papy Plantation...... 51
Figure 4.3. African-American Purchasers of the Papy Plantation...... 68
Figure 5.1. Log Cabin, Leon County, Florida (RC07275) ...... 84
Figure 5.2. Woman Plowing Field with Ox (RC13509)...... 86
Figure 5.3. Tenant Farm Women (NO47217) ...... 88
Figure 5.4. Emancipation Day Celebration, Horseshoe Plantation (RC11491) 95
Figure 6.1. Cedar Shake House, Addition...... 98
Figure 6.2. Cedar Shake House, Interior Wall...... 98
ix
Figure 6.3. Servant’s Quarters on Killearn Plantation (PR10610) ...... 98
Figure 6.4. Property Deed, Mariano Papy to Spencer Robinson...... 100
Figure 6.5. Spencer Robinson Property Subdivision, 1900...... 103
Figure 6.6. Henry Sawyer, Jr (NO47016)...... 105
Figure 7.1. 1954 Aerial Photograph #193 (Regional Scale)...... 109
Figure 7.2. 1937 Aerial Photograph #83...... 110
Figure 7.3. 1941 Aerial Photograph #39...... 110
Figure 7.4. 1954 Aerial Photograph #193 (Local Scale) ...... 110
Figure 7.5. 1960 Aerial Photograph #32...... 111
Figure 7.6. Distribution of Native and Exotic Species at Cedar Shake House... 119
Figure 7.7. Distribution of Highly Invasive Exotics at Cedar Shake House ...... 119
Figure 7.8. Large Live Oak, Exposed by Vegetation Removal...... 120
Figure 7.9. Large Live Oak, Now In Woods ...... 120
Figure 7.10. Site Features: Structures, Roads, Ditch, Fencing and Historic Vegetation ...... 124
Figure 7.11. Site Features: All...... 124
Figure 8.1. Collection Units Testing Positive for Surface Artifacts...... 132
Figure 8.2. Positive Units versus Artifact Scatters [AS] 1-19...... 132
Figure 8.3. AS 1-19 versus Distribution of All Artifacts by Count...... 133
Figure 8.4. AS 1-19 versus Distribution of All Artifacts by Weight...... 133
Figure 8.5. New Artifact Scatters A-I versus Old AS 1-19 ...... 135
x Figure 8.6. New AS A-I and New Midden Areas 1-7 ...... 135
Figure 8.7. Tobacco Tin, Catalog #152.98 ...... 139
Figure 8.8. Prince Albert Tobacco Tin ...... 139
Figure 8.9. Toy Truck, Similar to Catalog #89.4...... 139
Figure 8.10. Door Knob and Plate, Catalog #152.84...... 140
Figure 8.11. Distribution of Activities Functional Group by Count ...... 142
Figure 8.12. Distribution of Activities Functional Group by Weight ...... 142
Figure 8.13. Distribution of Activities Functional Group by Class ...... 143
Figure 8.14. Distribution of Building Functional Group by Count ...... 143
Figure 8.15. Distribution of Building Functional Group by Weight ...... 144
Figure 8.16. Distribution of Building Functional Group by Class...... 144
Figure 8.17. Shoe Soles, Catalog #74.27...... 145
Figure 8.18. Post Hole Digger, Catalog #76.4...... 146
Figure 8.19. Bucket, Catalog #55.45 ...... 146
Figure 8.20. Wrought Iron Hinge, Catalog #44.4...... 147
Figure 8.21. Distribution of Clothing Functional Group by Count ...... 148
Figure 8.22. Distribution of Clothing Functional Group by Weight ...... 148
Figure 8.23. Distribution of Clothing Functional Group by Class ...... 149
Figure 8.24. Distribution of Farmstead Functional Group by Count...... 149
Figure 8.25. Distribution of Farmstead Functional Group by Weight...... 150
Figure 8.26. Distribution of Farmstead Functional Group by Class and Type ...... 150
xi
Figure 8.27. Distribution of Hardware Functional Group by Count...... 151
Figure 8.28. Distribution of Hardware Functional Group by Weight...... 151
Figure 8.29. Distribution of Hardware Functional Group by Class...... 152
Figure 8.30. McKesson’s Fuller’s Earth...... 152
Figure 8.31. Baby Powder, Catalog #39.1...... 153
Figure 8.32. Clorox Bleach Bottle, Catalog #152.3...... 154
Figure 8.33. Oil Lamp Wall Bracket, Catalog #60.21...... 155
Figure 8.34. Oil Lamp Wall Bracket ...... 155
Figure 8.35. Rawleigh’s Pharmaceutical Bottle, Catalog #28.13...... 156
Figure 8.36. Powder Canister, Catalog #152.104...... 157
Figure 8.37. Talcum Powder...... 157
Figure 8.38. Cosmetic Jar, Catalog #78.8...... 157
Figure 8.39. Stove Pipe, Catalog #78.13 ...... 158
Figure 8.40. Enamel Chamber Pot, Catalog #41.5 ...... 158
Figure 8.41. Figurine, Catalog #55.34...... 158
Figure 8.42. Ink Jar, Catalog #29.20...... 158
Figure 8.43. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Count...... 159
Figure 8.44. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Weight...... 160
Figure 8.45. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Toiletry, Medicine, and Childcare Sub-Groups ...... 160
Figure 8.46. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Cleaning Sub-Group ...... 161
xii
Figure 8.47. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Entertainment Sub-Group...... 161
Figure 8.48. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Lighting Sub-Group ...... 162
Figure 8.49. Distribution of Household Functional Group by None Sub-Group 162
Figure 8.50. Example of Non-Kitchen Container: Starch ...... 163
Figure 8.51. Example of Non-Kitchen Container: Chicken Feeder ...... 163
Figure 8.52. Beer Bottle, Catalog #88.4 ...... 164
Figure 8.53. Orange Crush Bottle, Catalog #66.1 ...... 165
Figure 8.54. Hot Sauce Bottle, Catalog #29.19 ...... 167
Figure 8.55. Syrup Bottles, Modern and Catalog #32.1 ...... 167
Figure 8.56. Condiment Jars, Catalog #30.10...... 167
Figure 8.57. Ketchup Bottle, Catalog #54.3 ...... 167
Figure 8.58. Enamel Bowl, Catalog #55.39...... 168
Figure 8.59. Enamel Pot Lid, Catalog #152.105 ...... 168
Figure 8.60. Canning Jars, Catalog #82.3...... 168
Figure 8.61. Small Pitcher, Catalog #152.76...... 169
Figure 8.62. Ceramic Mixing Bowl, Catalog #29.44...... 169
Figure 8.63. Stoneware Jug, Catalog #29.46 ...... 169
Figure 8.64. Drinking Glass, Catalog #88.19 ...... 169
Figure 8.65. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Count...... 171
Figure 8.66. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Weight...... 171
xiii Figure 8.67. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Alcohol Sub- Group and Type ...... 172
Figure 8.68. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Drink and Soft Drink Sub-Groups and Type ...... 172
Figure 8.69. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Food Sub-Group and Type ...... 173
Figure 8.70. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Food Preparation and None Sub-Groups and Type...... 173
Figure 8.71. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Tableware Sub- Group and Material...... 174
Figure 8.72. Distribution of Kitchen and Unidentified Functional Group by Weight ...... 174
Figure 8.73. Distribution of Kitchen and Unidentified Functional Group by Count ...... 175
Figure 8.74. Oyster Shell, Catalog #111.7...... 176
Figure 8.75. Bone Fragments, Catalog #122.32 and 122.33 ...... 176
Figure 8.76. Razor Guard, Catalog #142.16...... 177
Figure 8.77. Hair Curler, Catalog #102.6 ...... 177
Figure 8.78. Prehistoric Check-Stamped Ceramic, Catalog #122.20 ...... 178
Figure 8.79. Prehistoric Lithic: Tool from Shovel Test, Catalog #19.5 ...... 178
Figure 8.80. Distribution of Munitions Functional Group by Count and Weight 179
Figure 8.81. Distribution of Natural Resource Functional Group by Count….. 179
Figure 8.82. Distribution of Natural Resource Functional Group by Weight…. 180
Figure 8.83. Distribution of Natural Resource Functional Group by Class, Type, and Material...... 180
xiv Figure 8.84. Distribution of Personal Functional Group by Count...... 181
Figure 8.85. Distribution of Personal Functional Group by Weight...... 181
Figure 8.86. Distribution of Personal Functional Group by Sub-Group...... 182
Figure 8.87. Distribution of Prehistoric Functional Group by Count ...... 182
Figure 8.88. Distribution of Prehistoric Functional Group by Weight ...... 183
Figure 8.89. Distribution of Prehistoric Functional Group by Material ...... 183
Figure 8.90. Motor Oil, Catalog #149.3 ...... 184
Figure 8.91. Bicycle Seat, Catalog #79.1 ...... 184
Figure 8.92. 1955 Car License Plate, Catalog #28.61 ...... 184
Figure 8.93. Possible Baby Food Jar, Catalog #88.7...... 186
Figure 8.94. Vintage Baby Food Jars ...... 186
Figure 8.95. Distribution of Transportation Functional Group by Count…….. 187
Figure 8.96. Distribution of Transportation Functional Group by Weight…… 187
Figure 8.97. Distribution of Transportation Functional Group by Sub-Group and Class ...... 188
Figure 8.98. Distribution of Unidentified Functional Group by Count ...... 188
Figure 8.99. Distribution of Unidentified Functional Group by Weight ...... 189
Figure 8.100. Distribution of Unidentified Functional Group by Class ...... 189
Figure 8.101. Distribution of Artifact Scatters by Date...... 203
Figure 9.1. Circa 1950s Staff Directory for Killearn Gardens...... 208
Figure A.1. Archaeological Research Permit (Chapter 1A-32) Application...... 221
Figure A.2. 1A-32 Archaeological Research Permit ...... 222
xv ABSTRACT
Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, located in Tallahassee, Florida, is home to one of the more beautiful ornamental gardens in the State of Florida. The gardens were designed and developed by Alfred B. Maclay between 1923 and 1944, and donated to the state in 1953 by his wife Louise Fleischmann Maclay and their two children Georgiana Maclay Bowers and Alfred B. Maclay, Jr. Mr. Maclay was an affluent northerner who was one of many to buy old antebellum plantations in the Red Hills of Florida for use as winter retreats and hunting grounds. This land was home to African-American tenant farmers, some of whom Mr. Maclay employed as domestic servants, laborers and gardeners. In fact, the land upon which Maclay established his gardens and the majority of the land that now comprises the park were once owned by African-Americans, purchased by tenant farmers and ex-slaves from antebellum planter and Florida Attorney General Mariano Papy in the 1870s. The African-American community on the shores of Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet is historic, having endured slavery, farmed through the mid-twentieth century as both tenant farmers and landowners, and worked at Maclay gardens as plantation and then state employee, remnants surviving to this day in neighborhoods adjacent to the park.
This project is part of a larger effort to research the African-American heritage associated with the park so that it can be effectively interpreted to the visiting public. It consisted of archaeological fieldwork and analysis that focused on the Cedar Shake House, a historic farmstead on Lake Overstreet just north of the Maclay House, and historical research on the larger African-American community and socio-cultural context. Evidence was recovered via a pedestrian survey and the dating and spatial analysis of surface artifacts that supports the contention that Maclay tenants and former residents Annie and Henry Sawyer’s livelihood had shifted from farming to plantation employment between the late 1930s and early 1950s when the site was vacated, a common trend as African-Americans sought to escape the cycle of debt associated with tenant farming in favor of wage earning jobs on and then off the plantation. While no evidence of an earlier occupation has yet been recovered, no evidence recovered to
xvi date precludes the possibility that the Cedar Shake House was also occupied around the turn of the twentieth century by members of the Robinson family, African-Americans who purchased the property shortly after Emancipation. Additional subsurface investigations are currently underway at the site, conducted by the National Park Service. The Cedar Shake House and other historic homesteads located within park boundaries hold the potential to reveal information not just about former occupants’ daily lives but larger transitions, such as shifts from landownership to tenancy or tenant farming to plantation employment, spurred by economic, social and political factors that continue to shape our lives today.
xvii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The intent of this project was clear from the start: To contribute research material that would enable Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, an ornamental garden managed by the Florida Park Service in Tallahassee, Florida, to better preserve and interpret its African-American heritage. The gardens and the Maclays have long been the focal point of the park, the raison d’etre for the Maclay family’s original 307-acre donation to the State of Florida in 1953. But even a cursory literature review demonstrates the centrality of African-Americans to the development and operation of the gardens, and their long standing association with Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet that pre-dates the Maclays by a century. State acquisition of the adjacent 869-acre Lake Overstreet tract in 1992, with its old African-American farmsteads and plantation housing, presented the park with a distinct set of cultural resources to manage and an opportunity to expand its interpretive programming and preservation efforts. To the historic house museum with its showcases on the Maclay family and garden can now be added information about African-Americans’ role in developing and maintaining the Maclay House and Gardens, as well as outdoor kiosks around the lake that highlight the historic African-American community. The garden’s development can now be placed in a broad sociopolitical context that not only highlight the leisurely pursuits of genteel landowners, but also the daily life of the area’s former African- American residents, relationship to their patrician neighbors and landlords, the social stratification that marked all of their lives, and changing land uses and ways of life in the area.
This project had several goals. The two primary goals were to conduct historic research on the African-American community of Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet, with which the many historic sites and features in the park’s Lake Overstreet tract are associated, and to conduct an archaeological investigation of the Cedar Shake House (8LE1947), one of the historic African- American homesteads around the lakes. The two lesser goals were to critique research of the park’s African-American history to date and historic preservation in the Florida Park Service generally, and to offer points and concepts for consideration in future interpretive programming. The recommendations in the final chapter cover historical and archaeological research,
1 interpretation, and preservation, serving as one more road map that the Florida Park Service can use as it decides how best to meet its management responsibilities, realize the property’s educational potential, and honor the significance of the park’s history. It is hoped that this work will help lead to a more robust understanding of the park’s African-American past, and that this heritage will shift from the park’s periphery to its historical core.
Figure 1.1. Regional Map of Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park. Source: Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Alfred B. Maclay Gardens Unit Management Plan 2003.
2 Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, with its rich array of historic sites and nearby descendant community, presents ample opportunity to investigate any number of topics related to the African-American past through any number of approaches. Dr. Doran’s initial assessment of the property’s historic African-American sites prior to state acquisition in 1992 provided impetus for future study –such sites were in general under-investigated and interpreted and increasingly rare in Leon County, and these particular sites represented both the common story of twentieth century African-American plantation tenancy in the area, as well as an unusual story of Reconstruction era African-American land ownership (Doran 1992). Research of the park’s African-American heritage continued with the development of a Cultural Landscape Master Plan [CLMP] by The Jaeger Company in 1999, which included oral history interviews of former African-American residents of the area, both tenants and landowners (The Jaeger Company [TJC] 1999b). The plan called for the restoration of several historic sites located off the park’s popular recreational trail around Lake Overstreet.
This project focused on one historic site in particular –the Cedar Shake House, once the home of Maclay employees Henry and Annie Sawyer during the second quarter of the twentieth century. The Cedar Shake House’s location, structural remains, and undisturbed grounds made it a prime candidate for in-depth research and interpretive site development. Located just off the popular multi-use trail around Lake Overstreet relatively close to the gardens, the site can be easily accessed by the visiting public, particularly those who rarely venture beyond the garden’s boundaries. Additionally, its location behind and out of sight of the Maclay House provides a spatial illustration of servants’ subordinate position in relationship to the Maclays. The partially standing Cedar Shake House is an authentic remnant of bygone days and a general example of living conditions in the Red Hills of Florida in the late 19th – early 20th century for many African-American tenant farmers and plantation employees. This small, overgrown, two-room house with an attached kitchen has layers of additions and improvements that clearly tied it to the Maclay period and possibly to earlier African-American tenants and landowners as well. The overgrown yard and surrounding hillside were littered with artifact scatters that contained the discard of consumption, household activity, and an abandoned farmstead. The site possessed the potential, via historical, archaeological and architectural investigation, to yield a wide array of information about its former tenants.
3 Cedar Shake House
Figure 1.2. Areal Map of the Cedar Shake House (8LE1947). Source: Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Alfred B. Maclay Gardens Unit Management Plan 2003.
While no specific archaeological work had been recommended for the Cedar Shake House, the CLMP called for reconstruction of the site’s garden, well site, outbuildings, and agricultural fields, the location and boundaries of which were largely unknown (TJC 1999a). Towards that end then, one of the primary objectives of this archaeological investigation was to recover information about the site’s historic appearance and configuration. Ethnographic and archaeological studies of rural African-American households in the South provided general information about common yard layouts, functions and activities, while oral history interviews and old aerial photographs provided concrete information about the surrounds of the Cedar Shake House and other houses around Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet. A pedestrian survey was conducted to locate and map site features, including structural remains, roads, ditches, historic and secondary vegetation, depressions, fence lines and artifact scatters.
4 Analysis of survey and research results revealed that the Cedar Shake House was once a farmstead, whose tenants gradually abandoned farming before abandoning the house itself in the early 1950s. Between the 1930s and the 1950s, cultivated fields to the Figure 1.3. The Cedar Shake House, December 2003. east of the house grew up in brush, and today are forested by loblolly pine. The once large clearing around the house, traditionally employed by farmers for subsistence and household activities, was also let go to seed. The extensive artifacts scatters around the house confirm that at some point the yard was no longer needed for garden, livestock enclosure, crop storage, or outdoor cooking and laundry. While a small unidentified outbuilding, several possible fence lines, two roads and a ditch were identified, the survey found no other historic features or structures to support a well founded restoration of the Cedar Shake House to its historic appearance.
Archaeology to assess the research potential of the park’s historic sites had also been recommended by several archaeologists, although no specific research questions had been posed (Doran 1992, Tesar 1995). Like other historic house sites in the park, the Cedar Shake House possessed extensive artifact scatters and sheet midden containing bottles, cans, jars, tableware, cookware, household furnishings, building material, tools and other miscellanea bottles that had escaped collectors’ notice all these years. Surface artifacts comprised a major, highly visible part of the site’s archaeological record. The other primary objective of this archaeological investigation, then, was to specifically assess the potential of the surface artifact assemblage to shed light on the past via analysis of its content and spatial distribution. The majority of the site was 100% systematically surface collected by five or ten meter square units, and cleaned and sorted off-site. Artifacts were cataloged by their physical attributes and their likely functional attributes, per a modified version of Stanley South’s artifact classification model. Total numbers and percents by material and function were calculated for the entire body of artifacts, and the
5 distribution of various groupings of artifacts across the site was plotted. Glass containers were dated based on maker’s marks, patent dates, and product information.
Analysis of the Cedar Shake House surface artifacts revealed information about the former tenants’ material culture, consumption patterns, and trash disposal practices. The vast majority of datable containers dated to the mid-1930s to early 1950s. Approximately three quarters of the surface assemblage consisted of kitchen-related objects, primarily glass and metal food containers. Residents were clearly relying heavily on commercially produced and purchased food as opposed to tenant farmers’ traditional reliance on home grown food, corresponding with landscape evidence that farming activity had eventually ceased. Commercial goods indicate that residents garnered cash incomes as plantation employees as opposed to tenant farmers, who were more commonly cash poor. The relatively small numbers of other types of artifacts appear to indicate that there were limits to residents purchasing power, or high rates of object retention and reuse. These artifacts reveal that while no longer farmers, other aspects of residents’ life were shared in common with poor rural folk generally, such as the use of chamber pots, oil lamps, flashlights, and coal burning stoves in lieu of electricity and modern appliances. Despite extensive spatial analysis, no distinct artifact patterns emerged that indicate specialized activity areas. Instead, all kinds of trash were thrown in dumps throughout the site. Artifact dating revealed that trash was dumped closer and closer to the house between the late 1930s and early 1950s when the site was abandoned.
Archaeological survey also helped to prepare the site for public interpretation. The Cedar Shake House site was so thickly vegetated that the house was not approachable, the site not traversable, and the ground not visible. These conditions presented major obstacle to all phases of historic site development –archaeological survey of surface deposits, conveyance of the site’s historic openness and vistas, and visitation by the public. Vegetation clearing was necessary precursor to any archaeological, reconstructive or interpretive work. Herbaceous growth, shrubs, vines and small trees were removed from the former yard, highlighting the spatial relationships of historic features to the house and each other, and returning the farmstead to a more historical appearance. Clearing vegetation made the site more visible however, putting artifacts in greater danger of looting. One hundred percent surface collection cleared the site of potentially dangerous glass
6 and metal fragments, recovered specimens most likely to ‘walk off’ the site with visitors, and produced objects that could illustrate interpretive themes.
Who the archaeological record at the Cedar Shake House was associated with was still in question. Previous research indicated that the property was owned by the Robinson family in the late nineteenth century, African-American tenant farmers who lived near Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet on an antebellum plantation owned by Mariano Papy (Doran 1992a). Additional historical research confirmed that Spencer Robinson purchased the property from Papy in 1871, and passed the piece of land that the Cedar Shake House sits on to his daughter and son-in-law Rachel and Lawrence Edwards in 1900. Whether the Robinson family constructed the Cedar Shake House is uncertain but possible; historical and archaeological research has yet to confirm or refute the possibility. According to oral history informants, Henry and Annie Sawyer occupied the house during the second quarter of the twentieth century, African-American tenant farmers on John Law’s hunting plantation who became plantation employees after Maclay purchased the property in 1923. Additional historical research supports but does not confirm their occupancy; if accurate, both history and archaeology corroborate that the Cedar Shake House was not a farmstead in the final decades of its occupation.
Who the Robinsons and the Sawyers were was still in question. Little was known about their family history or the community of which they were a part. Site-specific research segued into that of the origin, evolution and decline of the African-American community around Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet, including their antebellum fate, the genesis of their land ownership, the terms of their plantation tenancy and employment, and what life was generally like for many in the area. The African-American tenant farmers, plantation employees, and land owners who had been presented as separate populations in previous research in actuality were neighbors, many of whom were tied to each other by blood and marriage and had lived on this land for generations. Additional research revealed that the Robinson family, who purchased a portion of the Papy plantation in 1871, may have been enslaved by the Papy family before the Civil War. Henry Sawyer Jr., a Maclay tenant in the twentieth century, was descended from the Payne family, who also purchased property from Papy in the early 1870s.
7 The cultural landscape theme in the CLMP bound history and prehistory together by focusing on humans’ relationship to the land, in large part reducing tenant farming to an agricultural practice that shaped the landscape. The African-American history was largely descriptive –relationships and circumstances were not analyzed nor was life on Maclay’s Killearn Plantation linked to a larger social context (TJC 1999b). Additional research related the lives of the former residents and owners of the Cedar Shake House and the community at large to shifting power bases on a local, state and regional level, and to the rise and fall of Jim Crow and plantation tenancy from the Reconstruction period through the mid-20th century in order to convey the impact of racism and the implications of land ownership and tenancy. At the heart of this account are oral history interviews of former residents of the area in order to keep African-American experiences and perspectives central and to highlight their negotiation of the larger social structure and creation of independent lives and communities (Shackel, Mullins and Warner 1998). Historical research was conducted as much to facilitate archaeological project development and data interpretation as it was to augment future interpretation and increase the body of historical knowledge that the park preserves in trust for the public.
The African-American heritage of Maclay Gardens State Park warrants preservation and interpretation. The park has been extremely fortunate so far to have had several archaeological surveys, historical research, oral history interviews, and stabilization work conducted. The contributions and shortcomings of previous research pave the way for increasingly more focused and in-depth projects. Clearly articulated goals and methods for additional research, preservation treatment and interpretive programming will better help the park soundly manage these cultural resources to the benefit of all.
This thesis continues in Chapter Two with a review and critique of research conducted to date of the park’s African-American heritage, placing the project in the larger contemporary context of cultural resource management in the Florida Park Service. The next four chapters place the Cedar Shake House in the larger historical context of the park’s African-American heritage before, during and after the Maclay period. Chapter Three investigates African-American tenancy on the Killearn Plantation, including tenant farming, plantation employment, and the rise and fall of plantation tenancy in the area. Chapter Four investigates the changing patterns of
8 African-American land ownership in the Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet area. Chapter Five details life for African-American residents in the area based on oral history interviews, including families, homes, farms, material sustenance, and community. Chapter Six focuses specifically on the Cedar Shake House and the two families, the Robinsons and the Sawyers, who may have once lived there. The next two chapters document the results of the archaeological investigation of the Cedar Shake House site (8LE1947). Concerned with recovering information about the historic cultural landscape, Chapter Seven investigates the site’s structures, roads, paths, ditches, vegetation, fence lines, holes, and artifact scatters based on analysis of aerial photographs, oral histories, historic and ethnographic research, and fieldwork data. Chapter Eight focuses on the site’s surface artifact assemblage, and the results of its classification and analysis of its distribution across the site. The final chapter, Chapter Nine, summarizes the project, presenting recommendations for future research, site development and interpretation, and park management of these important resources.
9 CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND METHODOLOGY “You couldn’t even tell we lived over there now…Everything done change about.” Estelle Sawyer, former Lake Overstreet landowner 1930s – 1950s (The Jaeger Company 1999b:E3)
The Cedar Shake House is recorded with the Florida Master Site File as both a historic house (8LE1947a) and an archaeological site (8LE1947b) (Doran 1992b). It is part of a complex of historic resources in Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park associated with the property’s former African-American residents that includes a number of other house sites, numerous dump sites, ditch work around the nearby lakes, the Maclay House and its service buildings, and the ornamental garden. The park’s African-American history spans two centuries, from enslaved communities brought to clear these hills in the 1820s to their present-day descendants who still live nearby, and even still work on the land that is now the state park. This heritage has been researched at several critical points in the park’s development prior to this project, including state acquisition of the Lake Overstreet tract in the early 1990s, general management planning in the mid-1990s, and cultural landscape master planning in the late 1990s.
Previous Research The park’s African-American history was first recognized and researched in the early 1990s during an archaeological assessment of the 890-acre Lake Overstreet tract adjacent to Maclay Gardens prior to state acquisition of the property from the estate of John W. Mettler, Jr., Louise Fleischman Maclay’s nephew. Dr. Glen Doran, of the Department of Anthropology at Florida State University, assessed the property’s potential for containing archeological sites, and then surveyed high probability areas, based on elevation, slope and proximity to water, in order to locate and identify sites (Doran 1991, 1992). Predicted to contain two to twelve sites based on the number of nearby recorded sites and predictive site density models for Leon County, the Lake Overstreet tract proved far richer –twenty-five sites were recorded with the Florida Master Site File, including seventeen prehistoric, eight historic, and three multi-component sites. The survey, which included one hundred and fifty-nine shovel tests, visual examination of exposed areas, and limited surface collection demonstrated that this new parcel had a lengthy Native
10 American occupation, a lengthier history of agriculture that spanned from prehistory to the mid- 20th century, and an indisputable continuum of African-American heritage. Historical research, oral history, and property deed reconstruction showed that African-Americans had been here for a long time, as slaves, tenant farmers and plantation employees on white-owned lands, and as neighboring landowners in their own right. The historic resources associated with their tenure were deemed important for their representation of the lives of the common versus the more showcased wealthy, for their increasing rarity among the new suburbs rapidly consuming old plantation lands, and for the unusualness of black land ownership of such large parcels so soon after Emancipation.
Odds are that all of the historic sites Doran recorded are associated with African-Americans who once lived on the property. The newly recorded historic sites included two standing structures (Cedar Shake House [8LE1947]) and Near Dock House [8LE1946]), four archaeological house sites (Three Oaks [8LE1867], Ravine Road [8LE1869], Purple Brick [8LE1942], and Banana Stand House [8LE1944]), two dump and possible house sites (Gum Pond Dump [8LE1945] and North Lake Overstreet Dump [8LE1943]), and two hand-dug ditches (Little Gum Pond Ditch [8LE1940] and Overstreet Drain Ditch [8LE1941]). A cement block house foundation was also located but not recorded, although it has since passed the ‘historic’ threshold (fifty years). In addition to locating and recording sites, Doran tentatively dated, estimated the minimum size, and characterized the components of these sites. The two standing structures were of vernacular construction, just a few rooms large with porches and a chimney, made of an assortment of material with later additions. Neither had evidence of indoor plumbing, and one had a ceramic conductor, perhaps for limited electricity. One had an unidentified outstructure, and the presence of more are anticipated, such as wells, privy, sheds, and livestock enclosures. The historic house sites contained structural features and/or debris, including chimneys, piers, a well, brick and concrete fragments, window glass, and metal roofing. Every historic house site had an associated sheet midden of household debris approximately 40 to 65 meters in diameter, including glass bottles and jars, broken ceramics, tin cans, and less commonly clothing (boot heel) and entertainment-related objects (78 rpm record). It was the presence of these artifact types and a similar artifact scatter density that led to the conclusion that the two historic dumps might represent house sites too. Shovel testing at two sites (Three Oaks and Purple Brick)
11 recovered the same types of material. The absence of plastic objects at all of the sites indicated a pre-1950 occupation period for all of the structures, and no material unquestionably dated to the 19th century. Doran felt, however, that a number of the house sites might date to the turn-of-the (twentieth) century or late 19th century, with the exception of the Purple Brick site, where shovel testing uncovered a possible hearth made of brick that may have been locally made in the mid- 19th century. More archeological work was recommended in order to determine the size and dates of the sites.
In 1995, Louis Tesar and Calvin Jones, from the Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Glen Doran of FSU, and Florida Park Service (FPS) staff surveyed select areas of the new Lake Overstreet tract, focusing on sites with the greatest interpretive potential, in order to assess the research potential for additional archaeological sites, and to generate management and research recommendations for the park’s general management plan (Tesar et al. 1995). The team identified five new sites in one day through judgmental shovel testing, and estimated that the tract contained seventy-five plus prehistoric and historic sites based on their test results and Tesar’s native settlement pattern model for Leon County. For the historic house sites, the management team recommended preservation of historic ornamental vegetation, removal of exotic overgrowth that was choking structural remains and native vegetation, documentation of the structures, and removal of deteriorated elements. Future archaeological survey should identify the boundaries and function of historic sites, characterize the material culture and assess its integrity, and determine site research potential.
Research of the park’s African-American history continued in the late 1990s. As called for in the park’s 1997 Unit Management Plan, a Cultural Landscape Master Plan [CLMP] was developed by a private consulting firm, The Jaeger Company, for both Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park and Elinor Klapp-Phipps Municipal Park directly to the west, a greenway that stretches from Lake Hall on the east to Lake Jackson on the west. The primary goals were to conduct further research on the parks’ cultural resources, identify significant elements of the historic cultural landscape, and develop recommendations for the holistic management and interpretation of the parks’ natural and cultural resources. The project consisted of four phases – an archaeological survey, a historic overview, the CLMP itself, and nomination to the National
12 Register of Historic Places. ‘Cultural Landscape’, both designed and vernacular, was the central theme, in terms of historical inquiry, preservation treatment, and land management.
As the first phase of the cultural landscape project, Frank Keel, of Post Buckley Schuh &Jernigan, a private consulting firm, conducted a Phase I archaeological survey of the two parks, designed to locate unrecorded sites and revisit previously recorded sites in order to determine their horizontal and vertical boundaries and their significance (Keel 1999). Through shovel testing, surface collection, and analysis of historic maps, aerial photographs and oral histories, seven new sites were recorded in Maclay Garden State Park and information about four previously recorded sites was refined. Newly recorded sites included the still-used, Maclay/Law-era Gardner’s Cottage (8LE2211) and two more hand-dug ditches (Lake Hall-Lake Overstreet Ditch [8LE2212] and Lake Elizabeth –Gum Pond Ditch [8LE2213]). The Gum Pond Dump (8LE1945) was revisited, and structural features were found fifty meters south of the recorded dump, confirming its house site identity. The absence of plastic objects indicated pre- 1950s occupation, a bottle with a 1908 patent confirmed early 20th century inhabitation, and a slate roofing tile suggested possible mid-nineteenth century construction. Keel demonstrated the relationship of house sites in the project area to certain soil types, hill tops and ridges, water bodies, roads and trails, and ornamental vegetation. While he felt that these sites were important “tangible evidence” of the property’s tenant farming past and central to interpretation of the subject, he felt none were significant or qualified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places given advanced states of disrepair. Keel recommended removal of potentially unsafe unsound structural remains at the Gum Pond, Near Dock, and Cedar Shake House sites, and retention of features such as foundation piers, chimney pads, and landscaping plants for interpretation’s sake. Besides surface collection at one house site (Gum Pond), no archaeological testing was conducted at the historic house sites on Lake Overstreet, and no further investigation of the Gum Pond House or any other house site was recommended.
For the second phase of the cultural landscape project, The Jaeger Company developed a historic overview for Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park based on archival and historical research and oral history interviews. The cultural landscape rubric was translated into a focus on the “historic interaction of humans with the landscape over time,” and the history of the property’s designed
13 and vernacular landscape was divided into “several periods of development” (The Jaeger Company [TJC] 1999b:3). The historic overview summarizes state and local history from European exploration and colonization to U.S. territorial land speculation and statehood’s antebellum plantations to tenant farming, hunting plantations and winter retreats, and finally public ownership. Impacts to the landscape during each period, largely due to agricultural and horticultural activity, are highlighted. In large part, the overview is the history of white settlers, planters, and large landowners, with discussion of the particular individuals associated with the project area through time. Its largest contribution to the park’s African-American history, and one of the most significant to date, are the oral history interviews of seven former residents of the Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet area, including tenant farmers, plantation employees, and land owners. Conducted by Althemese Barnes, Executive Director of the John G. Riley Center/Museum of African-American History and Culture, the oral histories cover a wide range of topics about daily life and the circumstances affecting it, and uncover extended family and community networks. The overview includes a description of tenant farming, and devotes a section to life on the Maclays’ Killearn Plantation, based largely on excerpts from the oral history interviews. It also recognizes the black landowning community as “one of the most significant advancements of this period,” and identified some of the individuals, transactions and dates associated with its establishment” (TJC 1999b:23).
The third phase of the cultural landscape project, the CLMP itself, made recommendations for the uniform interpretation and treatment of cultural resources that would tie both parks together into a single greenway, and realize its educational potential. The preceding historical and archaeological research was summarized, and the changing road and land use patterns that marked the last half of the 20th century, from the decline and cessation of tenant farming to the property’s reforestation and state development, were documented via analysis of aerial photographs. Rehabilitation of the cultural landscape was proposed, which would restore individual sites and their surrounds to their historic appearance, preserve significant features from all different time periods, and allow the greenway’s continued recreational use. Recommended interpretive themes covered the area’s geology, flora and fauna, and focused on the history of post-bellum hunting plantations, with an emphasis on how agricultural practices and recreational sport had transformed the natural landscape. While African-American history
14 was but one of many potential topics, many of the recommended improvements to interpretive programming centered on historic resources directly associated with African-Americans, including the gardens; the Maclay House kitchen, stables and laundry; and the standing and collapsed tenant structures, ditch work and old fields around Lake Overstreet. The Jaeger Company recognized the highly visible old farmsteads as significant elements of the cultural landscape for their interpretive potential in regards to tenant farming. The Cedar Shake House in particular was proposed as a major interpretive station that through reconstruction of the house and garden, could tell the story of “the relationships that were established and developed between Maclay and his employee” (TJC 1999a:25).
Finally, a National Register of Historic Places nomination form was completed for Maclay Gardens State Park (Miles, Diane 2000). The entire 1,184-acre park was nominated as a historic district with thirty-two contributing resources, including eighteen historic buildings (Maclay House complex), four structures (ditches around the lakes), three objects (features of Maclay Gardens), two sites (Maclay Gardens itself and the network of historic roads and trails around Lake Overstreet), and six archaeological sites (tenant farm houses). Of the options considered, the historic period 1821 – 1953, from first U.S. settlement to state acquisition, was selected as the period of significance for its agricultural and social traditions that reflected the larger Red Hills of Florida. Specifically, the park’ significance stemmed from its ornamental gardens and its association with designer Alfred Barmore Maclay, its vernacular Maclay building complex and tenant farmhouses, its social history of plantation “labor systems and social hierarchies,” and its archaeological potential to yield additional information about the lives of former tenants (Miles, Diane 2000). The majority of contributing resources to the historic district, and thus the majority of the narrative about significance, are associated with the Maclays; however, the property’s history of African-American tenancy and land ownership, and related historic sites, were also recognized. The Killearn Plantation Historic District was listed on the register August 16, 2002.
Critique of Previous Historical Research Histories of the park to date naturally highlight the Maclay family and garden development, particularly those written before acquisition of the Lake Overstreet tract focus on the property’s
15 chain of ownership (Bullard 1974, Davis ca. 1970s, Horkan 1996). Maclay was the terminus of a lofty line, from the U.S. hero Marquis de Lafayette (1824) to land speculator Hector Braden (1833) to Baltimorean antebellum planter Dr. John Adam Craig (1839) to Ohioan insurance executive John Law (1905) to New York industrialist Alfred Barmore Maclay. The Maclay House was built by John Law on the hunting plantation that he established on John Craig’s former antebellum plantation Andalusia that was once the site of Lafayette’s experimental agricultural settlement (Doran 1992; Groene 1981; Paisley 1968, 1989). Park history author after author has penned this account, passing down the version Mrs. Louise Fleischmann Maclay herself recounted at a Tallahassee Horticultural Society ladies’ luncheon in 1965 (Tallahassee Democrat 17 February 1955) (Figure 2.1). And indeed, the old drive up to Maclay Gardens on the old Andalusia Plantation road did run through this land, along the northern border of Township 1N Range 1E Section 5. But the Maclay House itself, and much of the gardens, and all of the land surrounding Lake Overstreet and the northern half of Lake Hall were once owned by African-Americans. This equally lofty chapter is missing from park histories, and largely missing from the landscape as well since Mrs. Maclay’s demolition of an unknown number of houses around Lake Overstreet in the 1950s (TJC 1999b:42). While these farmsteads were associated with tenants during the Maclay and Law periods, note of their already decrepit condition in Maclay’s ledger indicates that they may have been associated with the late 19th – early 20th century landowning community as well (Maclay ca. 1930s.). Yet even the CLMP reinforces the notion that African-American land owners were a separate phenomenon, to the east of Maclay land, tied only to Maclay by his purchase of several of these parcels along the border of his property.
Histories since state acquisition of Lake Overstreet have recognized its African-American heritage, as the tract increased the number and types of cultural resources under park management, and expanded the purpose of the park from ornamental gardens to provision of new resource-based educational and recreational opportunities as well. The most explored aspect of local African-American life has been that of tenant farming and land ownership during the Maclays’ proprietorship of the gardens (1923 – 1953). This is the closest history to us today, the most visible in terms of surviving historical elements of the physical landscape, the most retrievable in terms of living memory, and the most documented in terms of published local
16 histories (Bruckheimer 1988; Paisley 1968, 1989). But what came before and what after? In short, while aspects of life drawn from oral history interviews were highlighted in the CLMP, the history of the community itself was not compiled. These African-American tenant farmers, plantation employees, and landowners had a historical trajectory that connects them to both antebellum enslavement and contemporary communities. Their history spans the property’s historical period, while the Maclays just forty years in the 20th century. And the history of African-American tenant farming, plantation employment and land ownership are not disparate phenomenon, but different aspects of one history, that of this particular African-American community.
The initial history of the park’s African-American past in the CLMP is largely descriptive, of local tenant farming arrangements and living conditions generally, and of specifics regarding life for tenants and employees on the Maclays’ Killearn Plantation, and land owners nearby. Because this singular example of a northern-owned plantation is not placed in a larger context, however, tenancy is presented more as a farming practice than a discriminatory social arrangement, with no way to gauge just how “relatively good” Mr. Maclay’s relationship with his African-American tenants really was (TJC 1999b:39). It is of interest to know what happened here at Maclay Gardens, it is of relevance to understand the social forces that framed it. The CLMP’s cultural landscape theme focused on what impact human activity (primarily farming) had on the land over time, thereby tying the property’s history and prehistory together, instead of analyzing what the cultural landscape features revealed about the people who once lived here. The former occupants of every historic site had a relationship to and impact on their natural surrounds, but what specifically that is might just reveal something about how people related to each other and the natural world. Shifting focus from the natural to the social landscape can better highlight cultural diversity and evolution, but also precipitate discussion the Florida Park Service is less comfortable with, such as what role race, class and other disparities play in our society. That the ‘Maclay Place’ was really a plantation, and its tenants African- American, are central to the park’s story, that when glossed over on the agency’s website, conceals the real significance of this history (DEP, DRP 2005). The CLMP did not capture the breadth of African-American history associated with Lakes Hall and Overstreet, did not situate
17 the Maclays within this history, did not place this history within a larger sociopolitical context, and did not address race as a significant aspect of daily life.
Critique of Previous Archaeological Field Investigations As is common in the Florida Park Service, site management and interpretation have driven archaeological surveys of the Lake Overstreet tract thus far. The primary objective of these surveys has been to locate and document sites that the park is responsible for managing, and secondarily to recover basic information about sites’ cultural affiliation, date range, and material culture for interpretation. Much about Lake Overstreet’s limited archaeological investigation, however, has also been unique. Archaeology is most commonly conducted in parks prior to ground disturbing activity in order to mitigate destruction of significant sites. At Lake Overstreet, however, site identification began prior to state acquisition even, and for an area slated for minimal development and passive recreation. So while archaeology in parks is most commonly funded for mitigation, at Lake Overstreet archaeological and historical research was funded to facilitate site management and for interpretive program development in connection with the CLMP. And only rarely are large-scale, long-term archaeology projects initiated in a park that are research versus cultural resource management oriented, such as this one.
Prior surveys of the historic house sites around Lake Overstreet had determined the following – their location and minimum size, their most recent historic association, signature ornamental vegetation, and their general content in regards to types of material. While The Jaeger Company and Keel differed in their assessment of the house sites’ significance, all six were nonetheless listed on the NRHP as contributing resources to the historic district, significant for their vernacular architecture and their research potential (Keel 1999; Miles 2000; TJC 1999a). Despite the listing, however, their archaeological records had yet to be adequately assessed to determine whether they could indeed augment our understanding of life in the Red Hills and in what ways. The CLMP’s recommendations for further archaeological survey focused instead on recovering information about the historic appearance of the sites. While the CLMP proposed rehabilitation for the Lake Overstreet tract in general, it recommended the restoration of several specific house sites to their original configuration for interpretation’s sake.
18 The Cedar Shake House site was recommended for such because of its proximity to the Maclay House, still standing structure, and highly visible cultural landscape features. Specific recommendations focused on the above-ground built environment, including stabilization, restoration and reconstruction of the house, kitchen garden zone, well site, outbuildings, and agricultural fields. Dr. Doran had characterized the site as consisting of a house, unidentified outbuilding, and “associated debris (bottles, cans, etc.)…approximately 60 meters in diameter,” possibly associated with late 19th century African-American land owner Spencer Robinson (Doran 1992:26). Oral history interviewees had linked Henry Sawyer Jr., a Killearn Plantation employee, with the house during the Maclay period. No historical or archaeological research was conducted at the site for the CLMP, and none previously by Doran; The Jaeger Company nevertheless recommended that the site be used for the archaeological interpretation of the relationship between Maclay and his employees. The site’s potential archaeological contribution to interpretation was not explored, and no additional archaeological survey was recommended beyond aiding site reconstruction efforts (TJC 1999a). As with the other historic house sites around Lake Overstreet, virtually nothing was known about the Cedar Shake House archaeologically.
Critique of Historic Preservation in the Florida Park Service Of great concern to the Florida Park Service is how to meet the future demand for recreational opportunities that is anticipated to soar with Florida’s soaring population. Since establishment of the Florida Park Service in 1949, agency reorganizations and new legislation have elevated recreation to a, if not the, primary function. “Philosophical and managerial differences” plagued the Board in the 1950s, until the faction prevailed that favored making “parks and memorials the playgrounds of the people,” representing “a major shift in emphasis in the development and operation of the state park system –away from preservation and more toward physical improvement of the parks to support increased public use” (Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks 2005). The 1963 Outdoor Recreation and Conservation Act mandated that state parks and other public lands be acquired in accordance with recreational needs identified in the new state-wide recreation plan, and in 1969 the Board of Parks and Historic Memorials was merged with the Outdoor Recreation Development Council to form the new Division of Recreation and Parks (DEP, DRP 2005). Subsequent state land
19 acquisition programs, such as Conservation and Recreational Lands, Florida Preservation 2000, and Florida Forever, have considered the significance of historic and archaeological sites in prioritizing property for acquisition, and a few such properties have been purchased. While staff and resources are dedicated to resource protection and interpretation in the Florida Park Service, the overall budget allotment is relatively small. As an agency, the emphasis is public outdoor recreation; recreation is the “end product,” and parks are “the places where the product is delivered” (DEP, DRP 2005).
Per Florida Statute, Chapter 258, the Florida Park Service is charged with the preservation of significant cultural resources and accordingly, the agency extends protection to historic buildings, archaeological sites, museum collections, archives and other unique possessions. In large part, cultural resource management has been boiled down to the care of old things; the emphasis is on applying a systematic approach to their identification, condition assessment, and preservation treatment. There is no question that this is a critical component of cultural resource management. Determining the history they represent and its significance, however, more often than not takes a back seat; as yesteryear demonstrates, parks can still operate unabated. Significance is determined in certain instances, such as to determine the level of mitigation needed prior to adverse impact or the expenditure warranted for extensive preservation work. The preservation of history itself, however, is not seen as a core agency function; rather, the vagaries of history are more the purview of interpretive programming, elevating interpretation’s role in the agency’s preservation work to critical. It is largely through interpretive program development, mitigation archaeology, and preservation projects that the research is conducted that result in documentation and evaluation of parkland history. Many parks take the initiative to provide their visitors with information about people and events of yesteryear, although other priorities and obligations often eclipse this undertaking.
The shortcomings of the Cultural Landscape Master Plan, or its missed opportunities, highlight a larger issue in the Florida Park Service –namely, poorly developed historical and archaeological research goals. That more research is needed is recommended year in and year out in most parks’ general management plans. Even if specific topics are identified, however, what specifically is needed to advance common understanding and academic research, or preserve
20 significant facets of park history, is typically not identified. In large part, problem lies in the process of research need development, which typically does not include a thorough review of either relevant research done to date within and around the park, or the larger body of academic and popular literature on the subject. Consequently, the importance and potential of future research at specific sites is often unarticulated and unrealized, and ambiguous recommendations are repeatedly unfunded. When money is made available for research, the hired consultant is usually given leeway to determine the overall nature of the final project. In part, this may be a symptom of the Florida Park Service’s eschewal of history preservation, as discussed earlier, and the concomitant underdevelopment of the agency’s mission, philosophy, commitment, approach and priorities as relates to historic research. Despite the CLMP’s shortcomings, no further research was called for to support its proposals for the interpretation of the African-American sites around Lake Overstreet, save for the additional work needed to accurately reconstruct their historic appearance. The park’s subsequent general management plan called for prioritized funding of the CLMP’s recommendations, continued support of vaguely defined archaeological and historical investigations, and identification and mapping of additional landscape features (DEP, DRP 2003).
To compound the agency’s ambiguous relationship to history, the Florida Park Service does not actively manage ‘ethnographic’ resources, living communities that have traditional associations with park lands. In the National Park Service, this history is compiled and interpreted, at least theoretically, and these populations’ voices are solicited not just as informants during research, but participants during decision-making about what questions to research, what points to interpret, and how to manage the natural and cultural resources of importance to them. There are a number of state parks that do provide interpretation of past life ways, particularly if the park itself or an interpretive facility within it was established expressly for that purpose, and relationships with traditional or descendent communities are sometimes forged during program development. It is rarer a park that initiates and maintains these relationships as a worthy end in itself, however, and without established protocol, challenging for parks to incorporate them into park operations beyond the public forums tied to the ten-year revision cycle for park general management plans.
21
Former African-American residents of the old plantations north of Tallahassee say their old home places are nearly unrecognizable. Maclay Gardens State Park is inextricably tied to this disappearing history and to the surviving remnants of these communities that still neighbor the park, yet there is no agency mandate requiring stewardship of it, and no specialized staff to act as stewards. A more progressive cultural resource management philosophy might advocate its research, preservation and interpretation through the recognition of ethnographic resources, the public value of history, and the power of interpretation to create social change. The park does have plans for further research and interpretation of its African-American heritage; however staff, funding and incentive are limited given other demands. In question is not just how to meet increased recreational demands, but what other roles the Florida Park Service should and could play in relation to society at large, and state parks to the communities they are situated in. The Florida Park Service could position itself not just as caretakers of old things, but also as preservers of Florida’s diverse heritage and promoters of its multicultural viability.
Methodology Historical Research Information about the African-American tenants on Maclay’s Killearn Plantation came from several sources. The only primary record produced by Alfred B. Maclay himself is a sparse undeated list of tenant farmers, likely incomplete, which indicates rent due, acreage, housing info, and debt (Maclay ca. 1930s). Though hard to place this information in time and space, it provides invaluable insight into the nature of Maclay’s contractual relationship with his tenants. Oral history interviews of three former tenants and four neighboring land owners, which are contained in the second volume of the three-volume CLMP, provide direct evidence of life in the Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet area during the first half of the twentieth century (TJC 1999b). A supplementary source of related oral history interviews is contained in a study on life on Ayavalla Plantation (Thompson 1997). Both collections of oral histories are a rich source of information about individual tenant families, tenancy conditions, daily life, and these individuals’ negotiation of the circumstances that shaped their lives. They are also marked by the memory loss of old age and the limited understanding of children, as elderly informants recall their childhood experiences. Other primary sources, including the U.S. Census, Florida
22 State Census, and Leon County Marriage Records, provided concrete data on household membership, rent and occupation, and circumstantial evidence of relationships to other tenant families and white employers.
Information about the African-American landowners on Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet came from several sources. Primary records of historic African-American ownership in the area include deeds and wills on file at the Leon County Clerk of Courts that document their purchase, inheritance and sale of the land bought from Papy; Leon County Tax Rolls that document acreage under cultivation and livestock and personal property owned; and the U.S. Census that confirms tenant status in the early 20th century. These historical documents provide direct and indirect information about parcel boundaries, property improvements, and family groupings. The oral history interviews contain recollections about specific land owners, and general commentary on the relationship of owners to their land and to their white neighbors. Freedman’s Bank records provided additional demographic data, as well as the grounds for making inferences about the origins of the original African-American landowners.
Historical research was conducted at a variety of locales. Oral histories of local residents came from two studies –A Board House with a Tin Roof by Sharyn Thompson (1997), accounts of life on the Phipps family’s neighboring Ayavalla Plantation, and From Plantation to Park: The Evolving Cultural Landscape of the Maclay-Phipps Heritage Greenway by The Jaeger Company (1999), accounts of life on and around the Maclay family’s Killearn Plantation. The Florida Park Service’s archives, located at park and central offices, contained material related to the Maclay family, and African-American tenants and employees of Killearn Plantation and Maclay Gardens State Park. The Leon County Clerk of Courts and the Florida State Archives in Tallahassee, Florida, possess public records, photographs and maps related to the project area. A host of books written by historians and archaeologists about local and regional history and similar historical archaeological research projects provided contextual information and philosophical grounding.
23 Field Investigation Fieldwork was conducted under a 1A-32 permit issued to the author by the Division of Historical Resources for archaeological work at the Cedar Shake House site (8LE1947), under the directorship of principal investigator Dr. Glen Doran, professor of anthropology at Florida State University (Appendix A). Fieldwork commenced in 2003 and concluded in 2007, conducted primarily on weekends and interrupted by an on-the-job injury and year and a half recovery. Fieldwork was conducted primarily by the author, aided greatly by the volunteerism of friends, family, colleagues, fellow students, and park staff in all phases of the project.
Prior to archaeological fieldwork, heavy vegetation was removed from the site in order to expose cultural remains on the ground, open up lines of shot for mapping, and restore the historic vista and spatial relationship between site components to a certain extent. Florida Park Service biologists, park staff, and cultural resource managers surveyed the site
Figure 2.1 Field Crew, April 2004: (from left to right) Triel for rare or endangered native species Lindstrom, Jean Lindstrom, Mini Sharma, Prakash Sankar, Sweta Chandra, Rosemary Havrilak, and Tom Lorch. Photo and historic ornamental plantings, taken by Kristopher Barrios. which were flagged for preservation. The remaining brush, vines and saplings that had invaded the site after abandonment were cleared, mostly with hand tools to minimize damage to the extensive sheet midden. In certain instances, high-clearance lawnmowers, weed whackers, and chainsaws were also used. Additionally, park staff chemically treated certain invasive exotics to prevent their recurrence and maintain newly cleared areas.
The archaeological investigation focused primarily on historic remains on the surface of the site. All of the cultural features in the project area were mapped and one hundred percent of the surface artifacts were collected from all areas of the site. Pedestrian survey was the primary
24 method of locating and identifying historic site components, which were flagged for later mapping. Datum was established ten meters north of the Cedar Shake House, and datum (north – south) and base (east – west) lines were run one hundred meters out in all four cardinal directions. Datum was assigned the arbitrary metric Figure 2.2. Cedar Shake House before Vegetation Removal 2004. coordinates 5000N, 5000E, and 100z so that all
location measurements fell in the northeast quadrant of an imaginary grid. Cultural landscape features, structural remains, artifact scatters, artifacts of note, and ornamental plantings were mapped with a Total Station laser transit positioned at the central datum, a point at 5-meter intervals along the datum or base lines, or another recorded grid intersection point. A base map was
Figure 2.3. Cedar Shake House during produced with the x and y data for recorded site Vegetation Removal 2004. components using Golden Software Surfer 7.0.
The site was gridded to facilitate artifact collection. The project area was reduced in size based on the results of the pedestrian survey, down from a 100-meter radius to just large enough to encompass the major observed surface phenomena. The resulting project area was irregularly shaped, extending up to 80 meters north, 25 meters east, 80 meters west, and 60 meters south of datum. The area was gridded using the laser transit for points along the base and datum lines, and measuring tape and compass for the remaining lines and points, which were spot-checked with the transit. The area immediately around the Cedar Shake House was gridded at 5-meter intervals in order to more tightly control provenience for later artifact distribution analysis, while the outer areas were gridded at 10-meter intervals. The site was divided into a total of 211 collection units, including forty-nine 10-meter units and one hundred sixty-two 5 meter units (Figure 2.3).
25 Surface artifacts were collected by five and ten-meter units. Raking was employed to remove the overburden of fallen leaves and limbs in order to expose surface artifacts, taking care to not disturb subsurface deposits. The entire site was one hundred percent collected, (all artifacts present were recovered), except for eleven 10-meter units in the northwest quadrant of the site that contained eight artifacts scatters. To limit the scope of the project, only diagnostic artifacts and representative artifact specimens were collected from these scatters, thereby also reducing redundancy and over- accumulation of non-diagnostics. Ceramics and glass tableware were always collected; representative or unique glass vessels, household objects, and other items were often collected; and metal cans were
Figure 2.4. Map of Grid/Collection Units, Cedar Shake only collected if their content was House (8LE1947). discernable. Additionally, one scatter outside the formally surveyed area was also only partially collected.
Shovel testing was also conducted at the site, in conjunction with the Archaeological Resource Monitoring Training (ARM) conducted in January 2006 by Florida’s Division of Historical Resources, Department of State. The training prepares public land managers to monitor ground disturbing activity for adverse impact to archaeological deposits, and if need be to shovel test beforehand to determine whether any deposits are present. The three-day training includes a day in the field learning basic archaeological testing and documentation techniques. The Cedar
26 Shake House site was chosen as the location for this training session, which provided the first information about the nature of the site’s subsurface deposits. Eighteen shovel tests (50 cm x 50 cm) were dug to a depth of one meter around the Cedar Shake House, one in six-inch increments and seventeen as a single level. Soil was screened through ¼” mesh, all artifacts were collected and cataloged, and soil profiles were documented. The results of the ARM-training shovel-tests are on file at the Division of Historical Resources, Department of State.
Field Specimen (FS) numbers were assigned to artifacts in the field as they were collected. The assignment of FS numbers separated groups of artifacts from each other by provenience in order to denote their location on the site to varying degrees. Each surface collection unit with general sheet midden was assigned a single FS number to represent those artifacts. Artifacts associated with discrete scatters or features within a unit were assigned additional FS numbers; thus, a collection unit that contained general sheet midden as well as artifacts associated with a scatter and a feature would have three FS numbers. Consequently, artifact scatters that extended across several units are comprised of several FS numbers depending on the number of units that contained portions of the scatter. A few collection units contained no general sheet midden, but rather only artifacts associated with discrete artifact scatters, in which case the unit was assigned only a single FS number. In a few instances, units have two FS numbers for artifacts from the same artifact scatter, feature or sheet midden, representing different collection dates. Field Specimen numbers for the surface collection assemblage from the Cedar Shake House do not start with zero and are not always contiguous; the missing numbers are associated with artifacts recovered from shovel tests. Each FS number corresponds to a shovel test, a level within a shovel test, a surface collection unit, or an artifact scatter within a surface collection unit.
An exploratory metal detector sweep of much of the site was conducted to test the utility of a formal survey. The machine sounded constantly. Probing positive hits revealed that rusted can fragments are strewn across the site, both on its surface and just below ground. Screening out metal found primarily in tin cans greatly reduced the number of positive hits; probing these recovered a shallowly buried ornamental charm in the shape of a dollar sign. While further detection may yield some interesting artifacts, the preponderance of metal debris promises
27 substantial interference, and the promise of a formal metal detector survey to answer specific research questions has yet to be demonstrated.
Lab Work & Analysis All collected artifacts were processed and cataloged off-site. Artifacts were washed with water and/or brushed to remove dirt, depending on the fragility and physical makeup of the object. The artifacts were then cataloged to the Lot level for each Field Specimen. A ‘lot’ represents a grouping of like objects to the most detailed extent possible based on material composition (i.e. glass, metal, plastic, etc.), form (i.e. can, bottle, jar, etc.), type (i.e. liquor, beer, soda, etc.), and brand (i.e. 7-up, Budweiser, Orange Crush, etc.). Each Field Specimen contained between one and several hundred Lots depending on the number of artifacts and the number of different types of artifacts associated with each specific provenience. Each lot was counted, weighed, assigned a unique catalog number, and described as a separate line item in a master catalog and material specific sub-catalogs (Appendix B–F). Recording was done first by hand on Catalog Forms, and then entered into an Excel table.
The goal of cataloging was to record artifact attributes in enough detail to provide future researchers enough information in most instances to conduct further analysis based on data alone. Furthermore, catalog data was intended to serve as proxy for those artifacts that would later be discarded for their non-diagnostic or redundant value. In addition to the Master Catalog, sub-catalogs for ceramic, glass, metal and synthetic artifacts were created to capture material- specific information. The attributes recorded were selected for their potential to yield additional information about the past lives of the subjects or to enable future researchers to make a more accurate or detailed artifact identification. The emphasis was on form and shape, design and decoration, material and size. The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass and Closures by Olive Jones and Catherine Sullivan (1989) was the primary reference source for cataloging glass artifacts, which comprised over 78% of the total assemblage. Distinctive attributes such as makers’ marks, labels, and stylistic designs of glass and other artifacts were hand-drawn on forms, and many artifacts were photographed as well, on file at the Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources.
28 Artifacts were classified using a modified version of Stanley South’s functional categories; the types of artifacts present at the Cedar Shake House drove the modifications (South 1977). Six of South’s eight functional categories were similarly employed, including activities, building (architecture), clothing, kitchen, munitions (arms), and personal. Six additional categories were added to capture distinctive subsets of material, including farmstead, hardware, household, natural resources prehistoric, and transportation, plus a default ‘unidentified’ category if function was indeterminable. All artifacts were listed in one of the thirteen categories, called ‘Functional Groups’. A Functional Sub-Group classification was used for some artifacts for either one of two purposes –to tag all unidentified glass containers as possibly kitchen-related, or to further define an artifact’s function (ex. Kitchen was subdivided into Alcohol, Drink, Food, Food Prep, Soda Pop, and Tableware sub-groups). Functional groups were further subdivided by class (smaller groupings based on form or sometimes function) and type (even smaller groupings usually based on a single attribute).
Artifact distribution was mapped by functional group using Golden Software Surfer 7.0 in order to investigate and identify any significant patterning of surface artifacts. Maps were created for each functional group showing the density of artifact distribution across the site per five or ten meter collection unit by both count and weight. A classed map was also created for each functional group that showed the distribution of subsets of artifacts across the site by functional sub-group, class, type or material. Multiple classed maps were made for the two largest functional groups, Household and Kitchen, to aid interpretation of the wide breadth of material. Based on the count and weight densities per collection unit of the entire artifact assemblage, the boundaries of artifact scatters were withdrawn to encompass missed artifact concentrations or no longer include low numbers. Each map displays artifact distribution in relationship to the newly configured artifact concentrations.
The artifact assemblage was then characterized by functional group in order to investigate intra- assemblage patterning. Each functional group and its various sub-groups, classes and types were defined as needed in terms of what qualified an artifact to be classified as such. Counts and weights were then presented for each functional group and its subsets, followed by percentages that highlight what proportion of the larger group(s) or total assemblage it comprised. Specific
29 artifacts and types of artifacts are mentioned to familiarize the reader with the actual content of the assemblage. The distribution of artifacts by functional group was then discussed, including their high and low concentrations, their occurrence in artifact scatters versus middens, and their relationship to other features of the site. Lastly, some attempt is made to connect the artifacts to a larger historical context, and offer some explanation for the meaning of their presence on the site.
Glass containers were dated based primarily on embossed glassmakers’ marks located primarily on the base of glass containers. The classic Bottle Makers and Their Marks b Julian Harrison Toulouse (1971) was the main reference source, supplemented by David Whitten’s Glass Factory Marks on Bottles (2005). Stylistic features and additional embossed product information were used to further delimit dates derived from base marks. While bottle body fragments embossed with “FEDERAL LAW FORBIDS SALE OR RE-USE OF THIS BOTTLE” were identified, dating them to between 1935 and 1964, they were not included in the date analysis in order to eliminate possible duplication (Odell 1999). In some instances it was likely that multiple fragments containing parts of this inscription came from a single bottle, and in other instances that the bottle’s base had already been dated. Only container bases were used to date glassware. Manufacturing techniques and bottle styles were also not considered in the date analysis, as in regards to the former almost all containers were machine-made, and to the latter it surpasses the author’s knowledge and ability.
Four types of dates were derived from the bases of containers –absolute dates, either/or dates, minimum dates, and date spans. Absolute dates refer to the actual year that a bottle was manufactured. Only containers manufactured by the Owens-Illinois Glass Company (1929 – 1959) could be absolutely dated, based either on a two-digit date code, a single-digit date code plus a period, or a single-digit code plus stippling and/or ‘Duraglas,’ whose use began in 1940 (Lockhart 2004). It was also only containers manufactured by the Owens-Illinois Glass Company that were ascribed either/or dates. Because of irregular adoption of new dating protocol by company plants, single-digit date codes in the absence of the design feature, product line information, or delimiting plant operating dates, could refer to either the 1930s or 1940s.
30 Date spans refer to the company’s use of a particular logo, product line, or the life span of the company itself, as do minimum dates if the company, product and logo are still active.
Artifact scatter dates were analyzed in order to investigate intra-site patterning. The primary objectives of date analysis were to identify the range of dates for various types of glass containers in each artifact scatter, and then to calculate a mean date for each scatter for comparison purposes. Dated glass containers were first grouped by artifact scatter; the scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site with datable material were assigned new letter designations (J – N) to avoid confusion with newly numbered midden areas. Median dates were then calculated by determining the mid-point of every date range present in each artifact scatter; absolute dates and the mid-point between either/or dates also served as median dates, while minimum dates were excluded from the analysis. The median dates for each artifact scatter were then averaged to arrive at a mean date for each artifact scatter, which was then mapped across the site.
Summary Maclay Gardens State Park contains a variety of historic resources associated with the historic African-American community around Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet. An archaeological assessment conducted by Dr. Glen Doran in 1992 documented their significance –structures associated with plantation tenancy in Leon County were rapidly disappearing from the landscape due to development, and the property was associated with a particularly early period of African- American land ownership for the area. Oral history interviews of former tenants and landowners in the area were conducted in 1999 during the development of a Cultural Landscape Master Plan for the park, resulting in a rich source of information about the history and daily life of the community.
Little archaeology had been conducted at the historic homesteads around the lakes, although various management plans and survey reports called for additional research. The sites clearly contained archaeological deposits associated with plantation tenancy during the Maclay period, and potentially contained earlier deposits as well associated with late 19th century African- American land owners. Likewise for history –cursory summary of the oral histories had been
31 compiled along with generic information about plantation tenancy, but little was known about the entire history of the historic African-American community itself. No research questions had been posed however, nor framework developed for the systematic, comprehensive investigation of the park’s African-American heritage.
The park has a unique set of historic resources in that a descendant community still lives adjacent to the park. The Florida Park Service does not have an established model or practices, however, for developing on-going relationships with such communities or incorporating their input into management decisions. The park still has time to open dialogue with community members about the preservation treatment of their former home places and interpretive programming about their heritage yet to ensue.
32 CHAPTER THREE AFRICAN-AMERICAN TENANCY ON THE KILLEARN PLANTATION “I’m going to have to hunt me a higher bush and a sweeter berry.” Bert Hadley, former tenant farmer on the Killearn Plantation (Thompson 1997:92)
The Cedar Shake House was once the home of African-American tenants on Maclay’s Killearn Plantation. The material culture of the families that once lived here and at other historic house sites in the park was shaped in large part by the conditions of their tenancy. The Cedar Shake House, artifacts, and site configuration provide evidence of both the nature of tenancy on Killearn Plantation in general and the specific tenant experience of a particular family over time, including the changing nature of their plantation work and remuneration, their subsistence activities, and their participation in the market economy as wage earners and consumers. This chapter provides information about tenancy on the Killearn Plantation, compares it to its plantation neighbors and precursors, and situates it in a larger historical context in an effort to highlight Killearn tenants’ journey from enslavement to life off the plantation. The chapter summary translates the historical research into archaeological research questions and predictive statements about the nature of the archaeological record at the Cedar Shake House and other historic house sites in the park, as well as interpretive themes about life on Killearn Plantation.
Tenant Farming In question when Union troops emancipated approximately ten thousand enslaved African- Americans in Leon County in May 1865 was what freedom meant. With the admonition of Florida’s reconstruction governor William Marvin to return to the plantations, labor diligently, and “call your old Master –‘Master’”, for no federal allotment of forty acres and mule would be forthcoming, the newly freed population’s fate, to last almost another century for many, was forecast (Foner 1988:189). Though the Civil War had resulted in the end of slavery, the political power of planters and the plantation-based agricultural system in the South had not ended. Restrictive Black Codes that penalized African-Americans who sought to leave plantations and work elsewhere, and racist social barriers to non-plantation housing and more than the most menial of jobs, severely conscribed ex-slaves’ options. While the federal government sought to
33 stabilize labor and agricultural production during Reconstruction, and afford freedmen and women some relief from the more egregious aspects of slavery, its sometimes well-meaning and sometimes capitulatory enforcement of newly enacted labor laws and contracts ushered in a reformulated white domination over landless African-American agricultural workers.
While many newly freed people moved to town for protection and betterment, most stayed on plantations; if they moved, it was typically not too far, primarily to reunite with family forcibly parted. Staying put was no sign of acquiescence for most; rather, in light of few to no resources and opportunity, most tenant farmers strove for freedom and to meet their families’ basic needs, no longer benevolently or obligatorily provided, even while yoked to the plantation. The most common arrangement, annual payments of a fixed or share (proportionate) amount of cash crop, ameliorated to some extent planters’ cash shortages and harvest demands, and ex-slaves’ wont for autonomy. Short of land ownership, renting land removed African-American farmers from the direct oversight of planters and full-time production of the old slavery crop cotton; the black household became the primary social unit with all members –male and female, adult and child, working the fields as needed and in accord with the newly freed families’ aspirations. Low final payments and disingenuously inflated debt left more and more tenant families in more and more dire straits. Ultimately, one of the most important of their restricted new freedoms was use of their labor and threat of its withdrawal to negotiate better labor and living conditions.
Alfred B. Maclay had, in effect, stepped into the Red Hills’ of Florida plantation history. Known as a hunting plantation, Maclay’s estate of over four thousand acres was one of a handful amassed by wealthy, white northerners from antebellum planters in financial straits, established expressly for their leisure and recreation. In the late 19th and early 20th century, these new proprietors purchased over one hundred thousand acres in Leon County, becoming landlords to 85 – 90 % of African-American tenants (Paisley 1968). Maclay purchased property in a region whose overwhelming majority population was African-American, a demographic vestige of antebellum plantation slavery; and indeed, he purchased property that was already inhabited by African-Americans, laboring for generations as domestics and tenant farmers for the shifting white ownership. These hills, these lakes, regardless of who held title, had been the home place of African-American communities connected through marriage, labor and worship since before
34 the Civil War. What changed with Maclay’s arrival were the particular terms of their employment and tenancy, not the post-bellum plantation system itself.
While Maclay was a northerner and this a winter retreat, nonetheless his holdings equaled a plantation in scale, operation and racial hierarchy. Whether managed expressly to foster quail habitat or, as in the case of Maclay, ornamental gardens, personnel was required to carry out these plantations’ new functions and continued domestic work. As had long been done in the south, the Maclays employed his new African-Americans tenants with various degrees of compensation and recognition of their workforce’s subordinate socio-economic status. Those people on the plantation not in direct employ contributed to the plantation’s upkeep via antiquated farming practices that produced favorable hunting grounds, and via profit generated by annual rent payments, cash or crop. Their houses scattered throughout Maclay’s property, families labored year after year as tenant farmers until, when the economy improved and exclusionary racism abated, the younger generations could secure wage paying jobs off the plantations.
The majority of African-Americans living on the property that Maclay purchased were tenant farmers. How many tenant farmers were living on Killearn Plantation at any given time, at the height of tenant farming or during its decline, is unknown. The boundaries of Maclay’s plantation encompassed portions of several older plantations, including those of Hall, Law and Diehl, each with an established tenant population. Bert Hadley, who grew up on the Hayward Hall tract, purchased at some point by Maclay, remembered about forty people living on the Hall plantation in the 1920s or ‘30s (TJC 1999b:G4). Horseshoe Plantation to the northwest, a hunting plantation of over twelve thousand acres owned by the Baker family, had eighty tenant families with approximately 400 people in 1937 (Paisley 1968). These numbers, if any guide, suggest an average household membership of five, and an average of one tenant family per 158 acres. If similar, Killearn Plantation’s four thousand acres would have been home to approximately twenty-five tenant households with 125 individuals. Interestingly, Maclay’s tenant list clearly enumerates twenty-three tenant farmers, (excluding three who reside elsewhere, one who rents a small acreage for cash, and three non-farming tenants), a close match (Maclay ca. 1930s). The plantation’s tenant population was probably higher than 125 at its peak.
35 Several Maclay tenant farmers that were mentioned by oral history informants are not enumerated on Maclay’s list. Additionally, the U.S. Census during Maclay’s tenure enumerates additional tenant farm families immediately before and after tenants included on Maclay’s list; while the physical location of households is not indicated, the enumeration order suggests that these families also lived on Killearn Plantation (U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census [USDC, BC] 1930).
James Smith, a former plantation employee, stated that there were no sharecroppers on the plantation; Maclay’s tenant list and the U.S. Census support this contention (Maclay ca. 1930s; TJC 1999b:D8; UDC, BC 1930). Like most hunting plantations in Leon County, Maclay rented acreage to farmers on a fixed commodity basis, a set annual payment in pounds of cotton (Paisley 1968). Bert Hadley stated that his parents paid three hundred pounds of cotton a year for their forty acre farm when he was a child in the nineteen teens and twenties. The typical rate in the mid-1930s was a five hundred-pound bale of cotton for forty acres, or twelve and one half pounds per acre (Paisley 1968). The twenty-four farmers on Maclay’s tenant list that rented acreage for a fixed sum of cotton paid between two hundred to nine hundred pounds of cotton per year each, a total of 9,350 pounds of cotton (Maclay ca. 1930s). The acreage rented is noted for only two farmers who lived off the plantation; George Brown and Sam Fitts both rented ten acres for two hundred pounds of cotton. Whether this rate of twenty pounds of cotton per acre applied to farmers who lived in plantation houses as well is uncertain. The rate is certainly higher than the typical mid-1930s rate, possibly reflecting a different year during Maclay’s tenure (1923–1944), Maclay’s higher than average rents, or a mistaken extrapolation.
According to Maclay’s tenant list, farmers rented a total of 469.5 acres, almost 12% of Killearn Plantation’s four thousand acres (Maclay ca. 1930s). If the rate that Brown and Fitts paid applied to all Maclay tenants, the twenty-four farmers rented parcels that ranged from ten to forty-five acres in size. Eleven (45.8%) farmers rented parcels between twenty and thirty acres. Eleven more rented parcels smaller than twenty acres. The remaining two farmers rented 45 acres each. The smaller than expected rentals may reflect an older tenant population, a supposition supported by a cursory check of the U.S. Census for the first three farmers listed alphabetically on Maclay’s tenant list, who rent only ten to twenty acres each. In 1920, John Baker is ~59 years
36 old, Jack Blake is ~80 years old, and George Brown Sr. is 90 years old (USDC, BC 1920). On Ayavalla, the neighboring Phipps’ plantation, manager Jack Pons drafted annual contracts based on the number of acres a tenant could farm well with one mule, typically twenty to thirty acres; as tenants aged, they farmed fewer acres (Thompson 1997).
The small rental units may also reflect family decisions to limit their farming activity, opting instead to supplement their income via wage labor and market activity. In 1937, Leon County Agent K. S. McMullen reported that cotton production rarely yielded enough profit above rent due to sustain a tenant family until the next harvest (Paisley 1968). That tenant farming incurred a cycle of debt for many is supported by the data included in Maclay’s tenant list (Maclay ca. 1930s). Of the twenty-four farmers listed, only six, or one quarter, paid off their annual rent. Of the eighteen indebted farmers, eight owed a percentage of their fixed cash crop, seven owed fixed shares and cash, and three owed cash. Five farmers, or one fifth of the total number of tenants, owed more than their fixed annual cotton payment, indicating that debts were rolled over from year to year. Three quarters of Maclays’ tenant farmers were in debt, facing that much larger of an obligation next year and little chance of improving their circumstances.
A house typically accompanied farm rentals, but the condition and amenities of that house and its upkeep varied within and between plantations. What interest landlords took in their tenants’ wellbeing, what lengths they were willing to go to ameliorate hardships, and what price they charged tenants for services rendered varied per planter. Some plantation owners provided the bare minimum for survival let alone successful harvest, while others constructed new housing for their tenants. According to Bert Hadley, Heyward Hall, the landowner prior to Maclay, would construct small, rough, non-insulated wood shacks for tenants; “he rent you the land, you live if you want or you die if you want” (TJC 1999b:G4). With no landlord provision of farm equipment or facilities, the Hadley family and other tenants on the Hall Plantation had little choice but to construct plows from stripped saplings and store harvested cotton in their cramped living area.
Maclay’s proprietorship evidently improved living conditions for some tenants. Three former Killearn Plantation residents, Ike Gilliam, James Smith, and Bert Hadley reported that Maclay
37 constructed small but solid tenant housing (TJC 1999b:C5, C25, D5, G5). Hadley, the only interviewee familiar with previous ownership, stated that Maclay was more sympathetic towards the African-American tenants, actually visiting their homesteads, expressing disbelief over their living conditions, and making repairs (1999b:G5). Maclay’s tenant list reports on the housing conditions for thirteen tenant farmers (Maclay ca. 1930s). Of these, three were new, one was not described, and nine were in need of repair or poor, bad or very bad condition. More than two- thirds of the listed tenants still lived in substandard conditions; how many tenant families Maclay improved conditions for is unknown. Hadley reported that Maclay also extended credit to tenants to purchase livestock, allowing slow repayment and occasionally waiving debt for needy or disabled farmers. According to Maclay’s tenant list, ten of twenty-four tenant farmers owed cash; while only one specifically owed repayment for a horse, the rest were probably also indebted for livestock, tools or supplies. Failure to clear enough profit from the harvest to cover the next year’s expenses further indebted many tenants to Maclay. And there were limits to Maclay’s sympathy and benevolence, for his notes indicate plans to evict the two most indebted tenants. In the end, these tenants too were subjected to the continuing oppressive nature of the plantation system, and the ultimate control of its white owner, whether northern or southern.
Plantation Employment A number of African-American tenants on Killearn Plantation worked full- or part-time as plantation employees for Maclay. Wage-paying employment on the new hunting preserves relaxed the poverty and tenuousness associated with farming for many tenants. A 1930 survey in Leon County found that tenants on game plantations stayed longer, paid smaller rents, and farmed less (Paisley 1968). Typical jobs on a game plantation revolved around hunting, including handling horses and dogs, driving hunting wagons, and catering to hunting parties (Bruckheimer 1988). While Maclay let friends hunt his property, his primary pursuit of developing ornamental gardens was itself labor intensive before the era of modern machinery. Maclay hired people to work in the gardens and nursery, care for livestock, and operate his seasonal household.
38 How many tenants worked for Killearn Plantation at any given time, at the height of the gardens’ development or during the Maclay family’s final years of occupation, is unknown. According to Ike Gilliam and James Smith, sons of full-time Maclay employees, Maclay employed only three African- Americans full-time year round (TJC
1999b:C5, D12). They stated, Figure 3.1. Killearn Plantation Employees and Overseer Fred Ferrell. Source: Photograph Album at Alfred B. Maclay Gardens however, that most people on State Park. Killearn Plantation worked part-time for Maclay. Bert Hadley, a former tenant farmer, confirmed that plantation overseers would hire tenant farmers in the winter while the Maclay family was in residence to meet the extra work demands (1999b:G10). Additionally, the wives and children of Maclay’s full-time employees also occasionally worked in the Maclay house and gardens, according to Ike Gilliam and James Smith (1999b:C3, C5, D2). ‘Part-time’ for most equaled full-time work on a seasonal or as- needed basis.
Maclay’s three full-time employees, Henry Sawyer, Jr., Edmund Gilliam Sr., and Depew Smith, worked and lived with their wives on Killearn Plantation for decades, raising their families in employee housing located near the Maclay residential complex. All three men had grown up in tenant farming families in the area, and had themselves been tenant farmers (USDC, BC 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930). The Maclays apparently hired full- as well as part-time staff from their plantation’s tenant farmer population. These three men were responsible, in large part, for the daily oversight and maintenance of the plantation and its operations, from supervising employees to building upkeep to agricultural and horticultural work to serving the Maclays at home. Hours could be long. James Smith recalled that his father worked day and night, from 6 am to 10 pm, and never had any free time (TJC 1999b:D9). The demands of working for the Maclay family included early preparation of breakfast, and tending of fires at night. Remuneration consisted of
39 some combination of monthly salary and/or rent subsidy. It is unclear how familiar oral history informants were with these arrangements, as none were full-time employees themselves. Bert Hadley and Ike Gilliam recalled that a few full-time
employees were paid regular salaries, and albeit low, Figure 3.2. Man in Wagon at Killearn Gardens 1923 (PR10615). Source: Florida possibly at a higher rate than part-time staff Memory Project, Department of State. (1999b:C5, G7). Both Ike Gilliam and James Smith
recalled that housing was free for their families, and indeed Maclay’s tenant list lists no rent amount for
Edmond Gilliam (Maclay ca. 1930s; 1999b:C5, D5). James Smith believed that his father worked unpaid in exchange for free rent, but the 1930 U.S. Census indicates that his father paid rent (USDC, BC 1930). Informants’ contradictory memories in regards to rental terms and the documentary evidence suggest
Figure 3.3. Depew Smith Planting a Camelia that the contracts employees negotiated with Maclay, (NO471026). Source: Florida Memory and the terms under which they worked, changed over Project, Department of State. time.
Part-time employment on Killearn Plantation defrayed rent and brought in much needed cash for tenant households. Because oral history informants were men who worked, and were most familiar with men who worked, on the plantation, very little is known about the women who worked seasonally in the Maclay residence as cooks, laundresses and maids, including their duties, remuneration and treatment. Bert Hadley said that after harvesting his crops for the season, he worked for Maclay doing “anything that come handy,” including digging ditches, planting flowers, fixing fences, cutting wood, and tending horses (TJC 1999b:G10). According to Hadley, wages paid by Maclay in the 1930s and early 1940s were low –three to three and a half dollars a week, and seventy-five cents to a dollar a day (1990b:G20). Ike Gilliam also reported making one dollar a day working in the gardens as a teenager in the mid-1930s (1999b:C5). Most employees, however, worked for free in exchange for free rent in employee
40 housing constructed or maintained by the Maclays, according to James Smith (1999b:D5). While no longer strictly tenant farmers, most part-time employees still planted crops near their houses, presumably to supply the family with food or cash.
A cursory comparison with the contemporary Phipps game plantation highlights the relative status of Killearn employees, as well as common facets of plantation employment. Mainor Poppell, a long-time employee, reported that Phipps paid employees about one and a half dollars a day in 1936 when the typical rate was fifty to sixty cents (Thompson 1992:133). Matthew Carter, a dog trainer on the Phipps plantation in the mid-1940s, reported making fifteen dollars every two weeks (1992:81). These figures suggest that while Maclay may have paid slightly above average rates, some tenants elsewhere made substantially more. Poppell also implied that Phipps differed as a plantation owner in only asking employees to work from 7:30 or 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. versus the traditional sun up to sun down, as James Smith remembered his father working (TJC 1999b:D9; Thompson 1992:133). Both Phipps and Maclay provided free housing to some tenants in exchange for patch farming or work. Tenants on both plantations also occasionally received holiday bonuses and supplemental benefits, including tips for services from visitors, higher than usual salaries and gifts at Christmas, seasonal festivities, and cash payments at the end of each season or upon retiremen.
Disparities in authority and income along racial lines marked the relationship between plantation owner and employee, as well as between employees, on Killearn Plantation, as was hallmark of southern plantations. Oral history informants’ reference to the Maclay ‘big house’ versus employees’ ‘plantation’ housing was more than reminiscent of the age old relationship between plantation owner and servant or slave (TJC 1999b:C2). Regardless of how well the Maclays and their tenants got along, or how far the Maclays’ appreciation and sympathy extended, all of which were recognized by tenants, Killearn Plantation provided little opportunity to escape the poverty traditionally associated with plantation tenancy. “Slave servers” was the harsh reference made by Estelle Sawyer, a former land-owning neighbor, in regards to some of Maclay’s tenants (1999b:E10). Not only did the Maclays possess wealth a small portion of which would have improved tenants’ lives dramatically, but even their horses, according to Bert Hadley, enjoyed better material conditions than many tenants. And Maclay’s one full-time, permanent white
41 employee, the overseer Fred Ferrell who collected rent from Killearn’s tenant farmers, reportedly enjoyed approximately twice the salary, a nicer house, and greater privilege than Maclay’s other, African-American full-time employees (1999b:G10).
Tenancy’s Tenancy The majority of African-Americans, and their forebears, that lived on or moved to the property that Maclay purchased had been tenant farmers since slavery ended, paying rent in cotton to first the antebellum planter and then successive northern owners. (A few Maclay tenants came from land owning families, which will be discussed in the next chapter.) The majority of these African-American tenants had parents or grandparents who had once been enslaved, as had a few themselves, on the antebellum plantations from which Maclay’s newly acquired property was comprised. And finally, the majority of tenants during Maclay ownership (1923–1953) represented the last generation of tenant farmers, as some of them and virtually all of their children left the plantations in search of higher wages.
All three former Killearn tenants interviewed recalled connections between their grandparents and slavery and this place. Ike Gilliam heard his paternal grandmother talk often about slavery but was unsure whether she had been enslaved; the 1870 U.S. Census indicates that his grandmother Lina and her husband Isaac Gilliam were teenagers at the close of the Civil War (USDC, BC 1870). An 1872 freedmen’s bank record for Isaac Gilliam indicated that he worked as a horseman, and lived with his wife and three children on the Craig’s place, an antebellum plantation and slave owning family whose property Maclay purchased fifty years later from Colonel John Law (Freedman’s Savings and Trust 1872). By 1900, Lina and Isaac Gilliam owned land adjacent to the Craig property; in 1910, two of their children’s families rented houses next door to the Craigs, the second and third generations of Gilliam tenant farmers to live on the Craig plantation (USDC, BC 1900, 1910). James Smith recalled that his paternal grandfather ‘Edenberry’ Smith, a local preacher, had been a grown man when slavery ended; the 1900 U.S. Census enumerated an Edenborough Smith, who would have been about twelve in 1865 (TJC 1999b:D3; USDC, BC 1900). James Smith’s maternal great-grandfather was Miles Johnson, a big antebellum slave owner in north Leon County, a common occurrence back then Smith said. Bert Hadley grew up near his maternal grandparents Nancy and Stephen Ford, who were still
42 tenant farmers in the nineteen-teens on the very plantation they had been enslaved. As Hadley said of his parents, who also lived their entire lives on this plantation, “they ain’t had no where to go…they ain’t had no way to go” (Thompson 1992:93). According to Hadley, there were few jobs, and what jobs there were whites took, and blacks dare not challenge (TJC 999b:G5).
The economic boom following World War II created more jobs locally and in the South, particularly in state government, drawing the younger generation away from plantations (Paisley 1968, Thompson 1992). James Smith and Ike Gilliam, who were part-time plantation employees while growing up on Killearn, worked in the building trades and a nursery respectively, living and raising their families in Tallahassee. Jack Pons, former manager of John S. Phipps’ Ayavalla Plantation said that in 1950 the remaining tenant population was mostly in their fifties and sixties; over the course of the decade, the number of working or farming tenants declined from about fifty-five to none (Thompson 1992:57). Phipps allowed the few remaining elderly tenants who had lived there all their lives to stay, while others in need of assistance moved into town to live with children. Louise Fleischman Maclay, Alfred B. Maclay’s widow, also made provisions for two of her tenant employees and their wives who lived on land she was transferring to the state, stipulating their lifetime right to reside in their cabins (Maclay 1951). Maclay’s gardens and residential complex, which became a state park, retained it’s historically associated workforce and its racial stratification in this same decree, for Louise Maclay also charged that Fred Ferrell, the plantation overseer, become the park’s Superintendent, and that “his staff of negroes who have had training and long experience” remain his staff (Maclay 1951). Henry Sawyer and Edmond Gilliam, former tenant farmers and long-time plantation
Figure 3.4. The Hadley Family circa employees, became state workers drawing a state salary 1935. Source: The Brown Family Album and working a state schedule.
43 It is Bert Hadley’s life story that so amply demonstrates how exercise of that freedom of control over one’s labor was so intrinsic to improving plantation tenants’ lives, and ultimately to the demise of tenant farming. Son of tenant farmers, grandson of freed slaves, himself a tenant farmer, he did as many did, supplementing his family’s harvest-dependent income with part- time, wage-paying plantation work when he could; cutting out farming by securing full-time, wage-paying plantation work when he could; and finally, when he could, finding employment elsewhere and leaving the plantation and its poverty behind. His parting words, “I’m going to have to hunt me a higher bush and a sweeter berry” (Thompson 1997:92). His success despite racial barriers was admirable; as great an achievement were his actions themselves, not just their outcome, as he sought to improve his family’s standard of living regardless of how limited his options.
Summary African-American plantation tenancy continued in the Tallahassee area through the mid- twentieth century. The land that Alfred B. Maclay purchased north of Tallahassee had been home to an African-American community since before the Civil War. While ornamental gardens were Mr. Maclay’s primary focus, he operated a plantation that was managed by a white overseer, farmed by African-American tenants, and serviced by African-American domestics and laborers. Tenants opted for wage labor when the opportunity presented itself in order to escape the cycle of debt associated with tenant farming, and ultimately abandoned tenant farming on Killearn Plantation when it came under state ownership in the early 1950s.
The Cedar Shake House and many of the other historic house sites in the park probably contain archeological records associated with both tenant farmers and plantation employees, whether a succession of occupants or a single family that shifted status over time. Earlier archaeological deposits are more likely to represent farmsteads, while later deposits are more likely to represent plantation employment or a tenant farm family that worked part-time on the side. Of interest is whether the two types of tenancy can be distinguished in the archaeological record. How does cash income change the material culture of tenants’ lives? It is anticipated that the shift to plantation employment decreased the amount of farm-related activity that occurred around a
44 house, while increasing the consumption of commercial goods, both which should be visible archaeologically.
Maclay Gardens State Park lends itself to the interpretation of African-American plantation tenancy in the Red Hills of Florida, as recommended by the CLMP; that Killearn was a working plantation in addition to an ornamental garden should be emphasized. Even more compelling is the history of the African-American community of Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet and their journey from enslavement to freedom, of which plantation tenancy is one chapter. Interpretive programming can cover slavery, tenant farming, and plantation employment, tying local events to larger contexts and using historical data about the area and accounts of African-American experiences to compare and contrast these phenomena. Concepts can be explored such as the varying degrees and meaning of freedom, the various manifestations of racism, and the many forms of African-American agency and resistance.
45 CHAPTER FOUR AFRICAN-AMERICAN LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE LAKE HALL AND LAKE OVERSTREET AREA “Matter of fact, after slavery time, two-thirds of that land was owned by blacks.” James Smith, son of Depew Smith, full-time Maclay employee 1930s – 1950s (The Jaeger Company 1999b:D4)
The Cedar Shake House sits on property that was once owned by African-Americans during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; it is possible that the house dates to this period. Very little was known about the history of the property before the Civil War or during Reconstruction, including the chain of ownership or the circumstances that shaped African-American residents’ lives at the time. This chapter is primarily concerned with increasing our knowledge about the little documented origin of the African-American community around Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet in order to augment park interpretation and provide a historical context for any related archaeological deposits encountered at the Cedar Shake House. It also is an attempt to connect the tenant occupants of the Cedar Shake House in the mid-twentieth century to a history beyond that of the Maclays. The chapter summary translates the historical research into predictive statements about the nature of associated archaeological records at the Cedar Shake House and other historic house sites in the park, as well as interpretive themes about life on the former Papy Plantation.
What freedom meant, in part, to many newly freed African-Americans was land ownership (Foner 1988). Their belief that the federal government would and should distribute land confiscated from Confederate planters, who had rebelled against the country via succession and arms, was founded on the recognition that their decades and generations of free labor had created, and earned them a portion of, this wealth (Richardson 1965). Ex-slaves understood that even compensated employment on plantations, (participation in the market system as free versus slave labor), which many northern Republicans were supporting and the federal government increasingly mandating, ensured continued white control of and profit from black labor (Litwack 1979). With land, the economic base of the agricultural South, African-Americans would be free to decide for themselves when and where and how to work, and to enjoy the fruit of their own
46 labor. Land also would provide refuge from continued white supremacy’s insistence on black obedience, deference, and subservience, of particular concern as federal troops withdrew, the Freedmen’s Bureau closed, and civic functions returned to home rule.
In question when President Andrew Johnson granted amnesty and restored property rights to ex- confederates in May 1865 was how African-Americans could secure land (Litwack 1979; Richardson 1965). Few ex-slaves possessed the cash or credit to buy land, and few whites were willing to sell African-Americans land at prices they could afford. Black land ownership smacked of social equality, and additionally removed blacks from the much needed plantation labor pool (Ouzts 1996; Richardson 1978). The Southern Homestead Act of 1866, which opened public lands for sale at low price in five southern states, was a primary means by which African- American farmers purchased land during Reconstruction (Ouzts 1996). By 1868, almost three thousand African-Americans had acquired land in Florida, more than in any of the other states. By 1870, however, two thousand had lost their farms as their new land was typically the least desirable, low-lying and swampy, and these farmers often lacked the needed equipment and supplies for a successful harvest (Richardson 1978). The vast majority of Florida’s African- American population, made larger by interstate migration inspired by the possibility of land ownership under the Homestead Act, was consigned to continued work on plantations.
Antebellum planters, still bent on enjoying lucrative profits from cotton production, suffered a series of setbacks that left many in financial ruin from declining cotton prices, labor shortages, depleted soils, and the boll weevil (Paisley 1968). Despite efforts to diversify crops and institute more sustainable farming practices, many planters in the Tallahassee area were forced by tax delinquency to sell their holdings in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Because of a flagging economy and depressed land prices, plantations sold for just a few dollars per acre; yet most plantations were sold in toto, too large an acreage for small farmers to afford, particularly African-American farmers (Paisley 1968). Instead, Leon County’s former antebellum cotton plantations became the seasonal homes and hunting grounds of wealthy northerners, who purchased and removed over one hundred thousand acres from agricultural production, save for small-scale tenant farming designed to enhance quail habitat (Paisley 1968, 1989).
47 Alfred B. Maclay purchased property that indeed had once been part of various antebellum plantations, passing in defeat from southern planters’ hands into the coffers of the northern capitalists who infiltrated the ranks of appointed political office and then the landed gentry in the Red Hills of Florida in the decades after the Civil War. Early park histories chronicle the transactions that led to Maclay’s acquisitions with a veiled dolefulness. The consequence of this focus on the planter class, and elite of the Old and New South, and its unwitting republication over the years, was oversight, until just recently, of the park’s history of African-American land ownership.
Despite the odds and without benefit of the Homestead Act, six African-American families purchased prime plantation land on the shores of Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet in the early 1870s from an antebellum planter named Mariano Papy. These purchases represent some of the earliest and largest made by African-Americans in Leon County, preceding even the large-scale transfer of antebellum plantations into non-southern, white hands. That an antebellum planter sold land to African-Americans, and that so recently emancipated African-Americans could afford to buy land, are noteworthy phenomena, details of which remain largely unknown. What today is most of Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park and the surrounding exclusive, majority- white neighborhoods of Highgrove, Stonebriar, Circle J Acres, and Foxcroft was once a community of African-American land owners replete with farmsteads, stores, churches and schools. While some families relinquished their land over the first half of the 20th century, some freely and some coerced, pockets of families still retain their land to this day.
An Unlikely Seller –Mariano and Fanny Papy What change of heart or changed circumstance, or finally so pressing an imperative, prompted Mariano Papy to subdivide and sell his plantation to six African-American families is unknown. It is difficult enough to appreciate these acts given the still typically exploitive and frequently hostile clime between antebellum planter and their now wage-earning African-American workers, but all the more so given that Papy was one of the principal authors of Florida’s Black Codes, among the most repressive instituted in the South shortly after the Civil War. Over the course of his political career, Papy demonstrated his allegiance to the Confederacy, his radical
48 support of secession, and his commitment to continued elite white supremacy. Papy’s land sales in the final years of his life seem incongruous with his earlier politics.
Mariano Dionicio Papy is remembered largely for his political accomplishments, particularly given his humble background (Maynard 2004). The grandson of Minorcan and Greek immigrants once part of Dr. Andrew Turnbull’s ill-fated New Smyrna colony in the late 18th century, Papy was born into a large, poor farming family in St. Augustine on October 9, 1824 (White 2002). At the age of only sixteen he left his family to cast his lot in Tallahassee, and by the age of only twenty he was admitted to the bar (Wight 1957). He served in appointed and elected public office for the Figure 4.1. Mariano Papy (RC03705). Source: Florida Memory Project, next twenty plus years, from Florida’s admission to the Department of State. Union as a state in 1845 to its readmission in 1869. Of note, he was the first clerk of the Florida Supreme Court (1850-1849), the House Representative for Leon County (1852), Florida’s Attorney General (1852-1861), trustee for the first meeting of the Internal Improvement Fund (1855), member of the secession government’s Executive Council (1862), the state’s Impressment Commissioner (1863), member of commissions to facilitate the state’s reentry into the Union and draft laws to govern freedmen (1865), and a Florida delegate to the national Convention of Conservatives (1866) (Wight 1957).
Despite his political success, Papy remained a man of modest means during his bachelorhood. At age twenty-four in 1849, Papy secured enough funds, or enough good standing to obtain credit, to purchase the 160-acre Hakaka Tract and 12 city lots in Tallahassee for $2,028 at public auction, which he sold in 1852 and 1857 for a profit (Leon County Clerk of Courts [LCCC] 1849:K123, 1852:K376, 1857:L557) (Table 4.1). His first recorded land purchase in Leon County may also have been his first large business venture; the block worth of city lots, located between Pensacola and Lafayette Streets just across from the Capitol, contained the renowned City Hotel and Stables. While its heyday had been under the management of the future governor
49 of Virginia, Thomas Brown, in the 1830s and 1840s, it remained the finest hotel in town through the Civil War, a social hotspot with a saloon and make-shift theatre (Groene 1981). Brown’s operation had been staffed by 140 enslaved waiters, chambermaids, cooks and hostellers; in 1850, Mariano Papy owned just three slaves –he likely hired hotel management or leased the business out. Papy may have lived in a house on two lots in the city’s Northern Addition that he purchased in 1852 or 1854, while his parents and three younger siblings still lived in St. Augustine on a farmstead valued at just $300 (LCCC 1852:L74, 1854:K673; USDC, BC 1850).
In 1854, Mariano Papy married Sarah Frances Chaires (aka Fannie), daughter of Angelina Goodwyn and Thomas Peter Chaires, the youngest of three prominent brothers who settled southeast of Tallahassee in the early 1830s. This marriage catapulted Papy into the elite Planter class, new familial ties increasing his access to money, credit, land and slaves. In 1856, Papy and Fannie purchased eight lots in the Northern Addition with a perhaps more comfortable abode, which they retained until 1869 (LCCC 1856:L273; 1869:P55) (Table 4.1). And in 1856- 1857, Papy purchased a 1200-acre plantation on the shores of Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet consisting primarily of the old William Hall Plantation (LCCC 1856:L356; 1857:L552) (Figure 4.2). By 1860, as was true for many Planters, the Papy family was enumerated twice in the U.S. Census –once their town home, and once their plantation, a total of $12,000 in real estate and $19,000 in personal estate (USDC, BC 1860a).
50
Figure 4.2. The Papy Plantation.
51 Table 4.1. Property Transactions: The Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet Area. Sales Township Total Book Page Seller Purchaser Section Quarter Eighth Acreage Price $/acre Date Range Acreage Hall Property Transactions: The William Hall Plantation under son Robert Hall 1846 – 1856
J 519 6/15/1846 Jane Hall Robert Hall 2N 1E 31, 32, 33 360 360 $5,000 $14 Legal Adjoining Lafayette Township Description:
Also included slaves: Mary 35 yo, Henderson 12 yo, Frank 10 yo, Louise 18 yo, Note: Gary 2 yo, Ruet 22 yo, Sam 18 yo, John 10 yo, Wiles 21 yo, Jack 50 yo
L 356 1/13/1856 Jane Hall Robert Hall 2N 1E 31 NE 1/4 160 880 $100
Note: In consideration of love and affection….
SE 1/4 E 1/2 80
32 NE 1/4 160
SE 1/4 160
SW 1/4 160
33 NW 1/4 W 1/2 80
SE 1/4 W 1/2 80 William H. & Mary E. K 594 5/31/1853 Robert Hall 2N 1E 31 SE 1/4 N 1/2 20 20 $100 $5 Branch Legal E 1/2 of N 1/2 of W 1/2 of SE 1/4 Description:
L 316 - 323 William Hall's heirs Robert Hall Note: Robert buys out other heirs (six people and their spouses)
L 331 7/11/1856 John A. & Sarah Jane Craig Robert Hall 2N 1E 33 SW 1/4 W 1/2 80 160 $1,922 $12 33 NW 1/4 E 1/2 80 Papy Property Transactions (Purchases): The Papy Plantation, the Chaires Plantations, City Lots, and Railroad Land
K 123 12/?/1849 Leon County Sheriff M.D. Papy 1N 1W 26 160 $2,028 Legal Hokako Tract Description: unknown Legal City Hotel and Stables, Lots 203 - 212 and 270 - 271 Description: K 673 6/7/1854 George N. & Landonia Heir M.D. Papy unknown Legal Lots 53 & 54 in Northern Addition Description: John T. J. & Mary Ann L 273 6/3/1856 M.D. Papy unknown $1,500 Wilson Legal Lots 185 - 191, 193 in Northern Addition Description: L 356 2/11/1856 Robert H. Hall M.D. Papy 2N 1E 31 NE 1/4 160 1140 $9,200 $8.07
SE 1/4 E 1/2 80 1060
SE 1/4 W 1/2 20
52 Table 4.1 –continued. Sales Township Total Book Page Seller Purchaser Section Quarter Eighth Acreage Price $/acre Date Range Acreage Legal E 1/2 of N 1/2 of W 1/2 of SE 1/4 except 20 acres sold to William Branch Description: 32 NW 1/4 E 1/2 80
NE 1/4 160
SE 1/4 160
SW 1/4 160
33 NW 1/4 160
SE 1/4 W 1/2 80
SW 1/4 W 1/2 80
L 552 6/16/1857 Richard & Harriet Hayward M.D. Papy 2N 1E 33 SW 1/4 E 1/2 80 80 $1,200 $15.00 In 1860 U. S. Census, R. Hayward is a Planter w/ $85,000 real estate and $81,000 Note: personal estate Sold SFP's undivided rights, title and interest in and to plantation on which Joseph M. D. Papy & Sarah Frances N 123 3/2/1863 Joseph John Chaires Note: John Chaires now lives and cultivates: SFP is one of heirs of late Thomas Peter & Papy Angelina Chaires Thomas Y. & Sarah F. N 191 7/11/1863 M.D. Papy 1S 1E 8 SE 1/4 160 700 $8,500 $12.14 Maxwell SW 1/4 160
17 NW 1/4 W 1/2 60
Note: Except 20 acre square on east part
19 SE 1/4 E 1/2 80
20 SW 1/4 160
SE 1/4 W 1/2 80 James Rose, President of N 513 8/2/1866 M. D. Papy $6,000 South Western RR Bank Legal Land in Tallahassee in the vicinity of Lots 170s Description: J. Caroline & Charles Legal P 54 3/5/1869 M. D. Papy Lots 35 & 36 in Northern Addition; unknown price Rogers Description: Legal P 29 5/29/1869 John Bradford M. D. Papy Papy recovers all land sold to the Bradfords, mortgage foreclosed Description: William D. & Mary C. P 146 11/26/1869 M.D. Papy 1S 1W 4 100 100 $1,000 $10.00 Bloxham Joseph L. Smallwood (of 26 – 28, 30, P 374 5/13/1870 M.D. Papy 2N 2E 2500 6771 $27,420.15 $4.05 NY) 33 – 35 Legal Ben Chaires Place (unknown whether this entire sale is the Chaires’ place, or just
Description: the parcels listed above 1S 1E 1, 3, 4 unknown 1N 1E 31, 32 1080 1S 1E 5 1N 2E 30 - 32 1401
53 Table 4.1 –continued. Sales Township Total Book Page Seller Purchaser Section Quarter Eighth Acreage Price $/acre Date Range Acreage 1S 1E 1 16, 17, 20, 21, 1N 2E 26, 28 – 30, 960 32, 34 2S 2E 2, 3 1S 2E unknown 350 1S 2E unknown 480 Legal Lots 164 – 166, 168 in Northern Addition Description: Also the large steam grist mill and 1/4 acre it sits on near depot; 94 mules, 5 Note: horses, 3 ponies, 14 wagons, 1 cart, 1 buggy, 1 carriage, all corn and fodder, farming utensils and implements R 75 2/15/1873 Leon County Sheriff M.D. Papy 1N 1W 25 12 91 $80 $0.88 Legal Estate of John S. Sheppard Description: Note: Lying south of J.S.S. residence, east of Meridian Road (should beT1N, R1E then)
1N 1E 30 70
unknown 9
Note: J.S.S. residence, west of and adjacent to Thomasville Road
S 503 12/4/1875 John Pratorius F.S. Papy $736.88 Legal Lots 51 and 52 in Northern Addition Description: Note: M.D.'s widow is buying more property Papy Property Transactions (Sales): The Chaires Plantation, City Lots, Railroad Land, and Initial Sale of the Papy Plantation to John R. Bradford K 376 5/29/1852 M.D. Papy Alfred A. Fisher 1N 1W 26 160 160 $960 Legal Hokako Tract Description: L 557 4/27/1857 M.D. Papy James T. Archer $1,700 Legal City Hotel and furniture on Lots 203 – 212, and Livery stables on Lots 270 and
Description: 271 L 74 2/7/1852 M.D. Papy Benjamin Crossman $250 Legal Lots 53 & 54 Description: M.D. Papy & Sarah Francis N 123 3/2/1863 Joseph John Chaires $10,500 Papy S. F. Papy (nee Chaires) transfers her undivided rights, title and interest in her Note: deceased mother Angelina and father Thomas Peter Chaires’ plantation to her brother, upon which he now resides and cultivates N 625 10/20/1866 M.D. and F.S. Papy John R. Bradford 2N 1E 31 NE 1/4 160 1120 $6,250 $6 SE 1/4 W1/2 Legal E 1/2 of N 1/2 of W 1/2 of SE 1/4 Description:
54 Table 4.1 –continued. Sales Township Total Book Page Seller Purchaser Section Quarter Eighth Acreage Price $/acre Date Range Acreage
32 SE 1/4 E 1/2
NE 1/4
32 NW 1/4 E 1/2
33 NW 1/4
SW 1/4 W 1/2
SE 1/4 W 1/2
SW 1/4 E1/2 Legal Except 20 acres in W 1/2 of NE 1/4 of S31 conveyed by Robert Hall to William
Description: Branch P 30 5/9/1869 M.D. and F.S. Papy Nannie T. Bradford 2N 1E 31 SE 1/4 E 1/2 80 960 $700
SE 1/4 W 1/2 20 Legal E 1/2 of N 1/2 of W 1/2 of SE 1/4 Description: NE 1/4 Legal Except 20 acres Description: 32 140 Legal Part lying W of ditch running from Hall to Overstreet Lake except W 1/2 of NW
Description: 1/4 which belongs to William Carr Note: 5/29/1869 mortgage forclosed; property reverts back to Papy P 55 6/28/1869 M.D. and F.S. Papy Carsten N. Halderman 1S 1E 8 SE 1/4 160 700 $3,800 $5 SW 1/4 160 17 NW 1/4 W 1/2 60 Legal Minus 20 acres of John Maxwell Description: 19 SE 1/4 E 1/2 80
20 SW 1/4 160
SE 1/4 W 1/2 80 P 55 6/28/1869 M.D. and F.S. Papy Alvin B. Munger $1,250 Legal Lots 185 – 192 in Northern Addition Description: P 877 12/12/1871 M.D. Papy John Day Perkins $1,200 Legal Lots 35 & 36 in Northern Addition Description: Q 463 6/21/1872 M.D. and F.S. Papy Frank Aiken (colored) 1S 1W 4 100 100 $1,000 $10 Patrick Houston and Benfoot R 183 7/16/1872 M.D. and F.S. Papy 1N 1E 32 $9,500 Williams 31 SW 1/4 E 1/2
55 Table 4.1 –continued. Sales Township Total Book Page Seller Purchaser Section Quarter Eighth Acreage Price $/acre Date Range Acreage Except that lying north of Jacksonville, Pensacola and Mobile RR, formerly the Note: Pensacola and Georgia RR 1S 1E 5 v Lying North and East of Augustine Road
U 133 6/1874 M.D. and F.S. Papy William Richard (colored) 1N 2E 26 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 40 40 $50 $1.25 Case Virginia Johnston (M.D. Legal 746 7/13/1875 M.D. Papy House and Lot in Jacksonville style Papy’s sister) Description Dora Johnston (M.D. Legal Lands of Western RR of Alabama ($5,000 value) Papy’s niece) Description Fannie S. Papy (wife) and Legal $32,000 for wife; rest equally divided between wife and daughter, to be held until
Annie R. Papy (daughter) Description she comes of age or marries Note: Estate of M. D. Papy, Fannie S. Papy Exrx. (7/29/1873) Horace Farmer and Daniel S 487 11/12/1875 F.S. Papy 1N 1E 31 74 $740 B. Farmer Note: Parcel near Pensacola and Mobile RR W 450 6/24/1880 F.S. Papy Matthew Lively $3,800 Legal Land in Tallahassee in vicinity of Lots 170s Description: Note: M.D. made contract with Lively in 1873 W 236 6/8/1883 F.S. Papy Edward S. Thompson 1N1W 34 S 1/2 357 $3,000 $8.40 35 SW 1/4 W 1/2 Case Legal 896 1/22/1884 Fannie Papy Annie Papy House and Lots in Tallahassee; bank holdings style Description Legal Fannie L. Johnston $3,000 and $4,000 to niece Description Legal Mariano Papy $2,000 to son of brother Joseph Chaires Description Legal Mariano D. Papy $2,000 to son of Frank B. Description: Legal Susan Garnett $200 for faithful services (colored) Description: Note: Estate of Fannie. Papy, Frank B. Papy Exrx.and guardian and trustee of daughter Papy Property Transactions (Sales): The Second Sale of the Papy Plantation to African-American Tenants
P 539 12/31/1870 M.D. & S.F. Papy Samuel Edwards 2N 1E 33 SE 1/4 W 1/2 70 72 $500 $6.94 Legal As lies north of 1/8 sold to Mary Carney Description: SW 1/4 E 1/2 2 Legal Lying E of Thomasville Road Description: U 153 1/16/1877 M.D. & S.F. Papy Daniel Hall 2N 1E 31 NE 1/4 160 324 $1,200 $3.70 Legal Except 20 acres on W 1/2 of NE 1/4 conveyed by Robert Hall to ?? (This may be
Description: a mistake –R. Hall deed to M.D. Papy excludes 20 acres in SE 1/4 300 - 400 acres; 1873 contract between M.D. Papy and D. Hall stipulated three Note: $400 payments SE 1/4 E 1/2 80 SE 1/4 W 1/2 20
56 Table 4.1 –continued. Sales Township Total Book Page Seller Purchaser Section Quarter Eighth Acreage Price $/acre Date Range Acreage Legal E 1/2 of N 1/2 of W 1/2 Description: 32 SW 1/4 64 Legal Lying W of ditch running from Lake Hall to Lake Overstreet, except W 1/2 of
Description: NW 1/4 which belonged to William Carr P 647 3/3/1871 M.D. & S.F. Papy Tobias Payne 2N 1E 32 NW 1/4 E 1/2 *80 $500 Legal As is out of water Description: NE 1/4 W 1/2 80
NE 1/4 E 1/2 70
Note: Lying W of part of same 1/8 sold to Daniels
33 SW 1/4 E 1/2 Legal Lying W of Thomasville Road & S of line drawn to separate from Daniel &
Description: Nelson’s property
33 SW 1/4 W 1/2 Legal Lying S of line separating from Robinson and Daniel’s property Description: R 164 11/16/1871 M.D. & S.F. Papy Harriet & Ed Daniels 2N 1E 32 NE 1/4 E 1/2 10 135 $500 $3.70 Legal 1/8 lying E of part sold to Payne, along E border Description:
33 NW 1/4 W 1/2 80
33 SW 1/4 E 1/2 Legal Lying W of Ned Nelson’s property, N of Payne’s property Description:
33 SW 1/4 W 1/2 Legal Part of Description: S 32 1/7/1871 M.D. & S.F. Papy Spencer Robinson 2N 1E 32 SE 1/4 *80 154 $500 $3.25 Legal As is out of water Description: SW 1/4 E 1/2 *80 Legal As is out of water Description: SW 1/4 W 1/2 Legal Small part north of Lake Hall and E of ditch Description: 33 SW 1/4 W 1/2 Legal part of Description: S 531 11/10/1871 M.D. & S.F. Papy Edward (Ned) Nelson 2N 1E 33 NW 1/4 E 1/2 $500
57 Table 4.1 –continued. Sales Township Total Book Page Seller Purchaser Section Quarter Eighth Acreage Price $/acre Date Range Acreage Legal Except small part of 1/8 lying E of Thomasville Road Description: NW 1/4 W 1/2 Legal Lying in north part of said 1/8 running from north line Description: SW 1/4 E 1/2 Legal Lying W of Thomasville Road, E of Daniels’ property Description: African-American Property Transactions (Sales): The African-American Community on Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet Grows (See Chapter 6 for Robinson Family Sales) John Whitaker, More(s) Spencer, Pompey Jordan, W 572 3/20/1883 Tobias Payne 2N 1E 33 SW 1/4 W 1/2 1/4 $5 John Mark and William Macon Begin at point on the Tallahassee and Thomasville Road 70 yards north of the Legal south line of said S33 and running with said road N 35 yards thence W 35 yards, Description: thence S 35 yards, thence E 35 yards to the place of beginning Land given to the Trustees of Mount Lake Hall Missionary Baptist Church; Note: Tobias Payne signed with an ‘X” DD 101 2/4/1891 Andrew Paine Samuel Fitz 2N 1E 1 $10 Square of 70 yards each way from NE corner of my survey of 16 acrew conveyed to me by Tobias Paine on Overstreet Lake, thence 70 yards west w/ my N line to Legal stake. Thence S a parallel line with my E line 70 yards to stake. Thence E a
Description: parallel line w/ the first or N line 70 yards to stake on my E line. Thence N w/ my E boundary line 70 yards to place of beginning; SE corner of my 16 acre tract on E side of Lake Overstreet, the same upon which I at present reside. African-American Property Transactions (Sales): Land Begins to Revert back to White Ownership (See Chapter 6 for Robinson Family Sales)
Z 575 1/10/1885 Tobias and Anne Payne Jon A. Craig 2N 1E 33 SW 1/4 SW 1/4 3/4 $600 $800
32 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Legal Lying between the township line on the S and the Meridian Line of Lake Hall,
Description: including the lake privileges and rights of the grantor The Paynes appear to have sold the Craig family a lake front parcel; Tobias and Note: Ann Payne signed with an ‘X’ CC 371 2/15/1890 Andrew Paine William B. Radford 2N 1E 33 1 $100 $100 Sold my homestead property at present occupied by me; lying between the Thomasville and Tallahassee Road and Lake Hall alias Lake Turkey; beginning at Legal stake in said road corner to William A. Epley two chains N of S line of said
Description: section. Thence W ten chain more or less to said Lake. Thence N w/ said Lake one chain to corner of Henry Paine. Thence E ten chains more or less to said road. Thence south w/ said road one chain to place of beginning. Dr. William Buffington Radford, age 76 at the time, started a newspaper at a printing plan on Lake Hall called the Daily Florida Citizen; also started the New Note: Settlers’ Society for white men and women from other states and countries who have settled in Leon County since 1865. Frederick Daniel Hussey (of EE 189 3/7/1893 Daniel & Ann Maria Hall 2N 1E 31 & 32 SW 1/4 64 64 $400 $6.25 Jefferson City, KY) Begin at NE corner of W 1/2 of NW 1/4 of S5 1N 1E, run west 12.70 chains, then Legal NW along road to Lake Overstreet, then NE along east shore of lake to fence and
Description: ditch line, then SE along ditch and fence line to lake Hall, then SW along W shore of Lake Hall to S fence line of SE 1/4, then on S line W to beginning. Note: Minus 30 square feet ‘burying ground’ along said road EE 198 4/20/1893 Daniel & Ann Maria Hall Frederick Daniel Hussey 2N 1E 31 NE 1/4 160 260 $1,800 $7
58 Table 4.1 –continued. Sales Township Total Book Page Seller Purchaser Section Quarter Eighth Acreage Price $/acre Date Range Acreage
SE 1/4 E 1/2 80 SE 1/4 W 1/2 20 Legal E 1/2 of N 1/2 of W 1/2 Description: RR 375 4/13/1912 Charles & Lettie Johnson John H. Law 2N 1E 31 SE 1/4 20 20 $300 $15 Legal N 1/2 of SW 1/4 Description: White Property Transactions (Sales): Land Acquisition by Northerners Francis Hussey (widow of LL 21 - 22 7/25/1905 Georgia O. Law 2N 1E 31 NE 1/4 160 344 $1,125 $3.27 F. D. Hussey) SE 1/4 E 1/2 80 SE 1/4 W 1/2 20 Legal E 1/2 of N 1/2 of W 1/2 Description: NN 447 8/12/1908 Anne and Phelps Wilson John H. Law 2N1E 32 SE 1/4 ? ?
SW 1/4 E1/2 Legal As is covered by Lake Hall Description: 31 & 32 SW 1/4 64 Begin at NE corner of W 1/2 of NW 1/4 of S5 1N 1E, run west 12.70 chains, then Legal NW along road to lake overstreet, then NE along east shore of lake to fence and
Description: ditch line, then SE along ditch and fence line to lake hall, then SW along W shore of lake hall to S fence line of SE 1/4, then on S line W to begin Note: No price included in deed 7 187 12/17/1923 Hugh Meek Alfred B. Maclay 2N 1E unknown 440 631.08 $48,000 $76.06
78.16 10
14
3.9
1.44
41.12
24.05
9.5 Legal Includes Craig land (antebellum plantation) and Robinson Lots H, I, J Description: 7 185 12/17/1923 Hugh Meek Alfred B. Maclay 2N 1E 31 & 32 60 60 $12,000 Legal South lines of 31 & 32; E and N by Lake Hall & Rachel Edwards land; W of
Description: creek from Lake Overstreet Surely the Laws have built the house and support buildings by now, indicated by Note: the dramatic rise in price
59 Papy’s acreage and forty-seven plus slaves put him in the top tier of planters (USDC, BC 1860b). Only 4.5% of farmers in Leon County owned more than 1000 acres, while 83% owned less than 500 acres; similarly, 22% of slaveholders owned 61% of the total number of slaves in Leon County, each with twenty-two or more slaves, while the other 78% of slaveholders held only 39% of the total enslaved population (Paisley 1968:13). On the eve of the Civil War in 1860, Mariano and Fannie Papy’s trappings included pleasure carriages, expensive household furnishings, gold watches, and a large debt, as was so common of Planters who had borrowed heavily to subsidize their endeavors and lifestyle (Leon County Tax Collector’s Office [LCTCO] 1860; Baptist 2002) (Table 4.2). Mariano’s extended family may also have benefited from his wealth. In 1860, his mother (now with a personal estate of $10,000) and his sister and her family now lived in a house in Jacksonville, which Mariano left to his sister in his last will and testament; he and Fanny also bequeathed land and money to their two nieces (LCCC 1875, 1883; USDC, BC 1860a) (Table 4.1) .
Family figured large in their lives. Mariano and Fanny Papy had one child, a daughter Annie, later in life (born 1864). Their household, however, was surrogate home to a succession of extended family through the years, including Papy’s younger brother Matthew who became a prominent general store merchant in Tallahassee; Fanny’s cousin Charles Chaires, a minor; Papy’s sister Virginia and her daughter Fannie Johnston; and Fanny’s toddler nephew Mariano Chaires (Groene 1981; USDC, BC 1860a, 1870, 1880). The Papy’s also acted as benefactors for their kin. In 1863, Fanny relinquished her title and interest in her father’s Woodlawn Plantation to her younger brother Joseph, who served in the Confederate Army and later continued to operate the family plantation (LCCC 1863:N123) (Table 4.1). In 1870, Mariano bought Benjamin Chaires’ 7000-acre plus Verdura Plantation to hold in trust for young Charles Chaires (LCCC 1870:P374). The Chaires and Papy families’ mutual appreciation and admiration seems evidenced by family names; both Mariano Papy’s brother and sister nicknamed their daughters Fannie, while his wife’s brother named a son Mariano Papy Chaires.
While the Civil War appears to have done little to affect Mariano Papy’s political involvement or purchasing power in terms of real estate, what did change was his want or willingness to retain his plantation on the shores of Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet. (Papy did acquire and hold the
60 old Ben Chaires plantation after the Civil War to hold in trust for his wife’s nephew Charles R. Chaires until he reached the age of majority. The plantation continued to operate through the early 1870s; who reaped the profit, however, is unknown [LCTCO 1868a, 1873a]). In 1866, Papy sold much of his plantation by the lakes to John R. Bradford (LCCC 1866:N625) (Table 4.1). Unlike Papy, who had been newly ushered into the ranks of Planters upon marriage, John R. Bradford was born into a prominent Planter family who owned large tracts of land along Thomasville Road. An agriculturalist at heart, Bradford was one of a handful of Planters who, after the Civil War, abandoned old-style cotton production to experiment with the more sustainable and hopefully profitable diversified farming (Paisley 1968). With loss of this real estate and its enslaved workforce, Papy’s real and personal estate dropped considerably (USDC, BC 1870). It is interesting to note that Papy’s 1866 conveyance to Bradford excluded about 200 acres along the northwest shore of Lake Hall in T2N, R1E, S32 and 33 (Figure 4.2). A second sale to the Bradfords in 1869 conveyed only the southwest half of this area; Papy still retained an area along the north shore of the lake, which he would later sell to a tenant farmer named Spencer Robinson. It is possible that Papy retained this land so that his ex-slaves and tenant farmers could continue to generate some profit for him, and because it contained the still- operating cotton gin, and possibly the twelve still-inhabited slave houses and other old plantation infrastructure.
The Papy family appears to have shifted their attention in part to railroads, with marital ties to the industry via Fanny’s uncles Benjamin and Green Chaires, who formed the Tallahassee Railroad Company to construct tracks for cotton shipment from plantations in Tallahassee to the harbor in St. Marks in the 1830s (Johnson 1969; Shofner 1966; Smith 1973). In the last quarter of the 19th century, railroads were big business in Florida, driving up real estate costs and expanding settlement and commercial opportunities in heretofore difficult-to-access areas (Derr 1998). The Papys again cast their lot, this time through profession, legal maneuvering, and land dealings. In 1870, Mariano’s brother, Mathew Papy, and unknown kin Frank B. Papy worked as railroad officials, while Mariano was involved in a controversy surrounding questionable dealings between the Jacksonville, Pensacola & Mobile Railroad and other industry enterprises, and the State of Florida (USDC, BC 1870; U.S. Supreme Court 1886). Mariano and his wife made two sales of land in the vicinity of the Jacksonville, Pensacola and Mobile Railroad line
61 through the greater Tallahassee area in the mid-1870s, and Mariano willed Western Railroad of Alabama land to his niece in 1875 (LCCC 1872:R183, 1875:S487, 1875) (Table 4.1).
In 1873, just two years before his premature death at age forty-nine, Mariano purchased ninety- one acres of the old John Shepherd estate, including the old plantation residence located near Lake Hall along the western side of Thomasville Road (LCCC 1873:R75) (Table 4.1). Fanny survived her husband by nine years, leaving her still minor daughter Annie Papy in the care of her executor Frank B. Papy in 1885, bequeathing her the town house and lots and the bulk of the Papy estate (LCCC 1884). In the late 19th century, Annie Papy married Phelps Wilson, grandson of prominent Planter W. R. Wilson who also owned land off north Thomasville Road, and a third generation merchant whose P. W. Wilson Department Store in Tallahassee would not close until 1971 (Bruckheimer 1988; Groene 1981; Paisley 1968; USDC, BC 1890). In 1900, the couple was childless and by 1910, Phelps was widowed with no children living in the household (USDC, BC 1900, 1910).
Scant historical reference and public record of land sales, census enumerations, tax base statistics, and last wills and testaments shed little light on Mariano Papy’s paradoxical relationship with African-Americans, which was both political and personal. William Marvin, Florida’s provisional governor immediately after the war during presidential reconstruction, charged Papy with helping to “frame suitable laws for the government of the freedmen” (Wight 1957:272).
“A three-man committee appointed at the request of the constitutional convention to recommend legislation relating to the freedmen bears much of the blame for the severity of Florida's black codes. As one historian noted, the committee presented a ‘report ridiculous for its pompous bigotry.’ The committee quoted the Dred Scott case to prove that the Negro was not a citizen and that Congress had no power to make him such. After praising the institution of slavery and reminding the legislature that it had been destroyed without their concurrence, the committee members recommended legislation which would ‘preserve as many as possible’ of the ‘better’ features of slavery. Ignoring the reaction of federal officials and Governor Marvin's warning, the legislatureded to enact most of the committee's recommendations” (Richardson 1969:374).
62 Black Codes were designed to render ‘the Negro’ a controllable and obedient workforce consigned largely to plantations. Harsh punishments such as fines, imprisonment, and forced apprenticeship, were meted out for trespass of white prerogative or comfort levels. Blacks were restricted from buying land, raising their own crops, not signing a work contract, owning weapons, assembling, and holding skilled jobs, among other things (Foner 1988; Litwack 1979). Florida’s Black Codes were particularly harsh and overtly racist, and its supporters in the conservative Democrat-controlled legislature supported them despite protest from the federal government and the Freedman’s Bureau. Finally in 1867 and 1868, significantly later than the 1866 repeal of the codes in other southern states, they were abolished by congressional reconstruction acts passed by Radical Republicans and revisions to the state’s constitution (Richardson 1969). Florida’s Black Codes served, however, as the precursor to later Jim Crow laws, declaration that freedom would still be some time coming.
Mariano Papy considered African-Americans not just conceptually in his professional life, but interacted with them on a regular basis on the home front. While he did not grow up in a family that owned slaves, by the time he achieved some measure of success as a young man in Tallahassee, he held three slaves (USDC, BC 1850b). While operating the plantation on Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet before the close of the Civil War, Mariano owned approximately forty- seven slaves, employing them both at his plantation and his town house (USDC, BC 1860b). As to be expected of a plantation in Leon County, the vast majority (all but five) were below forty years of age, representing the most productive workforce and their young children, sign of a newer versus well-established plantation (Baptist 2002). After emancipation, some African- Americans continued to farm Papy land and work as domestics in the Papy household. Living with the widowed Fanny in 1880 were Tabitha and Primus Wiggins, house servant and gardener respectively, and Sue Garnett, a nurse, whom Fanny bequeathed $200 “for faithful services” (LCCC 1884; USDC, BC 1880) (Table 4.1).
In 1869, John R. Bradford defaulted on payments for the plantation on Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet bought in 1866, and the land reverted back to Mariano and Fanny Papy (LCCC 1869:P30) (Table 4.1). Within just a few years, the Papy family sold the entire plantation to six African-American families starting in 1871; by 1877 Fanny had transferred title to the last
63 parcel. And this plantation was not the only property that the Papys sold to African-Americans; Mariano and Fanny also sold 100 acres southwest and 40 acres northeast of town to two different ‘colored’ men (LCCC 1872:Q463, 1874:U133). Despite the Papy family’s participation in the oppressive slave and tenant farming systems, and construction of the black codes, it was Mariano and Fanny Papy that finally gave these African-American families, some perhaps once their slaves, a shot at freedom.
The Land in Question –The Papy Plantation Mariano and Fanny Papy did not carve their plantation out of the wild. By the time they purchased 1,120 acres from Robert Hall in 1856, the young state of Florida had quickly become the ‘Old South,’ with the Planter class firmly in control of the region’s political, economic and social life (Baptist 2002). But when the Hall family had joined that rapidly growing stream of settlers from Georgia and Alabama heading to Middle Florida in the early 1820s, the Seminoles and their black allies had just been forced into the central peninsula, and the ‘old fields’ of Tallahassee had just been chosen as the capital of the new territory (Doran 1992a; TJC 1999b). Major William H. Hall, his wife Jane Kenan, and their eight children settled on land around lakes to the north of town bought during frenzied sales of newly opened public land, their thirty-eight slaves clearing, planting and transforming wild frontier into tame and gentile plantation country (USDC, BC 1830). An enterprising man, Major Hall also opened one of the first hotels in town, welcoming to the capital new settler and legislator alike.
Robert Hall (b. 1828), possibly the youngest Hall son, continued to farm family land after his father died and siblings established their own households. In 1846, Robert bought 360 acres of prime agricultural land around Lake Hall from his mother for $5,000, along with ten slaves, all part of his father’s estate (LCCC 1846:J519) (Table 4.1). Jane and Robert Hall continued to share a household and farm, their land valued at $10,000 in 1850 (USDC, BDC 1850). While enumerated as a Farmer versus a Planter, the value and size of the family’s acreage and enslaved population set them above the common yeoman farmer (Baptist 2002). In 1856, Jane and his siblings bequeathed the remaining 880 acres of the Hall plantation to Robert for the paltry sum of $100, in consideration of love and affection (LCCC 1856:L316 323, L356). That year Robert also purchased two adjacent 80-acre parcels from the neighboring planter John A. Craig, an early
64 arrival who hailed from Maryland (LCCC 1853:K594). For an unknown reason, Robert Hall immediately turned around and sold this plantation to Mariano Papy (LCCC 1856:L356). A year later, Mariano bought an additional 80-acre parcel from the wealthy ruffian planter Richard Hayward, also an early Maryland transplant, to round out his new plantation’s boundaries (Baptist 2002; LCCC 1857:L552).
Although new to Mariano and Fanny Papy, this plantation had been under cultivation for some thirty years. While the Hall family probably lived on their plantation, the Papy family resided in Tallahassee, affording them access to high society and escape from the hardships of country living (Baptist 2002; Groene 1981; USDC, BC 1860a). Papy continued to operate the cotton plantation that the Halls had established with the help of an overseer, E.D. Stringer, forty-seven enslaved African-Americans, and an average of fourteen draft animals (Doran 1992a; LCTCO 1860, 1863; USDC, BC 1860a; USDC, BC 1860b) (Table 4.2). In addition to cotton, Papy also raised livestock –cattle, sheep or swine (1860–1863). In 1860, their 1,200-acre plantation boasted 500 acres under cultivation and 200 head of livestock, a number that jumped to a high of 377 in 1863, probably to counter food shortages caused by the war (LCTCO 1860, 1863; BC 1860c). In just its few years of operation before the war disrupted the local economy, Papy had expanded the plantation’s acreage and slave population, introduced large-scale animal husbandry, and continued cotton production. The Papy plantation, its name lost to history, included a (cotton) gin house, ditch work around lakes and ponds, and twelve ‘slave houses’ (USDC, BC 1860b); what pre-existing plantation structures and infrastructure Papy inherited, what he commissioned built, and how much the plantation layout changed under his direction, is unknown.
65 Table 4.2. Leon County Tax Rolls for Residents of the Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet Area.
) e)
Name Notes alue Year e Slaves (Lot #) #) (Lot (v ) (value) (value) (value) (value) (value) (value) Pleasure Personal Personal Property State Tax State Livestock Livestock Livestock Carriages Real Estate Real Estate County Tax County Land (acres) Land (value) count - value count - (typcount) - ( (count - valu(count - (value or acres) Land Improved Obligatory Notes Notes Obligatory horse, ass, mule - 15 $2,000 furniture -$800 Papy, Mariano D. 1860 1,200 $9,000 $3,000 43 - $22,000 $11,900 $300 $83.08 $20.07 cattle, sheep, swine - 200 $400 watches -$150 horse, ass, mule - 13 $2,000 furniture -$800 1861 1,200 $9,000 $3,000 43 - $22,000 $7,800 $300 $76.25 $36.67 cattle, sheep, swine - 200 $400 watches -$150 horse, ass, mule - 14 $1,500 furniture -$800 1862 1,200 $9,000 $3,000 44 - $17,600 $12,500 $300 $76.00 $30.40 cattle, sheep, swine - 280 $450 watches -$150 horse, ass, mule - 14 $3,450 furniture -$800 1863 1,200 $8,200 $3,000 44 - $34,900 $13,120 $450 $113.70 $113.70 cattle, sheep, swine - 377 $2,300 watches-$200 horse, ass, mule - 8 $700 furniture -$500 1866 1,900 $11,250 8, 9 $12,000 3 - $175 $103.70 $51.85 cattle, sheep, swine - 40 $165 jewelry -$400 horse, ass, mule - 9 $900 furniture -$500 1868 700 $4,000 $3,800 3 - $175 $105.08 $52.49 cattle, sheep, swine - 20 $100 jewelry -$400 Chaires estate, held for Chas. R. horse, ass, mule - 6 $500 furniture -$800 4,280 $20,000 $750 4 - $500 $118.50 $59.25 Chaires, minor cattle, sheep, swine - 62 $350 jewelry -$800
Chaires estate 4,970 acres, value Horse - 10 mule, ass - 67 cattle 1873 8,879 $60,000 4,000 acres $7,810 $515.47 $295.24 $21,000, 3,000 acres improved - 11
part of 174 $4,000 horse - 1 cattle, Lots 65 – 68 H.L.Rutgers estate $210 $6,000 $71.91 $40.84 164 - 168 $6,000 sheep, swine - 2 horse - 5 mule, ass - 41 1874 8,172 $31,600 5,000 acres $4,655 $549.34 $507.05 cattle - 11 horse - 1 cattle – part of 174 $4,000 $95 $10,000 $183.75 $169.65 4 Robinson, Robert Listed as owing a small amount of owe small amt of 1868 Edwards, Nelson taxes; no property on record taxes Daniels, Ed 1873 135 $500 60 acres horse - 1 mule – 1 $20 $65 $8.28 $6.05 Charles and Wiley Edwards live with Edwards, Sam, 1873 72 $432 30 acres horse – 1 $50 $15 $7.11 $5.20 Sam Edwards Hall, Daniel Sr. 1868 1 - $75 horse, ass, mule - 17 $350 $2.33 $1.11 horse - 1 ass, mule - 3 Resides with G. H. Meginnis 1873 $600 $295 $12.40 $9.01 cattle - 8 swine - 12 horse - 3 cattle - 16 1876 300 $1,000 100 acres $400 $115 $18.18 swine - 20 Henry, Austin and Andrew Payne live Payne, Tobias 1873 134 $500 55 acres horse - 1 cattle - 4 $80 $20 $8.48 $6.20 with Tobias Payne “Part of Papy Place” 1874 134 $500 100 acres horse – 1 cattle - 5 $65 $0 $7.84 $7.23
1876 134 $402 60 acres cattle - 4 swine - 4 $50 $25 horse -1 ass, mule - 2 Robinson, Spencer 1873 135 $500 40 acres $300 $160 $13.25 $9.62 cattle - 2 horse - 1 ass, mule - 11 1874 135 $400 100 acres $60 $0 $6.48 $6.02 cattle - 1 horse, ass, mule - 2 1876 135 $405 80 acres $85 $20 $6.12 $6.12 cattle - 2 horse, ass, mule - 2 1877 154 $500 blank $145 $20 $8.29 $3.32 cattle - 4 1878 154 $500 blank horse, ass, mule - 2 $90 $40 $7.72 $7.87 Note: In 1873, Tom Brown, Richard and Cally Gadsden, Benjamin Hill, and, John Prackler listed their residence as ‘M.D. Papy’; it is unknown whether this refers to land currently or once owned by the Papy family.
66
The Buyers –An Unusual Purchase The 1865 harvest in Leon County was a ‘bumper crop’, buoying the aspirations of planter and freed alike (Paisley 1968, 1989). Planter John R. Bradford ventured expansion of his agricultural operations with the purchase of 1,040 acres of the Papy plantation (LCCC 1866:N625). Freed women and men negotiated as favorable a contract on their own behalf as possible, and some first-class field hands made as much as $140–$150 in 1866 (Paisley 1968:25). The 1866 harvest was a bust, however, and wages quickly dropped to as low as $97 in 1868, barely enough for subsistence and not enough to stave off escalating debt (1968:27). Bradford defaulted on his mortgage payments, and the land that reverted to Papy continued to lose value.
According to local historian Clifton Paisley, African-Americans who were able to purchase land typically had farmed the longest and been the most successful, as tenant farmers (Paisley 1968). Those African-American landowners highlighted in From Cotton to Quail had rented larger farms than other tenants (100 acres +) until accruing enough wealth to secure land and establish businesses of their own in the 1880s, 1890s, and early 1900s (1968). By 1900, African- Americans owned 175 of the 452 farms in Leon County (Paisley 1968:103). But in 1868, only thirteen African-Americans owned city lots and three owned acreage (79, 79 and 120 respectively) (LCTO 1868). In the early 1870s, almost all African-Americans in Leon County were tenants; and while a few
Table 4.3. African-American Purchasers of the Papy Plantation. began to prosper, the Deed multitudes were destitute. So Sales Date Purchaser Acreage Price Book the fact that six African- 12/31/1870 Samuel Edwards 72 $500 P539 American families were able 1/7/1871 Spencer Robinson 154 $500 S32 to purchase hundreds of acres 3/3/1871 Tobias Payne 150* $500 P647 of land around Lake Hall and 11/10/1871 Edward (Ned) Nelson 110* $500 S531 Lake Overstreet from Mariano 11/16/1871 Harriet Daniels 135 $500 R164 1/16/1877 Daniel Hall 300- $1200 U153 and Fannie Papy between 400* 1870 and 1873 was most Note: * Estimated acreage based on legal descriptions in Leon unusual indeed (Table 4.3). County Property Deed Books.
67
Figure 4.3. African-American Purchasers of the Papy Plantation.
68 Five families purchased the eastern two-thirds of the Papy Plantation over an eleven month period –Sam Edwards, Spencer Robinson, Tobias Payne, Edward (Ned) Nelson, and Harriet Daniels (Figure 4.3). This land encompassed the eastern two-thirds of Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Section 32, including the eastern half of Lake Overstreet, the land lying between the lake and Thomasville Road to the east in Section 33, and a triangular piece of land in the southeast quadrant of Section 33 to the east of Thomasville Road. It is interesting to note that property boundaries are such, including irregularly shaped and non-contiguous parcels, that each family held some land along or very near Thomasville Road, as if to give all more easy access to the major transportation corridor or all a plot of land near the road and each other on which to build their homes. Four families purchased over 100 acres each stretching north and west into the interior of the tract, and the fifth family purchased just over seventy acres to the east of Thomasville Road with significant road frontage, all for $500 each.
There is some evidence that these families’ ties to this land and each other did not commence upon its purchase, but rather predate it. In 1870, all five families were already living in the area, working as farm laborers (USDC, BC 1870). In fact, all five families lived within twenty-seven houses of each other, as close as two houses to the next would-be owner and as far, at most, as eleven houses (Table 4.4). And in between the houses of the would-be buyers are familiar names of younger, older and extended family; families that would join their land-owning neighbors in the future; and families that remained long-time tenant farmers and plantation employees. In short, these five land-buying families came from the same community, a farming community already located in the gently rolling hills by Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet. Its location, according to Lawrence Edwards’ register with the Freedman’s Bank dated 12/22/1870, was termed ‘the Pappy place’ (Freedman’s Savings and Trust Company [FSTC] 1870b).
Daniel Hall, the sixth buyer, purchased the western third of the Papy plantation (Figure 4.3). Several aspects of this buyer and this purchase differ from the previous five, suggesting that the Hall family did not have the same ties as the other five families. Daniel Hall also lived in the hills north of Tallahassee, but was enumerated sixty-five dwellings away from the next nearest purchaser. On his Freedman’s Bank register, granted filed almost four years earlier than Lawrence Edwards, he recorded Arthur Macon as his master, not Papy (FSTC 1867). In 1873,
69 Daniel Hall, Sr. is listed as residing with planter G. H. Meginnis, who owned a “4,380-acre tract west of Tallahassee” (LCTCO 1873d; Paisley 1968:72) (Table 4.2). Daniel Hall apparently lived on a different plantation prior to his purchase of Papy land, although his last name may indicate some link to the area, either the lake or the early land owners that gave the lake its name. Hall took title of his land significantly later than the other five families, who purchased between 1870 and 1871. Fanny Papy did not transfer land to Hall until 1877, in honor of Hall’s 1873 contract with her now deceased husband. Finally, Hall’s finances stand above the other purchasers in terms of wealth and obligation. In 1870, prior to any of the Papy sales, Daniel Hall reported a $500 personal estate, $200 and $300 more respectively than Ned Nelson and Tobias Payne, the two other purchasers with any estate (USDC, BC 1870). Hall was the first of the families to open an account at the Freedman’s Bank, in 1867, and he possessed a pleasure carriage and livestock prior to purchasing land from Papy (LCTCO 1868d, 1873b, 1876a). Hall purchased over twice as many acres of the Papy plantation as the other buyers, and paid over twice as much (LCCC 1877:U153) (Table 4.1).
The first five families (Edwards, Robinson, Payne, Nelson, and Daniels) paid cash in hand for the land, $500 each according to the deeds, and the last family, the Halls, made three payments of $400. Whether these purchases were free and clear, or whether the buyers became mortgagors is unknown. At least in the case of the Hall family, it appears that Fanny Papy did not transfer title until full payment was received, thus the delay (LCCC 1877:U153) (Table 4.1). All of the individual buyers were over 50 years of age. No longer considered part of the younger, higher earning, more productive workforce, their children and their grandchildren likely contributed earned wages to the familial dream of land ownership. Daniel Hall and family appear to have been relatively successful as tenant farmers following the Civil War, while the other five families had more modest wealth or none, including small personal estates, a little taxable property (probably livestock), and unspecified amounts deposited in the Freedman’s Bank (LCTCO 1868d: FSTC 1867) (Table 4.2). A five hundred dollar payment when harvest profits were tenuous required hard work, a communal effort, and some privation. James Smith’s grandfather recalled that his family was able to buy land after Emancipation by picking and eating berries and plums until they had saved enough money (TJC 1999b:D5). Most of the buyers appear to have been tenant farmers on the Papy plantation after the Civil War, possibly living and farming
70 on the land that Papy did not sell to Bradford. Papy chose to sell his entire plantation to a handful of his older tenants, an unusual and seemingly deliberate enough choice to move the transactions beyond strictly business. Whether Papy subsidized the sales via loans or reduced sales price is unknown; additional research would be required to determine whether the cost per acre, approximately fifty percent below his sale price to John Bradford just a few years before, reflected a further decline in land values or a gift price.
It is tempting to say that the connections these families had to each other, Mariano and Fanny Papy, and the Papy plantation preceded even the Civil War. As is often the case with African- American genealogy, in the absence of detailed planter family archives, the search for antebellum relationships is made extremely difficult by enumerators’ reduction of enslaved individuals to nameless commodities whose value lay in age and sex (Burroughs 2001). There are some similarities among the purchasers, however, that speak at the least to common experiences associated with enslavement in Florida, and there is circumstantial evidence that one explanation for these commonalities is indeed shared enslavement on the same plantation.
As old as they are, each of these individuals probably endured a ‘forced migration’ (Baptist 2002). All from older states with well established plantations and mature, stable enslaved populations, each was rent from their homes and families of birth and forced to Florida, with its fierce weather, thick vegetation, and biting, disease-transmitting bugs, to line their masters’ pockets anew. Early plantation slave populations in Florida were demographically skewed, representing the young, able-bodied and fecund, but also reflecting the trauma of separation from parents and siblings, spouses and children, often never to be seen again (Baptist 2002). Four hail from Virginia, and two from North Carolina (Table 4.4). All of them were born in the same state as their parents. All six are fifty plus years old in 1870 –four in their fifties, one in their mid- sixties, and one in his early seventies. It is impossible to say, based on census information, when they came to Florida. In 1870, five of the six heads of household had children living at home, and all of the oldest of these children were born in Florida between 1844 and 1861. The oldest, Nelson Edwards, son of Ned and Nancy Edwards (aka Nelson), was 26 years old, indicating that his father Ned had been in Florida at least that long. It is likely that each couple had even older children who were also born in Florida, pushing back arrival dates even more. Only two
71
Table 4.4. African-American Residents of the Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet Area in 1870. Birth Place Personal Name Future Tenant Status Dwelling # Age in 1870 Birth Year Occupation (1870) (Age in 1880) 1870 (1880) (1870) (self, dad, mom) Estate (1880) (1870) Hall, Daniel Owner (original purchaser) 968 55 (60) 1815 (1820) Farmer NC, NC, NC $500
Brown, George Tenant farmer/Owner (future) 1022 37 (49) 1833 (1831) Farm laborer GA, GA, GA $400
Fitts, Napoleon Owner (future) 1028 26 1844 Farm laborer FL
Robinson, Spencer Owner (original purchaser) 1033 65 (75) 1805 (1805) Farm laborer VA, VA, VA
Nelson, Ned Owner (original purchaser) 1036 59 1811 Farm laborer VA, VA, VA $300
Larkin, Rodger Owner (future) 1037 30 1840 Farm laborer GA
Larkin, Moses Owner (future) 1038 20 1850 Farm laborer GA
Payne, Tobias Owner (original purchaser) 1039 40 (51) 1830 (1829) Farm laborer VA, VA, VA $200
Payne, Andrew Owner (future) 1040 29 (35) 1835 (1841) Farm laborer VA, VA, VA
Garnett, Lydia Papy domestic servant 1042 24 1846 Farm laborer FL
Payne, Emma Relative of owner 1045 26 1844 Farm laborer FL
Payne, Henry Relative of owner 1046 50 (55) 1815 (1820) Farm laborer VA, VA, VA
Carnie, Mary Owner (original purchaser?) 1047 40 1830 Farm laborer VA
Smith, Edinborough Tenant farmer 1048 8 1862 Farm laborer FL
Daniels, Harriet Owner (original purchaser) 1049 50 (54) 1820 (1826) Farm laborer VA, VA, VA
Edwards, Charles Relative of owner 1060 24 1846 Farm laborer FL
Edwards, Sam Owner (original purchaser) 1060 71 1799 Farm laborer NC
Note: Age in 1870 is taken from the 1870 U.S. Census; age in parentheses is taken from the 1880 U.S. Census. Birth year is calculated from age in 1870; birth year in parentheses is calculated from age listed in the 1880 U. S. Census. Birth place is taken from 1880 U.S. Census
72 individuals, Spencer Robinson and Harriet Daniels, have spouses from the same place of origin; whether they had the good fortune of arriving in Florida family intact, or whether they met and married in Florida is uncertain. Two more individuals have spouses neither from Florida nor their place of birth, while the remaining two have spouses born in Florida. Chances are these four individuals formed their families in Florida, and chances are that at least some of them had families of their own in their home state from whom they were forcibly separated. The father of Ann Maria Hall, Daniel Hall’s wife, survived the greatest forced migration of all, the Middle Passage from Africa.
At present, there is only one clue found in the documentary record as to any of their antebellum whereabouts. Buyer Spencer Robinson’s son Robert was born about 1845 at Lake Lafayette (FSTC 1871b). This is not the Papy plantation north of Tallahassee, but rather where the three Chaires brothers established their plantations southeast of Tallahassee in the 1830s. M.D. Papy’s wife Fannie was a Chaires, daughter of the youngest brother Thomas Peter Chaires, whose Woodlawn Plantation flanked Lake Lafayette. That Papy owned only three slaves before marriage but forty-seven in 1860, who lived in twelve ‘slave houses’ on his plantation, suggests that Sarah Frances Chaires brought slaves with her into the marriage. Supporting this contention, Spencer and Anne Robinson’s son Washington appears to still be living in Chaires, Florida, in 1870, in the household of a Caroline Robinson, also born in Virginia (USDC, BC 1870). Mary Payne King offered an alternate explanation for her grandfather (son of Tobias Payne) Charlie Paine’s presence in Tallahassee, however; he was born and educated in Virginia, and came down after the Civil War to “help the slaves adjust,” serving as superintendent of the local African- American Lake Hall school (TJC 1999b:F30).
The families who bought land from Papy, and those that remained tenants, were inextricably linked by their shared post-war community, for many probably by enslavement and tenancy on the same plantation, and for most, unquestionably, by blood and by marriage. Again and again, the public record is replete with instances of the children of land owners marrying each other, (such as Rachel Robinson and Lawrence Edwards), and marrying the children of nearby tenant families (such as Jennie Edwards and Depew Smith) (LCCC 1877:CY-153, 1913:C4-317). The land owning and tenant communities were bridged, often populated by extensions of one and the
73 same families, as individuals and generations shifted from one status to the other and back again. Over time, new surnames shifted into the ranks of the propertied, such as Fitz, Larkins, and Gilliams, typically long-time residents, neighbors or relatives in the area, while others shifted back to plantation tenancy such as Gilliam, Robinson and Edwards. Again, the Hall family seems separate from the relationships shared by the other five families. Two households tie four of the original purchasers together –the Paynes, Nelsons, Edwards, and Daniels, plus to the later land owners the Larkins. In 1880, Nelson Edwards (son of Ned Nelson, original purchaser) and his wife Emma Edwards share their house with a niece and nephew, Annie Payne and Edward Larkins (USDC, BC 1880). In 1900, the widowed Harriet Daniels (original purchaser) shares her household with her sister Emma Edwards and brother-in-law Nelson Edwards (USDC, BC 1900). These initial land purchases catapulted generations of an extended family, and a larger community into land ownership.
Freedom is Not So Clear As before the Civil War, these people were farmers. They took horse to plow, harrow to field, cotton to gin, bale to market. Papy’s sale deeds stipulated that Ned Nelson, Ed Daniels, and Tobias Payne have use of the gin house on Spencer Robinson’s tract as long as it functioned, and right of ingress and egress on the road leading to it (LCCC 1872:S32). Their farms ranged between 72 (Sam Edwards) and 154 (Spencer Robinson) acres, and in 1873 the average acreage cultivated was forty-six (LCCC 1870:P539, 1872:S32) (Table 4.1, 4.2). The new land owners, their children, and their grandchildren lived together, as young as eleven years old working the fields, few children going to school. Their fortunes rose and fell over the first few years, reflected by ups and downs in improved acreage, number and type of livestock, personal property dollar amounts (Table 4.2). As they could, families planted more crops, husbanded more animals for traction and meat, and saved money. Save for Daniel Hall, with his significantly larger savings and herds of cattle and swine, all were farmers of modest means.
The land owning community grew exponentially over time. It is clear that almost all of the original purchasers intended for this land to be their home place, now and for generations to come. With the exception of Daniel Hall, who sold all of his land in 1893, the buyers appear to have retained most of their land for the rest of their lives, subdividing and passing it down to
74 both sons and daughters. For instance in 1900, Spencer Robinson subdivided his 154-acre parcel into ten lots, divvying them up among five of his children (LCCC 1900:HH540, 588) (Table 6.1, Figure 6.5). And the children of the original purchasers, grown with children of their own, sold and bequeathed land to other family and fellows, from parcels large enough to harvest a living from to just large enough for a house. For instance in 1891, Andrew Paine sold one acre in the southeast corner or his property to Sam Fitz for a residence (LCCC 1891:DD101) (Table 4.1). According to James Smith, “after slavery time, two-thirds of that land was owned by blacks” (TJC 1999b:D4). This community cared for its own, donating and selling land for churches and schools that in turn would care for it (LCCC 1883:W572). The younger generations continued to farm, but also ran other successful businesses, such as Charlie Payne’s store on Thomasville Road, Tobias Payne’s recreational boat rentals on Lake Overstreet, and Willey and Estelle Sawyer’s night club near Lake Overstreet.
This land and life was a mixed blessing for some. Accompanying the increased freedom from economic exploitation was a continuation of some of the difficult aspects of their lives before and since the Civil War, particularly hard work in the hot fields for adult and child alike. Anna Payne James, great granddaughter of original purchaser Tobias Payne, remembered hoeing the corn and cotton with her siblings in the hot sun in the 1930s, thinking, “I know I can’t do this the rest of my life” (TJC 1999b:F24). Some were bound by ancestral roots, for others that be damned. A divorcing Fitts couple were split by these conflicting draws; he “had to stay in the country and farm” as it was the only trade he knew and his family was nearby, while she insisted on moving to Tallahassee, saying “never no more” to her life in the country (LCCC 1943). Anna Payne was overjoyed at the news her father was moving them to town; her step-mother-to-be refused to move to the farm, and the move afforded the family greater access to an education, social life, wage earning jobs, and domestic amenities. As was increasingly common for many, the move was gradual for Tobias Payne, Anna’s father, for it involved not just physical relocation, but often dramatic change in livelihood; he first picked up day and then weekly work for pay until he cut out farming completely in favor of full-time work. Another example, Daniel Hall’s son Daniel Jr., a farmer in 1880, by 1910 lived in town working as a cook and his wife as a dressmaker (USDC, BC 1910).
75 Concurrent then with families’ retention of land through the first half of the 20th century was their sale of it in accords with their new aspirations, their want for a better or different life. Daniel Hall sold the western third of the Papy plantation in 1893, after twenty years of farming it; it is not known where the family went (LCCC 1893:EE189, 198) (Table 4.1). Spencer Robinson’s children sold several large parcels along the northern edge of Lake Hall between 1900 and 1911, probably farmland, while retaining their smaller parcels closer to Thomasville Road where their houses may have been located (LCCC 1900:HH562, 1907:NN445, MM274, 1909:OO230, OO244, 1911:QQ113) (Table 6.1). Tobias Payne moved to town, although returned towards the end of his life to the smaller parcel he retained near Thomasville Road. Today, descendents of the original buyers continue to live in the traditionally African-American neighborhoods of Tallahassee that their families settled in upon leaving their farms, including Carroll’s Quarters and Frenchtown.
Many of the large sales made by departing members of the African-American community on Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet transferred land not along familial ties, but back into white hands. While the community had been flanked by still operating antebellum plantations throughout the last quarter of the 19th century, including the Craig plantation to the south, these transactions ushered in a new era of white ownership that would again amass various holdings into large plantations, removing that land once again from most African-Americans’ means to purchase. These were the new hunting plantations and winter retreats established by wealthy northerners and mid-westerners; many resident and neighboring African-Americans became tenant farmers and plantation employees once again (Paisley 1968, Bruckheimer 1988).
Most of the land now known as Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park came into public ownership via these sales to out-of-towners, starting with Daniel and Ann Hall’s sale to Frederick Daniel Hussey, from Kentucky, in 1893, which included the grounds upon which the Maclay House now sits overlooking Lake Hall (LCCC 1893:EE189, 198) (Table 4.1). (The sale excluded the Hall family burial ground, whose location is unknown today, but suspected to be near the main gates to the garden.) It is unknown what the Hussey family did with the land. His heirs sold to Georgia O. Law, whose husband John H. Law, retired from the Royal Insurance Company of Cincinnati and Chicago, amassed a 2,000 acre quail plantation in the vicinity named
76 LAC-CAL, coupled with several thousand more rented acres upon which he had exclusive hunting rights (LCCC 1905:LL21-22). The Law family built many of the buildings that today are associated with the Maclay period, including the Maclay House, two small cottages, sheds, farm buildings, and servants’ quarters. John Law also bought several parcels along the northern shore of Lake Hall from the Robinson family, and elsewhere from other African-Americans (LCCC 1907:NN445, MM274, 1909:OO230, OO244, 1911:QQ113) (Table 6.1.). His heirs sold all of it to Hugh Meek in 1923, who sold it to the Maclays that same year (TJC 1999b; LCCC 1923:7-185, 187). Note of Maclay’s African-American neighbors can be found in his unpublished records, and confirmation that Maclay continued the purchase of land from neighboring African-Americans is found in the oral histories. What had been a rural agricultural area dominated by blacks who worked and owned the land now became home to the moneyed who lived here seasonally with no need to work. The African-American community was still here, large and old, both tenants and flanking landowners, but its presence receded from traditional history’s favor of the elite.
It is interesting to note that John Law was a “kinsman” of W.R. Wilson, a well known merchant from a local antebellum Planter family and father of Phelps Wilson, whom Papy’s daughter Annie married (Paisley 1968; USDC, BC 1900). Law had been visiting his Wilson kin in the Tallahassee area since 1890, dogs in tow, for winter hunts in the new preserves. In the early 1900’s, John Law, kin of the Papy family by marriage, bought back much of the former Papy plantation that Mariano Papy had deeded to his African-American tenant community some thirty-five years prior. Plus Annie Papy and Phelps Wilson sold John Law title to Lake Hall itself in 1908, the portion in Section 32 that bordered the Hall and Robinson property (LCCC 1908:NN447). What effect and what restrictions on use of the lake Law imposed if any, are unknown, though oral history interviewees highlight the lake’s importance to their sustenance and recreation (via fishing, water supply, irrigation, swimming, renting boats, etc.). There is some irony that the Papy family may have deliberately, or inadvertently through helping kin, helped undo one of the more noteworthy advancements for African-Americans in the Tallahassee area during the Reconstruction era, which they themselves had made possible.
77 There is a pained and painful side to at least some of the transactions between long-time black residents and newcomer whites. It is expressed by oral history informants in ways that public records documenting these transactions can never convey. The disparate loss of land for African-Americans since the height of black land ownership in 1910 has been the subject of recent and ongoing investigative journalism and scholarly research (Lewan and Barclay 2001a). Numerous cases across the South have revealed a widespread pattern of commercial acquisition of ancestral African-American properties from unwilling sellers through underhanded, extralegal or racially discriminatory practices, maneuverings and regulations, often with the complicity of local officials (Lewan and Barclay 2001b). Whether such happened here in regards to this land, intentionally or inadvertently, has not been proven. What is evident is that several former residents recognized then and in retrospect their vulnerability to exploit, lack of recourse and resources, and in some instances, what seemed to them like downright theft. Their race and class in the segregated South meant that they and others could or would not always work fully on their own behalf.
The loss and/or victimization recounted by informants stemmed from unfavorable circumstances, competing interests, and at times individual acts of malice and self interest. Estelle Sawyer, one of the last families to move into and away from Lake Overstreet before Maclay assumed it, felt harassed for years by Fred Ferrell, Maclay’s long-time plantation manager, who physically moved their property boundary markers, blocked their access to the lake, and finally shut down their business (Doran 1992a; TJC 1999b:E1). “Her (Mrs. Maclay) lawyer Oven he really went with Fred Ferrell and a lot of things that were against the poor colored peoples, you understand cause he felt like Maclay had money and we poor people didn’t have anything and so they just went on took what they wanted to” (TJC 1999b:E1). Bert Hadley, a long-time tenant and now nearby land owner, agreed that Ferrell “ain’t no good right in the world,” with a long history of exploiting Maclay tenants (TJC 1999b:G20). Bert also descried blacks’ sale of their land to whites for too little money, the unfortunate pairing of profit hungry developers and younger generations of owners who did not know the value of their land. What now are among the more exclusive neighborhoods in Tallahassee, such as Killearn, once belonged to the Paynes, Robinsons, and Garretts, families paid just a fraction of market value for their land. Bert Hadley refused to sell despite his surroundings’ transformation into “rich folks’ houses;” “if I didn’t
78 want it, I wouldn’t have bought it.” (1999b:G22) The two year delay (1909–1911) in Creasy Robinson’s transfer of a parcel to John Law due to a title dispute with her sister Lucy, the parcel’s original inheritor, may be an example of the jeopardy one willing seller can put a family estate in if the others are reluctant, known as ‘partitioning’ (LCCC 1911:QQ113; Lewan and Barclay 2001b) (Table 6.1). Finally, James Smith recalled land being taken away for failure to pay taxes or repay mortgage loans, a fairly common occurrence that sometimes was applied more frequently to African-Americans as a means for whites to acquire their land.
The history of this community extends to the present. Members of these families still live here to this day, on some of the most beautiful, expensive and coveted land in town, now wooded hillsides near two lakes where their ancestors once worked the fields before and after the Civil War. Tucked between the uniform lots of the newer subdivisions are pockets of irregularly shaped, highly subdivided tracts held by families with familiar names –Gallons, Sawyer, Nims, Gilliam, Smith and Robinson. They flank the park, or the park flanks them, obscuring their history with a romanticized chain of title “from plantation to park” (TJC 1999b).
Summary Mariano Papy’s sale of the old Hall Plantation in the early 1870s to six African-Americans may be the earliest sales of large tracts of land to African-American in Leon County. The purchase of substantial acreage by tenant farmers of modest means who had been enslaved just a few years prior was a significant achievement. The new land owners were connected to their tenant neighbors by blood, marriage and the shared experience of enslavement, possibly on the very property they now owned. The community built schools and churches, passed or sold land to family and friends, and farmed and ran businesses on the shores of Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet. Around the turn of the century, African-American land owners began to sell or lose land to white northerners who were establishing hunting retreats north of Tallahassee. Remnants of the historic African-American community survive today, however, just outside the park’s boundaries.
The Cedar Shake House and other house sites in the park may contain archaeological deposits associated with the post-bellum land owning community. Public records indicate that these
79 families kept more livestock and had more acres under cultivation than tenant farmers on Killearn Plantation in the second quarter of the twentieth century. Farmstead activity in yards and adjacent fields would have been high as families eked out a living from the earth. The most visible physical evidence of the period between the close of the Civil War and the advent of hunting plantations may be signature landscape vegetation that marks former fields and yards around houses. The early land owners also had little money, thus probably living in cruder houses and owning fewer possessions than appear in later years and more recent historic sites, leaving a more ephemeral archaeological record.
Maclay Gardens lends itself to the interpretation of early African-American land ownership in the Red Hills of Florida, another compelling chapter in the history of the African-American community around Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet. Interpretative programming can cover Reconstruction and land ownership, using historical data and oral history interviews to compare and contrast the experiences of the landed and landless. Concepts can be explored such as African-Americans’ active definition and pursuit of freedom, the changing aspirations of community members, and various types of discrimination.
80 CHAPTER FIVE LIFE IN THE HILLS “After the big guns fiahed...” Margarett Nickerson, formerly enslaved on the William Carr Plantation (Austin 1936)
The Cedar Shake House was once the site of family life, as well as part of a larger community. The material culture of this household was in large part shaped by the nature of their families, homes, farms, material sustenance, and community. The Cedar Shake House, artifacts, and site configuration provide evidence of former tenants’ daily life ways, including subsistence activities, use of space, leisure activities, and relationship to their neighbors. This chapter provides information about what life was like for many, generally. It also notes some of the difference between and among groups over time. The chapter summary translates the historical research into archaeological research questions and predictive statements about the nature of the archaeological record at the Cedar Shake House and other historic house sites in the park, as well as interpretive themes about life in the Red Hills of Florida.
Leon County was predominantly African-American from the antebellum period through the first half of the 20th century, particularly rural areas. What had once been a landscape dominated by large plantations, formidable planters’ residences, and clustered slave quarters now was parceled down and scattered with modest farmsteads. Leon County, which had 319 farms just before the Civil War, in 1880 counted 2,428 farms, most forty acres or less (Paisley 1968). The rural African-American community around Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet, peopled by tenant and landowning farmers and plantation employees, was replete with schools, churches, roads and footpaths, stores, fishing and swimming spots, and burial grounds. Life was centered here, in the area on the lakes, and here was black; many, (before younger generations left in search of better), infrequently ventured to town let alone farther afield, and associated primarily with other African-Americans in most spheres of their life.
Theirs was no monolithic community; it contained a diversity of individuals and families whose actions and lifestyles were distinctive. And yet, they lived in the same natural environment, many similarly employed, worshipping together, access to similar goods, like experiences of
81 slavery and emancipation, and confronted with the same larger socio-political context. Some aspects of their life were generally shared by country folk of all color throughout the region – farming, food processing, one-room schoolhouses, and poverty. Their lives were characterized in part by early marriages, large families, child labor, rough housing, and religiosity. But in addition, they faced racism and discrimination that limited options, compounded substandard conditions, and enforced subservience and second-class citizenship.
Families After emancipation, African-American families in the Tallahassee area were those that had been salvaged, wrought, forged or reunited from the ashes of slavery. Many of the would-be land owners who lived on the Papy plantation had been married since before the Civil War, and had grown children and grandchildren, as well as broods still young. Their household compositions changing over time, through out their lives they were neighbored by kin, the families of their children, their siblings, and their nephews and nieces. Notably absent was the elderly generation of their parents, left behind years ago.
Both tenants and landowners in the area tended to have large families and large households through the first half of the 20th century. Children typically stayed with their parents until marriage, sometimes through their early to mid twenties, working the family farm. Some grown children, married or unmarried, partnered or single, reared their families in their parents’ home, while other grown children lived elsewhere but their children lived with their parents. It was common for a middle-age couple’s household to contain at least some of their grown children and some of their grandchildren. In 1880, land owners Spencer and Ann Robinson’s household consisted of nine people –themselves, two adult daughters, and six grandchildren aged one to fourteen (USDC, BC 1880). Additionally, households also commonly included the heads’ step- children and adopted children, siblings and their children, or boarders and friends of the family, all with different surnames. People rarely lived alone.
People tended to marry within their community at young ages. Typically their spouse was from their birth community or one nearby, as people infrequently went to town, and even more rarely
82 left the general area. Husbands were typically at least a few years older than wives, both usually married by age 20. Marriages, like birth, death and other life transitions, often occurred at home. Maclay tenants Ike Gilliam and Pansy Diggs were married in 1939 by Reverend D. F. Crawford at her parents Levi and Bessie Diggs’ house, once located at the Three Oaks site off the park multi-use trail around Lake Overstreet (TJC 1999b: C15). Young couples’ departure from their parents’ house was sometimes delayed for lack of resources, such as with Maclay tenant Bert Hadley, who married Eva McGriff in 1933 with sixty cents to his name, not enough for a honeymoon let alone to be together (Thompson 1997:98).
Tenant and landowning women alike married young and had children young through out the history of tenancy in the area. During the last quarter of the twentieth century, girls typically married around fifteen years of age, plus or minus a couple of years, and began to have children soon after. Maclay tenant Lina Gilliam married at ~15 years of age in 1865, her daughter Sally at ~13 in 1893, and her daughter-in-law Annie at ~14 in 1903 (USDC, BC 1900, 1910). Lydia Robinson (Spencer and Anne Robinson’s daughter-in-law) married at ~17 in 1867; and Emma Payne (Tobias Payne’s daughter) married at ~18 in 1882 (1900). Females often had several children by the time they turned twenty, and again before thirty, and some women continued to have children through their early forties. Most women had many children, some of whom died in childhood; she was the exception that had only one or two. By 1900, Lina Gilliam (Ike Gilliam’s grandmother) had had ten children, nine still alive, and her daughter Sally had had five children before the age twenty, all still living (1900). By 1880, Rachel Edwards (Spencer and Anne Robinson’s daughter) had had four children by the age of 23, the oldest a daughter eight years old (1880). Anne Marie Hall (Daniel Hall’s wife) and Ann Robinson (Spencer Robinson’s wife) may have had children in their early 40s. Lydia Robinson (Spencer and Anne Robinson’s daughter-in-law) was the exception with only one daughter. Through the 1930’s, women still married and birthed young, although more women were doing so at least a couple of years later and fewer were having as many children. While Maclay tenant Annie Sawyer (Henry Sawyer Jr.’s wife) married at age fifteen in 1916, and had four children by age twenty-one, Pearly Payne (granddaughter-in-law of Tobias Payne), married at age eighteen in 1920, and had the first of her five children at nineteen (1920). Women raised their children together with their husbands, their parents, or by themselves.
83
Homes “After de big guns fiahed,” recently emancipated Margrett Nickerson, her mother and sisters, were turned out from their home on the William Carr plantation, just to the north of Lake Overstreet, with nothing (Austin 1936). They settled nearby along with other refugees on Abram Bailey’s Lake Jackson plantation, living in a crude shelter made of cut saplings and dirt. When it rained, the dirty structure would first run and then collapse on them. They continued to live so, cutting saplings and pine tops, until finally they built themselves a log cabin. Late nineteenth century photographs of tenant farmers in Leon County show these abodes, resting askance on logs, with stick and mud chimneys and shingled roofs.
It is unknown what African-Americans lived in on the Papy plantation, both his slaves housed in twelve slave houses, and his tenants before his land sales started in 1870. None of these mid-19th century plantation structures are still standing or have been located and investigated archaeologically. Chances are
that these too were made of more ephemeral Figure 5.1. Log Cabin, Leon County, Florida (RC07275). Source: Florida Memory Project, local material, such as the Nickerson cabin, Department of State. rough wood that has returned to earth.
A half century after the war, many tenant farmers north of Tallahassee still lived in primitive conditions, continuing through the first half of the 20th century. Large families lived in small dwellings. While board and simple framing had replaced log, those whites new to the area were ‘appalled’ and disbelieving of housing conditions. Many of the houses were roughed in –not insulated, no ceiling, sans public utilities. Former tenants remember moon and rain penetrating the roof, and cold and rats the walls (TJC 1999b:G4; Thompson 1997:100). Plantation housing may not have been enough to protect occupants from the elements, but it was enough to charge them rent for. Mainor Poppell, a former handyman on the neighboring Phipps plantation, indicated that these living conditions were commonplace to all poor local rural folks; even if so,
84 more African-Americans were consigned to the plantation poverty that bred such circumstances (Thompson 1997:138).
The typical tenant house turn of the 20th century on was made of rough pine lumber board, some with framing and some with none. Walls were unfinished, inside just the back side of said boards, no insulation or interior wall, often ‘papered’ to keep out drafts. No ceilings, instead rooms ran up to the rafters. Roofs were wooden shingle or tin sheet. Virtually none had windows with glass; rather, wooden shutters or boards that swung open on hinges, few with screen. Many had front and back porches. Most had two bedrooms, a few three or four. Typically every room in the house not a kitchen was a bedroom even if also used for sitting, furnished with both beds and chairs. Older houses tended to have detached kitchens, while newer had attached ones served by cast iron woodstoves. Houses were usually heated by brick chimneys, some with a two-sided fireplace that served both rooms. Yards were swept clean ground, ornamented with trees, bushes and flowers such as china berry, camphor, crepe myrtle, spirea, winter peaks, and lavender. None had indoor toilets. None had electricity, unless in the rare case by generator. Many obtained water from natural sources, such as Lake Hall or ‘running water’, a branch, creek or spring; some from wells, and the rare from a spigot that might be in the front yard. Jack Pons, former forester at Phipps plantation, remembered tenants toting water home from a common well (Thompson 1999:55, 69). It is clear that over time conditions improved on plantations, and tenants improved their conditions, houses often reflecting these improvements with drop siding, window panes, lighting, cinderblock construction. The houses of early African-American land-owners mirrored those of tenants, theirs too improving in size, substance and amenities as some wealth accumulated.
Farms Mostly the families in the Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet community were farmers and these homes farmsteads. While some individuals supplemented their income with other business ventures or employment, most tenants and land owners raised crops and stock to bring in cash, pay the rent or mortgage, and feed their own. Their family structure, house sites, domestic activity and division of labor reflected their agricultural activity.
85 Both tenant and landowning farmers relied on cash crops to pay their rent or mortgage, and meet the bulk of their other cash needs. Cotton was king, and the hills around the lakes had long been cleared and planted in large fields of cotton. After the war, children and adults alike worked the old fields, as well as established new by clearing and planting in the woods around their now dispersed dwellings. For the rest of the 19th century and well into the 20th, small farmers ginned their cotton and counted their bales, even as their amount of land under cultivation diminished. Even plantation employees who were not tenant farmers often planted a little cotton. Corn, sugarcane, and peanuts were also grown on a larger scale for market.
Gardens were a diet mainstay. Most families had one, some large, some arow, some nominally cultivated and casually gathered. A wide array of vegetables was grown, including beans (butter and velvet), carrots, collards, corn, cucumbers, okra, onions, mustard greens, peas (june), potatoes (white, ice and sweet), radish, rutabagas, squash, string beans, tomatoes and turnips. Gardens and yards also included fruits such as apples, blackberries, figs, mayhaws, oranges, peaches, pears, plums, and watermelons, and nut trees like chestnut and pecan. People planted different crops winter and spring, traded vegetables with other people in the community, and canned the produce to span the year. After harvest, food was processed. Corn was taken to nearby grist mills –Old Man Martin’s Mill on Thomasville Road, Poppell’s store at the corner of Meridian and Miller Landing Roads, or Mr. Frank Craig’s grist mill also on Thomasville, to be ground to meal or cracked to grits and chicken feed. Some went about once a month, and some paid with a portion of meal. The Paynes, who did not have a cellar, banked potatoes in a pyramid and covered them with straw, corn stalks, dirt and finally tin or a bucket on to prevent water penetration (TJC 1999b:F20). Bert Hadley remembered an old horse pulling the sugar mill (Thompson 1997:101).
Almost every farmer had an animal or two for traction. Small-scale family farming remained largely non-
Figure 5.2. Woman Plowing Field mechanized through the mid-twentieth century; hands used with Ox (RC13509). Source: Florida horses or mules to plow their fields, and in worst case Memory Project, Department of State. scenario pulled the plow themselves. John Armfort, a large
86 scale tenant farmer on Maclay’s plantation, used oxen in the 1930s and 40s to till and cart a heavy load. Burt Hadley used to plow a white steer named Joe on his family’s farm (Thompson 1997:92). Traction animals were among a farmer’s most essential possession as their livelihoods depended on their harvest; they were at times a farmer’s only animal, one a farmer would go in debt for if need be.
Many farmers tended an assortment of animals to supplement the family’s diet; it was, according to Maclay tenant James Smith, part of what made a farmer a farmer (TJC 1999b: D6). Animal products such as eggs and milk were consumed daily and immediately as available, while meat, most commonly the less expensive pork, was preserved for the long run. Little was wasted, as people ate the meat, brain and cracklings, and saved grease for later use. The Gilliam family, who once lived in a house that is now a park office, raised hogs in a fenced pen, chickens and ducks, and a cow for milking (TJC 1999b:C17). Tenants on the Phipps plantation were allowed to have a cow, and everyone had milk and butter. Practically every farmer had a smokehouse, and every family its methods for curing meat, from hickory smoke and red pepper and syrup rubs to salting in pine straw and egg menus. The Paynes and Charltons packed meat in rock salt, washed or soaked it, hung and smoked it (TJC 1999b:F22; Thompson 1997:119). Butchering was largely a communal, male activity, neighbors and families lent each other a hand and then divvied up the meat. Often women supplemented diets by raising fowl for meat and egg, including hens, guineas, ducks, geese and turkeys.
Animals could also generate cash, small change or significant income. A few farmers raised small herds for market, such as Maclay tenant and plantation employee Depew Smith, who kept ten to fifteen cows which sold for $7 or $8 each (TJC 1999b: D6). Matthew Rollins, a successful dairyman on Lake Jackson, had sixty to seventy cows, and Willie Gardner, Sr.’s cows produced fifteen to twenty gallons of milk a day (Thompson 1997:87). More often, families sold the surplus or more valuable commodities produced by animals kept for family consumption, getting extra animals for sale when possible. The Sawyer family sold milk from their one or two cows for a little change (TJC 1999b:E13). The Carters accompanied Rollins on his delivery route, selling live turkeys and chickens to white people in town. Georgia Gardner, Willie’s mother, sold turkeys during Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays (Thompson 1997:87).
87
Most homes in the Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet community were farmsteads. Typically much of the work of farming, beyond fieldwork, also occurred outside, in spaces and structures surrounding the small board houses. Families ranged in their ability to have animal quarters, crop storage, and food processing equipment and facilities. Some had more access to disposable cash with which to purchase items or raw material for construction, and some had more access to landowner-provided amenities. Figure 5.3. Tenant Farm Sometimes African-American landowners had less than their Women (NO47217). Source: Florida Memory Project, tenant counterparts. Conditions also changed for both groups over Department of State. time. Bert Hadley’s tenant family of origin made their own tools, and stored cotton bales inside their small house for want of a storage shed in the nineteen tens and twenties (TJC 1999b:G4). Any outbuildings, as with tools, had to be handmade from cut and skinned trees from nearby woods for lack of money. Smokehouses, corn cribs, and potato cellars were common, although not everyone had one, such as the Paynes. Some families had barns, stables and coops for livestock, while others had enclosed pens, and a few had free- roaming cows and chickens. The Carters on the Phipps plantation had a refrigerator, although most tenant and landowning families refer to iceboxes stocked about once a week by a traveling salesman (Thompson 1997:79). Before getting an ice box, Johnny Cofield’s family covered food with ice and sawdust in a hole in the ground (Thompson 1997:106).
Farming was a family affair. Only the too young, old or disabled did not labor at some task, and even children seasonally in school started and ended their days with chores. There was some division of labor by sex and age. Many women worked at home caring for family, household, livestock, garden and field; some women also supplemented their family’s income with part-time or seasonal plantation employment, or the sale of produce, fowl, or farm products. Although Johnny Cofield recalled that his mother did not work, she did cook breakfast every morning for boat landing operator Clyde Miller; sold butter beans, peas and butter to whites that came by; did laundry outside by boiling clothes in a large black pot over flame, rubbed them with washboard in tubs, and rinsed, wringed, and hung them to dry; and this on top of raising fifteen children
88 (Thompson 1997:105). School schedules speak of the demand for children’s help. Bradfordville School was open three months a year for African-Americans in the 1920s, and St. Paul’s School for six months during the 1930s. School started after the crops were harvested and stopped when the next crop started to grow. Children worked in the fields hoeing and planting cotton and corn, and tending chickens and cows. Children also worked for pay. Johnny Cofield washed boats at Miller’s Landing at age ten, and later worked for Phipps in the summer (Thompson 1997:102, 113). Many young people started paid employment in their teens. Ike Gilliam worked in the nursery for Maclay (TJC 1999b:C5). Mattie Charlton started to work as a domestic for the Phipps family at age sixteen (Thompson 1997:116). Men’s purview tended to be outdoor labor, while women’s was often childcare and domestic work.
Material Sustenance Most families were fairly self sufficient, particularly in regards to food, meeting most of their needs by growing, making and trading. Staples and household goods were procured at shops local and in Tallahassee for barter and cash. Many had to make due with the limited amount they could afford, mending and nursing to sustain them as long as possible.
Diet consisted of what their gardens and stock could produce, supplemented by basic store- bought staples. Bert could feed his family for two weeks in the 1930s for three dollars (Thompson 1997:98). In the early to mid-1940s, Willie Mae Carter could buy sugar, flour and lots of rice for five cents each. At times, families had a limited menu, with few types of food and too little an amount. Johnny Cofield grew up eating neck bones, bacon and biscuit sandwiches, cornbread and hoe cake; grits and white bread were too expensive (Thompson 1997:108). Clipper Charlton ate a little fried meat, bread and syrup for breakfast, nothing to take to school for lunch (Thompson 1997:118).
Few people had much disposable money, even after the sale of their cotton bales and other cash crops. At a number of small nearby stores, families could exchange farm goods for flour, sugar, rice, grits, syrup, lard, coffee, salt and pepper. Some stores took cash, and some also extended credit. Initially stores were few in the area, often run by whites in conjunction with mill houses where farmers had their corn ground, such as that of Craig near the present entrance of the park,
89 Rogers further north near the Bradfordville Walmart, and Poppell on Meridian and Miller Landing Road. Later more African-Americans operated dry good stores in the community, including Charlie Payne on Thomasville Road who accepted eggs as payment and was a popular source of snacks among school children, Madison Gardner on Meridian who first served African- American farmers and then white recreationists and fishers from out-of-town, and Elder White and Willie Garrett who had small stores near Lakes Hall and Overstreet. Store George of unknown proprietorship was initially one of the only stores near Meridian and Miller Landing Roads, until supplemented by ‘rolling stores’, traveling vendors who exchanged, among other things, salt franks, soda water and Nehi with children for chickens and eggs. Buying fresh meat and other goods not stocked locally would wait for periodic trips into Tallahassee.
People supplemented diets with hunting and fishing; the lakes and woods were plentiful. Among the game hunted were deer, rabbit, squirrel, wild hogs, raccoon, opossum, fox, duck, coot, cooter and turtle. People fished the nearest lakes, Ike Gilliam at Lake Overstreet, Bert Hadley brim beds at Lake Jackson, and James Smith at Lake Hall, who could catch a string of fish in three or four hours (TJC 1999b:C7, D6, G17). This was restricted however on the large plantations on which tenants lived and which surrounded the African-American landowning community. Game wardens limited and controlled tenant and neighbor activity to preserve optimum hunting grounds for plantation guests. Planter ownership of lake shores limited access to waters, Phipps Lake Jackson and Maclay much of Lake Hall, leaving just a couple access points. On the Phipps plantation, tenants were barred from hunting deer, quail and dove at all times; hunting certain areas at all times; hunting elsewhere certain times of the years; and owning dogs. Maclay also prohibited hunting, although his friends were permitted to entertain themselves with shooting birds and squirrels.
Unlike food, clothing more than likely required a trip to town and cash in hand. Some women made clothing, such as the Paynes who bought cloth instead of ‘ready made clothes’, Willie Mae Carter who dressed her children, and land owner Georgia Gardner who sewed dresses for farm help. More families purchased clothes downtown, often the impetus for these infrequent trips. Sam Robbins sold or accepted trade for shoes, Fairy Tale had sales, and P. W. Wilson and Turners sold more expensive items. Although Tobias Payne drove his family to town in a Model
90 A or B, most did not have cars (TJC 1999b:F28). Willie Mae Carter rode to town with her uncle Matt Rollins (Thompson 1997:76). Bert Hadley was given a ride to town to shop by his boss at Tallahassee Nursery, Mr. Ellis, on Saturdays after a full day of work (Thompson 1997:98). Clipper Charlton only went to town about three times a year as a child, usually to buy clothes (Thompson 1997:124). Racial discrimination at commercial establishments compounded the challenge; Willie Mae Carter could try on hats and shoes, but had to estimate clothing size (Thompson 1997:82). Some people had few clothes, some more. Growing up, Johnny Cofield had three pairs of pants, three shirts, and shoes just part of the year, whereas Willie Mae Carter had hats and shoes (Thompson 1997:82). Families made do; Clipper’s mother mended clothes, Johnny Cofield held sole to shoe with wire, and Bert Hadley’s absentee wife Eva wore what he brought home whether she liked it or not (Thompson 1997:98, 109, 124).
Community Lake Hall, Lake Overstreet and Lake Jackson provided nourishment, recreation, income and rebirth. People fished and swam their waters, ran rental boat concession and camp on their shore, and walked down dirt trails to be submersed in baptism. The lakes were more than a reference point; they were where people were from.
A network of dirt roads and foot trails linked houses to fields to community buildings to stores to highway. Churches and schools drew people together from isolated farmsteads, an opportunity to socialize, and to praise and learn. From their ranks, pastors and deacons and teachers stepped forward to serve their own. Often church and school were one, established by parish members for local children such as those at St. Matthew’s Primitive Baptist Church (Cotton Church), St. Paul Missionary Baptist Church (Shepherd Church), Kirksey Church, and Elizabeth Poplar Spring Church along Meridian Road. Families were typically associated with a ‘home church,’ a relationship often maintained despite moves and marriage. Also off Meridian were St. Matthew’s Primitive Baptist Church, Elizabeth Poplar Spring Church (where Burt Hadley was a deacon), Bethlehem Primitive Baptist Church, and Thesalonia Church. Off Thomasville Road, Lake Hall residents attended Lake Hall Church (a little old wood-frame church attended by the Gilliams that had “been there for all time”), Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church, Storm Branch Church (founded by Depew Smith’s father Edenbury Smith, an ex-slave), and Missionary Baptist Church
91 (attended by the Paynes). According to Phipps plantation manager Jack Pons, the tenants were very religious; Sunday was for church (Thompson 1997:60).
Families buried their dead in family or church cemeteries. Early markers were wood and concrete, graves dug by hand, small graveyards scattered across the landscape. With no ambulance service and little money, most people once belonged to pall bearers’ organizations to defray costs. Some cemeteries still stand next to actively used churches, while others are maintained even though church and neighbors are long gone, such as the one surrounded by High Grove off Lake Hall Road. Some stand, but in tangled vegetation and disrepair, like that behind the old Lake Hall School, while others are lost to posterity, such as the Killearn Cemetery beneath a bank and houses at the corner of Plantation and Thomasville Roads. The whereabouts of yet others is uncertain –the graveyard near Willie Garrett’s store, the Gunn cemetery near Lake Hall. And still others yet, access and use was barred by plantation management, such as at the old St. Matthew’s Church on the Phipps’ plantation, building torn down and cemetery fenced off in 1952.
School was tied to the growing seasons; session ran three to six months a year, attendance tied to the growing and harvest seasons. How much schooling a child completed depended largely on whether a family needed or could spare her labor in farm and field, varying widely, from Burt Hadley’s 2nd grade education to Johnny Cofield’s high school graduation (Thompson 1997:93, 105). Even children in school completed chores before and after. Nestled in old plantation communities, schools served residents within eight to ten miles, children going to great lengths to attend. Unlike whites who were bussed to school, Burt Hadley, Roosevelt Sawyer and the Paynes walked from three to eight miles there and back regardless the weather, Johnny Cofield rode a bike, and Willie Gardner caught a ride with John Austin on his dairy run (TJC 1999b:E19, F26, G8). Local schools were elementary. Those who went on to secondary came to town to attend Lincoln High School, often staying with extended family in Frenchtown and returning home to the farm in the summer. The entire Payne family’s move into town ensured ease of access (TJC 1999b:F25).
92 Through the first quarter of the 20th century and part of the second, most children attended class in a one-room school, all grades together under the tutelage of a single teacher. The Lake Hall School was a small wood-frame building heated by wood stove, with several benches on each side and a stage up front. Burt Hadley remembered collecting wood for the stove at Bradfordville School, and the cold wind that came through cracks in the wall (Thompson 1997:94). The small schools could be overcrowded, equipped with castoff texts and equipment from white schools. Many children went hungry, finally eased by the free lunch program. These older schools, associated with plantations, churches or community benefactors, were Bradfordville and Lake Hall Schools along Thomasville, and Cotton, Shepherd, Kirksey, and Poplar Spring Schools along Meridian Road. As these were closed so that children could be moved to better schools or land could be put to different use, children shifted to the larger rural schools Macon, Rainey and Lake McBride. Finally, under the separate but equal doctrine, children were bussed to town to the still segregated schools John G. Riley, Griffin and Lincoln High.
The tenants were a very uneducated people, said a Phipps plantation manager Jack Pons (Thompson 1997:58). But communities recognized the importance of education and dealt with the challenges to obtaining it. Some children finished elementary and some high school and some went to Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), the historic African- American college in Tallahassee, Florida. Whether they themselves could attend, many did what they could to ensure their children went, affording that next generation greater opportunity. With just a second grade education himself, Burt Hadley saw that all his children got through school, includng FAMU (Thompson 1997:95). Johnny Cofield finished high school; his mother had a 7th grade education and his father none. And when Burt Hadley’s boss tried to talk him into sending his children into the field versus school, he said no (TJC 1999b:G9).
Lives of hard work were punctuated by play, weekend socializing, holiday celebrations, and special plantation events. “There was not what you call fun,” said Johnny Cofield, of growing up on Ayavalla Plantation (Thompson 1997:107). Burt Hadley also remembered little to do, spending his little free time sitting on the porch and listening to the birds (Thompson 1997:95). Colin Phipps recalled that chewing sugar cane, rolling tires with sticks, and watching ant lions
93 were tenant pastimes (Thompson 1997:154). Every now and then, plantations would sponsor festivities for tenants with games such as climbing greased poles and catching greased pigs. Then-children reported swimming in the lakes, fishing and playing ball, and Charlie Payne ran a camp on Lake Hall mostly for African-American children. Young adults went to Saturday night parties with beer, wine and “buck” moonshine. Some of their parents played baseball on the local Negro leagues against teams from other communities –Fleischmann Place, Coon Bottom, Dawkins Pond. Churches, lakes and the Rollins’ place were popular sites of May 20th (Emancipation Day) and July 4th celebrations, when families gathered to feast, dance, picnic and beat drums. In the mid-20th century, Willey and Estelle Sawyer ran a nightclub on Lake Overstreet where people danced to the piccolo on Saturday night, until it was shut down by Maclay’s overseer Fred Ferrell (TJC 1999b:E8). People went to town not just to shop, but to socialize. By old truck or car, catching a ride, horse and buggy, or mule and cart, farmers congregated downtown at Clemmons, Buzzard Roost, and Rascal Yard to sell produce, talk and drink.
Both whites and blacks here were born into a racially stratified society, constructed to perpetuate itself via enculturation and overt enforcement. Some whites actively asserted their dominance, assured of their impunity. Johnny Cofield (Thompson 1997:110) was forced to sit at a small versus main table when eating dinner at a white friend’s house. Both Johnny Cofield and Burt Hadley remembered instances when white men had threatened to kill them for angering them (Thompson 1997:97, 109). Other whites felt no ill will towards blacks, even affection, yet accepted the status quo or were unaware of disparities. Phipps plantation manager Mainor Poppell, who had tenant friends as a child and adult, remembered segregated schools as just the way it was, a system upheld by his parents’ generation (Thompson 1997:149). His wife Wilma recalled her family’s fondness for tenant Mary Cofield, who cared for and visited their children for years, but seemed to know little about Mary’s own fifteen children (Thompson 1997:139). The rare exception actively fought it. Clyde Miller, a white man who shared a bunk with a black man while in the army, told young Johnny Cofield about the various forms discrimination took and how wrong it was. He joined Johnny at the small table at his parents’ house, and let Johnny sleep over in his room after a long day’s work at his boat landing, risking retribution from angry whites.
94
This community had survived the indignities of slavery and Jim Crow. There was both active resistance and feigned acquiescence in response. When emancipation came, people who had run away from enslavement on the Carr and neighboring plantations around Lake Overstreet came out of the
Figure 5.4. Emancipation Day Celebration, woods from all directions (Austin 1936). Sometimes Horseshoe Plantation (RC11491). Source: Burt Hadley made a stand, and other times he Florida Memory Project, Department of State. employed “common sense and a still tongue” (Thompson 1997:97). Phipps plantation manager Jack Pons had been embarrassed by tenants’ deference, who tipped their hats when he drove by, an act that likely safeguarded their wellbeing in other instances. Back seat of buses, second-hand schoolbooks, cash poor, restricted access to woods and lakes, threat of extralegal violence, limited employment opportunities, closed down business and torn down church, separate public bathrooms, back doors. This community both withstood and fled, as white interest in and demand for their land increased and younger generations migrated to larger towns.
Summary The majority of African-Americans in the larger Tallahassee area remained on local plantations after the Civil War and continued to farm. Such was the case with the community around Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet. Their lives were circumscribed by poverty and racism. Most were cash poor farmers who tended gardens and livestock to feed themselves, and raised cotton or other cash crops to pay rent or mortgage. Households consisted of multiple generations who worked together to raise children and bring in the harvest or cash on the side. Their houses were small and rustic, typically sans utilities. Conditions gradually improved over the first half of the twentieth century, as land lords changed and more jobs became available. Their lives were also rich with strong cultural institutions (schools and churches) and long-time ties to each other and the land.
95 The Cedar Shake House and other historic house sites in the park contain direct evidence of former tenants’ daily life. Because the houses were small and without utilities, many household and farmstead activities would have occurred outside in the yard around the house and the outlying fields. Many farmsteads included a number of outbuildings and structures, including wells, corn cribs, smoke houses, animal pens, and outhouses, which may be relocated through survey work. Fields and cleared yards may be distinguished by patches of young woods or plants and trees that favor disturbed areas, as well as old fence lines. Old paths and roads connected houses to fields, the lakes, neighbors, schools and churches, and main thoroughfares. It is anticipated that the most visible and numerous artifacts at house sites in the park will be associated with the second quarter of the twentieth century, when tenants began to supplement or replace farming with paid labor, earning cash then used to purchase goods at market.
Maclay Gardens State Park lends itself to the interpretation of what daily life was like for former residents of the Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet community. Many aspects of rural life were similar for land owner and tenant alike, while some enjoyed more material comfort and options thanks to extra income from businesses or property sales. Interpretive programming can cover farming practices, housing conditions, women’s lives and work, the role of schools and churches in African-American communities, and African-American cultural traditions, using oral history interviews and public records to bring the past to life. Concepts can be explored that link the past to the present, highlighting issues that continue to play important roles in our life such as family structure, religion, the economy, poverty, suburban growth, and changing demographics.
96 CHAPTER SIX AT HOME IN THE CEDAR SHAKE HOUSE
This chapter hones in on the specific history of the Cedar Shake House, particularly who constructed and occupied the house and when. Occupational history is particularly relevant to archaeological interpretation, as relating specific cultural deposits to specific tenants can help highlight the differences in material culture between land owners, tenant farmers and plantation employees. The chapter summary comments briefly on the likely archaeological record present at the house and suitable interpretive themes.
There is a small house that sits on a hill above the eastern shore of Lake Overstreet in Maclay Gardens State Park. It is largely collapsed, except for a small addition that juts out perpendicularly, standing aslant. Though rotting and obscured by tangled greenery, this house once stood in a clearing, was lived in and visited, rang with voices and bays of animals, saw day and nighttime activity, public and private moments, shuddered with moving bodies and whistled in wind. This house, with its still discernable layers of additions and improvements, is proof itself of its old age, its use, and its successive occupation and ownership.
This house was once part of the African-American community around Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet. To interpret this particular site first requires situation of it and its occupants in time and space. No bundled set of old deeds or leases, or older former resident, has been identified that can definitively give the past name. Circumstantial evidence, however, points to tenant occupation during the 20th century, and leaves the door open to owner construction and occupation around the turn-of-the-century. Deed reconstruction for the property on which the house sits charts the land’s journey from antebellum plantation to African-American ownership to hunting plantation; and in conjunction with census records, identify who any owners-in- residence may have been. Oral history informants tie a specific plantation-employed family to the house, and census records support but do not confirm this contention. Finally, the structure itself, built in stages, unquestionably ties it to the Maclay period, and suggests leaner earlier times as well.
97 The House
The Cedar Shake House was originally a small, two-room board house that sat on brick piers. The long front and smaller back porch sat on similar piers, with paneled entry doors on either side, possibly original features to the house. A double-sided brick chimney was located in the middle of the house centered in a dividing wall, a
brick hearth serving each room. The walls were Figure 6.1. Cedar Shake House, Addition. (Note drop siding covered by unframed vertical planks and the roof was gabled with wooden shakes, notched sill beam, concrete piers.) open slat sheathing and wooden shingles. It is unknown whether the house originally had drop siding, a ceiling or glass windows, but oral history informants’ reports of wooden shutters, bare board walls, and exposed rafters suggest these might be later additions. The house had no indoor toilet, running water, or electricity. Cooking must have been performed at the fireplace, over an outside hearth, or in a detached kitchen. Figure 6.2. Cedar Shake House, Interior Circular saw marks and wire nails, increasingly used in Wall. (Note bead board, window frames, tin roof.) the last half of the 19th and throughout the 20th century,
and an absence of cut nails, indicate a late 19th or early 20th century construction.
The original structure is obscured by layers of improvements, new or recycled building material that
Figure 6.3. Servant’s Quarters on was secured atop versus replacing older material, Killearn Plantation (PR10610). Source: producing a physical record of change to its appearance Florida Memory Project, Department of State and configuration over time. The ordering of material indicates the sequence of alterations in some instances. Drop siding was added to the exterior of the structure, and later a small room with a tin roof was attached to the back end, access via the back porch and a separate door. A shelf and a stove pipe hole high on the back wall suggest it was a kitchen. Tin sheeting was also laid over the original shingle roof of the main house. At
98 some point, interior bead board, a ceiling, window panes and screens, and concrete block supports for the porch steps were added. Finally, cedar shakes were tacked over the exterior drop siding. These shakes, which match the utility buildings located behind the Maclay House, are tied to a beautification project under Maclays’ proprietorship. The Cedar Shake House once closely resembled an undated photograph of servants’ quarters at Killearn Gardens (Figure 7.6)
In question is whether the Cedar Shake House was constructed by African-American owners or during the subsequent sport plantation era. The current estimation of its construction date, based on its physical components, is too wide a time span to correlate construction with a particular property ownership. Its vernacular style and simple and sparse construction approximate housing stock inhabited by both African-American land owners and tenants in the late 19th to mid 20th century. Maclay was reported to have built his tenants nice frame houses, which this is not. The most recent layers of building fabric and the surrounding surface artifacts undoubtedly relate to its tenant occupants during the Maclay and Law periods; the oldest layers may yet prove to be associated with the family that purchased the land from Mariano Papy in the 1870s.
The Robinson Family If the Cedar Shake House was indeed associated with a land-owning family, it was the Robinson family. In January 1871, Spencer Robinson purchased a 154-acre tract from Mariano Papy for five hundred dollars, upon which the house now sits. This tract ran east from the eastern shore of Lake Overstreet along the entire northern shore of Lake Hall (Figures 6.1 and 6.2). It was the Robinsons who pulled this land into African-American ownership, and the Robinsons who later shuttled at least part of it, likely farmland, back into planter hands. But in the forty intervening years between purchase and first sale, at least three generations of the Robinson family farmed the land; and when wage work replaced farming by the mid-20th century, branches of the family continued to deed the remainder of the property down the line.
Born approximately 1803 and 1814 respectively, Spencer and Ann Robinson originally hailed from Virginia, as had their parents; it is unknown when they were relocated to Florida or what
99 family was left behind. The couple had at least six children while in Florida, two sons and four daughters –Robert (b. ~1847), Emily (b. ~1851), Washington (b.~1856), Rachel (b. ~1857), Lucretia (b. ~1859), and Lucy (b. ~1861) (USDC, BC 1870). The oldest, Robert, was born at Lake Lafayette, placing the family in the Chaires area in the mid-1840s (FSTC 1870a). The Robinsons may have been enslaved on Thomas Peter Chaires’ Woodlawn Plantation and sent with his daughter Sarah Frances Chaires to Lake Hall upon her marriage to Mariano Papy in the mid-1850s. In 1870, on the eve of their land purchase, Spencer and Anne Robinson and five of their children were tenant farmers of modest means, living in a single household near other tenants and would-be buyers on the Papy plantation (USDC, BC 1870). Robert, the oldest child, may have already had a daughter, living with her mother at a different location (USDC, BC 1880). All but the youngest child worked the family farm – Figure 6.4. Property Deed, Mariano Papy to Spencer Robert at 23 years old, Emily 19, Rachel Robinson. Source: Leon County Clerk of Courts. 13 and Lucrecia (aka Creasy) 11; Lucy at age 9 was the only exemption. Their son Washington appears to have remained in or returned to Chaires after Emancipation, and unlike the other five children, did not inherit a portion of the Papy land purchase (USDC, BC 1870).
100 Spencer and Anne’s lives during land ownership mirrored those around them, and their own as tenants after Emancipation. As their children entered adulthood, some continued to live with their parents; some reared their own children in their parents’ home, some married and established nearby households, and some simply left home. Despite departing children, Spencer and Anne’s household grew with the addition of grandchildren; from five children in 1870 to two daughters and five grandchildren in 1880 to two daughters and six grandchildren in 1885 (State of Florida 1885; USDC, BC 1870, 1880). The family farmed the land, Spencer and his daughters working the fields while Ann tended house and grandchild. The number of acres under cultivation and livestock in pen fluctuated with the vagaries of ambition, labor, wealth, the market, climate and pestilence. Between 1873 and 1878, their improved acreage went from 40 to 100 back down to 80, while their number of horses, mules and asses sharply rose and fell from 3 to 12 to 2, and cattle from 2 to 4 to 0 (LCTCO 1873f, 1874c, 1876c, 1878). Still farmers, but now landed. Once they got land, Spencer and Ann Robinson, who had been enslaved most of their lives, never let it go. Like their fellow purchasers, they stayed put, passing the land to their children so that it could be their home in freedom as well.
In the almost thirty years that Spencer and Anne owned the 154-acre tract, three of their children were married, four had children of their own, and all five farmed the old Papy Plantation. Robert and Lydia married and had one daughter Evaline just after the Civil War; they raised their daughter, and upon her death their granddaughter Evaline, and two stepchildren in a house just a few doors down from Robert’s parents and sisters (State of Florida 1885; USDC, BC 1880, 1900). Emily, a widowed single mother, had six children between her mid teens and early 30s, raising them first in her parents’ house and then alone (USDC, BC 1880, 1900; State of Florida 1885). Rachel married Lawrence Edwards, son of nearby landowner Sam Edwards, and had five children, their house on Edwards or Robinson property just a few doors down from both their families (LCCC 1877:CY-153; State of Florida 1885; USDC, BC 1880). Creasy married Bill Young in 1884 and Julius Simmons in 1885, who she later divorced; she had two children, and lived in a house near her parents and siblings (LCCC 1884:CY-360, 1885:CY-282; USDC, BC 1900). There is no record that Lucy ever married or had children; she lived at home and then with a man enumerated as a servant (USDC, BC 1900).
101 In January 1900, Robert as executor divvied up his parents’ tract among their five children, aged late 30s to mid 50s, each receiving one to three parcels (of ten total), approximately 32 acres each, which included a small area on the eastern end, and a larger area with Lake Hall frontage to the west (LCCC 1900:HH540) (Figure 6.3). While all of them appear to have farmed land they owned for the rest of their lives, within just over a decade, at least half the Robinson land was gone (Table 6.1). Why some sold is unknown, perhaps a greater need for cash than land. Robert and Lydia Robertson (aka Robinson) immediately sold their Lot F (32.9 acres) to Joseph A. Edmondson for five dollars (LCCC 1900:HH562). The nature of the transaction is unknown, the low price is suspect, and the couple continued to live in the area and be listed as landowners. Rachel’s widower Lawrence Edwards and children sold Lot J (30.74 acres) at $10 an acre to neighbor John Law immediately to the west in 1907, a mid-westerner who had established a hunting preserve called LAC-CAL in 1905 on Daniel Hall’s western third of the Papy Plantation (LCCC 1907:MM274). In 1909, Creasy sold Lots H and I (52.84 acres) to John Law also at $10 an acre. Her sister Lucy contested the sale of Lot H, which she had sold to Creasy for less than a dollar an acre just four years before; Creasy finally transferred title to Law in 1911 when the dispute was settled (LCCC 1909:OO244). Thus these eighty-two acres reverted back to plantation and their African-American residents to tenants, property later to pass through Maclay’s hands before incorporation into a state park.
Where exactly the Robinsons lived is unknown. The configuration of tracts that Papy sold east of Lake Overstreet was such that each of the families had an area that was both near each other and Thomasville Road. Spencer and Anne Robinson and their multi-generational brood may have lived in this nexus on their tract’s eastern edge. The configuration of tracts that Spencer willed to his children was similar; each got a small piece of land near the eastern edge, perhaps for a homestead, and a larger piece perhaps to farm. The Cedar Shake House would have been located on Lot I or J, owned by Rachel and Creasy. Whether the Cedar Shake House dates to Robinson ownership and is associated with a particular person during this period (1871-1911) has not been demonstrated or disproved. Rachel, Lawrence and their five children; Creasy and her daughter; or a leasing family may have built and occupied the structure.
102
Figure 6.5. Spencer Robinson Property Subdivision, 1900. Source: Leon County Clerk of Courts.
103 Table 6.1. Robinson Family Property Transactions Notes Book Page Date Sales Seller Purchaser Township Range Section Legal Description Acreage Acreage per person Price $/acre
Spencer Robinson’s Last Will and Testament: Subdivision of the Robinson Land among his Five Children
Lucretia (n. Robinson) Lot HH 540 1/16/1900 Spencer Robinson Simmons 2N 1E 33 A 10.80 32.90
Lot Emily Robinson 2N 1E 33 B 6.80 30.66
Lot Lucy Robinson 2N 1E 33 C 3.10 33.84
Rachel (n. Robinson) Lot & Lawrence Edwards 2N 1E 33 D 3.10 33.84
Lot Emily Robinson 2N 1E 33 E 2.20 33 & Lot Robert Robinson 2N 1E 32 F 32.90 32.90 Spencer and Ann's heirs subdivide Lot Spencer's property, Emily Robinson 2N 1E 32 G 23.86 according to the plat map in Deed Lot Book HH 588. Lucy Robinson 2N 1E 32 H 30.74
Lucretia (n. Robinson) Simmons 2N 1E 32 Lot I 22.10 32 Rachel & Lawrence & Edwards 2N 1E 31 Lot J 30.74
Platt Map of HH 588 Subdivision
Robinson Children Property Transactions (Sales): To Family and Non-Family, including John Law (LAC-CAL Plantation)
32 Robert & Lydia & Lot HH 562 1/25/1900 Robertson Joseph A. Edmondson 2N 1E 33 F 32.90 $5.00 $0.15 Unknown Buyer L.R. sells her Ida Simmons Lot smaller parcel to KK 219 3/26/1904 Lucy Robinson (Lucretia’s daughter) 2N 1E 33 C 3.10 $18.00 $5.81 her niece L.R. sells to her Lot larger parcel to her KK 391 10/1/1904 Lucy Robinson Lucretia Simmons 2N 1E 32 H 30.74 $25.00 $0.81 sister Lot S.E. undivided 1/5 NN 445 8/10/1907 Spencer Edwards J. Q. Staats D 6.00 interest to unknown J.L. established nearby LAC-CAL OO 230 4/14/1909 Lucretia Robinson John Law 2N 1E 32 Lot I 22.10 $221.00 $10 plantation in 1905 Lawrence Edwards (widow), Rachel's husband Spencer and and children sell Charlotte her property to Edwards, Louisa John Law after her Edwards death; 3 acre plot is (unmarried), and mentioned (Lot D?) Susan Jackson but not included in MM 274 4/17/1907 (widow) John Law 2N 1E 32 Lot J 30.74 $307.40 $10 sale L.R. agrees to sell Lot H to J.L. for $10/acre once dispute over title is Lot settled with sister OO 244 4/14/1909 Lucretia Robinson John Law 2N 1E 32 H 30.74 1.00 Lucy
Lot QQ 113 2/4/1911 Lucretia Robinson John Law 2N 1E 32 H 30.74 307.40 $10 L.R. finalizes sale
104 The Sawyer Family
According to Estelle Sawyer, who with her husband Wiley Sawyer ran the Lake Overstreet Inn to the north of Maclay from the late 1930s to the early 1960s, Henry Sawyer Jr. and family lived on the edge of Maclay property. Their house sat on a hill above the eastern shore of Lake Overstreet, within walking distance along a footpath to Maclay’s house (TJC 1999b:E17). This description, provided by land-owning neighbor Estelle Sawyer, corresponds with the Cedar
Shake House. According to Sawyer, Henry Sawyer’s sister Pinkie Figure 6.6. Henry Sawyer, Fitts also lived in the house at some point, already “one hundred Jr. (NO47016). Source: Florida Memory Project, years old then” (Doran 1992a:101). Other oral history informants Department of State confirm that Henry Sawyer Jr. worked for Maclay and lived on his Killearn Plantation; the census not only corroborates this, but places his residence right near the plantation’s main house.
Henry Sawyer Jr. was born in 1890 to Emma ‘Bessie’ and Henry Sawyer, one of twelve children born between 1882 and 1908 (USDC, BC 1900, 1910, 1920). By 1870, his father lived alone and worked as a laborer in the larger area. His mother, nee Payne, was the daughter of Austin Payne, kin of initial land buyer Tobias Payne and like him, also from Virginia. Emma grew up on the old Papy plantation and married Henry Sawyer in 1882; by 1885 she was still living here with their two young daughters in the midst of other African-American landowners and tenants, including the Halls, Gilliams, Nelsons, Paynes, Edwards, Larkins and Robinsons (LCCC 1882:CY-238).
Emma and Henry Sawyer were tenant farmers. In 1900 and 1910, the family was enumerated among scores of African-American tenants, closest only to the land-owning Edwards family, suggesting residence on a plantation to the east of Thomasville Road. In 1910, Emma headed the family while Henry was in the state penitentiary (USDC, BC 1910). Nine children lived at home in both 1900 and 1910, ranging in age from 1 to 26 (1900, 1910). In 1900, three children aged 9 – 13 attended two months of school (including Henry Jr.), while the older two worked the farm; in 1910, all six children over 10 worked the farm, none in school. At least three of the Sawyer
105 children, Henry, Pinkie and James, would later work for Alfred B. Maclay as domestic servants, gardeners and farmhands. Henry Sawyer Jr. lived with his parents and siblings until he was at least nineteen, marrying Annie Gallon from a neighboring tenant family in 1916 (USDC, BC 1910; LCCC 1916:C5-158).
By 1920, Henry Sawyer, Jr. was a tenant farmer on Colonel John Law’s LAC-CAL Plantation, living with his wife and two young children on land once owned by Papy and then by the Robinson family (USDC, BC 1920). Whether or not he worked as an employee for the Law family is unknown, although Annie and Henry Sawyer Jr. lived right next door to the Laws, closely matching the location of the Cedar Shake House. Enumerated on the other side of the Sawyers were the African-American families who owned land along the northern shore of Lake Hall and eastern shore of Lake Overstreet, including Gunn, Payne, Fitts, Robinson and Larkins. Henry’s parents Emma and Henry Sr. now lived near George Brown, a later Maclay tenant, apparently relocating west of Thomasville Road and likely north northwest of Lake Overstreet (USDC, BC 1920). Their household still included five children and three grandchildren as well.
The Sawyer family was among many that lived in the area before Maclay arrived in 1923. Henry Sawyer Jr. became one of Maclay’s three full-time plantation employees, along with Depew Smith and Edmond Gilliam, possibly in part because he already lived right there. Henry, Annie and four children still lived between Maclay tenants and the land owners to the north, matching the location of the Cedar Shake House (TJC 1999b:F29). Emma and Henry Sawyer, in their 60s and 70s respectively, lived nearby, still tenant farmers, indebted to Maclay 200 pounds of cotton a year for rent. Undated Maclay notes indicate that at one point Emma Sawyer owed 350 pounds of cotton –“N.G. Make her family work it out for her” (Maclay ca. 1930). Annie worked as a maid in the Maclay house and Henry worked as a servant, gardener and employee supervisor; Estelle Sawyer, who married their son Henry Sawyer III, called them ‘slave servers’ (TJC 1999b:E10, G7). Henry was a ‘big man’ on the plantation who drove new cars, did not farm much, and married Martha Thompson in 1941 after Annie’s death (LCCC 1941:C10-116; TJC 1999b:F3). He purportedly worked for the Maclays for forty years, and along with his wife received $1,000 each upon retirement (TJC 1999b:E10). He also served as an Assistant Ranger
106 when the Maclay family transferred the gardens to the State, according to Mrs. Maclay’s wishes (Maclay 1951).
According to Estelle Sawyer, Pinkie Fitts (Henry Sawyer Jr.’s sister) also lived in the Cedar Shake House, and worked with “the ironing people” in the Maclay laundry (TJG 1999b: E3). She married Major Gallon in 1919. Nothing else is known about her.
Summary The Cedar Shake House sits on land that was once owned by antebellum planter Mariano Papy, later purchased by tenant farmer Spencer Robinson in 1871, inherited by his daughter Rachel Edwards in 1900, and sold to hunting plantation owner John Law in 1907. Who constructed and first lived in the Cedar Shake House is still unknown. The house dates to the late 19th or early 20th century, leaving open the possibility that African-American landowners initially lived here. Spencer and Anne Robinson and their children lived and worked as tenant farmers on the Papy Plantation before purchasing land of their own. According to oral history informants, Henry and Annie Sawyer and their four children lived in the Cedar Shake House during the second quarter of the twentieth century. Initially tenant farmers on John Law’s LAC-CAL plantation, the Sawyers were later employed by the Maclay family on the Killearn Plantation, he as a servant, gardener and foreman and she as a maid.
The Cedar Shake House appears to have been occupied by plantation employees for the longest period of time. Remnants of the Sawyer’s early tenant farm activity may be visible in surrounding ‘old fields,’ possibly a remnant of the Robinson family’s farm. The bulk of the archaeological record, however, is probably associated with the Sawyer’s tenure as plantation employees, which corresponded with the cessation of farming and turn to market for household goods.
The Cedar Shake House lends itself to the intimate interpretation of former residents’ journey from enslavement to life off the plantation through focus on the two African-American families specifically associated with the house and property –the Robinsons and the Sawyers.
107 CHAPTER SEVEN CEDAR SHAKE HOUSE: THE SITE
The precise historic appearance of the Cedar Shake House site is unknown. Presently, the only direct evidence of its general appearance at any point during its historic occupation is a series of mid-20th century U.S. Department of Agriculture aerial photographs. Oral histories and ethnographic studies of similar, related and nearby farmsteads provide likely proximate, and together with historical research on the site, prove useful for both predicting and interpreting archaeological finds. Concerned with fixed and semi-fixed site components, the pedestrian survey located artifact scatters, landscape features, structural remains, and vegetation that bolster inferences about the site’s historic configuration and the immediate surrounds of the house. With further analysis, site components could shed light on numerous facets of the past –from gendered division of labor and space to subsistence activities to cultural expressions.
Aerial Photography Aerial photographs feature the Cedar Shake House, Maclay Gardens, Lakes Hall and Overstreet, and the surrounding area between Thomasville and Meridian Roads from 1937 to 1960. For the property that is now part of Maclay Gardens State Park this time period represents the Maclays’ proprietorship; African-American tenancy, plantation employment, and farming; the last African-American small landowners; and state acquisition and park development. For the Cedar Shake House site in particular it represents occupation by Henry and Annie Sawyer, tenants of Maclays’ Killearn Plantation, abandonment, and reclamation of the site by forest.
Several things remain constant during this period. A dirt road runs northeast along the lower eastern edge of Lake Overstreet and then turns east to run parallel to the northern shore of Lake Hall. The western half of the long northern shore of Lake Hall remains heavily wooded south of said road from the Lake Hall-Lake Overstreet Ditch (8LE2212) westward. The Maclay house and complex of support buildings sits on the northwest shore of Lake Hall, and the garden is under development. Homesteads ring Lakes Hall and Overstreet. What changes over time, quite
108 dramatically, is the expansion of wooded areas and concomitant shrinkage of cleared land, and the related disappearance of tenant homesteads and/or their associated fields.
Figure 7.1. 1954 Aerial Photograph #193 (Regional Scale). Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Aerial Photography Florida, University of Florida.
Such is the case with the Cedar Shake House. In 1937, the house sat in the center of a large rectangular-shaped clearing that ran west lengthwise from a wetland on the lower eastern shore of Lake Overstreet. The farmstead was bound to the south by the east-west running dirt road that
109 separated the site from the wooded northern shore of Lake Hall, and to the east and north by wooded areas. A cleared swath on its lower eastern edge connected the property to the eastern 2/3 of the former Papy Plantation that sat between the eastern shore of Lake
Overstreet and Thomasville Road to the Figure 7.2. 1937 Aerial Photograph #83. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Aerial Photography Florida, west, an area almost entirely clear and University of Florida. under cultivation in 1937. Several characteristics of the Cedar Shake House site are evident in the 1937 aerial photograph. The structure appears L-shaped, indicating the presence already of the ‘later addition.’ A dark line running north-south just east of the house separates the side yard from adjacent fields. A dark line also rings the house on its
gable ends and south side, as if enclosing a
Figure 7.3. 1941 Aerial Photgraph #39. Source: U.S. yard, perhaps bushes or a fence line. A spur Department of Agriculture, Aerial Photography Florida, University of Florida. road bisects the yard just west of the house,
running north to connect with a road traveling along Lake Overstreet’s eastern edge. Two large oaks punctuate the clearing west/northwest of the house. No specific features of the yard are visible.
Over time, the woods closed in. By 1941, shrubbery had begun to grow up around the two large oaks to the west of the house, and by
Figure 7.4. 1954 Aerial Photograph #193 (Local 1954, a dark ring suggests shrubbery Scale). Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Aerial Photography Florida, University of Florida. surrounded the house as well, particularly to
110 the east between the house and fields. In 1954, field edges were no longer distinct, and fields were smaller as woods encroached from the south. Whether any fields were still under cultivation is uncertain. A third oak, directly to the north of the house, was now prominent. By 1960, the former farmstead was indistinct on the landscape. The fields to the east were populated by small trees in the early stage of succession, a shrubby patch separated the house and old fields, and the two oaks to the west are indistinguishable from other growth. The area immediately north of the house is still clear, marked by the now very prominent
third oak, while a small clearing to the south Figure 7.5. 1960 Aerial Photograph #32. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Aerial Photography of the house leads to the still visible dirt road. Florida, University of Florida.
Oral History & Ethnographic and Historical Research No specific features of the yard are visible from the vantage of an aerial photograph. Description of day-to-day life by local informants, however, indicates their presence as the yard was scene of most household and much farmstead activity. While unknown whether the Cedar Shake House was occupied by both owner and tenant, both the Robinsons and the Sawyers likely utilized the house surrounds in specific and distinctive ways that left enduring trace.
According to Westmacott, African-American yards and gardens in the rural south are and were largely utilitarian spaces, with limited recreational and aesthetic function (Westmacott 1992). Yards served three apparent functions –for subsistence, as a kitchen extension, and for entertainment, recreation and display (1992:23). Cash poor farmers, owner and tenant alike, tended garden and livestock to increase self-sufficiency and generate surplus for market. Animals were let to free range, or kept in stables, coops, pens and fenced enclosures, while gardens or yards with gardens were fenced to keep pests and free range livestock out. Gardens included medicinal and culinary herbs, produce, plus fruit and nut trees. Harvests were stored in cribs, cellars or holes. Tools, equipment and supplies associated with cultivation and animal
111 husbandry were stored in sheds, a more male domain typically located in outer yards. Archaeological correlates include old fence lines and fencing; structural remains of outbuildings; depressions or holes; soil anomalies; surviving vegetation, particularly trees; and associated artifacts.
Small house size and few amenities shifted many household chores outside to the inner, more active yard, areas often swept and kept free of vegetation. Food processing and preservation, including canning, butchering, smoking, cane grinding, and syrup making; cooking; laundry washing, bluing, bleaching and drying; soap making and trash burning often occurred just outside the house. Heavier activity areas tended to be in side or back yards, near a well or outdoor spigot, and under shade trees. These were in large part female domains, save for butchering and sugar cane processing areas. Archaeological correlates include structural remains of outbuildings and support structures (such as sugar trains and hog butchering equipment), old well or spigot, clothesline, and outdoor hearth; ash deposits or burn piles; anomalous vegetation and soil patterns; and associated artifacts and artifact distribution patterns.
Work days were long. Popular pastimes in scarce leisure time were relaxing outside, on porch or under shade tree, and socializing. Children played on swings, hoops, or games in nearby swept areas. Yards tended to have few ornamental plantings (grasses, vines, shrubs and flowers), though more in front yards for visitors’ benefit and more as leisure time increased. Popular shade trees included oak, pecan, sweet gum, pine, magnolia, as well as cedar, chinaberry and cherry laurel. Yard decoration tended to be more personal expression than African-American cultural marker. Archaeological correlates include vegetation and soil patterns; historic vegetation, particularly trees; and associated artifacts and artifact distribution patterns.
Informants from the Lake Overstreet area describe similar household activities and homesteads. The Cedar Shake House site may have generally followed suit, with variation attributable to the particulars of its two suspected occupants –the Robinson family in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the Sawyer family in the first half of the 20th century. While the Robinsons were landowners and the Sawyers tenants, several archaeologists who have hypothesized that the archaeological record would reflect differences in tenure status found none (Cabak, Goover and
112 Inkrot 1999; Orser 1988). Their explanation –that owner and tenant farmer used similar material culture, and that discrete habitation layers were indistinguishable due to short occupancy periods, shallow deposits, and ‘mixing’ of the archaeological record by post-depositional activity.
In this case, however, an important distinction accompanied the Robinsons’ and the Sawyers’ tenancies –their respective occupation, and enumeration for that work. The Robinsons’ primary form of subsistence was agriculture, including cash crop, livestock and likely garden. The Sawyers’ livelihood primarily derived from paid employment on a hunting plantation, likely supplemented with small livestock and a garden. Henry Sawyer, Jr. was purportedly Mr. Maclay’s top earning African-American employee, acquiring a new automobile every year. The Robinsons (if indeed occupants) had a smaller house, larger family, no kitchen, fewer amenities and possessions, more land under cultivation, more livestock, and more large livestock such as cattle, mule, horse and ass. The Sawyers had a larger house, a kitchen, a smaller family, less and less land under cultivation, and cash income with which to purchase amenities and consumer goods. Their different lifestyles changed their respective household and economic use of their domestic surrounds. Known changes include the growth of succession forest in abandoned fields, and the shift of kitchen activity indoors. Other probable changes include decreased use of outbuildings and enclosures for agricultural purposes (livestock, equipment, harvest) and yard areas for food processing (butchering, smoking, cane grinding), and increased use of nearby areas for trash disposal, machinery maintenance (including automobile), and leisure activities.
The Cedar Shake house has yet to be dated, and its occupancy by both owner and tenant confirmed. The site may contain the archaeological record of both time periods. A cursory survey of the site identified both fixed features such as structural remains, fence lines, and trees, and semi-fixed features such as trash pits and middens (Heath and Bennett 2000). Whether surviving historic site components can be associated with either the Robinsons or the Sawyers, landowners or tenants, the 19th or 20th century, remains to be seen. It is tempting to say that features associated with the site’s most recent occupation will be the most visible and likely to have survived time’s passage, although it may be the agricultural activity of earlier periods that made the most lasting and dramatic impact on the land. The most ephemeral information to
113 recover for both periods will be the association of physical remains with the past, people and their behavior.
Site Features A total of twenty-four features were identified during the pedestrian survey, including structures, roads and paths, ditches, vegetation, fence lines, depression, and artifact scatters (Table 7.1). A feature was defined as phenomenon other than individual artifacts that were, or likely were, constructed by or resulted from human activity.
Structures The Cedar Shake House (Feature [F] 20), described in Chapter 5, sits in the southeast quadrant of the ‘site’ (Figure 7.10). It is a small L-shaped structure with the two original rooms running east-west lengthwise, and a small single-room addition attached to the south side. The house sits ten meters directly south of datum, and serves as the primary visual reference point on the site.
The remains of a small unidentified outbuilding (F6) sit approximately twenty meters to the north-northeast of the Cedar Shake House (Figure 7.10). Cement blocks outline a square footprint 1.9 meters north-south by 1.8 meters east-west at its widest. Metal roofing lies in the center of the blocks and nearby. Further investigation is required to determine its function.
A flagstone lies embedded in the ground approximately ten meters to the south of the Cedar Shake House, just west of a shallow depression (F3) (Figure 7.10). Its function is unknown.
Roads and Ditch The Cedar Shake House sits approximately thirty meters to the north of an old road (F11) that runs east-west from the multi-use recreational trail along the eastern edge of Lake Overstreet west towards Thomasville Road (Figure 7.10). The road is overgrown, although its course is indisputable, suggesting long-time use. It corresponds with the road visible in the historic aerial photographs that runs along the upper northern shore of Lake Hall, discussed above.
114 Table 7.1. Historical Archaeological Features at Cedar Shake House.
Feature Unit In Type of Size Location Notes # # Yard Feature Fence Line SSE of house, south of 1 P9/10 No Fencing embedded in trees (wire) historic road in woods SSW of house, just inside R13-14 2.4 x Shallow depression; covered with tangled Cherokee 2 Yes Hole the ‘yard’, near historic S13-14 1.4 m rose; no associated artifacts; unknown origin road and ditch Shallow depression, dark soil; brick and chamber pot V15 2 x 3 Yes Hole Just SE of house in hole; other artifacts in and around hole that cross- W15 1.8 m mend w/ artifacts in other units; unknown origin Q17-18 Just W of house, on western 2.3 x Apparent tree fall w/ disintegrating wood and dark 4 Yes Hole R17-18 edge of Artifact Scatter 10 2.6 m stained soil; artifacts in and around hole Several areas of tangled fencing with posts; near two K21-24 Fence Line 5 No NW of house in woods partially buried metal stakes (F12) & two large L21-24 (wire and hog) Silverthorn bushes; large iron hinge found nearby NNE of house, in NE Small square area bordered by cement blocks; tin 6 W 23 Yes Structure corner of yard roofing on ground in center; covered by vegetation W22 Fence Line NNE of house, just before Fence line scars in two separate trees directly north- 7 Yes W27 (scar) and behind outbuilding south of each other N of house, near Artifact 2.1 x Possible tree fall; covered with vegetation and humus; 8 U31 No Hole Scatter 6, just E of old spur 3.1 m no associated artifacts road in woods Fence Line NW corner of site, near 9 K34 No Fence line embedded in tree (wire) Artifact Scatter 1 in woods Q11 SSW of house, near Bisects historic road that runs along site’s southern 10 Partly Ditch S11 southern edge of site boundary, runs into ‘yard’ and evens out M11, O11, Old road bed that joins park ‘multi-use’ trail around S of house, along southern 11 S11, U11, No Road Lake Overstreet to the west and runs towards edge of site W11 Thomasville Road to the east Two partially buried metal stakes; near tangled Fence Line 12 L22-23 No NW of house in woods fencing (F5) and two large Silverthorn bushes; large (stakes) iron hinge found nearby Fence Line N/O/P19 W of house, near Artifact Several pieces of fencing, some run underground; hog 13 Yes (wire, hog O20 Scatter 10 wire fence along western edge of Unit P19 and barbed) Fence Line NNW of house; just outside 14 X25-26 No Tangled fencing in general line with F15 & 17 (hog) ‘yard’ in woods Fence Line Tangled fencing, some attached to trees, in general 15 W27-28 No NNW of house in woods (hog) line with F14 & 17 R23 -24, Old road bed that runs perpendicular to E-W road; 16 S24, S27- Partly Road N of house peters out near the house and N towards Lake 31, Q25-27 Overstreet Fence Line Just to E of house and W of Segments of fencing in several units running N-S 17 X17 – 22 Yes (barbed) ‘old field’ along yard edge; in general line with F14 & F15 Fence Line Just to W of house, in Fencing partially embedded in ground; separates 18 R17 Yes (barbed) Artifact Scatter 10 artifact scatter from cleared area near house SW of house, near historic 2.5 x Possible cut sides, deeper than rest; no associated 19 N13-14 No Hole road in woods 2.5 m artifacts; unknown origin T17-18 20 Yes Structure Center of E half of yard Cedar Shake House U16-18
21 V15 Yes Structure SSE of house Small flagstone, unknown function, near hole F3
Fence Line NW of house; between 22 K29 No Fence line in middle of unit; directly south of F9 (wire) Artifact Scatter 11 & 24 23 T19 Yes Fence Line Just N of house Fence/mesh partially embedded in ground (chicken) 24 O21 Yes Fence Line NW of house, just south of Fencing on ground; just north of two areas of fencing (wire) Artifact Scatter 8 F13 and 5
115 A ditch (F10), deeper and narrower than the roads, bisects the old road just to the west of the Cedar Shake House (Figure 7.10). It runs approximately eight meters towards the house before evening out with ground surface, and an unknown distance to the south.
A visible portion of a north-south running auxiliary road (F16) is located to the north of the Cedar Shake House (Figure 7.10). It runs perpendicular between the historic road following Lake Hall’s northern shore to the south and the Lake Overstreet multi-use trail to the north. This road was likely a spur used to access the house from either direction. Its course beyond the mapped portion is difficult to identify. The more advanced succession forest to the north suggests that its use as a thorough fare was replaced by its southern end’s function as a driveway in the later occupation period.
Secondary Vegetation and Succession Forest Once upland pine community, today the hills around Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet are primarily upland mixed forest (Younker 2004; DEP, DRP 2003). Save for pockets of wood, this area was historically clear and under cultivation, a local practice and condition that stretches back to prehistory. When agriculture was abandoned, secondary growth and succession took root in the old fields. The forest around much of Lake Overstreet now consists of a mix of pine and hardwood trees approximately 50 years old or less, with a dense canopy and sapling under story (DEP, DRP 2003).
Once surrounded by fields, today the Cedar Shake House site is heavily overgrown. In part, the growth represents the early stages of secondary succession by native flora, as around much of Lake Overstreet (Younker 2004). In part, it also represents the invasion of a highly disturbed area by exotics. Both native and exotic plants can be found around the Cedar Shake House; however, they occur in different frequencies in different areas of the site (Figure 7.6). The most distinctive differences in vegetation are that between the ‘yard’ surrounding the house and the outlying areas; in this study, the yard was defined by a near absence of medium to large-sized trees, a roughly 80m x 60m area (Figure 7.6). Vegetative patterning also exists within both the yard and the outer area themselves.
116 The largest distinctions between the yard and the outer area are the size of the trees, the density of the vegetation, and the ratio of native to exotic plants. According to aerial photographs, by 1960 the Cedar Shake House was surrounded by forest except for a small area around the house. Present-day vegetation at the site reflects the respective ends of active use of each area. The yard, abandoned last, is thick with brush, vines and saplings, while the outer area is dominated by medium- to large-sized trees. Coring might just reveal that these larger trees are the 40 to 60 years old, which correlates with the end of farming. The thickness of the yard speaks of less time for forest trees to dominate, while the surrounding woods that are relatively free of shrubbery have been in succession longer. The yard is dominated by exotic trees and plants, the outer areas by native species. Thirteen native and twelve exotic species were identified at the Cedar Shake House by FPS Biologist Don Younker (Table 7.2). The yard contained nine native and ten exotic species, and the outer area contained ten native and three exotic species. In regards to the total number of species identified, the yard was 52.63% exotic versus only 23.08% for the outer area; conversely, the outer area was 76.92% native versus 47.37% for the yard.
Despite its jungle-like condition, certain plants were located certain places in the yard, other plants were scattered throughout, and some though widely distributed were concentrated in certain areas (Tables 7.6 and 7.7). Crape myrtle (nine), chinaberry (five), and black walnut (two) are clustered around the house. Yaupon saplings were concentrated directly north of the house, as if the entire front yard was let go to seed at once. Trifoliate orange was concentrated to the west and northeast of the house. Vines like wild grape, Chinese wisteria, and Primrose jasmine choked the house, ornamental trees around the house, and large nearby trees. A tangle of Cherokee rose covered the southwest corner of the yard. A large Nandina bush stands in the yard to the west of the house, and several Silverthorn bushes stand outside the northwest corner of the yard. Southern dewberry and American beautyberry grow throughout the site. The density of exotics in the yard suggests their penchant for highly disturbed spaces, and introduction by humans or animal using structure and fence for shelter or perch. The natives include species that are fast-growing and/or favor old fields and vacant lots such as wild grape, southern dewberry, laurel oak, and loblolly pine, as well as species associated with the early stages of sucession forest such as American beautyberry and yaupon holly. An exception to the
117 ‘near absence of larger trees’ definition for the yard are six oaks (water or laurel) that run east- west in front of the house in a relatively linear pattern.
Table 7.2. Native and Exotic Species at Cedar Shake House. Outer Common Name Species Name Notes Native Exotic Yard Area Southern Rubus trivialis Vine, ‘old field’ plant X X X dewberry American beauty Callicarpa Americana Shrub; broken shade X X X berry Yaupon holly Ilex vomintoria Shrub X X X Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia Medium to large; old field, vacant lot, fence line; fast- X X X growing Loblolly pine Pinus taeda Medium to large, ‘old field’ X X tree Slash pine Pinus elliottii Turpentined, X X Red cedar Juniperus virginiana Stand-alone tree X X Southern Magnolia grandiflora Saplings and small trees X X magnolia American holly Ilex opaca Saplings and small trees X X Wild grape Vitis rotundifolia Vine, climbing; weed-like X X Black Walnut Juglans nigra Shade intolerant X X Live oak Quercus Virginia Large spreading tree X X X Water oak Quercus nigra X X X Silverthorn Elaegnus pungens Ornamental, invasive X X Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica Ornamental X X Silverstripe Bambrisa multiplex Hedge X X bamboo Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis X X Podocarpus Podocarpus X X macrophyllus Chinaberry Melia azedarack Ornamental, invasive, X X superstitious use Primrose jasmine Jasminum mesnyi X X Lily turf Liriope muscari ‘Monkey grass’ X X Coral ardisia Ardisia crenata X X X Nandina Nandina domestica X X Trifoliate Orange Poncirus trifoliate Thorny; used for root stock, X X marmalade, fence lines Cherokee Rose Rosa laevigata Thorny, viney canes; fast X X growing up trees, fences,etc.
118
Figure 7.6. Distribution of Native and Exotic Species at Cedar Shake House. Figure 7.7. Distribution of Invasive Exotics at Cedar Shake House.
119 The more notable aspects of the area outside the yard are the transition zone flanking the yard, the extensive invasion of Coral ardesia, the large bamboo stand, and the ‘old field’ of loblolly pine. The tangled greenery of the yard extends into the surrounding woods until stymied by the shaded canopy. Yard and outer area alike is infested with the invasive exotic Coral ardesia, which squeezes out native plants. It is targeted for eradication in the park’s general management plan (DEP, DRP 2003). A single large Podocarpus stands in the woods north of the house. A large stand of bamboo stands approximately 35 meters south of the house, just on the far side of the historic road running past the house. The forest is otherwise a relatively open mix of pine and hardwood, with a succession under story of saplings and bush. A noticeable anomaly is the woods to the east, dominated by loblolly pines that suggest the location of former fields, which in turn correlates with field location in historic aerials.
Historic Vegetation What vegetation presently at the site is remnant, or evidence, of the site’s historic plantings and configuration? It is tempting to say that the largest trees are the oldest and indeed historic, and that the exotics are ornamentals deliberately planted, historic as well. The aerial photographs show, however, that most of the current vegetation would not have been on site through most of the first half of the 20th century. Present-day vegetation most Figure 7.8. Live Oak Exposed by Vegetation Removal. likely relates to the final decade or two of the site’s inhabitation,
and the half century or so since its abandonment. It is possible that the patchiness ringing the house in 1954 was the ornamentals still there today –crape myrtle, china berry, and black walnut. Coring could confirm this. Oral histories provide evidence that families in the Lake Overstreet community planted some of the plants found at the Cedar Shake House around their own homes. The Payne sisters said that their father planted crape myrtle, spirea, winter peaks, and lavender around their house
Figure 7.9. Live Oak, Now In (TJC 1999b:F20). Colin Phipps said that tenants on his father’s Woods. Ayavalla Plantation planted chinaberry around their house to
120 keep away witches (Thompson 1997:153). But in 1937, most of the area around the Cedar Shake House was clear and under cultivation. The only identifiable plants in the vicinity of the house on the 1937 aerial photograph are the large canopies of Live oaks. Today there are four large, dead Live oaks on the site that correspond to the photographs (Figures 7.8-7.10). There is also a dead, fallen Red cedar at the southwest corner of the house (Figure 7.10). A piece of hardware embedded in its trunk indicates that it too is historic. These five trees are the only trees present today known to have also been present in the first half of the 20th century. There is a possibility that a large stand of bamboo south of the house and the historic road was intentionally planted (Figure 7.10).
Fence Lines Clearly, the former occupants of the Cedar Shake House fenced different parts of the yard and outlying area with different types of fencing. Four types of fencing were found in eleven areas of the site, primarily in fragments or piles on the ground –single-strand wire, hog wire, barbed wire, and chicken wire (Table 7.1, Figure 7.10). Each of these ‘areas’ contain between one and seven pieces or sections of fence. Two additional areas contain fence-related items, including possible gate stakes and fence line scars in trees. The location of various types of fencing appears patterned across the site. Additionally, fencing in four parts of the site may represent ‘fence lines’; however, the historic extent and configuration of fencing at the site will require additional investigation to fully determine.
Single-strand wire fencing was found in six separate areas, all to the west of the Cedar Shake House (F1, 5, 9, 13, 22 and 24) (Table 7.1, Figure 7.10). In two areas, wire is found in conjunction with barbed and/or hog wire (F5 and 13), while in four areas it is the only fencing present (F1, 9, 22 and 24). All four of these areas are located near the transition zone where brushy ‘yard’ shifts to woodland. The woods here suggest that use of the perimeter areas was abandoned earlier than the inner ‘yard’. In two of these places, wire is found embedded into trees off-ground, possibly in situ fencing absorbed by nearby trees, or attached to them as fence posts (F1 and 9). One of the four tentatively identified fence lines is comprised, in part, of three areas of wire that span approximately sixty-five meters. Wire fencing may have been used to mark the property boundaries of the homestead, particularly to the west and south.
121
Hog wire fencing was found in four separate areas, to the north and west of the house (F5, 13, 14 and 15) (Table 7.1, Figure 7.10). In two areas, hog wire is found in conjunction with barbed and/or wire fencing (Features 5 and 13), and in two areas it was found alone (F14 and 15). These two areas, north-northeast of the house just outside the ‘yard’, consist of tangled piles of hog wire, some partially embedded in trees. The woods here suggest that use of this area was abandoned earlier than the nearby brushy ‘yard.’ A third tangle of hog wire is at the southern terminus of the above-mentioned fence line. That all but a fragment of the hog wire was found in moderate but discrete amounts outside of the ‘yard’ may indicate its use for animal enclosures or to keep animals out of particular areas.
Barbed wire was found in three separate areas inside the ‘yard,’ to the east and west of the house (F13, 17 and 18) (Table 7.1, Figure 7.10). In one of these areas it was found in conjunction with wire and hog wire (F13), while in two areas it was the only type of fencing present (F17 and 18). These two areas represent two of the four tentatively identified fence lines, appearing to run north-south on either side of the house. The trash midden to the west of Feature 18 and the large pine trees to the east of Feature 17 suggest that use of these outer areas was abandoned earlier than the area immediately adjacent to the house. Barbed wire may have been used to delineate a smaller yard during the final years of the site’s occupancy. Or, barbed wire may have separated the house yard from cultivated areas. The line to the east of the house separates the house yard from the ‘old field,’ and the line to the west may have too; when these areas were abandoned, the east field was allowed to return to wood while the hypothetical west field was used for trash disposal.
Chicken wire was found embedded in the ground directly to the north of the Cedar Shake House (F23) (Table 7.1, Figure 7.10). It may have been used to coop chickens or other small livestock.
The evidence for the four possible ‘fence lines’ is as follows (Figure 7.10). Two barbed wire fences may have run north-south on either side of the Cedar Shake House. To the east of the house, Feature 17 consists of six segments of barbed wire in a row eroding from the ground in successive units, spanning over twenty meters. To the east of the ‘fence line’ is the wooded old
122 field, and to the west is the brushy yard. To the west of the house, Feature 18 consists of two segments of barbed wire eroding from the ground over approximately five meters. Striking is that all of the artifacts from adjacent Artifact Scatter 10 were found to the west of the ‘fence line’, while the area to the east between the line and house was relatively clear of artifacts. A wire fence may have run north-south just west of the hypothetical ‘yard,’ consisting of three areas of fencing in a row spanning sixty-five meters. It culminates on its southern end in a tangle of fencing, a metal post, and two metal stakes protruding approximately eight inches from the ground, possibly marking a gate entrance. A heavy wrought iron hinge, as from a swinging gate door, was found nearby. Finally, circumstantial evidence suggests a possible fence line along an early-abandoned segment of historic road in the woods north of the house. A curving line of large oaks along the road conveys the sense of trees that grew along a fence line, and the buildup of humus fronting them that drops off to the road is reminiscent of the earth that will buildup on one side of a fence due to erosion, dropping off on the other side.
Depressions Five holes or depressions were found on the site, four in the yard (F2, 3, 4, 19) and one north of the yard (F8), ranging in size from 3.36 to 6.51 meters square (Table 1, Figure 7.11). Only two depressions evidence a likely cultural association (F3 and 19). Feature 3, the depression southeast of the kitchen attachment, contained dark midden soil and artifacts associated with Artifact Scatter 19. Feature 19, the depression in the southwest corner of the ‘yard,’ had no associated artifacts but squarer, deeper sides than the other shallow depressions that appear human dug. The disintegrating wood of Feature 4, the depression just west of the house on the border of Artifact Scatter 10, appears to be associated with a tree fall despite the presence of artifacts. The origin of Features 8 and 2 are unknown, though neither has associated artifacts.
123
Figure 7.10. Site Features: Structures, Roads, Ditch, Fencing and Figure 7.11. Site Features: All Historic Vegetation
124 Artifact Scatters The site contained nineteen artifact scatters that ranged in size from very small to very large (Table 7.3). Some scatters consisted of just a few, like objects while others were large, dense concentrations of many types of artifacts. All of these scatters had highly visible surface remains; while only a few had clearly observable subsurface components, likely almost all do due to the build up of heavy ground cover, leaf litter, and other organic material. The location of the scatters across the site is somewhat patterned, suggesting preferred disposal practices and site configuration. While the deposition sequence and origin of the scattered material require further analysis to determine, some preliminary hypotheses can be made about who once used the objects found in various scatters, and when it was disposed of on-site.
Thirteen artifact scatters, the majority, lay to the west of the house in two distinct concentrations –nine in the northwest quadrant of the site (AS 1-3, 11-15 and 18), and four in the ‘yard’ beside the house (AS 7-10) (Figure 7.11). While a region equidistant to the east of the house was not mapped, an informal survey of this area revealed no more scatters than the six on the map (AS 4- 6, 16, 17 and 19). Clearly, the residents of the Cedar Shake House, or someone else, preferred to dispose of trash down slope from the house, between it and Lake Overstreet. It is interesting to note that if the proposed barbed wire ‘fence line’ just to the west of the house is extended north, all thirteen artifact scatters west of the house would fall west of this fence. Conversely, if the barbed wire ‘fence line’ to the east of the house is extended north-south, two of the three artifact scatters to the east of the house would fall along the fence line. The area inside these two ‘fence lines’, which outline a small inner back yard, was relatively clear of artifacts, possibly representing a former swept yard. Clearly, the former residents or someone else also preferred to throw trash outside of the immediate yard, keeping the immediate surrounds of the house clear.
Twelve artifact scatters, again the majority, lay in the woods outside of the ‘yard’ –nine in the northwest quadrant of the site, two in the northeast quadrant (AS 5 and 6), and one in the southeast quadrant (AS 17). Eleven of these twelve scatters lay to the north of the Cedar Shake House. The areas to the east and west of the house were clear of artifacts. An informal survey south of the historic road bed, an area not yet mapped, revealed at least one additional artifact scatter. Clearly, the residents of the Cedar Shake House preferred to dispose of most trash
125 further away from, versus closer to, their living quarters, particularly in the northwest corner of the site.
The twelve artifact scatters outside of the ‘yard’ varied in size and content –four (AS 3, 11, 12 and 17) were small (< 10 m.2 area), six (AS 2, 5, 6, 13, 14, and 18) were medium-sized (11–100 m.2 area), and two (AS 1 and 15) were large (<100 m.2 area). (Size dimensions are based on multiplying the maximum widths listed in Table 7.3) Four artifact scatters contained a wide assortment of material, including building, hardware, kitchen, household and personal items; two were dense, medium-sized scatters (AS 6 and 14) and two were large, expansive scatters (AS 1 and 15). Artifact Scatter 15 contains an item not associated with the Cedar Shake House –a toilet, (the house shows no evidence of plumbing), throwing into question the origin of some or all of the surrounding items (including a child’s tricycle, a kerosene heater, and an ice cream maker). The eight remaining outlying artifact scatters consisted primarily of kitchen-related bottles, jars, and cans, all fairly dense except the light Artifact Scatter 5.
Seven artifact scatters were located inside the ‘yard’ (AS 4, 7-10, 16 and 19), including the two smallest scatters (AS 9 and 16) and one of the three largest scatters (AS 10) on the site. Four scatters lay to the west of the house and the barbed wire ‘fence line,’ comprising the bulk of the artifacts in the ‘yard.’ Of the three scatters to the east of the house, all quite small, two lay along the barbed wire ‘fence line’ (AS 4 and 16) and one lay in and around a shallow depression southeast of the building addition (AS 19). Two of the seven yard scatters contained primarily bottles and jars –Artifact Scatter 9, a light scatter of bottles on the western boundary of the yard, and Artifact Scatter 7, a concentration of primarily glass jars around a metal wash basin. The other five scatters contained a mix of personal, kitchen, household, building and transportation- related items. Artifact Scatter 10 appears to contain the greatest variety of materials on the site.
There appears to be some correlation between some artifact scatters and some of the other features on the site. All four large dead live oaks have artifact scatters immediately adjacent: Artifact Scatter 8 is right at the base of an oak, Artifact Scatter 15 stretches to an oak on its northern boundary, Artifact Scatter 1 encompasses an oak, and Artifact Scatter 5 is just a few meters away from an oak. These canopy oaks appear to have been used as dumping grounds
126 versus shade tree. Three of the five holes have associated or nearby artifact scatters –Artifact Scatter 6 is near a hole of unknown origin (F8); Artifact Scatter 10 is near a likely tree hole (F4); and Artifact Scatter 19 is around a hole of possible cultural origin (F3). Three possible ‘fence lines’ have artifacts scatters immediately adjacent or nearby –Artifact Scatters 4 and 16 are located along barbed wire fencing to the east of the house; Artifact Scatter 10 is located immediately to the west of the barbed wire fencing to the west of the house; and nine scatters are located to either side of the wire fencing running further west of the house.
The artifact scatters at the Cedar Shake House appear to be the result of trash disposal versus in situ remains associated with an on-site activity. The one possible exception is Artifact Scatter 7, the clear glass jars clustered around a washing basin that may represent outdoor food preservation activity. The preferred location for trash disposal appears to have been to the west of the house. One hypothesis is that this was the least used area in the vicinity. The dearth of artifacts to the east of the house and barbed wire fencing may relate to past cultivation of this area. The clear, narrow swaths directly to the north and south of the house may relate to the final, smallest manifestation of the yard. And the relatively artifact-free areas along the length of the historic road may relate to a sense of aesthetic in terms of the more public face of the house visible to passersby.
One hypothesis in regards to the relative dates of the two main clusters of scatters west of the house is that the scatters in the wooded northwest quadrant may represent earlier deposits than the scatters in the ‘yard’. Tenants may have initially thrown trash away a greater distance from the house when the inner yard was still regularly employed for household and farmstead activities. The preferred location appears to have been beneath the large oaks, perhaps to hide it from view. During the final years of site occupation, when these activities and the need for such a big yard ceased, tenants may have dedicated the western half of the ‘yard’ for trash disposal as well. This scatter (AS 10) is large and varied, perhaps gradually accumulating over time, or perhaps representing a single disposal event as the contents of the house were cleared after its abandonment.
127 One hypothesis in regards to the origins of the material in the scatters is that those in the northwest quadrant are, at least to some extent, related to former tenants’ employment, while the rest, particularly those in the ‘yard,’ are related to the former household. I say this because of the anomalous toilet and other luxury items in Artifact Scatter 15. It is possible that Henry Sawyer, Jr., the top African-American employee on the Killearn Plantation, collected the Maclays’ trash and disposed of it near his house; it is also possible that with his slightly higher salary, the family was able to purchase some luxury items.
Summary A primary goal of this archaeological investigation of the Cedar Shake House was to recover information about the site’s historic appearance, which would both shed light on the lives of former tenants and support the restoration of the site for public interpretation. Research was first conducted on historic, rural African-American yards in the South generally via ethnographic and archaeological studies, and then on homesteads around Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet specifically via oral history interviews and aerial photographs. All sources indicated that the yards of African-American farmsteads were used for a variety of subsistence activities and household chores. A pedestrian survey was conducted to identify site features, including structures, roads, ditches, secondary and historic vegetation, fence lines, depressions, and artifact scatters. Site vegetation and surface artifact scatters provided the most insight into the changing nature of tenancy for former residents. An absence of large trees defined the former yard, while old fields were identified by the presence of loblolly pines. Heavy artifact scatters west of the house signified the end of active use of the yard, and the family’s transition from subsistence farming to purchase of consumer goods. The differences in material culture between plantation employees and tenant farmers may be significantly more evident in the archaeological record than distinctions between land owning and tenant farmers.
128 Table7.3. Artifact Scatters 1-19 at Cedar Shake House. Size (m) Scatter # In Yard? Units at widest points Location Contents Description Collection (N-S x E-W) K33-35 NW quadrant, on N border of site; Bottles, whole and fragmented; cans, Large, widely dispersed scatter; heavy leaf litter and downed M33-35 1 No 16.22 x 23.10 near large, dead live oak ceramics sherds, shoes, auto part branches; some artifacts partially embedded in ground Partial O35 K31 Mostly glass jars and bottles, many NW quadrant of site Heavy leaf litter 2 No M31 3.8 x 4 whole; a few cans Partial
NW quadrant of site Mostly cans; a few bottles, many whole Small deposit; heavy leaf litter 3 No O29 3.10 x 2.44 Partial Bottles and jars, whole and fragmented; NE of house, SE of outbuilding; on Small scatter; with high artifact concentration along southern ceramics sherds; metal sheeting 4 Yes X20-21 3.36 x 2.97 old 'fence line' (F17) boundary; pieces of barbed wire 100% protruding from ground Just N of house and 'yard'; near large, Small scatter, with highly visible surface remains; no apparent Bottles, cans, enamel pot 5 No V25-26 4.50 x 4.73 dead live oak subsurface component; metal rod protruding from ground 100% Medium-sized scatter with fairly discrete boundaries; highly N of house, 'yard', and AS 5; just E Bottles, many whole; glass, metal and visible surface remains with artifacts protruding from ground; 6 No U31 4.38 x 4.39 of old road bed (F 16) ceramic fragments; oyster shell 100% dark midden soil P22 NW of house; just SW of old road Metal wash tub; clear glass jars, many Medium-sized scatter clustered around wash tub; heavy ardesia Q22-23 7 Yes 7.08 x 6.4 bed (F 16) whole; cans cover; slight subsurface component possible 100% R22 NW of house, near 'yard' corner; near Glass bottles and containers, whole and Medium-sized scatter with heavy vine cover; large unidentified O22-23 large, dead live oak; just E of old fragmented; ceramic sherds; can 8 Yes 6.04 x 4.21 metal object embedded in crook of tree 100% N23 'fence line' and 'gate' (F 5, 12) fragments NW of house, on 'yard' boundary; L22 just E of old 'fence line' and 'gate' Beer and liquor bottles, can fragments Small linear scatter 9 Yes M22 0.36 x 0.41 100% (F5, 12) Glass bottles, jars and tableware, whole P18-19 Very large, dense scatter, highly diverse content; possible ‘fence Just W of house; just W of old 'fence and highly fragmented; ceramic sherds; Q16-20 line’ marks clear boundary along eastern edge; very brambly in 10 Yes 21.3 x 10.61 line' (F 18) flashlight; stove pipe, tire; heavy metal 100% R15-17 southern half ; encompasses tree fall hold -feature 4 objects; Very small scatter; no visible subsurface remains; heavy leaf NW quadrant of site Cans, mason jar 11 No K27 1.98 x 2.00 litter; similar to Artifact Scatter 12 Partial Very small scatter; no visible subsurface remains; heavy leaf NW quadrant of site Cans, mason jar 12 No I27 1.42 x 1.84 litter; similar to Artifact Scatter 11 Partial Glass containers, whole and fragmented; NW quadrant of site Small scatter; heavy leaf litter; artifacts eroding from ground 13 No I27 3.57 x 3.66 cans Partial Glass bottles and jars, whole and Medium scatter, dense with artifacts, fairly clear boundaries;
NW quadrant of site fragmented; cans; ceramic sherds; 1951 likely a subsurface component due to overburden of organic 14 No G27 4.98 x 6.19 Partial license plate; enamel pot material; heavy cover of leaves, sticks, herbaceous growth E29 Glass bottles and jars, whole and
G29-31 NW quadrant of site fragmented; cans; broken toilet; tricycle; Large scatter, highly diverse content 15 No 8.29 x 16.50 Partial I29-31 ceramics; kerosene heater E of house; near dead tree; on old Glass bottles, fragmented; cans; ceramic Small scatter, dark midden soil 100% 16 Yes 1.05 x 1.20 'fence line' (F 17) sherds; bucket S of house and old road bed (F 11); Glass bottles, whole; pile of fencing Small scatter atop a pile of fencing Partial 17 No 2.13 x 3.38 near bamboo stand NW quadrant of site Glass jars, many whole Heavy leaf litter Partial 18 No M29-31 8.8 x 6.2 19 Yes W15 5 x 2.5 SE of house Glass bottles and jars; cans, spice can; Small scatter, dark midden soil; in and encompassing hole - 100% V15 ceramic sherds; enamel pot feature 3
129 CHAPTER EIGHT THE CEDAR SHAKE HOUSE SITE: ARTIFACTS
Artifacts were, without question, the most numerous and the most visible remnant of the historical past at the Cedar Shake House site. They surrounded the house, spread across the yard, and extended into the surrounding woods. Historical research indicates that the Cedar Shake House was once occupied by the Sawyer family, plantation employees and tenant farmers, and previously perchance by the Robinson family, land-owning farmers. A cursory inspection of glass bottles from the site indicates a highly visible second quarter of the 20th century occupation of the house; thus, the extensive artifact scatters and the majority of artifacts collected likely relate to the Sawyers. This artifact assemblage, then, relates to a relatively poor, rural, perhaps extended, African-American household, whose members had largely shifted from full-time farming to full-time wage labor. According to oral history informants, Henry Sawyer Jr. was the best paid of Maclay’s African-American employees. Theirs were the last generations of the historic African-American community to live on park lands, and among the last generations to live and work on local plantations.
Extensive yard middens are the most pervasive archaeological feature of rural farmsteads according to Moir et al, often covering 1500 – 3500 meters square (Moir 1987). Sheet refuse can account for 90 – 95% of all remains, and discrete features just 5 – 10%; artifacts associated with features are relatively few compared to those scattered around the larger area (1987:53). The Cedar Shake House scatters extended over approximately 7,700 meters square, including the 3,600 meter square ‘yard’ and the nine scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site, making it a more than typical early 20th century farmstead.
Artifacts in general sheet midden are often dismissed as being out of original context. Moir posits, however, that sheet midden possesses internal spatial patterning that can reveal activity areas, site configuration, and general information about traditional lifeways and refuse disposal practices (1987:54). In order to illuminate intra-site patterning, assemblages are subdivided based on function, class, type and material, and the distribution of specific groups of artifacts
130 across the site is mapped. Variations in artifact group distributions may assist in recreating the historic appearance and use of a site, the significance of which can then be explored.
Some archaeologists’ focus less on the physical patterning of artifacts and more on the symbolism, social significance, and interpretation of the presence of certain types of artifacts (Mullins 2002). Nonetheless, artifact assemblages must still be made manageable, observable, meaningful, and interpretable via classification into smaller groupings; even Mullins employs “standardized functional and stylistic descriptive conventions” (Mullins 2002:30). In an effort to provide raw artifact data for any number of different approaches to answering any number of different historical questions in the future, this project focused on describing and classifying the Cedar Shake House site artifact assemblage by location and function, class, type, material and other physical attributes. And given the Florida Park Service’s long-standing interest in recovering information about the site’s historic layout and use, intra-site artifact patterning is analyzed as well for the portions of the site that were 100% surface collected.
Artifact Scatters Revisited One hundred and thirteen of the two hundred and eleven collection units at the Cedar Shake House tested positive for containing surface artifacts (a total of 126 Field Specimen numbers), far more than encompassed by the artifact scatters on the base map (Figures 8.1 and 8,2). The site’s nineteen artifact scatters had been bounded and mapped during the pedestrian survey based on visual identification of artifacts in close physical association to each other. These nineteen artifact scatters included eight in the partially-collected northwest quadrant of the site (Artifact Scatters [AS] 1, 2, 11 – 15, and 18), ten in the 100%-collected portions of the site (AS 3 – 10, 16, and 19), and one in an un-surveyed area south of the site (AS 17). Additional vegetation removal during surface collection, however, revealed additional artifacts. Plotting artifact counts and weights from the 100%-collected units revealed a clearer picture of the density of artifacts across the site (Figures 8.3 and 8.4). The pedestrian survey had indeed located artifact scatters, but in actuality they were not as few, and not always as discrete or as small, as they initially appeared.
131
Figure 8.1. Collection Units Testing Positive for Surface Artifacts. Figure 8.2. Positive Units versus Artifact Scatters [AS] 1-19.
132
Figure 8.3. AS 1-19 versus Distribution of All Artifacts by Count. Figure 8.4. AS 1-19 versus Distribution of All Artifacts by Weight.
133 Distribution mapping by count revealed nine significant artifact concentrations in the 100%- collected area (AS A-I), versus the original ten (Table 8.1, Figures 8.5 and 8.6). In this project, a ‘concentration’ consisted of all units containing 30 or more artifacts plus any adjacent units with 20 or more. The newly configured artifact scatters encompassed most, but not all, of the original artifact scatters, plus several new areas. The ‘yard’ still contained seven scatters, although reconfigured: Artifact Scatter 9 was dropped due to low artifact numbers; Artifact Scatters 4, 16 and the eastern ‘fence line’ were combined (AS G); Artifact Scatter 19 was expanded to include the heavy deposit at the southeast corner of the building (AS F); two new concentrations to the north and west of the house were added (AS E and C); and the areas containing Artifact Scatters 7, 8, and 10 were expanded (AS A, B, and D). The larger area outside the yard now contained two instead of three scatters: Artifact Scatter 5 was dropped due to low artifact numbers, while the small, discrete Artifact Scatters 3 and 6 were retained (AS I and H).
Table 8.1. New Artifact Scatters A – I.
New Old In Scatter Scatter Collection Yard Units Location Description # # ? NW of house, near 'yard' Medium-sized scatter; over 90% kitchen- corner; near large, dead live related cans, bottles and jars; some N23 oak; just E of old 'fence line' building material; many complete A 8 100 Yes O23 and 'gate' (F 5, 12) specimens Medium-sized scatter, light density; over Q21 - 22 NW of house; just SW of old 96% kitchen-related bottles and jars; B 7 100 Yes R22 road bed (F 16) many complete specimens Medium-sized scatter, fairly dense; over 93% kitchen-related artifacts; high # of W of house; just E of old 'fence alcohol and transortation artifacts; very C 100 Yes O19 - 21 line' and 'gate' (F 5, 12) fragmented Large scatter, fairly dense; over 83% kitchen-related artifacts; remaining % Q16 - 18 Just W of house; just W of old diverse assortment of material; many D 10 100 Yes R15 - 17 'fence line' (F 18) complete specimens and fragments Medium-sized scatter; over 77% kitchen- related artifacts, some building artifacts; E 100 Yes T20 - 21 Just N of house very fragmented Medium-sized scatter; over 39% kitchen- related artifacts, including tableware; SE of house; near SE corner of almost 50% building-related (window F 19 100 Yes V15 - 17 Kitchen addition glass); buttons and gravel Large linear scatter; over 67% kitchen- E of house; on old 'fence line' related artifacts, remaining % diverse G 4, 16 100 Yes X16 - 21 (F17) assortment of material; very fragmented Small scatter, very dense; over 45% kitchen-related artifacts; remaining % N of house, 'yard', and AS 5; diverse assortment of material; many H 6 100 No U31 just E of old road bed (F 16) complete specimens Small scatter; almost 100% kitchen- I 3 100 No O29 NW quadrant of site related bottles, jars and cans
134
Figure 8.5. New Artifact Scatters A-I versus Old AS 1-19. Figure 8.6. New AS A-I and New Midden Areas 1-7.
135 The Cedar Shake House site can be characterized as being covered by a swath of light to moderately dense sheet midden punctuated by these nine heavy artifact concentrations. Distribution mapping by weight revealed that the general midden was lightest in the small front and back yards north and south of the house, the immediate side yard to the west, and the outer perimeter of the sheet midden. There was also a light swath of midden just outside the ‘yard’ to the north of an anomalous artifact-free area. The area to the west of the house between Artifacts Scatters A, B, C, and D contained the heaviest general sheet midden. In this project, the general sheet midden was divided into seven sections in order to facilitate artifact distribution analysis. (Figure 8.6). The seven general sheet midden areas include the immediate side (west) and back (south) ‘yard’ (Midden 1), the west half of the ‘yard’ and site with the majority of artifact concentrations (Midden 2), the ‘front’ (north) yard (Midden 3), the southeast corner of the ‘yard’ behind the Kitchen addition (Midden 4), the area just north of the ‘yard’ (Midden 5), the larger outlying area north of the yard (Midden 6), and the area between the partially-collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site (Midden 7). On the figures, the middens are rectangular shapes outlined in heavy black lines.
As notable as the additional artifacts encountered during surface collection are the units with none whatsoever (Figure 8.1). There are three large areas that are relatively artifact-free. The southwest corner of the site was a heavily overgrown, brambly area that may once have been part of the ‘yard;’ the absence of artifacts may indicate that it was kept clean for a particular use or that it was already too overgrown for even trash disposal during the site’s final occupation. The northeast quadrant of the site is a heavily wooded area with remnant fencing along the eastern edge, an area perhaps once used for animal or other enclosures or perhaps just not used. Finally, there is an anomalous rectangular area inside the ‘yard’ just north of the house and west of the outbuilding, possibly a swept front yard. The negative units immediately to the east and north of the house were inaccessible due to fallen debris, and not necessarily artifact-free.
Artifact Classification and Distribution by Functional Group The Surface Collection artifact assemblage from the Cedar Shake House site totaled 4,778 objects and weighed 278.3 kilograms. Six hundred and seventy-two representative artifacts were recovered from eight partially-collected scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site, which
136 comprised 14.1% of the total surface collection by count, and 34.56% by weight. This sample’s disproportionate weight was the result of the selective recovery of primarily whole versus fragmented bottles, plus several large heavy metal objects. The remaining 4,106 artifacts, (85.9% of the total surface collection by count, 65.44% by weight), came from the rest of the site, which was 100% surface collected. This assemblage contained a wide assortment of different types of artifacts whose characterization was accomplished through classification using a modified version of Stanley South’s functional groups.
The following section presents and describes the thirteen functional groups used to classify artifacts in this project, as well as the artifacts themselves from the 100%-collected areas that are classified under each. Artifacts from the partially-collected scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site are mentioned on occasion if they contribute new or interesting information to the discussion. Every artifact has been classified under a functional group and in six cases into a functional sub-group as well. Every artifact has also been assigned a class and type under their respective functional group. The specific sub-groups, classes, types, and materials under each functional group are discussed in some detail in terms of distinguishing characteristics, weight and count totals, and subset or total assemblage percentages. The data basis for all assertions can be found in a series of tables at the end of this chapter, which are predicated upon the Artifact Catalog (Appendix B). Each table presents the artifact classification in increasingly more detail, from the most basic division of the assemblage into functional groups (Tables C.1-C.2), to its further division into sub-groups (Table C.3), class (Table C.4), and type (Table C.5). There are additional tables for those functional groups whose primary distinguishing characteristic is material, namely tableware (Tables C.6-C.8) and natural resources (Tables C.9-C.11). Pictures of certain artifacts have been included to bring the assemblage to life, which in some instances are compared with images of historical objects taken at the historic Smallwood Store Museum in Chokoloskee, Florida, or from the internet.
The following section also presents location information for artifacts from 100%-collected areas, including count and weight totals per unit for each functional group, and the distribution of subsets of artifacts across the site by functional group, and sometimes by sub-group, class, type, and material as well depending on the diversity of artifacts in each group. Additionally, the
137 occurrence of artifacts from each functional group and its subsets is discussed in terms of percentages and/or preponderance in various artifact scatters and areas of general sheet midden. The data basis for all assertions can be also found in part in a series of tables at the end of this chapter, which are predicated upon the Artifact Catalog (Appendix B). Each tables presents location and classification information for artifacts (by count only) for both functional groups and scatters and middens in order to highlight how much of what was found where, from the most basic division of the assemblage into functional groups (Tables C.12-C.13), to its further division into sub-groups (Tables C.14-C.15), and classes (Tables C.16-C.17). Again, there are additional tables for tableware (Tables C.18-C.19) and natural resources (Tables C.20-C.21) by material. The distribution of artifacts is also presented in a series of figures interspersed throughout this chapter, which show counts and weights per positive collection unit, and their location across the site by functional group and sometimes sub-group, class, type and material.
This section contains information about the material culture associated with the early to mid- twentieth century occupants of this site, including what types of objects and products were used in their household, and in what quantities and where they were found. Of interest is what light this data can shed on various aspects of their lives and the past. While no specific research questions have been posed, the artifacts may reveal additional information about with whom various scatters are associated, with what activities they are connected, and the preferences of and choices available to former occupants. The artifacts may also contribute towards developing baseline data about typical early twentieth-century, rural, African-American artifact assemblages from the Red Hills of Florida, as well as highlight unique aspects of the assemblage explained only by the site’s unique larger context. Towards this end, preliminary interpretation of the data is included under each functional group.
Functional Group #1: Activities All artifacts were once employed for some human activity or purpose. Activities artifacts, however, specifically relate to activities not captured by other functional groups, or that a study wants to highlight. In this project, the Activities Functional Group was broken down into two sub-groups: Entertainment, which included activities associated with leisure time or leisurely activities that could be undertaken at any time, and Subsistence, which included non-agricultural,
138 non-munitions-related means of procuring food. The Entertainment Sub-Group was further subdivided into three classes –Musical Instruments, Smoking, and Toys, and the Subsistence group into Fishing.
Of the area 100% collected, 17 artifacts were classified in the Figure 8.7. Tobacco tin, Catalog #152.98. Activities Group, which accounted for .4% of the total assemblage by count and .1% by weight (Tables C.1-C.5). Entertainment artifacts (16 total) comprised the largest portion of this functional group by both count and weight, and included toy car and truck fragments, a tobacco tin, and a harmonica reed plate. The one Subsistence artifact was a fishing pole reel, associated with an activity that certainly qualifies as entertainment in certain instances.
Figure 8.8. Prince Albert The majority of Activities artifacts (76.5%) were located in artifact tobacco tin. Source: Smallwood Store. scatters (Tables C.12-C.17, Figures 8.11-8.13). The greatest concentration of Activities artifacts by count was six toy vehicle fragments in Artifact Scatter F at the southeast corner of the building addition, and by weight was the fishing reel and tobacco tin in Artifact Scatter H approximately sixty meters north of the house. The harmonica piece was found in Artifact Scatter G just northeast of the house. Additional toy fragments were located in Artifact
Scatters E and B north and northeast of the house, as well as in Figure 8.9. Toy Truck, similar to Catalog #89.4. Middens 1 and 2, south and west of the house. Source Smallwood Store.
The Activities artifacts recovered from the Cedar Shake House site represent both adult and child activities, past-times and the work of living. A harmonica produces music, for the pleasure of both player and listener, and generally requires the use of both hands, a respite then from their toil. Smoking is enjoyed by young and old alike, during work and rest. Fishing the nearby lakes was a means of sustenance for the local community, and sport for more genteel visitors to the area. The toy car and truck indicate the presence of children, and their scattered location around
139 the house corresponds with the yard in which a child is most likely to play. The location of other Activities artifacts in artifact scatters suggest intentional disposal.
Functional Group #2: Building Building artifacts relate to the physical components of a structure, including but not limited to its foundation, frame, flooring, siding and roof; its door and window openings; its various systems such as plumbing, electrical, heating and cooling; and the fasteners used to hold it all together. In this project, the Building group was broken down into seven classes, including Door, Fastener, Gravel, Masonry, Roofing, Sheathing/Flashing, and Window. The group includes a possible landscaping element (gravel) designed to protect the structure from erosion.
Of the area 100% collected, 569 artifacts were classified in the
Figure 8.10. Door Knob Building group, which accounted for 13.9% of the total assemblage and Plate, Catalog #152.84. by count and 7.8% by weight (Tables C.1-C.5). Window glass (472 total) comprised the largest portion of this group by count (81.9%), and second largest by weight (40.3%). Masonry (58 total) comprised the largest portion of this group by weight (50.3%), and second largest by count (10.2%). Window glass included thick and thin pane, from clear to aqua in color. Masonry included brick, mortar and cement. Other Building artifacts recovered include two door knob plates, eight cut and wire nails, limestone gravel, tin roofing, sheathing/flashing, and window screen.
The vast majority of Building artifacts (93.7%) were located in artifact scatters, and the vast majority of Artifact Scatters contained Building artifacts (Tables C.12-C.17, Figures 8.14-8.16). The highest concentrations of Building artifacts by both count and weight were window glass in Artifact Scatters F and H (30% each) (Figures 10 and 11). Artifact Scatters G to the east and D to the west of the house also contained sizeable numbers of Building artifacts, majority window glass. Only Artifact Scatters B and I to the northeast of the house contained none. The majority of Building artifacts in the general sheet midden was located in the ‘yard’ just south of the house.
140 Another area of note, though sparser, is the concrete and brick fragments found in Midden 5, interesting for its location just north of an anomalous artifact-free area.
With the major exception of Artifact Scatter H, almost all types of Building artifacts were clustered within 15 to 20 meters of all sides of the Cedar Shake House (Figure 8.16). The door knob plates, recovered from Artifact Scatter H, and the sheathing/flashing, recovered from Artifact Scatter C to the east of the house, were the only types not found nearby the structure. Nails were found to the north (AS F), east (AS G), and south (AS F) of the structure. Tin roofing was found along with other building material near the eastern ‘fence line’ (AS G), just north of the front porch (Unit T19), and just outside the northwest corner of the ‘yard’. Building artifacts in three areas warrant further investigation, including the masonry in Midden 5 and the roofing and brick just outside the northwest corner of the ‘yard’ for evidence of additional structures, and the limestone gravel at the southeast corner of the addition for function.
In general, the Building artifacts appear to be similar to the physical fabric of the Cedar Shake House, and their nearby location suggests that the house is the point of origin. Brick, mortar and cement fragments match the house’s piers and chimney. The broken window glass at the base of the southeast corner of the addition may once have filled the empty window frames, and the tin roofing near the porch may once have covered it. The window glass and the door knobs in the distant Artifact Scatter H may suggest that the house was partially dismantled and trashed at some point. The Lake Overstreet property was used as a hunting preserve prior to state acquisition; it is possible that the house was altered to serve as a hunting blind. Conversely, the window glass and masonry in nearby scatters and midden may also suggest that the house naturally deteriorated into its surrounds over time. It is also interesting to note that an electrical junction box was found in the partially-collection northwest quadrant of the site (AS 15), lending further credence to the hypothesis that these scatters are not household refuse associated with the Cedar Shake House, which bears no sign of ever having electricity.
141
Figure 8.11. Distribution of Activities Functional Group by Count. Figure 8.12. Distribution of Activities Functional Group by Weight.
142
Figure 8.13. Distribution of Activities Functional Group by Class. Figure 8.14. Distribution of Building Functional Group by Count.
143
Figure 8.15. Distribution of Building Functional Group by Weight. Figure 8.16. Distribution of Building Functional Group by Class.
144 Functional Group 3 –Clothing Clothing artifacts relate to garments and other articles of dress worn for cover or decoration. In this project, the Clothing group was broken down into three classes, including Shoes, Buttons and Hangers. The group includes an accessory (hanger) used for clothing storage.
Of the area 100% collected, 13 artifacts were classified in the Clothing group, which accounted for .3% of the total assemblage by count and .2% by weight (Tables C.1-C.5). Shoe fragments (8 total) comprised the largest portion of this group by both count (61.5%) and weight (64%), including soles, insoles, heels, uppers and grommets made of leather, rubber and metal. Without exception, the shoes were black leather, in both large and small sizes. The three wire hangers resemble those still in use today. Both buttons are plastic and round, including one that is tan with 2-holes and one that is black with 4-holes.
The vast majority of Clothing artifacts (12 total) were located in artifact scatters; the only exception was a shoe fragment located
directly between two nearby scatters (Tables C.12-C.17, Figures 8.21- Figure 8.17. Shoe Soles, Catalog #74.27. 8.23). The greatest concentration of Clothing artifacts by both count and weight was the shoes and hangers in Artifact Scatter D. Artifact Scatter H also contained shoes. The buttons were found in Artifact Scatter F at the building addition’s southeast corner. Eleven more shoe fragments and a hanger were also found in the partially-collected artifact scatters located in the northwest quadrant of the site.
Very little clothing is represented in the artifact assemblage, possibly indicating the long-term retention and reuse of clothing. All of the shoes recovered were similar, plain and utilitarian. The shoes and hangers found in the scatters nearby the house and in the northwest quadrant of the site match, suggesting similar origin or users. The various shoe sizes represent men and women or adults and children. The buttons are large, more likely coming from women’s dress. The presence of shoes and hangers in artifact scatters suggests intentional disposal. The buttons were also found in an artifact scatter (AS F), but that buttons tend to be retained may suggest these were inadvertently lost near the corner of the kitchen, a possible ‘activity’ area.
145 Functional Group 4 –Farmstead Farmstead artifacts relate to objects employed in the operation and maintenance of a farm, including the building complex, the grounds, and the plants and animals raised. Some of these artifacts may also have been used for non-farm purposes, and may also overlap with the material culture of a non-farming household. In this project, the Farmstead Group was broken down into two classes, including Tools and Insecticide.
Of the area 100% collected, 5 artifacts were classified in the Farmstead group, which accounted for .1% of the total assemblage by count and 2.2% by weight (Tables C.1-C.5). Tools (4 total) comprised the largest portion of this group by both count (80%) and weight (96.6%), including
two buckets, a shovel fragment, and a post-hole digger blade. All of the Figure 8.18. Post Hole Digger, Catalog #76.4. tools consisted of only the primary metal components, heavily corroded,
sans wooden handles. The fifth artifact was a small clear bottle with “Black Leaf” embossed on the base, a largely obsolete insecticide whose principal ingredient was nicotine (Cornell University 1985).
The vast majority of Farmstead artifacts (80%) were located in artifact scatters that were near the house (Tables C.12- Figure 8.19. Bucket, Catalog #55.45 C.17, Figures 8.24-8.26). A post hole digger and a shovel were found in Artifact Scatter D just to the west of the house, and a bucket and the insecticide were found in Artifact Scatter G along the eastern ‘fence line.’ A lone bucket was found just west of the ‘yard’ along the western boundary of the sheet midden, an area with lots of fencing that warrants further investigation to discern its former function, if any beyond, mere dumping ground. Two more farmstead artifacts, a chisel and a bucket, were found in the partially-collected area in the northwest quadrant of the site.
The Farmstead tools found at the Cedar Shake House could have been used for a wide variety of purposes –post hole diggers for placing a fence post, sinking a pier, or planting a tree; shovels for digging holes or turning garden soil; buckets for fetching water or catching milk; and insecticide
146 for treating field or ornamental garden. It is possible that the former tenants used the tools at home, and carried them with for use on the job.
Functional Group 5 –Hardware Hardware artifacts relate to metal parts and fittings that reinforce or facilitate another object’s structure or operation. In this project, the Hardware group encompassed metalware some of which could be identified, but none whose former use has been determined. In a sense, it is serves as a catch-all group for metal miscellanea.
Of the area 100% collected, 15 artifacts were classified in the Hardware group, which accounted for .4% of the total assemblage by count and 1.1% by weight (Tables C.1-C.5). Strapping (6 total) and Figure 8.20. Wrought Iron Hinge, Catalog #44.4. unidentified miscellanea (5 total) comprised the largest portion of this group by count (40 % and 33.3% respectively), and fasteners by weight (65.9%) thanks to a large wrought iron hinge. Hardware artifacts also included a scrap of fencing, a spring coil, a D-ring, hinge, hook, latch, and wire fragments.
The vast majority of Hardware artifacts (14 total) were located in artifact scatters (Tables C.12- C.17, Figures 8.27-8.29). The greatest concentration of Hardware artifacts by count was strapping and unidentified miscellanea in Artifact Scatter H far north of the house, and by weight was the wrought iron hinge just outside the northwest corner of the yard (Unit L24). Barbed wire (Unit X21) was found to the east of house in Artifact Scatter G, and various metalware was found in Artifact Scatters C, D and E to the north and west of the house. No hardware was recovered from the partially-collected areas.
The undetermined nature of most of the recovered hardware leaves little to be said. The barbed wire appears to correspond with the possible ‘fence line’ along the eastern boundary of the ‘yard.’ The large hinge was found near piles of fencing and two metal stakes protruding from the ground along the site’s western boundary, possibly related to a swinging gate and fence line in the area.
147
Figure 8.21. Distribution of Clothing Functional Group by Count. Figure 8.22. Distribution of Clothing Functional Group by Weight.
148
Figure 8.23. Distribution of Clothing Functional Group by Class. Figure 8.24. Distribution of Farmstead Functional Group by Count.
149
Figure 8.25. Distribution of Farmstead Functional Group by Weight. Figure 8.26. Distribution of Farmstead Functional Group by Class and Type.
150
Figure 8.27. Distribution of Hardware Functional Group by Count. Figure 8.28. Distribution of Hardware Functional Group by Weight.
151 Functional Group 6 –Household Household artifacts relate to furnishings, or activity that occurred on a day-to-day basis, inside the household. In large part, these objects were utilitarian, employed to maintain and improve living conditions and health, whether to remedy sickness, the dark, dirt or cold. Some objects, however, improved life beyond meeting basic needs, beautifying hair and skin, filling the air with music, and serving as décor. These objects were both consumables intended for one-time use, and equipment reused repeatedly over time. In this project, the Household group was broken down into seven functional sub-groups, including Childcare, Cleaning, Entertainment, Lighting, Medicine, Toiletry and a catch-all with no designation None. These seven sub- groups were further broken down into sixteen classes. Figure 8.29. Distribution of Hardware Functional Group by Class. Of the area 100% collected, 387 artifacts were classified in the Household group, which accounted for 9.4% of the total assemblage by count and 8.1% by weight (Tables C.1-C.5). The Lighting sub-group (197 total) comprised the largest portion of this group by count (50.9%), followed by the None (17.1%) and Medicine (11.6%) sub-groups. In terms of weight, None artifacts comprised the largest portion of this group (33.1%), followed by Cleaning (29.9%) and Medicine (16.5%). Childcare artifacts (3 total) comprised the smallest portion of this group by count (.8%), and Entertainment (18 total) artifacts by weight (3%). Household artifacts were located in every artifact scatter and every
152 midden area at the site but one –Artifact Scatter I in the north half of the site, which contained only unidentified kitchen artifacts (Tables C.12-C.17, Figures 8.44 and 8.45). Household artifacts were found in the greatest concentration by both count and weight in Artifact H far north of the house, while Artifact Scatters D just to the west of the house and Artifact Scatter G along the eastern ‘fence line’ had a moderate amount. Four midden areas contained light numbers of Household artifacts –Midden 1 south of the house, Midden 2 and 3 between the artifact scatters, and Midden 5 just north of the ‘yard.
Functional Sub-Group –Childcare. The Childcare Sub-Group includes products and paraphernalia associated with caring for an infant or toddler. It was subdivided into three classes, including Bottles, Cans and Jars. Three artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for .8% of the Household group by count and 1.1% by weights (Tables C.3-C.5). These three artifacts were found in disparate parts of the site, and only one in an artifact scatter (Figure 8.46). A Fletcher’s Castoria bottle, a children’s laxative, was found in Artifact Scatter F at the southeast corner of the building addition; a jar of McKesson’s Fuller’s Earth Dusting Powder, used to prevent diaper rashes, was found in Midden 5 just north of the ‘yard;’ and a can of Johnson’s & Johnson’s Baby Powder was found in the northwest quadrant of the Figure 8.30. McKesson’s site (Unit K29). Additionally, a baby bottle was found by itself in an Fuller’s Earth, Similar to Catalog #101.2. Source: adjacent, partially-collected unit (K27). Smallwood Store.
The childcare products indicate the presence of one or more children, possibly Annie and Henry Sawyer, Jr.’s children or grandchildren. The very low number of Childcare artifacts suggest that on-site childcare at that point was only part-time or that the family used only a limited number of store-bought childcare products; it is likely, however, that at least a few of the unidentified bottles and jars in the assemblage also once contained childcare products, including baby food. Figure 8.31. Baby Powder, Catalog #39.1.
153 Functional Sub-Group –Cleaning. The Cleaning Sub-Group includes products and paraphernalia associated with the act of removing dirt, stains, etc. Thirty-seven artifacts, including 11 complete bottles, were classified as such, which accounted for 9.6% of the Household group by count at 30.9% by weight (Tables C.3-C.5). The Cleaning Sub-Group consisted of only one class –Bottles. Four of the complete bottles were clear glass, three in the shape of a typical bleach bottle and one small Carbona Cleaning Fluid bottle. The remaining complete and fragmentary bottles were amber-colored, bleach-shaped bottles, many of them Clorox brand. The majority of Cleaning artifacts (78.4%) were located in Artifact Scatters D, F, and G to the east and west of the house (Figure 8.47). Several were also found in Midden 2 between the Figure 8.32. Clorox Bleach Bottle, Catalog artifact scatters west of the house. The Carbona Cleaning Fluid bottle #152.3. was the only Cleaning artifact recovered from the vicinity of Artifact Scatter A in the northwest corner of the ‘yard.’ There was only one Cleaning artifact, a brown bleach bottle, noted and recovered from the partially-collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site, a notably different frequency than found around the house. The bleach bottles date to the 1940s and early 1950s. The bottles’ location around the house versus in the northwest artifact scatters suggests household usage. Estelle Sawyer indicated that Henry Sawyer Jr.’s sister Pinkie, a laundress for the Maclays, lived in the Cedar Shake House at one point; the Maclay family, however, had a separate laundry building behind their house (TJC 1999:E1 E26).
Functional Sub-Group –Entertainment. The Entertainment Sub-Group includes items related to passive recreation. Eighteen artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for 4.7% of the Household group by count and .3% by weight. The Entertainment Sub-Group consisted of only one class –Music. All of these artifacts were black, grooved plastic record album fragments, which were concentrated in Artifact Scatter D (13 total) to the west of the house (Figure 8.48). The remaining pieces were located around the house inside the yard , including Artifact Scatter G, and Middens 1 and 2. Only one record fragment was recovered from the partially-collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site. The tenants of the Cedar Shake House may have had a battery-operated or wind-up record player.
154
Functional Sub-Group –Lighting. The Lighting Sub- Group includes items that functioned to generate light. One hundred and ninety-seven artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for 50.9% of the Household group by count and 11.7% by weight (Tables C.3-C.5). The Lighting
Sub-Group consisted of four classes, including Electrical Figure 8.33. Oil Lamp Wall Bracket, Catalog #60.21. (light bulbs), Flashlight, Lamp (shades), and Oil Lamp. Oil Lamp artifacts (133 total) comprised the largest portion of
this sub-group by count (67.5%) and weight (50.3%), including chimney, collar, font and burner fragments. Lamp artifacts (60 total) were the second most prevalent type of Lighting artifact, consisting of mostly white, patterned shade fragments that could fit an electrical light
Figure 8.34. Oil Lamp Wall Bracket; but more than likely shaded an oil lamp,. Two metal Source: www.antiquemystique.com. flashlight tubes and two small light bulbs comprised the
smallest portion of this sub-group. The vast majority of Lighting artifacts (88.8%) were found in artifact scatters, with the greatest concentrations in Artifact Scatter H (81 total) far north of the house and Artifact Scatter G (47 total) along the eastern ‘fence line’ (Figure 8.49). Most Lighting artifacts were located in the yard within a 15- meter radius of the house, including several in the front and back yards (Middens 1 and 3). No structural evidence has been found to date that the Cedar Shake House had electricity. The Lighting artifacts that surround the house suggest instead that tenants lit their environs through other means, namely oil lamps, and flashlights too.
Functional Sub-Group –Medicine. The Medicine Sub-Group includes products ingested for their curative or ameliorative value. Forty-five artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for 11.6% of the Household group by count and 16.5% by weight (Tables C.3-C.5). The Medicine Sub-Group consisted of two classes –Bottles and Jars. Bottles (36 total, including five complete specimens) comprised the largest portion of this sub-group by both count (80%) and weight (74.4%). The bottles were mostly a variety of rectangular and ovoid clear glass with a
155 flared or flanged pharmaceutical lip. Two specific brand products were identified –McElree’s Cardui and Bayer’s Aspirin, as were four drug manufacturers –The J. R. Watkins Company, Rawleigh’s, Lydia E. Pinkham’s, and Rexall. The nine jars, all complete specimens, were Vaseline, most made by Cheesebrough. All but two Medicine artifacts were found in artifact scatters. The heaviest concentration by both
count (66.7%) and weight (56.4%) was in Artifact Scatter H (30 total) Figure 8.35. Rawleigh’s Pharmacuetical Bottle, approximately 60 meters north of the house. Much smaller amounts Catalog #28.13. were found in artifact scatters around the house, including Artifact Scatter D (six total) to the west, Artifact Scatter E (three total) to the north, and Artifact Scatters A and F (one each) to the northwest and south. Only two were found in midden areas, both in the north end of the site. Twenty-nine Medicine artifacts were also recovered from the scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site, including Cardui, Creomulsion Cough Syrup, and Vaseline.
The medicine assemblage reflects the consumption of store-bought remedies –a few were name brands, a few more drug store concoctions, and most unidentified types. It is unknown whether these products were used as popularly advertised, or in a distinctly African-American or folk way. It is also unknown what other, non-commercial items residents stocked their ‘medicine chest’ with, such as curative or magical herbs, foods and objects. Some medicines may also have been used for non-medicinal purposes, including Vaseline for its cosmetic or lubricating properties and elixirs for their alcohol content. Two products in particular were specifically marketed to women to remedy ‘female complaints’ –their herbal ingredients and high proof spirits garnered positive reviews (Wikipedia 2008a). Relatively few Medicine artifacts were found in the vicinity of the house; if indeed the artifact scatters in the north end of the site are not household refuse associated with the Cedar Shake House, a point still in question, the remaining artifact assemblage reflects low consumption of commercial medicines.
Functional Sub-Group –Toiletry. The Toiletry Sub-Group includes consumable products used topically, typically to clean, moisturize, perfume, or decorate the body. Twenty-one artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for 5.4% of the Household group by count and 7.7% by weight (Tables C.3-C.5). The Toiletry Sub-Group consisted of three classes, including Bottles,
156 Cans and Jars. Jars (19 total, including six complete specimens) comprised the largest portion of this sub-group by far by both count (90.5%) and weight (96%), All but two jars were small, white ovoid cosmetic jars made of white milk glass, likely creams or lotions, including the brands Pond’s, Woodbury and Woodbridge. The remaining two were a clear Moroline jar and a blue Noxzema Shaving Cream jar. The Toiletry Sub-Group also included a tall rectangular powder canister with a brass cap, and a small molded glass perfume bottle. The majority of Toiletry artifacts (76.2%) were located in
Figure 8.36. Powder artifacts scatters, with the greatest concentration by both count (56.3%) canister, Catalog #152.104. and weight (34.5%) in Artifact Scatter D just west of the house,
followed by Artifact Scatter H (4 total) far north of the house (Figure 8.46). Smaller numbers of toiletry items were also found in other scatters and middens around the house. Ten Toiletry artifacts were also recovered from the partially-collected artifacts in the northwest quadrant of the site, including similar small white cosmetic jars, and clear glass lotion bottles, a metal powder can, and a small tube of toothpaste.
The Toiletry artifacts, in combination with the Medicine and Childcare
artifacts, indicate the likelihood that a woman (or women) once lived in Figure 8.37. Talcum the Cedar Shake House. The small perfume bottle found just in front of Powder. Source: Smallwood Store. the house has a patent date of May 18, 1934, perhaps once belonging to
Annie Sawyer and her daughters Anna and Josephine. Conversely, the shaving cream may indicate the presence of either a man or woman. Moroline, a petroleum jelly, was commonly used by both sexes for hair care and first-aid, a type of ‘ethnic marker’ at historic sites in certain instances (Wilke 2000). It is also possible that some of the jars
contained popular creams marketed to African-American women to
Figure 8.38. Cosmetic lighten their skin. The residents of the Cedar Shake House had enough Jar, Catalog #78.8. disposable income to purchase at least some toiletries from the market.
157 Functional Sub-Group –None. Ungrouped artifacts formed a default sub-group. The None Sub-Group was a catch-all of miscellaneous items. Sixty-six artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for 17.1% of the Household group by count and
34.1% by weight (Tables C.3-C.5). The None Sub-Group consisted Figure 8.39. Stove Pipe, Catalog #78.13. of eleven classes, the most numerous and diverse range of classes in
the Household Functional Group by far, including Battery, Bottles, Bric-a-brac, Cans, Chamber Pot, Clock, Flower Pot, Fuel, Jars, Shelf Paper, and Stove. Batteries (26 total) comprised the largest portion of this sub-group by count (39.4%), followed by stove (10 total) and can (seven total) fragments. Two chamber pots comprised
the largest portion of this sub-group by weight (23.7%), followed Figure 8.40. Enamel Chamber Pot, Catalog closely by batteries (23%). The vast majority of None artifacts #41.5. (86.4%) were located in artifact scatters (Figure 8.50). The largest
concentration of None artifacts by count and weight was in Artifact Scatter D (28 total) just to the west of the house, followed by Artifact Scatter H (8 total) to the far north. Every midden area but Midden 6 directly north of the ‘yard’ contained at least one unclassified artifact; Midden 3 directly in front of the house contained the most at three. The lightest occurrence of None
artifacts was in Artifact Scatter I (none) north of the yard, and Figure 8.41. Figurine, Catalog #55.34. Artifact Scatter G (one total) along the eastern ‘fence line.’
The None Sub-Group contained a wide assortment of artifacts located in a wide range of places across the site. Small dry-cell batteries with graphite rods were found almost exclusively in Artifact Scatter D just west of the house. A Bostonian Shoe Cream
bottle was found near the partially-collected artifact scatters in the Figure 8.42. Ink Jar, Catalog #29.20. northwest quadrant of the site, and an ink bottle was found in Artifact Scatter C to the west of the house. Two ceramic figurine
158
fragments (bric-a-brac) were found in Artifact Scatter D and Artifact Scatter F at the southeast corner of the house. Paint cans and jars, some still containing dried paint, were found in the greatest numbers in Artifact Scatter H far north of the house. One enameled chamber pot was found in a shallow depression (Feature 4) southeast of the house just outside Artifact Scatter F, and another in Midden 5 just north of the ‘yard.’ Possible clock gear plates were found just north and southeast of the house in and around Artifact Scatters E and F. A terra cotta flower pot fragment was found in Artifact Scatter G northeast of the house, and another non-matching fragment in Artifact Scatter D to the west. Two coal fragments were found in the front yard (Midden 3) to the north of the house. Colorful shelf paper was found in Artifact Scatter F at the southeast corner of the Kitchen addition. Metal stove pipe was found just west of the house in Artifact Scatter D, and further west in Artifact Scatter A. Twenty-three None artifacts were also recovered from the partially- collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site, including another ink bottle, and more bric-a-brac and chamber pots.
Figure 8.43. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Count.
159
Figure 8.44. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Weight. Figure 8.45. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Toiletry, Medicine, and Childcare Sub-Groups.
160
Figure 8.46. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Figure 8.47. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Cleaning Sub-Group. Entertainment Sub-Group.
161
Figure 8.48. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Figure 8.49. Distribution of Household Functional Group by Lighting Sub-Group. None Sub-Group.
162
Functional Group 7 –Kitchen Kitchen artifacts relate to items used in the preparation, serving and storage of food, as well as to food itself. Cans, bottles and jars predominate at many late 19th- mid-20th century sites as consumer products and prepackaged foods became widely available and accessible to the masses. These containers were sometimes modified and reused, but more often were disposed of upon consumption of their contents (Mullins 2006). Conversely, cookware and tableware tend to occur in lower frequencies as these items were retained and reused over longer periods of time in the days before the advent of cheap, disposable plastic ware. In this project, the Kitchen group was broken down into seven functional sub-groups, including Alcohol, Drink, Food, Food Preparation, None, Soft Drink, and Tableware These seven sub-groups were further broken down into seventeen classes.
Of the area 100% collected, 874 artifacts were classified in the Kitchen Group, which accounted for 21.3% of the total assemblage by count and 37% by weight (Tables C.1-C.5). These numbers rise dramatically to 2,997 artifacts (73% by count, 76.7% by weight) if unidentified bottles, cans, containers, jars and vessels are included
in the Kitchen count, as is done in some studies (Orser 1988) Figure 8.50. Example of Non- Kitchen Container: Starch. (Table C.2). In this project, however, the Kitchen Group does not Source: Smallwood Store. include unidentified artifacts, as research has proven that a variety of mass-produced goods could be packaged in similar glass containers (Figures 8.51, 8.52, 8.72, and 8.73). Instead, only clearly identifiable food-related containers are included here; unidentified containers, many likely kitchen-related, are discussed under a separate functional group.
Figure 8.51. Example of Non- Kitchen Container: Chicken The Alcohol Sub-Group (571 total) comprised the largest portion Feeder. Source: Smallwood of the Kitchen Group by both count (65.3%) and weight (66.6%). Store. Glass Drink (10.1%) and Soft Drink (8.4%) bottles followed in weight, while Tableware (14.6%) followed in count. The Food
163 Preparation and None Groups comprised the smallest portions of this group by count and weight. The vast majority of Kitchen artifacts (87.9%) was located in artifacts scatters, with the greatest concentrations west of the house in Artifact Scatter D (337 total) and Artifact Scatter C (174 total) (Tables C.12-C.17, Figures 8.65-8.73). Moderate amounts were found in Artifact Scatter G (74 total) along the eastern ‘fence line’ and Artifact Scatter H (75 total) far north of the house. Every other artifact scatter in the ‘yard’ contained at least twenty plus Kitchen artifacts. The general sheet midden was heaviest around the scatters west of the house (Midden 2), and moderate in front of the house (Midden 3) and behind the kitchen addition (Midden 4). Two hundred and forty-four Kitchen artifacts were also collected from the partially-collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site.
Functional Sub-Group –Alcohol. The Alcohol Sub-Group includes products manufactured and sold as legitimate alcoholic consumables. Other products that contained alcohol and were probably consumed in part for their alcoholic content, such as medicinal elixirs, were grouped under Household Medicine. Five hundred and seventy-one artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for 65.3% of the Kitchen Group by count and 66.6% by weight (Tables C.3-C.5). The Alcohol Sub-Group consisted of two classes –Bottles and Cans, which were further subdivided into eight types. Bottles (543 total, including 56
complete specimens) comprised the larger portion of this sub-group by Figure 8.52. Beer Bottle, both count (96.9%) and weight (64.3%). The vast majority (89%) of Catalog #88.4. Alcohol artifacts was located in artifact scatters, with the greatest concentrations in Artifact Scatters D (268 total) and C (141 total), followed by Artifact Scatter H (39 total) (Figure 8.67). Every other artifact scatter in the ‘yard’ contained between six and twenty Alcohol artifacts, as did every midden in the ‘yard,’ particularly around the artifact scatters west of the house.
Bottled alcoholic drinks included beer, wine and liquor, including gin, vermouth, whiskey, and bourbon. The most prolific types by count and weight in descending order were beer, unidentified liquors, and whiskey, while bourbon was the scantest type (Figure 8.53). Bottles
164 were concentrated in Artifact Scatters C and D to the west of the house, and Artifact Scatter H to the north. Beer cans, including older cone-tops and newer pull-tabs, as well as cans that the consumer themselves had to open, were concentrated in Artifact Scatter D. One hundred and twenty seven Alcohol artifacts were also recovered from the partially-collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site, including liquor, beer and wine bottles.
Alcohol artifacts were the most prevalent type of food or drink container found at the site. This appears to hold true even if the unidentified bottles, jars and cans are considered Kitchen artifacts. While it is possible that the high numbers of Alcohol bottles in the artifacts scatters west of the house represent post-abandonment trash disposal by nearby residents or hunters, the majority of datable bottles (1930s – 1940s) date to a period of suspected tenancy by the Sawyer family. It is also possible that the alcohol bottles in the northwest quadrant of the site represent others’ trash collected by Henry Sawyer Jr. during work hours, but alcohol bottles’ presence among other household refuse believed to be associated with the former tenants indicates that at least some are related to household consumption, particularly of hard liquor.
Functional Sub-Group –Soft Drink. Thirty-nine artifacts were classified in the Soft Drink Sub-Group, which accounted for 4.5% of the Kitchen group by count and 8.4% by weight (Tables C.3-C.5). Soda bottles included Canada Dry, Grapette, Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, 7-Up, Royal Crown, Mason’s Old Fashioned Root Beer, Sun Crest, Orange Crush, and Nehi (Figure 8.54). The greatest concentrations of Soft Drink artifacts were located in Artifact Scatter D (13 total) to the west of the house and Artifact Scatter G along the eastern ‘fence line’ (Figure 8.68). The vast
majority of soda bottles (82.1%) was located in artifact scatters, including Figure 8.53. Orange Crush Bottle, every artifact scatter in the ‘yard,’ Artifact Scatter H, and the south and Catalog #66.1. west yards (Middens 1 and 2). Four Soft Drink artifacts were also recovered from the partially-collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site, including Dr. Pepper, Sun Crest, Canada Dry, and Orange Crush. The datable bottles date between the 1930s and early 1950s. Willie Mae Carter, a former tenant of Ayavalla Plantation,
165 recalled trading chickens and eggs with travelling vendors in exchange for soda pop and candy (Thompson 1997:81).
Functional Sub-Group –Drink. The Drink Sub-Group includes non-alcoholic drinks, as well as soda or beer bottles that could not be differentiated. Eighty-one artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for 9.3% of the Kitchen group by count and 10.1% by weight (Tables C.3-C.5). The Drink Sub-Group consisted of two classes –Bottles and Jars, which were further subdivided into five types. Bottles (71 total, including fifteen complete specimens) comprised the much larger portion of the sub-group by both count (87.7%) and weight (75.5%). The vast majority of Drink artifacts (91.4%) was located in artifact scatters, with the greatest concentration of drink bottles in Artifact Scatters C (31 total), D (21 total), and H (10 total) (Figure 8.68). Bottled drinks included beer/soda, milk, mineral water, and unidentified. The most prolific types of bottled drink by both count and weight (in descending order) were beer/soda bottles and mineral water; the scantest identified type was milk. All of the Postum jars, an instant hot beverage, were found in Artifact Scatter A and the surrounding midden (Midden 2). Seventeen Drink artifacts were also recovered from the partially-collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site, including beer/soda bottles, a milk bottle, and Postum jars.
Most of the drink containers were found in the ‘yard’ refuse, suggesting household consumption and nearby disposal. The former residents of the Cedar Shake House had enough disposable income to buy at least some commercial drinks. Pluto Mineral Water was a drink renowned for the healing properties of its high mineral content (Wikipedia 2008b). Milk bottles were scarce; it is possible that tenants drank freshly squeezed milk from their own or neighbors’ cows.
Functional Sub-Group –Food. The Food Sub-Group includes digestible products eaten or used in the preparation of meals. Thirty-three artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for 3.8% of the Kitchen group by count and 4.7% by weight (Tables C.3-C.5). The Food Sub-Group consisted of three classes –Bottles, Cans, and Jars, which were further subdivided into eleven types. Jars (14 total) comprised the largest portion of this sub-group by count (42.4%), and bottles (7 total) by weight (38.5%). The bottles and jars were all condiments, including hot sauce, mustard, and pickles or vinegar. The cans (12 total) included baking powder, seafood,
166 spices, and tomato sauce. The vast majority of food artifacts (87.9%) was located in artifact scatters, with the greatest concentration of bottles in Artifact Scatter D west of the house, and cans and jars in Artifact Scatters B and C northwest of the house (Figure 8.69). Thirty Food artifacts were also recovered from the partially-colleted artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the
Figure 8.54. Hot Sauce site, including condiment bottles and jars, extract bottles, spice Bottle, Catalog #29.19. cans, a processed cheese jar, and a cocoa powder can.
Food artifacts were identified via embossed containers or surviving labels only in a few instances; more often, shape was used as an indicator of previous contents (Figures 8.54-8.57). The Food Sub- Group is very small. Without question, a large proportion of the
Unidentified kitchen-related artifacts once contained food; when Figure 8.55. Syrup Bottles, Modern and Catalog #32.1. these bottles, cans, containers, jars and vessels are included in the Kitchen group, the density of Kitchen artifacts across the site
expands dramatically, as would the Food Sub-Group. The majority of both Food and ‘Unidentified –Kitchen’ artifacts were found in artifact scatters around the house, suggesting household consumption and nearby disposal. Whether the food-related
Figure 8.56. Condiment artifacts also found in Artifact Scatters H and I and the partially- Jars, Catalog #30.10. collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site are related to the former tenants is unknown.
Commercially produced and bought food items comprised at least part of the diet of the former tenants of the Cedar Shake House. The assemblage consists primarily of foods designed to flavor
meals, be eaten on the side, or facilitate cooking. The exact Figure 8.57. Ketchup Bottle, Catalog #54.3. content of most of the Food containers is unknown; it is possible that these items reflect ethnic and/or regional dietary trends. What portion of tenants’ diet consisted of other types of food, such as
167 produce and animal products, is also unknown, as floral and faunal material is more ephemeral on the surface of a site. The Natural Resource Group contains material that may be food remains, including oyster shell and animal bones.
Functional Sub-Group –Food Preparation. The Food Preparation
Sub-Group includes vessels used to prepare and store food. Eighteen
artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for 2.1% of the Figure 8.58. Enamel Bowl, Catalog #55.39. Kitchen Group by count and 3.3% by weight (Tables C.3-C.5). The Food Preparation Sub-Group consisted of three classes –Jars, Kettle,
and Pans, which were further subdivided into five types. Jars (13 total, including two complete specimens) comprised the largest portion of this sub-group by count (72.2%), and pans (four total) by weight
(57.9%). Two-thirds of Food Preparation artifacts were found in
artifact scatters, with the greatest concentration in Artifact Scatter D (6 Figure 8.59. Enamel Pot Lid, Catalog #152.105. total) to the west of the house (Figure 8.78). Canning jars, which
included the brands Mason, Kerry and Ball, were found in the greatest numbers in Artifact Scatter D (five total) and the side yard (four total, Midden 2) to the west of the house (Figure 8.60). The five enamel and aluminum pots, pans and kettle, on the other hand, were strewn individually across the site (Figures 8.58-8.59). Fifteen Food
Preparation artifacts were also recovered from the partially-collected Figure 8.60. Canning artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant, including enamel pans and a Jars, Catalog #82.3.
kettle, glass canning jars, and an aluminum ladle. The predominant cookware appears to be enamelware and aluminum. Canning jars may indicate home food preservation activities, or may have been put to alternate uses such as drinking glasses or for short-term food storage.
Functional Sub-Group –Tableware. The Tableware Sub-Group includes vessels used to serve food and set a table. One hundred and twenty-eight artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for 14.7% of the Kitchen Group by count and 5.4% by weight (Tables C.6-C.8). The Tableware Sub-Group consisted of three different types of material –Glass, Ceramic, and Metal,
168 which were further subdivided into eight types. Ceramics (65 total) comprised the largest portion of this sub-group by count (50.8%), followed closely by glassware (61 total), the weightier of the two. Metal was the least prevalent material. The vast majority of Tableware artifacts was located in artifact scatters, with the
greatest concentrations in Artifact Scatter G (42 total) along the Figure 8.61. Small Pitcher, Catalog #152.76. eastern ‘fence line,’ Artifact Scatter D (20 total) to the west of the house, and Artifact Scatter H (17 total) to the far north (Tables
C.18-C.19, Figure 8.71). The general sheet midden around the house (Middens 1, 2, and 3) also contained small numbers of tableware.
Figure 8.62. Ceramic Mixing Bowl, Catalog #29.44. The Tableware Sub-Group contained a wide assortment of artifacts located throughout the site. Ceramic artifacts included fragments
of large and small bowls, cups, plates, and a tureen (Figures 8.62 and 8.63). White ware (35 total) comprised the largest portion of this sub-group by count (53.9%), followed by porcelain (13 total) and cream ware (12 total). Whiteware was also the most prevalent ceramic by weight (37.7%), followed by stoneware (32.2%), the
scantest by count (2 total). All ceramic types included both plain Figure 8.63. Stoneware Jug, Catalog #29.46. and decorated fragments. The most common decorations on white
ware were floral designs and gold banding around the rim; on cream ware, transfer print and gold banding around the rim; and on porcelain, blue-and-white transfer print and gold banding, floral designs, and molded patterns around the rim. The majority of ceramics (75.3%) were located in the four artifact scatters surrounding the house (Artifact Scatters D, E, F, and G) and the nearby general midden (Middens 1, 2 and 3).
Figure 8.64. Drinking glass, Glass artifacts included a butter dish, salt and pepper shaker, a Catalog #88.19. decanter, cups, bowls, drinking glasses, pitchers, and plates
169 (Figures 8.61 and 8.64). Drinking glasses, the most prevalent class of glass tableware, were decorated with flutes, bevels, ribs or tick marks. Some cups, bowls, unidentified vessels, and the pitchers and decanter were press-molded, with deeply cut starburst, diamond and other designs. The greatest concentrations of glass tableware were located in Artifact Scatter D (15 total) just to the west of the house, Artifact Scatter G along the eastern ‘fence line,’ and Artifact Scatter H (15 total) far north of the house.
Metal artifacts included a salt and paper shaker lid found in Artifact Scatter H, and an enamel bowl found in Midden 7 near the partially-collected scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site. Fifty-two Tableware artifacts were also recovered from the partially-collected artifact scatters, including porcelain, stoneware, and whiteware vessels, enamel and aluminum cups, and drinking glasses.
This wide assortment of Tableware artifacts contains very few matching pieces; in short, the Tableware Sub-Group contains no set(s) of dishes to speak of. While it does include several ornate pieces, the assemblage in no way reflects the upper classes’ concern with propriety and uniformity, expressed in part by matching dish sets (Mullins 2002). Instead, the residents of the Cedar Shake House used both glass and ceramic vessels of different types and styles, primarily drinking glasses and low-cost white wares. The few matching pieces included several drinking glasses, and a nesting set of pottery mixing bowls (Figure 8.62). This highly varied tableware assemblage reflects diverse acquisition strategies that probably included store purchase, barter, hand-me-downs, and gifts.
Functional Sub-Group –None. The None Sub-Group includes Kitchen artifacts whose function could not be identified, including a jar, jug and bottle. Four artifacts were classified as such, which accounted for .5% of the Kitchen group by count and 1.5% by weight. These miscellaneous artifacts were located in Artifact Scatter 10 (Figure 8.70).
170
Figure 8.65. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Count. Figure 8.66. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Weight.
171
Figure 8.67. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Alcohol Figure 8.68. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Drink and Sub-Group and Type. Soft Drink Sub-Groups and Type.
172
Figure 8.69. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Food Figure 8.70. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Food Sub-Group and Type. Preparation and None Sub-Groups and Type.
173
Figure 8.71. Distribution of Kitchen Functional Group by Figure 8.72. Distribution of Kitchen and Unidentified Functional Group Tableware Sub-Group and Material. by Weight.
174 Functional Group 8 –Munitions Munitions artifacts relate to weapons and ammunitions. In this project, Munitions specifically refers to firearms. Of the area 100% collected, one artifact was classified in the Munitions Group, a smashed metal shotgun shell, which accounted for .02% of the total assemblage by count and <.02% by weight (Table C.1). The casing was found in Artifact Scatter D just west of the house (Figure 8.80). One plastic shot gun shell was also recovered from the partially- collected artifact-scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site. It is unknown whether these shells are associated with former tenants of the Cedar Shake House, or post- abandonment use of the site by hunters.
Figure 8.73. Distribution of Kitchen and Unidentified Functional Group by Count.
Functional Group 9 -Natural Resource Natural Resource artifacts relate to non-manufactured, naturally occurring material with no identified or confirmed human use. In this project, the Natural Resource group was broken down into three material groups –Bone, Lithic, and Shell, which included several classes and/or types of artifact each.
175 Of the area 100% collected, twenty-two artifacts were classified in the Natural Resource Group, which accounted for .5% of the total assemblage by count and .2% by weight (Tables C.1-C.5, 8.10-8.12). Shell (ten total) comprised the largest portion of this group by both count (45.5%) and weight (49.9%). Bone (eight total) comprised the second largest portion of this group by count (36.4%), but the smallest by weight (9%). Lithic (four total)
Figure 8.74. Oyster Shell, comprised the smallest portion of this group by count (18.2%), Catalog #111.7. but the second weightiest (41.2%). The majority of Natural Resource artifacts (86.4%) were located in artifact scatters, with the greatest concentration in Artifact Scatter D (six total) just to the west of the house, followed by Artifact Scatter F (four total) at the Kitchen corner, Artifact Scatter G (three total) along the eastern ‘fence line’, and Artifact Scatter H (three total) far north of the house (Tables C.20-C.21, Figures 8.81-8.83).
Shell artifacts included oyster (seven total) and whelk (three total). Oyster was found in low quantities in five different artifacts scatters around the site (AS C, D, E, G, and H); whelk was only found in Artifact Scatter D just to the west of the house. Bone artifacts included bird (one total), mammal (5 total), and reptile (one total), including deer and turtle. Bone was found in two scatters near the house (AS D and F), the general midden in front of the house (Midden 3), and the scatter far north of the house (Artifact Scatter H). Lithic artifacts included quartzite (two total) and sandstone (two total). Lithics were found in very small quantities in several artifact scatters around the house (AS E, F and G). No Natural Resource artifacts were recovered from the partially-collected artifacts in the northwest quadrant of the site.
While it is possible and even probable that some of these artifacts were associated with human activity, they are included in the Natural Resource Group pending determination. All of the bone could have originated from local species, wild or domestic; some of the animals may have been served up for dinner and others may have simply died and decomposed on site. Neither quartzite Figure 8.75. Bone Fragments, Catalog #122.32 and 122.33. nor sandstone is found locally; it is unknown how and why they
176 were transported to the site. Oyster and whelk are not local species either; the residents of the Cedar Shake House may have enjoyed an oyster bake, or brought shells home from a day at the beach.
Functional Group 10 –Personal Personal artifacts relate to objects belonging to or used by a particular person for some duration, typically but not always pertaining to the “body, clothing or appearance” (Random House 2005). In this project, the Personal Group was subdivided into two functional sub-groups –Jewelry and Toiletry, and further broken down into four classes.
Of the area 100% collected, five artifacts were classified in the Personal Group, which accounted for .1% of the total assemblage by count and .02% by weight (44 grams) (Table C.1). Toiletry artifacts (four total) comprised the larger portion of the sub-group by both count and weight (Tables C.3-C.5). All of the personal items were found within a fifteen meter radius of the house, three in artifact scatters (AS D, F and G ) and two in middens (Middens 1 and 3) (Tables C.12-C.17, Figures 8.84-8.86). Toiletry items included plastic comb fragments, a metal hair curler, and a metal razor guard. The jewelry item was the backing of a brooch ornament. One Personal artifact was recovered from the partially-collected artifact
scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site –an aluminum canteen
Figure 8.76. Razor inscribed by hand with the initials “R. J. B.” Guard, Catalog #142.16.
There is a special quality about personal objects that bring the possible past to life –a woman curling and combing her hair, shaving her legs, or donning a brooch on her lapel. Wrapped up in the use of these objects are often some of the most fundamental aspects of human behavior –personal aspirations, sense of self and relationship to the outside world, ethnic and gender identities, etc. While the comb and razor may have been used by a man or woman, the brooch and curler indicate a female presence, possibly a Sawyer. Figure 8.77. Hair Curler, Catalog #102.6.
177 Functional Group 11 –Prehistoric Prehistoric artifacts relate to objects associated with the Native American occupation of the area. Prehistoric may be a misnomer, as the native occupation in the Tallahassee area extended into the historic Spanish and Territorial Periods. In this project, the Prehistoric Group was subdivided into two classes –Chert and Vessel (ceramic), which were further broken down into three types.
Of the area 100% collected, five artifacts were classified in the Prehistoric group, which accounted for .12% of the total assemblage by count and .01% by weight (Tables C.1-C.5). Ceramic vessels (3 total) comprised the largest portion of this group by both count (60%) and weight (67%). All of the Prehistoric artifacts were found Figure 8.78. Prehistoric Check-Stamped Ceramic, in the yard, the majority (four total) in artifact scatters around the Catalog #122.20 house (Tables C.12-C.17, Figures 8.87-8.89). Vessel artifacts included check-stamped, complicated-stamped, and plain ceramic fragments; all three were found in artifact scatters just upslope of the house (AS F and G). Chert artifacts included two debitage flakes; both were found to the west of the house (AS D and Midden 2). One Prehistoric plain ceramic fragment was recovered from the
Figure 8.79. Prehistoric partially-collected artifacts scatters in the northwest quadrant of the Lithic: Tool from Shovel Test, Catalog #19.5 site. Subsequent shovel testing has confirmed that the Cedar Shake
House site (8LE1947) contains a substantial prehistoric component.
178
Figure 8.80. Distribution of Munitions Functional Group by Count Figure 8.81. Distribution of Natural Resource Functional Group and Weight. by Count.
179
Figure 8.82. Distribution of Natural Resource Functional Group by Weight. Figure 8.83. Distribution of Natural Resource Functional Group by Class, Type, and Material.
180
Figure 8.84. Distribution of Personal Functional Group by Count. Figure 8.85. Distribution of Personal Functional Group by Weight.
181
Figure 8.86. Distribution of Personal Functional Group by Sub-Group. Figure 8.87. Distribution of Prehistoric Functional Group by Count.
182
Figure 8.88. Distribution of Prehistoric Functional Group by Weight. Figure 8.89. Distribution of Prehistoric Functional Group by Material.
183 Functional Group 12 –Transportation Transportation artifacts relate to means of conveyance, including their components, accessories and fuel. In this project, the Transportation Group was subdivided into two functional sub- groups –Automobile and Bicycle, which were further broken down into three classes.
Of the area 100% collected, eighteen artifacts were classified in the Transportation Group, which accounted for .4% of the total assemblage by count and 2.8% by weight (Tables C.1-C.5). Automobile artifacts (seventeen total) comprised the much larger portion of this group by both count (94.4%) and weight (75.5%). The majority of Transportation artifacts (13 total) were located in artifact
Figure 8.90. Motor Oil, scatters (72.2%), with the greatest concentrations to the west of the Catalog #149.3. house in Artifact Scatters C and D and the surrounding Midden 2 (four
each) (Tables C.12-C.17, Figure 8.95-8.97). The Automobile Sub- Group consisted of two classes –Cans and Parts. Parts, the larger class (total eleven) by both count and weight, included an air filter, bracket, carriage bolt, chrome, coil, exhaust pipe, head/tail light cover, leaf bolt, terminal and tires. Cans, the smaller class (six total), included brake fluid, gas, and motor oil (four total) that were found
Figure 8.91. Bicycle around the house in Artifact Scatters B, D and F and strewn across the Seat, Catalog #79.1. western half of the ‘yard’ (Midden 2) (Figure 8.90). The Bicycle
artifact was a bike seat that was found northeast of the house just south of Artifact Scatter B (Figure 8.91). Five Transportation artifacts were also recovered from the partially- collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site, including a leaf spring, two license plates (1931 and 1951), a car jack, and a bicycle tire pump
(Figure 8.92). Figure 8.92. 1955 Car License Plate, Catalog #28.61. The refuse at the Cedar Shake House site represents two distinct modes of transportation –automobile and bicycle. The tags tie a motor vehicle to this site that
184 was registered in the early 1930s. Henry Sawyer Jr., the head African-American employee for Mr. Maclay, reportedly bought a new car every year, an exception for plantation tenants who mostly walked, biked or rode wagons pulled by traction animals (TJC 1999b). Given Mr. Sawyer’s relatively higher salary, the household refuse at the Cedar Shake House may include items, such as an automobile, not accessible to the majority. An interesting irony is that the 1951 license plate, recovered from a large, expansive artifact scatter northwest of the house, read, “Keep Florida Green.”
Functional Group 13 –Unidentified Unidentified artifacts relate to objects whose identity or function could not be determined. In this project, the Unidentified Group was subdivided into two functional sub-groups –Kitchen and None. These two sub-groups were further broken down into nine classes.
Of the area 100% collected, 2,175 artifacts were classified in the Unidentified Group, which accounted for 53% of the total assemblage by count and 40.5% by weight (Tables C.1-C.5). Kitchen artifacts (2,123 total) comprised the larger portion of this group by far by both count (97.6%) and weight (98.1%). The vast majority of Unidentified artifacts were located in artifact scatters (88.3%) –every artifact scatter in the site contained some, although so did every midden, particularly the area around the artifacts scatters in the western half of the ‘yard’ (Midden 2), the front and back ‘yards’ (Middens 1 and 3), and the area just north of the ‘yard’ (Midden 5) (Figures 8.98-8.100). Unidentified artifacts were found in the greatest concentrations to the west of the house in Artifact Scatter C (358 total) and Artifact Scatter D (584 total), and in moderate amounts in Artifact Scatter G (239 total) along the eastern ‘fence line’ and Artifact Scatter H (187 total) far north of the house. The remaining artifact scatters all contained between 100 – 150 unidentified objects, except Artifact Scatter I (58 total) north of the yard, which contained only Unidentified artifacts.
Functional Sub-Group –Kitchen. The Kitchen Sub-Group was subdivided into five classes, including Cans, Bottles, Jars, Jugs, Containers (bottle, jar or jug), and Vessels (bottle, jar, jug, or tableware). Fragments were classified as containers or vessels if a more specific designation could not be made. Glassware (1,652 total) was a more prevalent type of unidentified kitchen
185 material (78%) than cans (466 total). Unidentfied containers (677 total) comprised the largest portion of unidentified kitchen artifacts (31%), followed by cans (21.4%), bottles (20.9%), jars (13.5%), vessels (10.4%), and jugs (.2%). The distribution of unidentified Kitchen artifacts across the site mirrors that of Unidentified artifacts in general. Two hundred and eighty-six unidentified Kitchen artifacts were also recovered from the partially-collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site.
The Kitchen Sub-Group contains a wide variety of glass and metal containers of different sizes, shapes and colors. As previously discussed, it is likely that the majority of these are Kitchen artifacts; however, their true identity is uncertain in the absence of original labels. It is also true
that a wide variety of common household products came Figure 8.93. Possible Baby Food Jar, Catalog #88.7. in similar containers prior to the advent of plastic. Take
for instance, the small clear glass jar embossed with the
words “Lucky Heart” on the base (Catalog # 33.1), recovered from Unit I29 near the partially-collected artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site. The Lucky Heart Company of Memphis, Tennessee, has
marketed a line of cosmetic products to the African- Figure 8.94. Vintage Baby Food Jars. American community since World War I (Yronwode Source: www.flickr.com/photos. 2003). Until shortly after World War II, the company also manufactured a line of hoodoo products for African-Americans as well. In the 1930s and 1940s, these goods were pedaled by local agents to their fellow community members via mail order. Demand for the ‘magical’ properties of these items reflected folk belief in the power of inert objects and ritual to alter the course of life. It is unknown what product this single jar found at the Cedar Shake House once contained, but whether cosmetic or hoodoo, it relates to significant and often intense aspects of culture –spiritual beliefs or standards and notions of beauty, particularly difficult for African-American women in an era when the market was flooded with skin lighteners and hair straighteners.
186
Figure 8.95. Distribution of Transportation Functional Group by Count. Figure 8.96. Distribution of Transportation Functional Group by Weight.
187
Figure 8.97. Distribution of Transportation Functional Group by Sub-Group. Figure 8.98. Distribution of Unidentified Functional Group by Count and Class.
188
Figure 8.99. Distribution of Unidentified Functional Group by Weight. Figure 8.100. Distribution of Unidentified Functional Group by Class.
189 Functional Sub-Group –None. The None Sub-Group sub-divided into three classes, including Pan, Vessel, and Unidentified. Fifty-two artifacts were classified in this sub-group, which accounted for 2.4 % of the total Unidentified assemblage by count and 1.9% by weight. The greatest concentration of None artifacts was located in Artifact Scatter G along the eastern ‘fence line.’ Unidentifiable None artifacts (44 total), whose original form could not be determined, comprised the largest portion of this sub-group (84.6%). The None Sub-Group is a catch-all for miscellaneous glass, ceramic, metal and plastic fragments that did not fit under any other grouping.
Summary The surface artifact assemblage for the 100%-collected areas was dominated by bottles, jars and cans (74.2%), which with only a few exceptions were classified under the Kitchen and Unidentified (Kitchen) Functional Groups (Table C.1). The bulk of the surface collection then appears to be containers associated with consumable products, primarily food and to a much lesser extent, household products such as cosmetics and bleach. This assemblage was also dominated by artifacts that had been located primarily in artifact scatters (88.6%) (Tables C.12- C.17). The bulk of the surface collection then appears to have been packaging intentionally discarded upon consumption of its contents.
These artifacts present challenges to interpretation, as their former content is largely unknown. While some container shapes are closely associated with specific products, and a few containers are embossed with product information, most are ubiquitous containers that may have held any number of things. One thing is clear, however; their presence at the site speaks to the former residents’ purchasing residents, and this provides some insight into their tenant status and way of life. Unlike tenant farmers who were typically cash poor, this family must have garnered cash wages to enable store purchases. Conversely, the demands of wage labor likely prevented them from continuing traditional life ways. Commercially purchased food items appear to have constituted a significant portion of their diet, indicating a shift away from the self-sufficiency of a farmstead to the market instead.
190
After kitchen-related items, building artifacts were the most numerous, including brick, mortar, concrete and primarily window glass fragments. For the most part, this material seems associated with the Cedar Shake House itself, and its location in both artifact scatters and midden areas suggest both the intentional dismantling and gradual deterioration of the structure. While no building artifacts appeared to represent in situ structural remains, two small concentrations warrant further investigation for their distance from the house, including light scatters in Midden 5 just north of the ‘yard’ and Artifact Scatter A in the northwest corner of the ‘yard.’ In addition to investigating the possible presence of additional structures on site, the area in which the wrought iron hinge was recovered should be examined in an attempt to identify the former presence of a fence line and swinging gate.
The remainder of the artifact assemblage provides some insight into the circumstances that shaped and marked the former residents’ daily life, as well as how the former residents negotiated these circumstances, enjoying some control and choice. Some artifacts revealed data about the technologies and amenities enjoyed or available to the household, such as the fuel- burning stove (possibly coal-powered) and oil lamps that stood in stead of electrical appliances. Other artifacts, such as the diverse tableware assemblage, suggest limits to their purchasing power, coupled with an apparent multi-faceted approach in the face of relative poverty to acquiring household wares. Still other artifacts represent how family members’ were influenced by, distilled, and expressed cultural mores, such as standards of beauty via the use and disposal of cosmetics or notions of health and healthcare via the use and disposal of medicines.
While Unidentified, Kitchen, Household and Building Functional Groups contained several hundred plus artifacts each, the remaining nine functional groups contained fewer than twenty- five artifacts each. There is an underrepresentation of other aspects of former residents’ lives besides consumption of consumer products in the surface artifact assemblage. In part, this may reflect the high curation and retention rate of reusable objects, such as tools and clothing, which may have been handed down to others or taken with upon abandonment of the site. Low frequencies of certain functional groups may also reflect the limited purchasing power and thus belongings of former residents, the family’s needs versus consumer desire dictating the bulk of their expenditure. The few toys and personal items on site may reflect both phenomenon. Low
191
frequencies, such as in the case of milk bottles (2 total), may also indicate an alternate source of procurement of an item other than commercially bought, such as from family or neighbors’ livestock.
This study analyzed the distribution of artifact functional groups across the 100%-collected areas of the site by count and weight in order to identify any distinctive spatial patterning that might be related to former activity areas or site configuration. The vast majority of artifacts, however, were intentionally disposed of in trash piles, thereby severing the artifacts from their original place of use. The artifact scatters do vary in composition, however, in terms of percentages of different types of functional groups. For the most part, every artifact scatter was predominated by Unidentified Kitchen followed by Kitchen functional groups; this was true for all four scatters in the ‘yard’ west of the house (AS A-D), the two scatters north of the yard (AS H and I), and the scatter along the eastern ‘fence line’ (AS G) (Table 8.2). The two artifact scatters that did not fit this pattern were Artifact Scatter E directly to the north of the house, which is predominated by Unidentified Kitchen followed by Building functional groups, and Artifact Scatter F at the southeast corner of the ‘kitchen’ corner, which is predominated by Building followed by Unidentified Kitchen functional groups. The high building artifact counts are likely directly tied to these scatters’ close vicinity to the Cedar Shake House. Most artifact scatters also contained many different types of functional groups. Artifact Scatter D directly to the west of the house had the highest diversity of material, including twelve of the thirteen different functional groups. Other diverse artifact scatters include Artifact Scatters E, F, G and H, which contained between ten and twelve functional groups each. It appears (with the exception of AS H) that the most kinds of garbage were thrown away in the areas closest to the house. Only three artifact scatters contained five or less functional groups, including Artifact Scatters A and B in the northwest corner of the ‘yard’ and Artifact Scatter I north of the yard. Conversely, (again with the exception of AS H), it appears that the least kinds of garbage were thrown away furthest from the house. This may simply reflect the ease of walking less far from the house to dump trash.
While the distribution of certain functional groups does vary by artifact scatter and midden area, very little patterning of note was observed. The most evident deposition variation was that far more Kitchen and Unidentified Kitchen artifacts were thrown away in Artifact Scatters C and D
192
directly to the west of the house than anywhere else on site. It was also evident that far more artifacts were tossed directly over the ‘fence lines’ to the east and west of the house than anywhere else on site, with the exception of Artifact Scatter H. Artifact Scatter H was an anomalous scatter in several ways, including its high density despite its distance from the house, its low percentages of Kitchen and Unidentified Kitchen functional groups, and its greater Household and Hardware counts than anywhere else. There is a chance that the presence of artifacts in midden areas is the result of activity other than refuse disposal, but nothing demonstrably supports the assertion. The close proximity of many midden artifacts to artifact scatters may simply reflect the migration of objects across the site due to post-occupation disturbances. It is also plausible that the few Activity and Personal objects recovered from various scatters and middens represent unintentional losses, such as the hair curler found by itself in the back yard of the house.
Comparison of the artifacts contained in the artifact scatters near the house with those from the partially-collected scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site only reinforced versus answered the question of with whom the various artifacts were associated. It was hypothesized in Chapter Seven that the artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant were not associated with the tenants of the Cedar Shake House. The primary basis for this hypothesis is the presence of artifacts in the large artifact scatter in Unit G29 (old Artifact Scatter 15/new Artifact Scatter N) that are incongruous with the surviving structural remains of the Cedar Shake House, namely an electrical junction box and a toilet. Further corroborating this contention is the variant presence or absence of certain artifacts in the two areas, including the much higher Medicine count in the northwest scatters and the much higher bleach containers in the ‘yard’ scatters. It is clear then that at least some of the refuse in this area is not the former residents’ household trash. There is, however, evidence that at least some of the refuse in the northwest quadrant is, or may be, associated with the Cedar Shake House. Despite the differences in content, artifact scatters in both areas also contain the similar objects, including black leather shoe fragments, enamel ware, and ceramic tableware. Another challenge to the contention is the presence of cross-mending and matching glass and ceramic fragments from disparate parts of the site. There is perhaps no better example than the four matching and cross-mending ceramic pieces that represent a set of three matching, nested mixing bowls. The small bowl fragment (Catalog #144.13) and a
193 medium bowl fragment (Catalog #152.85) were found in Unit X20 and U31 (AS G and H respectively, while a second cross-mending medium bowl fragment (Catalog # 29.45) and a large bowl fragment (Catalog #29.44) were found in Unit G29 (AS N/15) (Figure 8.62).
Table 8.2. Artifact Scatters by Functional Group.
% of Artifact Functional % of Artifact Count Artifact Weight Scatter Group Scatter Scatter A Building 5 2.9 899.5 7.1 Household 8 4.6 575.9 4.5 Kitchen 35 20.0 5438.1 42.9 Unidentified 127 72.6 5754.2 45.4 A Total 175 12667.7 B Activities 1 0.7 5.8 0.1 Household 2 1.5 241.5 2.2 Kitchen 21 15.7 2648.8 23.9 Transportation 1 0.7 133.7 1.2 Unidentified 109 81.3 8038.9 72.6 B Total 134 11068.7 C Building 11 1.9 263.8 1.2 Hardware 3 0.5 102.7 0.5 Household 17 3.0 1090.4 4.8 Kitchen 174 30.6 11538.3 51.0 Natural Resources 1 0.2 15.2 0.1 Transportation 4 0.7 1519.6 6.7 Unidentified 358 63.0 8106.6 35.8 C Total 568 22636.6 D Building 67 6.1 2162.2 5.2 Clothing 7 0.6 381.1 0.9 Farmstead 2 0.2 2820.0 6.7 Hardware 3 0.3 66.9 0.2 Household 81 7.4 2737.8 6.5 Kitchen 337 30.8 18299.3 43.8 Munitions 1 0.1 6.8 0.0 Natural Resources 6 0.5 78.8 0.2 Personal 1 0.1 19.9 0.0 Prehistoric 1 0.1 3.0 0.0 Transportation 4 0.4 172.0 0.4 Unidentified 584 53.4 15055.7 36.0 D Total 1094 41803.5 E Activities 2 0.9 3.7 0.3 Building 32 14.5 173.2 13.6 Hardware 1 0.5 4.6 0.4 Household 10 4.5 48.9 3.8 Kitchen 22 10.0 170.1 13.4 Natural Resources 2 0.9 20.0 1.6 Transportation 1 0.5 3.6 0.3 Unidentified 150 68.2 847.6 66.7 E Total 220 1271.7 F Activities 6 1.7 3.7 0.0 Building 173 49.6 2508.1 33.4
194
Table 8.2 -continued % of Artifact Functional % of Artifact Count Artifact Weight Scatter Group Scatter Scatter Clothing 2 0.6 3.0 0.0 Household 22 6.3 383.9 5.1 Kitchen 30 8.6 2646.7 35.2 Natural Resources 4 1.1 56.8 0.8 Personal 1 0.3 0.1 0.0 Prehistoric 1 0.3 4.2 0.1 Transportation 2 0.6 107.6 1.4 Unidentified 108 30.9 1801.1 24.0 F Total 349 7515.2 G Activities 1 0.2 16.8 0.1 Building 73 15.7 1090.6 7.3 Farmstead 2 0.4 757.2 5.0 Hardware 1 0.2 9.3 0.1 Household 70 15.0 1111.8 7.4 Kitchen 74 15.9 5680.5 37.9 Natural Resources 3 0.6 76.1 0.5 Personal 1 0.2 14.9 0.1 Prehistoric 2 0.4 7.8 0.1 Unidentified 239 51.3 6235.2 41.6 G Total 466 15000.2 H Activities 3 0.5 119.1 0.5 Building 172 29.9 3793.8 17.1 Clothing 3 0.5 11.4 0.1 Hardware 6 1.0 199.1 0.9 Household 125 21.7 3525.7 15.9 Kitchen 75 13.0 7375.7 33.3 Natural Resources 3 0.5 67.0 0.3 Transportation 1 0.2 35.7 0.2 Unidentified 187 32.5 6998.5 31.6 H Total 575 22126.0 I Unidentified 58 100.0 3604.7 100.0 I Total 58 3604.7 Scatter Total 3639 137694.3
Artifact Scatter Dates A date analysis was conducted to investigate whether artifact scatter distribution across the site was patterned based on deposition sequence. It was hypothesized in Chapter Seven that the nine artifact scatters in the northwest quadrant of the site would be older than those in the yard near the house. The premise was that as tenant livelihood shifted from farming to plantation employment in the first half of the 20th century, residents of the Cedar Shake House would have utilized less and less of the area around the house for household and farmstead activities. Thus
195
initially, trash would have been thrown farther away from the main activity areas around the house to allow room for animal pens, outdoor cooking, clothes washing, meat smoking, and produce storage, until gradually those activities were abandoned and trash was simply tossed outside the immediate yard.
Based on makers’ marks on the base of glass containers, a total of twenty-four glass manufacturers were identified, along with the dates of either the company’s life span, use of a maker’s mark, or manufacture of a particular container (Table 8.3). A total of 914 glass fragments contained datable makers’ marks, representing a 358 minimum vessel count (MVC) (Appendix D). Eighty containers (MVC), all produced by the Owens-Illinois Glass Company, were absolutely dated, including beer, liquor and soda bottles, condiment bottles and jars; and household product containers such as Moroline and Clorox. Absolute dates ranged from 1940 to 1953. Eighty-one containers (MVC) were assigned minimum dates of production only, based on maker’s marks, presence of stippling or the Duraglas and Anchorglas product lines, and patent dates for seven known glass manufacturing companies and several unidentified containers. These containers included similar kitchen and household bottles and jars. Minimum dates ranged from 1924 to 1946. Seventy-nine containers (MVC), all produced by the Owens-Illinois Glass Company, were assigned either/or dates. The two possible date ranges were either 1930 to 1939 or 1940 to 1949. If the absolutely dated bottles (1940 – 1953) are indicator of primary deposition dates, the later either/or dates match closely. On the other hand, the earlier either/or dates may represent the previous decade’s refuse. Therefore, each either/or bottle was assigned a median date halfway between the either/or range. One hundred and eighteen containers (MVC) were assigned date ranges based on the maker’s marks, modified as needed in light of patent dates or the presence of stylistic features or the federal warning against resale or reuse. These containers were produced by nineteen different glass manufacturers, including small in- state companies and large, nationally-distributed brands. The earliest date ranges encompassed the first thirty years of the 20th century, these eight containers likely representing some of the oldest surface artifacts. One container, a beer bottle, dated to 1881 – 1905. The remaining bottles ranged from as early as 1920 to as late as 1964.
Fifteen artifact scatters contained datable glass containers, including six of the seven in the yard, seven of the nine in the northwest quadrant of the site, and the one in the northeast quadrant of
196
the site (Table C.21, Figure 101). Artifact scatters contained 302 of the 358 dated containers (MVC). The majority of artifact scatters contained all four types of dates (absolute, minimum, either/or and range). Only one of the fifteen dated artifact scatters could not be used in the date analysis –Artifact Scatter E, which contained only minimum dates. The surface collection assemblage contained no datable containers from three artifact scatters, including Artifact Scatter G in the yard along the eastern ‘fence line,’ and the old Artifact Scatters 11 and 12 in the northwest quadrant of the site. Fifty-six dated containers (MVC) were also located in various sheet midden areas around the site, but were not analyzed in this study.
Table 8.3. Maker’s Marks in the Cedar Shake House Surface Artifact Assemblage.
Glass Manufacturer Symbol Date Range of Symbol Reference
Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation ANCHORGLAS 1946 + Toulouse p. 46 Anchor w/ superimposed Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation H 1938 + Toulouse p. 48 Ball Brothers Company Ball in cursive script 1919 – 1969 Toulouse p. 66 Brockway Machine Bottle Company (1907 - 1933), or Brockway Glass Company (1933 +) B in a circle 1925 + Toulouse p. 59 Canada Dry Ginger Ale Company C in an inverted triangle 1930 - 1950 Toulouse p. 101 Chattanooga Glass Company C in a circle 1927 + Toulouse p. 108 Diamond Glass Company diamond shape 1924 + Toulouse p. 550 Fairmount Glass Works, Inc. F in a hexagon 1945 - 1960 Toulouse p. 201 Federal Glass Company F in a crest 1944 + Toulouse p. 192 Florida Glass Manufacturing Company T F in diamond 1926 - 1948 Toulouse p. 499 Florida Glass Works F G 1930 - 1940 Toulouse p. 199 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Toulouse p. 239 Illinois Glass Company I in a diamond 1916 - 1929 Toulouse p. 264 Knox Glass Bottle Company of Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1954 Toulouse p. 271 Maywood Glass Company MG 1940 - 1958 Toulouse p. 357 North British Bottle Manufacturing Company, Limited N B 1903 - 1937 Toulouse p. 377 Owens Bottle Company O in a square 1911 - 1929 Toulouse p. 393 I in a circle and a Owens Illinois Glass Company diamond 1929 - 1959 Toulouse p. 403 Owens Illinois Glass Company DURAGLAS 1940 + Toulouse p. 403 Owens Illinois Glass Company I in a circle 1954 + Toulouse p. 403 Pierce Glass Company P in a circle 1905 - 1917 Toulouse p. 412 Sierra Club S in a diamond 1930 - 1950 Toulouse p. 450 Streator Bottle & Glass Company S B & G Co 1881 - 1905 Toulouse p. 461 Swindell Brothers S in a circle 1920 - 1959 Toulouse p. 452 Turner Brothers Company T in an inverted triangle 1910 - 1929 Toulouse p. 490 Tygart Valley Glass Company T V 1928 - 1959 Toulouse p. 500 Untied Glass Bottle Manufacturers, Ltd. U. G. B. 1933 - 1968 Toulouse p. 510 W. J. Latchford Glass Company L 1925 - 1938 Toulouse p. 314
197
Artifact Scatter A Artifact Scatter A had twenty-four datable bottles, including nine absolute dates, one either/or date, five date ranges, and three minimum dates. The absolute dates span from 1940 to 1948, including six beer bottles and one soda bottle from 1948. The either/or date is 1939/1949, within just one year of the youngest and oldest absolute date. The date ranges span from 1920 to 1964. The minimum dates are 1925, 1934 and 1946, including five Postum jars and one unidentified jar from 1946+. The median dates, derived from fifteen containers, range from 1937 to 1952; no containers, however, definitively date to the 1930s or the 1950s. The mean date for the entire scatter is 1944.8, one of four artifact scatters from that year and one of seven from the mid- 1940s. Artifact Scatter A is the fourth newest or tenth oldest dated artifact scatter on site. The absolute and minimum dates suggest use throughout the 1940s, particularly during the end of the decade.
Artifact Scatter B Artifact Scatter B had twenty-five datable containers, including three absolute dates, two either/or dates, seven date ranges, and thirteen minimum dates. The absolute dates again span the 1940s (1940 – 1949). The either/or dates are 1930/1940 and 1939/1949, as close as a year together or as far apart as almost a decade. The date ranges span from 1926 to 1964. The minimum dates are 1925, 1938 and 1940, including eight unidentified jars from 1940+. The median dates, derived from twelve containers, range from 1935 to 1953; no containers, however, definitively date to the 1930s or the 1950s. The mean date for the entire scatter is 1945.5, one of two artifact scatters from that year and one of seven from the mid-1940s. Artifact Scatter B is the third newest or eleventh oldest dated artifact scatter on site. The absolute and minimum dates suggest use throughout the 1940s.
Artifact Scatter C Artifact Scatter C had twenty-eight datable bottles, including six absolute dates, eleven with either/or dates, six with date ranges, and five with minimum dates. The absolute dates span the first half of the 1940s (1940 – 1946), including a beer, bleach and possible soda bottle. The either/or dates are beer and soda bottles from 1930/1940, 1931/1941, 1934/1944, 1937/1947, 1938/1948, and 1939/1949, beer and soda bottles that span the 1930s, 1940s or the mid-1930s
198
through the mid-1940s. The date ranges span from 1920 to 1964. The minimum dates are 1924, 1933, 1938 and 1940. The median dates, derived from twenty-three containers, span from 1935 to 1952; no containers, however, definitively date to the 1930s or 1950s. The mean date for the entire scatter is 1941.8, the only artifact scatter from that year and one of three from the early 1940s. Artifact Scatter is the fourth oldest or tenth newest dated artifact scatter on site. The absolute dates suggest use in the early 1940s.
Artifact Scatter D Artifact Scatter D had fifty-seven datable bottles, the most of any scatter, including seventeen absolute dates, seventeen either/or dates, fifteen date ranges, and eight minimum dates. The absolute dates span from 1940 to 1953, including seven beer bottles from the early 1940s, a liquor bottle from 1952, and a bleach bottle from 1953. The either/or dates are from 1934/1944, 1935/1945, 1936/1946, and 1938/1948, primarily beer bottles that likely span either the last half of the 1930s or of the 1940s. The date ranges span from 1930 to 1964, including a lotion jar, a cosmetic jar, a glass bowl and nine other containers that start in 1940. The minimum dates are 1925, 1938, and 1940. The median dates, derived from forty-nine datable bottles, span from 1935 to 1952; one container might date to the 1930s (1930 – 1940), and three containers absolutely date to the early 1950s. The mean date for the entire artifact scatter is 1944.5, one of four artifact scatters from that year and one of seven from the mid-1940s. Artifact Scatter D is the sixth newest or eighth oldest dated artifact scatter on site. The absolute and minimum dates suggest use particularly after 1940, and into the early 1950s.
Artifact Scatter E Artifact Scatter E had three datable containers, all minimum dates. The minimum dates are 1924, 1940, and 1941. No median or mean dates could be arrived at for the artifact scatter.
Artifact Scatter F Artifact Scatter F had eight datable containers, including two absolute dates, two either/or dates, three date ranges, and one minimum date. The absolute dates are 1941 and 1944. The either/or date for two beer bottles is 1934/1944. The date ranges span from 1905 to 1960, including an anomalous old Fletcher’s Castoria bottle that brought the scatter’s total mean date down. It is
199
possible that the medicine was purchased near the end of the bottle’s production, and consumed slowly by the family. The minimum date is 1944. The median dates, derived from seven containers, span 1911 – 1952.5; no containers, however, definitively date to the 1920s, 1930s or 1950s. The mean date for the entire artifact scatter is 1938.5, one of three artifact scatters from the 1930s. Artifact Scatter F is the third oldest dated artifact scatter on site. If the castoria bottle is removed from the analysis, (assuming it does not represent the period of active use of this dump site), the mean date for the scatter is 1943.1. The absolute, range and minimum dates suggest use through the first half of the 1940s.
Artifact Scatter H Artifact Scatter H had twenty-nine datable containers, including nine absolute dates, seven either/or dates, eight date ranges, and five minimum dates. The absolute dates covered the first half of the 1940s (1940 – 1946), including four medicine bottles from 1940 – 1941 and two bleach bottles from 1946. The either/or dates are 1934/1944, 1936/1946, 1937/1947, and 1939/1949, representing the late 1930s, the late 1940s, or halfway in between. The date ranges span from 1920 to 1946. The minimum dates are 1924 and 1938. The median dates, derived from twenty-four bottles, span from 1939 to 1952; no containers, however, definitely date to the 1930s or 1950s. The mean date for the entire artifact scatter is 1942.3, one of two artifact scatters from that year and one of three from the early 1940s. Artifact Scatter H is the fifth oldest or ninth newest dated artifact scatter on site. The absolute dates suggest use at the least in the first half of the 1940s.
Artifact Scatter I Artifact Scatter had only two datable containers, including a date range and a minimum date. The date range is from 1940 to 1953, and the minimum date is 1938. The one median date, based on the date range, is also the scatter’s mean date -1946.5, the only artifact scatter from that year and one of seven from the mid-1940s. Artifact Scatter I is the newest dated artifact scatter on site, although the single date does not provide a sound basis for dating.
200
Artifact Scatter J Artifact Scatter J had twenty-four datable bottles, including one absolute date, ten either/or dates, thirteen date ranges, and no minimum dates. The absolute date is a ketchup bottle from 1943. The either/or dates are 1930/1940, 1933/1943, 1934/1944, 1935/1945, and 1938/1948, spanning either the 1930s, the 1940s, or the mid-point between. The date ranges span from 1905 to 1964. Artifact Scatter J contains some of the earliest date ranges on the site, including an unidentified bottle from 1905 – 1917 and an unidentified bottle and a jar from 1910 – 1930. The median dates, derived from all twenty-four bottles, range from 1911 to 1942.5; no containers definitively date to the 1950s. The mean date for the entire scatter is 1937.4, one of only three artifact scatters from the 1930s. Artifact Scatter J is the second oldest dated artifact scatter on site. The date ranges suggest use in the first quarter of the 20th century, and the either/or dates into the 1930s and possibly 1940s.
Artifact Scatter K Artifact Scatter K had twenty-one datable containers, including six absolute dates, six either/or dates, seven date ranges, and two minimum dates. The absolute dates span the early 1940s (1940 – 1943). The either/or dates are 1930/1940, 1934/1944, 1935/1945, and 1938/1948. The date ranges span from 1920 to 1964. The minimum dates are 1925 and 1933. The median date, derived from nineteen containers, range from 1935 to 1952; no container, however, definitively dates to the 1930s or the 1950s. The mean date for the entire scatter is 1942.6, one of three artifact scatters from the early 1940s. Artifact Scatter K is the sixth oldest or eighth newest dated artifact scatter on site. The absolute dates and several date ranges suggest an early 1940s use.
Artifact Scatter L Artifact Scatter L had seven datable containers, including two absolute dates, four date ranges, and one minimum date. Two food containers absolutely date to 1941. The date ranges span from 1926 to 1964, including three likely kitchen containers that post-date 1940. The minimum date is a Postum jar from 1946. Median dates, derived from six containers, ranged from 1937 to 1952; no containers, however, definitively dated to the 1930s or the 1950s. The mean date for the entire artifact scatter is 1945.8, one of two artifact scatters from that year and one of seven
201
from the mid-1940s. Artifact Scatter L is the second newest or twelfth oldest dated artifact scatter on site. Absolute and date ranges suggest a post-1940 use.
Artifact Scatter M Artifact Scatter M had forty datable containers, second only to Artifact Scatter D, including eleven absolute dates, five either/or dates, fifteen date ranges, and nine minimum dates. The absolute dates span the 1940s and extend into the early 1950s (1940 – 1951), including a 1940 creomulsion cough syrup bottle, a 1950 Postum jar, and a 1951 ketchup bottle. It is possible that, like Artifact Scatter F, the medicine bottle was consumed more slowly than food-related items, and is therefore older. The either/or dates, all on beer bottles, are 1934/1944, 1935/1945, or 1937/1947. The date ranges span from 1903 to 1964, including an old wine bottle (1903 – 1937; another item consumed more slowly) and eight jars whose manufacture began in 1940. The minimum dates are 1925, 1940, and seven jars from 1946. The median dates, derived from thirty-one containers, ranged from 1920 to 1952; no containers, however, definitively dated from the 1920s and 1930s, although two containers dated to the early 1950s. The mean date for the entire scatter is 1944.2, pulled lower by the old wine bottle, one of four artifact scatters for that year and one of seven for the mid-1940s. Artifact Scatter M’s date was right in the middle –the seventh oldest and the seventh newest. Absolute and minimum dates suggest use throughout the 1940s, particularly the second half, and into the early 1950s.
Artifact Scatter N Artifact Scatter N had eighteen datable containers, including one absolute date, four either/or dates, nine date ranges, and four minimum dates. The absolute date is a beer bottle from 1940. The either/or dates are also beer bottles from 1935/1945 and 1937/1947, either the mid-1930s or mid-1940s. Date ranges span from 1881 to 1968. Artifact Scatter N, like Artifact Scatter J, contains some of the earliest date ranges on the site, including a beer bottle (1881 – 1905) and a one-gallon jug (1911 – 1929). The scatter also contains an unidentified bottles not manufactured until between 1945 and 1960. The minimum dates are 1927, 1934, and 1938. The median dates, derived from fourteen containers, range from 1893 to 1952.5, the largest date span on the site. The mean date for the entire artifact scatters is 1936.9, one of three artifact scatters from the 1930s. Artifact Scatter N is the oldest dated artifact scatter on site. Its absolute date and several
202 date ranges suggest use on the 1940s, while the older bottles suggest either use in the first quarter th of the 20 century or lengthy retention of older containers.
Artifact Scatter O Artifact Scatter O had sixteen datable containers, including two absolute dates, one either/or date, eight date ranges, and five minimum dates. The absolute dates are likely food containers from 1941 and 1942. The either/or date is a medicine bottle from 1931/1941. The date ranges span from 1926 – 1964, including four unidentified kitchen jars whose manufacture began in 1940. The minimum dates are 1940 and 1946, including three 1946+ Postum jars. The median dates, derived from eleven containers, ranged from 1937 to 1952; no containers, however, definitively dated to the 1930s or 1950s. The mean date for the entire artifact scatter is 1944.7, one of four artifact scatters for that
Figure 8.101. Distribution of Artifact Scatters by Date. year and one of seven for the mid- 1940s. Artifact Scatter was the fifth newest or ninth oldest dated artifact scatter on site. Its absolute and minimum dates suggest use throughout the 1940s.
203
Summary The artifact assemblage contained glass containers whose possible manufacture date ranged from the last quarter of the nineteenth century through the mid-1960s. The majority dated to the 1930s and/or 1940s, suggesting that the Sawyer family relied heavily on commercially produced foods during the last two decades of tenancy. Plotting the mean artifact scatter dates revealed that scatter distribution across the site was indeed patterned by date (Figure 8.101). As hypothesized, the two large scatters (AS J and N) in the northwest quadrant of the site, with mean dates of late 1930s, contained the oldest bottles recovered from the surface. During the early 1940s, several new dumps were created, including two small ones north of the yard and, for the first time, two small ones in the yard. By the mid-1940s, almost the entire western half of the yard was dedicated to trash piles, and several more piles had been started in the northwest quadrant. By the early 1950s, trash was dumped both far from and near to the house, as indicated by absolute dates of several bottles in both Artifact Scatter D directly west of the house and Artifact Scatter M in the northwest quadrant of the site. The former residents of the Cedar Shake House appear to have initially thrown trash away at a distance from the house, until for whatever reason the preservation of open space around the house was no longer a priority. Active use of the yard probably lessened dramatically when the Sawyers shifted from tenant farming to plantation employment. Additionally, the Sawyers’ children were older, perhaps no longer using the yard for play, and the Sawyers themselves were older, perhaps less able to maintain the grounds. The dramatic increase in trash at the site also corresponds with World War II and the final years of tenancy on the Killearn Plantation, two events that likely disrupted the lives of the occupants of the Cedar Shake House.
204
CHAPTER NINE CONCLUSION
This thesis is about an investigation of the Cedar Shake House, a historic African-American farmstead located in Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, and the larger historical and contemporary context in which it sits. The overarching goal of the project was to contribute to the recovery and preservation of the history associated with the site, as well as to a sound decision-making process regarding the site’s further research, preservation and interpretation. Towards that end, cultural resource management in the Florida Park Service and previous research projects in the park to date were critiqued and extensive historical research, archaeological site survey, and artifact analysis were conducted. The intent of this chapter is to summarize the comments and findings presented in preceding chapters, and to offer a series of recommendations that embody both my professional opinions and my personal wants for the continued development of an African-American heritage program at the park.
Summary of Project History What started with a desire to determine with whom the archaeological record at Cedar Shake House was associated quickly expanded into an investigation of the historic African-American community once located on the shores of Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet. In question was the occupation history of the house, but also the genesis and historical trajectory of the larger community of which the occupants were once part. Historical research was conducted to identify the specific individuals associated with the house and the specifics of their lives, as well as the general circumstances that shaped and marked life in the community. Contextualization was as important as attribution in regards to the prediction and interpretation of the archaeological record. Additionally, I wanted to illuminate the breadth of African-American history associated with park lands, put Maclay Gardens and its historical actors in a sociocultural context, and address issues of race and class.
205 The Cedar Shake House property is associated with four distinct periods of African-American history associated with Maclay Gardens State Park. The first: Enslavement. This land was once part of an antebellum plantation owned by the Hall and then the Papy families on which enslaved peoples lived and grew cotton. The second: Land ownership. The land was purchased from Mariano Papy by Spencer Robinson in 1871, an African-American tenant farmer and possibly former slave on the Papy Plantation. His children would later sell the property to John Law by 1910, a wealthy white northerner who established LAC-CAL, a hunting plantation on the shores of Lake Hall. The third: Tenant farming and plantation employment. The house was reportedly once home to Henry and Annie Sawyer, tenants farmers on the LAC-CAL Plantation and then employees on the Maclay’s Killearn Plantation through the first half of the twentieth century. The fourth: State employment. The house was transferred along with the Lake Overstreet Addition to the State of Florida and incorporated into Maclay Gardens State Park in 1992, a park whose staff had included members of the historic African-American community since its inception in 1953.
This thesis contains four chapters devoted to historical research, covering plantation tenancy, land ownership, life in the hills, and the Cedar Shake House. My intention was to put African- Americans and their experiences at the center of this history, accomplished via a heavy reliance on oral history interviews, public documents, and topical and regional histories. The findings both challenge and augment the current rendering of the park’s history in several ways, particularly the following. Firstly, slavery, tenant farming, plantation employment, landownership and state employment are not discrete histories of the park, but rather different aspects of the same history, that of a singular community whose membership and fortunes shifted over time. Secondly, the African-American history of the park may be particularly significant in that the purchase of the Papy Plantation by six tenant farmers appears to represent the earliest large land acquisitions by African-Americans in Leon County. And finally, much of the park was once owned by African-Americans, including the land that the Maclay House and Gardens now sit upon, challenging a sometimes romanticized chain of title that has the property passing from one elite to the next.
206 The hills around Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet have been stomping ground for many, black and white alike. Dr. William Buffington Radford settled on the shores of Lake Hall in 1888, establishing a printing press that produced the weekly Leon County Journal and a pharmaceutical lab that produced his famed ‘specifics’ for a wide variety of ailments (Kenneson circa 1995; Radford 1897). Dr. Radford lauded settlement of the area by “an extremely intelligent class of Northern farmers,” and organized the New Settler’s Society, open to “all white persons both male and female from other states and countries who have settled in Leon County since 1865” (Radford 1889, 1897). The area also retained its antebellum genteel appeal as a popular place for dances on old plantations, moonlit excursions to the lakes, and picnicking, fishing, hunting, and boating. At the same time, local African-Americans farmed their land, briefly got involved in Republican politics, and established churches and schools for their own. Lake Hall was also a popular destination for African-Americans, including a grand Emancipation celebration in 1892 attended by “colored people from South and East Florida,” and a Fourth of July celebration in 1927 touted to be “one of the biggest picnics and celebrations ever held in Leon County” (Weekly Floridian 1892, 1927). Among other things, this stomping ground has been contested ground, segregated ground, along racial lines in terms of use and ownership.
Something happened between 1951 and 1953. In 1951, Louise Fleischmann Maclay penned a letter of intent (to donate) to the Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials that made provision for some of the African-Americans living and working on her plantation, stipulating that:
“Our wishes in relinquishing our custodianship of these Gardens are several: We should like our Superintendent, Mr. Ferrell, who has served the Gardens for twenty-six years with utmost devotion, to continue in charge; likewise his staff of negroes who have had training and long experience. They, like Mr. Ferrell, should be capable of giving further years of efficient service. Two of the negroes have cabins on what will be State property. They, and after their death, their present wives, should be permitted to remain in these cabins during their respective lifetime. If any major improvement requires the removal of one, or both of these cabins, I or my executors should be informed before any action is taken” (Maclay 1951).
207 In 1953, the family donated 300+ acres to the State of Florida which included the “Gardens, open fields, woodlands, a nursery and extensive frontage on Lake Hall,” as well as “a main house, several cottages, a superintendent’s house, two negro cabins, and many outbuildings” (Maclay 1953). The stipulations had changed, however; while provision was still made to ensure her African-American staff of continued employment, their and their spouses’ lifetime rights to live in their cabins was dropped from the deed. Why, and what alternate arrangements were made on their behalf, if any, are unknown. It is reported that Mrs. Maclay demolished a number of tenant houses on the Killearn Plantation in the early 1950s; it appears that this marked the end of plantation tenancy at Killearn, both on the property transferred to the state and that still held by the family around Lake Overstreet (TJC 1999b:42).
Like other parks in the Florida Park System during Jim Crow, Maclay Gardens State Park was segregated. There was a Confederate Memorial adjacent the park on Thomasville Highway, and only whites were permitted entry. Later, it is believed that separate facilities were constructed for African-Americans once they gained the right to visit the park. A circa 1950s park directory shows that the former plantation overseer and his African-American laborers still staffed the property, now as Chief Gardener and Assistant Rangers (Figure 9.1). The park was otherwise severed from the African-American community, as its shores were now closed to celebration and its hills to residence, and its history rewritten. This project has been, in part, in support of the park’s ongoing efforts to reintegrate this larger African-American history into the park’s story.
208
Figure 9.1. Circa 1950s Staff Directory for Killearn Gardens. Source: Florida State Archives, Division of Historical Resources.
Archaeology The park’s Cultural Landscape Master Plan called for the archaeological interpretation of the historic homesteads around Lake Overstreet (TJC 1999b:21). For the Cedar Shake House, it recommended delineating, restoring, reconstructing and rehabilitating the house, garden, well, outbuildings, and agricultural fields. At that point, a house, the foundation of a small outbuilding, and nearby overgrown fields had been documented. The archaeological component of this project was designed to facilitate historic site development by recovering more precise information about the historic configuration and other historic elements of the site.
The Cedar Shake House was unquestionably occupied by African-American tenants during the Maclay period, and there is the possibility that the house was constructed and initially occupied by African-American landowners during the late nineteenth or early twentieth century as well. Historic research highlighted differences between the landowning and tenant farming families that could have archaeological correlates. The Robinson family was large, containing multiple generations and as farmers, likely raised livestock, garden and cash crop, was cash poor, had a small rough house, and few possessions. Their former farmstead was likely comprised of the primary dwelling, a detached kitchen, agricultural outbuildings, a large yard with multiple activity areas, livestock and garden enclosures, and fields. The Sawyer family was smaller and
209 nuclear, and as more recent plantation employees likely had more cash and less time for farming. Their former homestead was likely comprised of a small house with an attached kitchen, fewer outbuildings, livestock and cultivated areas, and less yard devoted to household activity. It is interesting to note that between 1920 and 1930, the Sawyer family shifted from tenant farming to plantation employment, a transition that may also be apparent in the archaeological record.
A pedestrian survey was conducted to locate and identify cultural landscape features around the house, including structures, roads, ditches, historic and secondary vegetation, fence lines and artifact scatters. The archaeological evidence suggests that the site changed over time in a number of dramatic ways that appear to correspond with changes in tenants and/or the lives of tenants. The most dramatic change, observable on both aerial photographs and variations in on- site vegetation, is the expansion of woodlands and concomitant disappearance of clearings as farming was abandoned for paid employment. The fields once located to the east of the Cedar Shake House are now forested by loblolly pines, and succession is well on its way in the once large clearing around the house. That the occupants of the house had shifted to plantation employment is reinforced by the disappearance at some point of the spur road that connected the house to the African-American landowning community to the north versus the still visible ‘drive way’ that pointed occupants towards the Maclay House. Extensive artifact scatters in the yard also indicated that farmstead activity had lessened or virtually ceased at the Cedar Shake House, once the likely locus of outdoor cooking and laundry, butchering and meat smoking, livestock, gardens and equipment storage. Use of the area surrounding the house for trash disposal precluded these activities. Artifact dates indicate a fairly rapid encroachment of debris in the 1930s and 1940s, with the oldest dumps in the far northwest quarter of the site, moving next in to the outer yard perimeter, and finally to immediately adjacent the house. Trash delimits an ever shrinking yard; dense artifact concentrations to the east and west of the house correspond with possible fence lines, indicating that residents simply tossed trash over the fence. Remnant fencing and old fence lines, however, may indicate earlier agricultural activity, marking not just property boundaries but the boundaries of fields and possible garden and livestock enclosures.
The archaeological component of this project also sought to characterize the site’s surface artifacts, which comprised a highly visible and numerous component of the site’s archaeological
210 record. Much of the site was 100% surface collected, and these artifacts were classified using a modified version of Stanley South’s functional group model in order to render the assemblage manageable, observable and interpretable. The vast majority of surface artifacts were located in artifact scatters with mean dates between the late 1930s through the mid-1940s; the most recent artifacts dated to the early 1950s. The surface artifact assemblage clearly represented that of plantation employees versus tenant farmers. The most predominant type of artifacts on the site were kitchen-related cans and glass bottles and jars, speaking of the former residents’ heavy reliance on commercially produced food as a diet mainstay versus the more traditional consumption of farm-raised products. These artifacts also speak of the residents’ purchasing power, consumers who had enough disposable income to meet at least some of their basic needs via the market versus through subsistence farming. The relatively few other types of artifacts, however, speak of aspects of life that were shared by many a plantation employee and land owner alike, including a reliance on chamber pots, oil lamps, flashlights, and coal-powered stoves in lieu of utilities; mismatched tableware versus purchased sets; and few clothing and leisure items indicating continued use and reuse or limited possession.
Spatial analysis by type, count and weight provided no evidence of distinct activity areas; most objects appear to have been intentionally disposed of versus representing in situ remains. Virtually all types of artifacts appear in the highest numbers in artifact scatters within twenty meters of the house, corresponding with the period of both the highest consumption of store bought goods and the use of the nearby yard for trash disposal. Only several areas of building material and several landscape features warrant further investigation to determine their function and origin, including small brick scatters just to the north of the yard and in the northwest corner of the yard, two short posts protruding from the ground and a nearby wrought iron hinge that may represent a gate along the eastern boundary of the site, and four possible fence lines. Of as much interest as artifacts is the absence or near absence of artifacts. Two areas inside the yard were noticeably devoid of artifacts, including the brambly southwest corner and a rectangular area north of the house. It would be interesting to know why; perhaps these areas were too far away from the house for convenient dumping or they represent a former activity area, such as garden, vehicle parking, or livestock pens. The small front back and side yards had low artifact counts (save for two artifact scatters), corresponding perhaps with a swept active yard and
211 reinforcing the assertion that yards had ceased to be critical sites of household and farmstead work in the years of occupancy.
Recommendations It is my hope that dynamic and comprehensive public interpretation is the end product of all strides made towards illuminating the African-American history of Maclay Gardens State Park, mine included. Maclay Gardens State Park has a rich, diverse, multi-faceted history. African- American history is intertwined with every historical time period associated with and every previous historical manifestation of park lands. Highlighting African-American history recognizes a heretofore under-recognized, significant aspect of the park’s heritage, one that is replete with cultural traditions, hard won achievements, struggle, and the aspirations and ordinary details of daily life. Honest discussion and exploration of relationships between slaves and masters, African-American landowners and their white neighbors, and plantation owners and tenant farmers and employees can serve the public good by educating and challenging visitors to think in new ways about the past. If connections can be drawn between the circumstances that shaped these past lives and that continue to shape our lives today, such as race relations, economic disparities, changing economic bases and power relations, and depleted natural resources, visitors may just view and participate in contemporary issues with renewed interest.
Interpretive planning is at the heart of historic site development in the Florida Park Service. Once the suitability and significance of a site have been determined, it is often decisions about how to interpretively utilize a site that drives the call for additional research and particular preservation treatment. Careful consideration and thorough evaluation by a multi-disciplinary team should be the basis for interpretive recommendations, as these are translated into concrete goals and objectives for a park, which in turn serve as the basis for staff efforts to secure funding and agency budget allocations. Maclay Gardens State Park already has a couple of sets of recommendations in hand that for better or worse have yet to come to fruition. While the partially-standing structures have continued to deteriorate, much needed structural assessments, temporary shoring, and additional historical and archaeological research have been accomplished to undergird future efforts. The Cultural Landscape Master Plan outlined a series of
212 recommendations for the preservation treatment and interpretation of both specific historic resources and the park as a whole (TJC 1999a). The plan called for a system of wayside signs and interpretive stations along the historic roads and trails around Lake Overstreet that focused on still surviving, above ground historic remains and discernable landscape features, particularly the house sites with still-standing structures. A slim follow-up report provided technical specifications for the construction of these interpretive stations, a combination of interpretive panels, benches, bicycle racks and hitching posts. The recommendations in my thesis are intended to supplement this body of work by challenging or augmenting recommendations already made, as well as offering additional points for consideration.
1. Develop an interpretive program that highlights the park’s African-American history. The park possesses the history, cultural resources, and research to warrant and support development of interpretive programming that focuses specifically on the park’s African- American heritage. It is true that the park also possesses a natural environment, ornamental garden, prehistory and other historical chapters worthy of interpretation. The point of this recommendation is simply that interpretation of the park’s African-American history should be a primary objective and/or a stand alone project to ensure that this significant history is not understated or in competition for the spotlight.
2. Put the African-American experience at the center of this interpretation. Interpretive material about the park’s African-American history should emphasize the various African-American perspectives on the past, and discuss historical events and persons in relationship to African-Americans versus the more traditional mention of African- Americans in relationship to white elites. What was the African-American experience of every facet of the history of park lands and the larger Tallahassee area? How did African- Americans respond to, participate in, and create alternatives to the larger sociocultural context?
213 3. Discuss issues of race, class and gender. The historic African-American community on Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet was born in slavery and survived the transition to freedom, the end of Reconstruction, the oppression of Jim Crow, the civil rights movement, and desegregation. Intertwined issues of race, class and gender have played big part in shaping their lives, identities, circumstances, and opportunities, as well as the world around them. It is discussion of these issues, which still impact our lives today, that can transform interpretive material into a powerful educational tool. That being said, African-American descendants and community members involved in similar projects elsewhere have wanted their history to cover more than racial oppression, to not be used only as a vehicle for discussing these issues, but also to highlight their achievements and cultural traditions (Logan 1998; Uunila and Chaney 2001). The Florida Park Service can turn to the National Park Service historical themes and concepts model for guidance, which advocates incorporating these issues under larger topical headings rather than make them stand alone topics (NPS 1994).
4. Cover the breadth of the park’s African-American history and the larger historical context. The park’s African-American history spans the historical periods represented by park lands, from settlement by early pioneers during the Territorial period to the park’s contemporary neighbors and employees. While different aspects of this past have been presented as separate phenomenon, together they comprise the history of a single community that persists today. This history unfolded in a larger social, cultural and political climate that the community was both shaped by and reacted to; the significance and implications of their journey and lives should be explored, and related to events and movements occurring on a regional, state and national levels.
5. Utilize the historic landscape and configuration of the park to augment interpretation. The park’s layout mirrors its historic configuration during the twentieth century plantation era. Interpretation can, to some extent, take its cue from events and relationships that transpired at different locales throughout the park. The historic park landscape was once highly racialized. The Gardens and the Maclay House were white stomping grounds, serviced by black domestic servants and laborers while the outlying areas were black
214 stomping grounds, visited occasionally by white tax and rent collectors and ‘rolling store’ salesmen. The Florida Park Service can employ each of these areas to highlight different aspects of the park’s African-American heritage. The Maclay House, Gardens and shop area lends itself to discussion of the relationship between African-American servants and laborers and the Maclay family, as well as highlight of African-Americans’ role in creating and operating the home and gardens. The Lake Overstreet property can usher visitors into what once was an African-American world and home place, replete with homes, businesses, recreational areas, cultivated fields, cemeteries, churches and schools.
6. Conduct additional historical research. At the conclusion of this project, several topics remain of continued interest while several additional topics and questions have emerged, all of which warrant further investigation. In large part, historical research will be driven by interpretive goals, and should also consider the interests of African-American descendents and community members.
Very little is known about the Papy Plantation, which formed the land, and possibly membership, base as well, of the historic Lake Hall and Lake Overstreet community. Additional research can help fill the gaps in our knowledge about the property’s antebellum history, as well as assist in locating antebellum archaeological sites, of which none have been identified to date. Particularly intriguing are the yet uncovered circumstances surrounding Papy’s sale of the property to African-American tenant farmers. Archival research for family papers and discussions with Papy descendants are starting points.
Relatively little is also known about the initial African-American purchasers of the Papy Plantation, including where they came from, what their experiences of enslavement and emancipation had been, how they acquired their new property and what its significance was to them, and what daily life was like. Archival research on a possible Chaires plantation connection, additional U.S. Census and Freedman’s Bureau records research, and further conversations with descendants are starting points.
215 Because the Lake Overstreet property may be particularly significant for its history of African-American landownership, additional deed reconstruction is needed to track the evolution and decline of this community. The work in this report for the Spencer Robinson tract is a start.
In 1867, the Tallahassee Sentinel reported on precinct delegate selection prior to the upcoming Leon County Republican convention (Sentinel 1867). Among the list of delegates and alternates for the Lake Hall precinct were land owners and tenant farmers that once lived on and farmed what is now park land. Their political involvement signifies their active participation in defining what freedom meant and in shaping the circumstances that shaped their lives. Their political activity also represented the brief window of political opportunity that ended along with Reconstruction soon after. This is a very interesting chapter in the community’s history. 7. Conduct additional archaeological research. Several Phase I and pedestrian surveys have been conducted on the Lake Overstreet addition in an attempt to locate additional sites. Probably most fruitful at this point would be targeted surveys with specific goals in mind, such as further mapping of historic roads, paths and fence lines on the property; the search for additional specific house sites depicted on old property deeds or mentioned in oral history interviews; and the continued search for antebellum structures guided by the results of historical research.
The house sites on Lake Overstreet also hold the promise for interesting cross-comparison studies in terms of site layout and artifact assemblages. Similarities and differences between the houses on Lake Overstreet, as well as between them and houses once occupied by rural and urban, African-American and white, and lower, middle and upper class families can help clarify the diversity of life experiences and the extent of shared circumstances. The artifact assemblage from the Cedar Shake House provides a base from which to work, and other house sites in the park possess similar artifact assemblages that can be collected, analyzed and preserved. Because it is too time consuming and costly to collect and process 100% of the artifacts from any given site, clear instruction should be provided in regards to the diagnostic, unique, or otherwise significant types of material that should be recovered.
216
Surface remains provided some information about historic site configuration and use at the Cedar Shake House, but not enough to support the restoration of its historic appearance as called for in the Cultural Landscape Master Plan. In question is whether and how subsurface investigations at this and other house sites can augment our understanding of life in the past, and contribute to historic site development goals. Archaeological work conducted by the National Park Service is currently under way at three historic house sites on Lake Overstreet, including Cedar Shake House, Near Dock House, and Purple Brick. The primary component of these surveys is systematic shovel testing on a 5-meter grid, with some judgmental shovel testing and limited excavation of larger units in areas of interest. The results are not in yet, thus the verdict is still out in regards to the usefulness of this approach in recovering data at this type of archaeological site. I do know that no significant cultural strata were identifiable, and believe that very few features or in situ artifacts were discovered. I wonder if stripping off the topsoil in the yard around the houses would be more likely to reveal evidence of outbuildings, fence lines, and activity areas. The results of the NPS investigation should be reviewed carefully, and a survey conducted of excavations at similar sites elsewhere in order to refine the scope of work should the opportunity become available to conduct additional archaeological work at other house sites.
Spatial analysis of different types of artifacts at the Cedar Shake House yielded little useful information. I would not abandon the premise yet that internal patterning of sheet midden can reveal former activity areas and specialized use areas based on this one instance alone. I would also not invest so much time into the effort by collecting per five or ten meter units given uncertain future results. A feasible, reasonable intermediary would be to collect by area –for instance, the front yard, back yard, side yards, driveway, former fields, and so forth. The other historic sites around Lake Overstreet provide an opportunity to further investigate whether the location of specific types of artifacts is meaningful.
Analysis of site vegetation and artifact scatter location proved particularly useful in defining the boundaries of the yard, actively used areas around the house, and old fields. I recommend clearing the vegetation necessary to map the locations of artifact concentrations
217 across the site. I also recommend documenting the types and densities of native and exotic species of vegetation across the site.
The surface artifacts at the Cedar Shake House were associated with plantation employees who worked for wages and had all but abandoned farming. I think an extremely interesting question is whether and how archaeological deposits associated with tenant farmers differ from those associated with plantation employees. Can the tenant status of former residents of historic house sites in the park be determined based on archaeological remains alone? Further historic research is needed to get a better handle on how much commercially produced foods tenant farmers purchased and how much home grown foods plantation employees consumed.
A number of the artifacts recovered from the Cedar Shake House are laden with meanings, many which likely will escape contemporary researchers. Beauty products, bric-a-brac, tableware and other objects often represented conflicting aspirations, values and emotions for their former users. In depth research that explores African-American’s perspectives and interpretations of archaeological data can provide a more balanced, nuanced and honest account of the past.
To the extent possible, I recommend that the park conduct public archaeology in regards to the following three aspects. Firstly, as previously mentioned, the concerns and interests of the descendant community should be taken into consideration in developing any archaeological scope of work. Additionally, descendants can be called upon to offer background information and contribute to the interpretation of artifacts and other archaeological data from their own perspective. Secondly, volunteers should be incorporated into the fieldwork, research and analysis phases of any archaeological projects. This enables the park to offer its volunteers one more rich opportunity, and benefits the investigation with extra pairs of hands and additional perspectives. And finally, the archaeological process should be interpreted to the public, including open house days during which visitors can see archeologists in action and public talks that share research findings.
218 8. Preserve as much historic fabric related to the park’s African-American history as possible. Some of the cultural resources associated with the park’s African-American heritage are more imperiled than others. The Maclay House and Gardens, which are related to African- American plantation employment, are in good condition, receiving the bulk of the park’s preservation monies as showcase of the park. Likewise, the shop area behind the main house is in good condition, as it actively used for park maintenance and administrative support functions. It is the above ground structural elements of the old home sites around Lake Overstreet that are in poor condition, and whose fate has yet to be determined.
The demolition work that occurred in the early 1950s under Mrs. Maclay’s direction removed a significant amount of historic fabric from park lands. Today there is very little tangible, observable evidence left of African-Americans’ former occupation of the area. The most visible remains are two partially-standing structures, the Cedar Shake House and the Near Dock House, located off the multi-use trail around Lake Overstreet. Their deteriorated condition throws into question the best preservation treatment approach in terms of feasibility. It is true that the Florida Park Service puts sometimes even substantial monies into the stabilization, preservation and protection of ruins (such as forts and sugar mills). These houses have been a harder sell, however, given mixed opinions about their historical significance, and wooden construction that promises to continue to deteriorate without substantial intervention.
Yet it is the very same partially-standing structures that make these prime sites for public interpretation. There is something so powerful and provocative about authentic remnants of the past that no artist’s rendering or interpretive text can approximate. We stand at similar crossroads as Mrs. Maclay fifty years ago, and while our considerations are different, the end result may be an even more complete erasure of African-American history from the landscape if the Florida Park Service decides not to invest in these structures’ preservation. Our charge is to preserve the cultural resources in our charge, and to interpret these cultural resources to the visiting public. These ruinous houses present challenges and opportunities in both respects. The ever-tightening state budget presents additional obstacle. The park should work in concert with the agency’s in-house professionals and management staff,
219 interested community groups, and local supporters to identify ways to save as much historical fabric as possible. Options range from removing unsalvageable debris but preserving chimney falls and foundation piers in place to constructing roofs, replacing overly deteriorated material, and shoring up surviving elements.
The Cedar Shake House would make a great interpretive site. The clearing that was done as part of this project has returned some of the historic openness to the site, so that the crepe myrtle and large live oaks are visible once again, and visitors can more easily imagine the vistas sweeping down to the lakes. The remnants of this small house are a stark, tangible piece of the past that provide an authentic backdrop to interpretation of the story of the African-American slaves, landowners, tenant farmers and plantation and park employees once connected to this property.
220
APPENDIX A
1A-32 PERMIT FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
220
Figure A.1. Archaeological Research Permit Application Form.
221
Figure A.2. Bureau of Archaeological Research Permit.
222
Figure A.2. –continued.
223
Figure A.2. –continued.
224
Figure A.2. –continued.
225
APPENDIX B
CEDAR SHAKE HOUSE SURFACE COLLECTION ARTIFACT CATALOG
226 Table B.1. Cedar Shake House Surface Collection Artifact Catalog.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
6.1 U21 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 98.2 101 y
6.2 U21 glass complete household toiletry bottle perfume? 1 3 101 y 100, 13.1 UNK glass complete kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 461.1 101 y
14.1 G27 14 metal complete personal none canteen unidentified 1 234.8 100 y
27.1 G27 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 122.4 96 y y glass 27.2 G27 (metal) complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 214 y
27.3 G27 glass fragment kitchen food prep jar canning 1 113.7 96 y
27.4 G27 glass fragment kitchen food bottle condiment? 3 47.1 96 y
27.5 G27 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 3 56.2 y
27.6 G27 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 28.9 y
27.7 G27 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 43.9 y
27.8 G27 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 6.9 y metal 27.9 G27 (rubber) complete unidentified kitchen jar lid 1 5.2
27.10 G27 metal partial household toiletry dental toothpaste 1 4.5 96 y
27.11 G27 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware bowl whiteware 1 13
28.1 G27 14 glass complete kitchen drink jar postum 3 479.4 81 y (2of3) glass 28.2 G27 14 (metal) complete kitchen drink jar postum 1 488.2 81 y
28.3 G27 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 230 81 y
28.4 G27 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 213.6 81 y
28.5 G27 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 234.9 82 y
28.6 G27 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 259.4 82 y
28.7 G27 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 254.9 82 y
28.8 G27 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 596 82
227 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
28.9 G27 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 265.8 82 y y
28.10 G27 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 168 82 y
28.11 G27 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 180.7 83 y
28.12 G27 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 197.4 83 y (1of2)
28.13 G27 14 glass complete household medicine bottle unidentified 1 341.4 83 y y condiment, 28.14 G27 14 glass complete kitchen food bottle olives? 1 279.5 83 y condiment, 28.15 G27 14 glass complete kitchen food bottle ketchup? 1 286.3 83 y y
28.16 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 192.5 y y condiment, 28.17 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen food bottle pickle/vinegar? 3 154.4 y y
28.18 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 119 y
28.19 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jug unidentified 2 286.2 y
28.20 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jug unidentified 3 253.8 y y glass 28.21 G27 14 (metal) fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 87.6 y
28.22 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen food jar cheese 1 83.7 83 y
28.23 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 83.8 y
28.24 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 65.6 84 y cough syrup, 28.25 G27 14 glass fragment household medicine bottle creomulsion 9 94.5 84 y
28.26 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 72.5 84 y
28.27 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 3 106.5 84 Y
28.28 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 4 42.8 y
28.29 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 18.9 84 y
28.30 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 73.2 y
28.31 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, gin 1 26.9 84 y
228 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
28.32 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 13.1 y condiment, 28.33 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen food bottle ketchup 1 25.1 y
28.34 G27 14 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 1.1 y
28.35 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen tableware cup glassware 1 8.8 85 y
28.36 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 33 377 y
28.37 G27 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 7.1 y
28.38 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 38.5 85 y y
28.39 G27 14 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 4 1593.5 85 y (3of4)
28.40 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 228.3 85 y
28.41 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 2 140.4 y glass 28.42 G27 14 (metal) fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach 9 385.5 85 y
28.43 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 2 179.2 y
28.44 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 6 41 y
28.45 G27 14 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine? 2 256.7 85 y
28.46 G27 14 glass fragment household toiletry jar cosmetic 2 59 y glass 28.47 G27 14 (metal) complete household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 162.2 y y
28.48 G27 14 ceramic fragment household none bric-a-brac porcelain 11 1572.2 y
28.49 G27 14 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate porcelain 8 408.1
28.50 G27 14 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware cup whiteware? 1 279 86 y
28.51 G27 14 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware cup or bowl? porcelain 1 22 86 y
28.52 G27 14 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware? 1 7.3 synthetic 28.53 G27 14 (rubber) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 2 48.2 y y
229 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
leather 28.54 G27 14 (metal) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 1 16.9 y y synthetic 28.55 G27 14 (rubber) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 1 65.2 y synthetic 28.56 G27 14 (rubber) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 58.9 y
28.57 G27 14 metal complete household toiletry can powder 1 36.8 y y condiment, 28.58 G27 14 metal complete kitchen food jar mustard 1 18.8 86 y
28.59 G27 14 metal fragment household none clock? unidentified 1 27.9 y
28.60 G27 14 metal fragment kitchen food prep pan enamel 1 106.3 y y
28.61 G27 14 metal complete transportation automobile tag license plate 1 209.4 86 y
28.62 G27 14 metal complete clothing none hanger wire 1 42.3 y y
29.1 G29 15 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 507.6 75 liquor, whiskey (Highland 29.2 G29 15 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle Cream) 2 1320 75 y (1of2) 75, 29.3 G29 15 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, gin 1 533.5 76 y
29.4 G29 15 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 471.8 76 y y
29.5 G29 15 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 491.9 76 y
29.6 G29 15 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 6 1190.3 76 y
29.7 G29 15 glass complete kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 400.5 76 y
29.8 G29 15 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 410 77 y
29.9 G29 15 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 360.1 77 y
29.10 G29 15 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 255.4 77 y
29.11 G29 15 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 270.5 77 y
29.12 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 318.1 77 y
29.13 G29 15 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 292.7 77 y y
230 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
29.14 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 290.2 78 y glass 29.15 G29 15 (metal) complete kitchen drink jar postum 1 167.5 78 y
29.16 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 326.2 y y
29.17 G29 15 glass complete household medicine bottle unidentified 7 279.8 78 y y
29.18 G29 15 glass complete kitchen food bottle extract? 1 117.3 78 y
29.19 G29 15 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 95 78 y y
29.20 G29 15 glass complete household none jar ink 1 103.4 78 y
29.21 G29 15 glass fragment household medicine bottle cardui 4 580.4 79 y
29.22 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 5 306.6 79 y
29.23 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jug 1-gallon 10 1096.6 79 y
29.24 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jug 1-gallon 2 259.1 y y
29.25 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jug 1-gallon 1 113.9 y
29.26 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 19 540.6 y
29.27 G29 15 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 464.1 79 y
29.28 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 179.3 79 y
29.29 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jug 1-gallon 2 99.1 y
29.30 G29 15 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 3 84.1 y
29.31 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 43.8 y
29.32 G29 15 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 2 174.4 79 y
29.33 G29 15 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor? 1 61.4 y
29.34 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 7.1 80 y
29.35 G29 15 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass? glassware 1 33.8 80 y
29.36 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 0.5 y
231 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
29.37 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 16.5 y
29.38 G29 15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 4.4 y synthetic 29.39 G29 15 (plastic) fragment unidentified kitchen bottle lid, screw-on 1 2.8 80 y
29.40 G29 15 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate whiteware 4 109.7 80 y
29.41 G29 15 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate porcelain 1 8.2
29.42 G29 15 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 51.9
29.43 G29 15 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate whiteware 2 14.9
29.44 G29 15 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware bowl stoneware 2 552.4 80 y
29.45 G29 15 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware bowl stoneware 1 129.2
29.46 G29 15 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware jug stoneware 3 17312 y
29.47 G29 15 ceramic fragment household none bric-a-brac unidentified 1 720 y
29.48 G29 15 metal complete building none eletrical junction box 1 244.7 y
29.49 G29 15 metal fragment household none battery battery holder 1 51.1 80 y
29.50 G29 15 metal fragment kitchen food can spice 1 12.8 y y
29.51 G29 15 metal fragment farmstead none tool chisel 1 343.7 y
29.52 G29 15 metal fragment household none unidentified box 1 137.3 y y
29.53 G29 15 metal fragment unidentified kitchen unidentified unidentified 1 172.9 y y
29.54 G29 15 metal fragment kitchen food prep pan enamel 1 88.9 y y
29.55 G29 15 metal fragment kitchen food prep kettle enamel 1 485.6 y y
29.56 G29 15 metal fragment transportation automobile tool car jack 1 3760 y food ice cream maker, 29.57 G29 15 metal fragment kitchen preparation appliance turn crank 1 1860 y
29.58 G29 15 metal fragment transportation automobile part leaf spring 1 1380 y y
29.59 G29 15 metal fragment transportation bicycle tool pump 1 480 y y
232 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
30.1 G29 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 209.5 72 y
30.2 G29 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 224.3 72 y
30.3 G29 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 140.4 72 y
30.4 G29 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 100 y
30.5 G29 14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 184.6 72 y y
30.6 G29 14 glass complete kitchen drink jar postum 1 126.7 73 y glass 30.7 G29 14 (metal) complete kitchen drink jar postum 1 162.3 73 y glass 30.8 G29 14 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 458.9 73 y
30.9 G29 14 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 387.4 73 y condiment, 30.10 G29 14 glass both kitchen food jar mustard? 2 250 74 y y
30.11 G29 14 glass complete household toiletry bottle lotion 1 113.2 74 y
30.12 G29 14 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 2 97.5 y y
30.13 G29 14 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 161.2 74 y y
30.14 G29 14 glass complete household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 163.5 74 y y
30.15 G29 14 glass complete household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 156.3 y y
30.16 G29 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 81.2 74 y condiment, 30.17 G29 14 glass fragment kitchen food bottle ketchup 3 77.8 75 y
30.18 G29 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 8 y
30.19 G29 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 6 81.1 y glass 30.20 G29 14 (plastic) fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 97.7 75 y
30.21 G29 14 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle milk 1 27.1 y
30.22 G29 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 3 114.6 y
30.23 G29 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 10 131.5 y
233 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
30.24 G29 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 3 288.1 y y
30.25 G29 14 glass both kitchen alcohol bottle beer 2 746 75 y
30.26 G29 14 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 3 100 y
30.27 G29 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 45.5 y
30.28 G29 14 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor? 1 44.3 y
30.29 G29 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 104.1 y
30.30 G29 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 46.1 y
30.31 G29 14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 17.1 y
30.32 G29 14 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate? whiteware 1 147.8 y
30.33 G29 14 ceramic fragment household none bric-a-brac porcelain 3 840 y y metal, 30.34 G29 14 enamel fragment household none chamber pot enamel 1 488.5 y y
30.35 G29 14 metal complete kitchen tableware cup aluminum 1 28.1 y y synthetic 30.36 G29 14 (plastic) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 1 18 y y glass 31.1 I27 12 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 272.2 72 y
32.1 I27 13 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 448.3 70 y 70, 32.2 I27 13 glass complete unidentified none jar starch? 1 587.7 71 y y condiment, mayonnaise or 32.3 I27 13 glass complete kitchen food jar relish? 1 192.5 71 y glass 32.4 I27 13 (metal) complete kitchen drink jar postum 1 159 71 y
32.5 I27 13 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass? glassware 1 363.3 y y glass 32.6 I27 13 (metal) complete kitchen food bottle extract 1 92.7 71 y y
32.7 I27 13 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 94.4 71 y
32.8 I27 13 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 71.7 71 y
234 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
32.9 I27 13 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 38.5 72 y
32.10 I27 13 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 3 38.6 y
32.11 I27 13 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 13 116.3 y
32.12 I27 13 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 34.6 y
32.13 I27 13 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 2.9 y
32.14 I27 13 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 5
32.15 I27 13 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 2 2.5 y
32.16 I27 13 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate whiteware 1 8.1
32.17 I27 13 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 32.2
32.18 I27 13 metal fragment unidentified kitchen jar lid 5 17.5 y synthetic 32.19 I27 13 (rubber) fragment activities entertainment toy vehicle? 2 4.4 synthetic 32.20 I27 13 (plastic) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 1 123.8 y
32.21 I27 13 leather fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 1 3 y y
32.22 I27 13 metal fragment kitchen food prep pan enamel 1 191.8 y y
33.1 I29 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 109.3 70 y
33.2 I29 metal complete kitchen tableware bowl enamel 1 135.6 y y
34.1 I31 glass complete kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 366.5 70 y
34.2 I31 glass complete kitchen none jar unidentified 1 310 70 y y
35.1 K17 glass fragment kitchen food prep jar canning 1 102 y glass 36.1 K21 9 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 150 69 y y
36.2 K21 metal complete unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 144 y glass 37.1 K27 11 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 265.8 69 y
38.1 K27 glass fragment household childcare bottle baby bottle 1 197.5 69 y
235 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
synthetic 38.2 K27 (plastic) complete munitions none bullet shot gun 1 9.9 69 y 68, 39.1 K29 metal complete household childcare can powder 1 56.3 69 y
40.1 K31 2 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 361.2 67 y
40.2 K31 2 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 539.4 67 y y
40.3 K31 2 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 276.5 68 y y glass condiment, 40.4 K31 2 (metal) complete kitchen food jar mustard? 1 146.4 68 y y glass 40.5 K31 2 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 150.5 68 y y bostonian shoe 40.6 K31 2 glass fragment household none bottle cream 1 83.9 68 y
40.7 K31 2 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 67.6 y y glass 40.8 K31 2 (metal) fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 18.7 y
41.1 K33 1 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 429.7 67 y
41.2 K33 1 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 660 y condiment, 41.3 K33 1 glass fragment kitchen food bottle ketchup? 1 173.6 67 y y
41.4 K33 1 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 25.9 67 y
41.5 K33 1 metal complete household none chamber pot enamel 1 555.6 67 y y
41.6 K33 1 metal complete transportation automobile tag license plate 1 159.9 y
42.1 L21 metal fragment farmstead none tool bucket 1 446.6 y y
43.1 L23 9 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 3 411.6 66 y
44.1 L24 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 403.8 66 y
44.2 L24 brick fragment building none masonry brick 1 960 y
44.3 L24 metal fragment building none roofing tin sheet 1 99.9 y
44.4 L24 metal unknown hardware none fastener hinge 1 1580 y
45.1 N14 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 237.8 y
236 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
46.1 N20 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 532.5 65 y y
46.2 N20 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 532.3 65 y
46.3 N20 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 573.5 65 y y
46.4 N20 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 405.8 65 y
46.5 N20 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 217.4 66 y y
46.6 N20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 3 196.3 y synthetic 46.7 N20 (plastic) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 3 1.3 y
47.1 N21 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 384.9 64
47.2 N21 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 5 326.2 65 y
48.1 N22 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 610 y
48.2 N22 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 516.6 64 y y
48.3 N22 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 194.3 64 y y
48.4 N22 glass complete household cleaning bottle cleaner, fluid 1 99.6 64 y
48.5 N22 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 52.4 64 y
48.6 N22 glass complete household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 273.6 64 y y
48.7 N22 glass fragment building none window pane, thick 1 26.9
48.8 N22 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 2 y
48.9 N22 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 1.6 y
48.10 N22 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 37.9 y
48.11 N22 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 61.6 y 60, 49.1 N23 8 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 4 947 66 y
49.2 N23 8 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 238.7 61 y
49.3 N23 8 glass complete kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 444.5 61
237 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
49.4 N23 8 glass complete kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 383.9 61
49.5 N23 8 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 350.9 61 y
49.6 N23 8 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 376.8 61 y
49.7 N23 8 glass complete kitchen food bottle condiment 1 435.6 62 y y glass 49.8 N23 8 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 3 774.9 62 y y (2of3) glass 49.9 N23 8 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 276.2 62 y y glass 49.10 N23 8 (metal) complete kitchen drink jar postum 5 812.2 62 y
49.11 N23 8 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 231.1 62 y glass 49.12 N23 8 (plastic) complete household medicine bottle unidentified 1 153.8 62 y y
49.13 N23 8 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 78.4 63 y y
49.14 N23 8 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 68 63 y
49.15 N23 8 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 52.7 63 y glass 49.16 N23 8 (plastic) complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 63.7 63 y y
49.17 N23 8 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 11 125.1 63 y
49.18 N23 8 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 74.6 63 y
49.19 N23 8 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 57.5 y
49.20 N23 8 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 5.2 y
49.21 N23 8 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 6 68 y
49.22 N23 8 glass fragment kitchen tableware butter dish glassware 2 82.3
49.23 N23 8 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 4 y
49.24 N23 8 glass fragment household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 2.2 y
49.25 N23 8 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate? whiteware 1 2.8
49.26 N23 8 metal fragment household lighting oil lamp burner? 1 78.4 y
238 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
49.27 N23 8 brick fragment building none masonry brick 4 430.7 y
49.28 N23 8 concrete fragment building none masonry concrete 1 468.8 y
49.29 N23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 538.8 y y
49.30 N23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 289.9 y
49.31 N23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 4 362.7 y
49.32 N23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 55.7 y
49.33 N23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 201.1 y
49.34 N23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 59 1344.1 y
49.35 N23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 127.4 y
49.36 N23 8 metal fragment household none can paint 1 272.6 y
49.37 N23 8 metal fragment kitchen food can seafood 2 194.7 y
49.38 N23 8 metal fragment household none stove pipe 4 68.9 y
50.1 N24 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 106.1 y
50.2 N24 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 5 169 y
51.1 M23 9 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 4 175.6 60 y
51.2 M23 9 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 479.8 60 y y
51.3 M23 9 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 54.9 y
51.4 M23 9 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 147.1 y glass 52.1 M29 18 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 610 57 y
52.2 M29 18 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 584.2 glass 52.3 M29 18 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 502.2 57 y glass 52.4 M29 18 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 273.4 58 y glass 52.5 M29 18 (metal) complete kitchen drink jar postum 3 479.5 58 y
239 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
glass 52.6 M29 18 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 311 58 y
52.7 M29 18 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 288.5 58 y
52.8 M29 18 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 273 58 y y (1of2)
52.9 M29 18 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 114 59 y
52.10 M29 18 glass complete household medicine bottle unidentified 1 266.9 59 y y
52.11 M29 18 glass complete kitchen food bottle extract 1 88.2 59 y y
52.12 M29 18 glass complete kitchen food bottle extract 1 39.2 59 y y
52.13 M29 18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 125.5 59 y
52.14 M29 18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 80 59 y glass 52.15 M29 18 (metal) fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 97.1 y
52.16 M29 18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 3 51.1 y
52.17 M29 18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 141.9 60 y
52.18 M29 18 glass fragment kitchen tableware cup glassware 1 23
52.19 M29 18 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware cup porcelain 1 130.1 60
52.20 M29 18 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware bowl whiteware 1 86.1
52.21 M29 18 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware? 1 17
52.22 M29 18 metal fragment kitchen food can spice 1 44.6 y y
53.1 M31 2 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 610 y
53.2 M31 2 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 4 1566.4 53 y
53.3 M31 2 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 359.2 53 y
53.4 M31 2 glass complete kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 335.5 53
53.5 M31 2 glass complete kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 357.9 53 y
53.6 M31 2 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 485.8 54 y y
240 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
53.7 M31 2 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 399 54 y y
53.8 M31 2 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 239.6 54 y
53.9 M31 2 glass complete household medicine bottle unidentified 1 265.3 54 y y
53.10 M31 2 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 270.8 54 y
53.11 M31 2 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 312.1 54 y y
53.12 M31 2 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 404.2 55 y
53.13 M31 2 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 250.8 55 y
53.14 M31 2 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 218.9 55 y condiment, mayonnaise or 53.15 M31 2 glass complete kitchen food jar relish? 1 258.4 55 y y
53.16 M31 2 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 145 55 y y glass 53.17 M31 2 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 40.6 55 y
53.18 M31 2 glass fragment kitchen tableware shaker glassware 1 157.7 56 y y
53.19 M31 2 glass complete kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 2 196 56 y y
53.20 M31 2 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 8 311.5 56 y
53.21 M31 2 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 3 361.9 56 y y
53.22 M31 2 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 3 392.5 56 y y
53.23 M31 2 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 4 331.1 57 y y
53.24 M31 2 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, gin 1 331.5 57 y
53.25 M31 2 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 159.1 57 y
53.26 M31 2 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 110.3 57 y
53.27 M31 2 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 20 y
53.28 M31 2 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 42.2 y
241 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
53.29 M31 2 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 46.6 y
53.30 M31 2 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 2 130.8 y
53.31 M31 2 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, gin 28 225.2 y
53.32 M31 2 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 6 48.2 y
53.33 M31 2 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 13.1 y
53.34 M31 2 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 2 101.7 y
53.35 M31 2 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 110
53.36 M31 2 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 11 105.6
53.37 M31 2 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware cup porcelain 1 56.8
53.38 M31 2 metal fragment household lighting oil lamp burner? 3 25.4 synthetic 53.39 M31 2 (rubber) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 1 104.4 liquor, whiskey (Highland 54.1 M33 1 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle Cream) 1 610 51 y y
54.2 M33 1 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle wine 1 403.6 51 y condiment, 54.3 M33 1 glass complete kitchen food bottle ketchup 1 370 52 y
54.4 M33 1 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 242.9 52 y y
54.5 M33 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 298.3 52 y y
54.6 M33 1 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 275.2 52 y y
54.7 M33 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 166.2 52 y glass 52, 54.8 M33 1 (metal) complete household toiletry bottle lotion 1 197.7 53 y
54.9 M33 1 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 236.3 53 y y cake dish stand? 54.10 M33 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen unidentified Oil lamp base? 1 409.1 y y
54.11 M33 1 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 179 y y
242 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
54.12 M33 1 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 89.7 y
54.13 M33 1 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 6 12.2 y
54.14 M33 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 87.5 y
54.15 M33 1 glass fragment building none window pane, thick 1 152.3
54.16 M33 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 20.9 y
54.17 M33 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 29 y leather 54.18 M33 1 (metal) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 2 98.5 synthetic 54.19 M33 1 (rubber) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 1 48.5 y y
54.20 M33 1 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 177.7 y y
54.21 M33 1 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 92.5 y y
54.22 M33 1 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 95.8 y y
55.1 M35 1 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 610 46 y y
55.2 M35 1 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 2 798.9 46 y
55.3 M35 1 glass complete household medicine bottle unidentified 1 411.4 46 y y
55.4 M35 1 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 640 46 y
55.5 M35 1 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 589.2 47 y y glass 55.6 M35 1 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 371 48 y y
55.7 M35 1 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle alcohol, liquor? 1 406.7 y y glass 55.8 M35 1 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 214 48 y
55.9 M35 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 185.5 48 y y
55.10 M35 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 157.8 48 y y
55.11 M35 1 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 213.3 48 y
55.12 M35 1 glass complete household medicine jar Vaseline 3 231.2 49 y y
243 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
55.13 M35 1 glass complete household none bottle ink 1 109.4 49 y
55.14 M35 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 12 972.3 49 y y
55.15 M35 1 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 220 49 y
55.16 M35 1 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 114.4 49 y
55.17 M35 1 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 87.9 50 y y
55.18 M35 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle alcohol, liquor? 1 77.7 y y
55.19 M35 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 70 50 y
55.20 M35 1 glass fragment unidentified none vessel unidentified 1 33.1 y
55.21 M35 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 163.3 y
55.22 M35 1 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 87.9 y
55.23 M35 1 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 10 225.1 y
55.24 M35 1 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 6.6 y
55.25 M35 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 12.6 y
55.26 M35 1 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 270.3
55.27 M35 1 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 109.6
55.28 M35 1 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 2 111.8 50 y
55.29 M35 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 5 32.7 y
55.30 M35 1 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 377 50 y
55.31 M35 1 glass fragment kitchen food prep jar canning 4 38 50 y
55.32 M35 1 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 30.4 50 cosmetic, cold 55.33 M35 1 glass complete household toiletry jar cream 1 103.2 51 y
55.34 M35 1 ceramic fragment household none bric-a-brac porcelain 1 30.6 y
55.35 M35 1 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware cup whiteware 1 20.6
244 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
55.36 M35 1 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate whiteware 1 12 51 synthetic 55.37 M35 1 (plastic) fragment household entertainment music record 12 3.8 y (5of12)
55.38 M35 1 metal complete household none chamber pot enamel 1 488 y
55.39 M35 1 metal complete kitchen food prep pan enamel 1 195 y y
55.40 M35 1 metal fragment kitchen tableware cup enamel 1 71.5 y y
55.41 M35 1 metal fragment kitchen food prep utensil ladel 1 29.9 y y
55.42 M35 1 metal fragment household medicine can Vaseline 1 94 51 y
55.43 M35 1 metal fragment kitchen food can cocoa powder 1 65.6 y
55.44 M35 1 brick fragment building none masonry brick 1 242.8 y
55.45 M35 1 metal fragment farmstead none tool bucket 1 660 y
59.1 O19 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 363.8 40 y
59.2 O19 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 576.3 40 y
59.3 O19 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 505.8 y
59.4 O19 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 620 40 y
59.5 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 526.2 41 y y
59.6 O19 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 283.2 y
59.7 O19 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 118.7 41 y y
59.8 O19 glass complete household medicine bottle unidentified 1 111.1 41 y
59.9 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 5 267 41 y
59.10 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 6 311.3 41 y
59.11 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 4 378.4 41 y
59.12 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 116.4 42 y
59.13 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 75.3 42 y
245 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
59.14 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 74.4 y
59.15 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 198 42 y
59.16 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 183.3 42 y
59.17 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 215.1 42 y
59.18 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 79.5 42 y
59.19 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle alcohol, liquor? 1 9.1 43 y
59.20 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 42.6 y
59.21 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 36.5 43 y
59.22 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 2 132 43 y
59.23 O19 glass fragment household none bottle ink 2 18.4 43 y
59.24 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 4 116.6 y
59.25 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 12 731.3 y
59.26 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 3 35.1 y
59.27 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 105 1151.2 y
59.28 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 29 365.9 y
59.29 O19 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle mineral water 27 499.1 43 y (8of27)
59.30 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 9 548.6 44 y
59.31 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 10 410.6 y
59.32 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 29 404.7 y
59.33 O19 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 41.5 y
59.34 O19 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 2 299.9 44 y
59.35 O19 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 2 161.7 y
59.36 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 31 392.9 y
246 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
liquor, martini 59.37 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle cocktail/vermouth 10 603.3 44 y y
59.38 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 2 120.3 y
59.39 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 2 113 y
59.40 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 16 124 y
59.41 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 220.6 44 y
59.42 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 3 211.7 44 y
59.43 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle unidentified 2 235 y
59.44 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 4 63.5 y
59.45 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 12 176.6 y
59.46 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 6 550.5 44 y
59.47 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 9 181.5 y
59.48 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 6 372 y
59.49 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 45 667 y
59.50 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 2 102 y
59.51 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 130.8 45 y y
59.52 O19 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 3 40
59.53 O19 glass fragment building none window pane, thick 1 160.5
59.54 O19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 24 y
59.55 O19 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 5 285.1 y y glass 59.56 O19 (metal) complete household lighting eletrical light bulb 1 4.7
59.57 O19 metal fragment household none battery dry cell 1 66.4 y
59.58 O19 metal unknown hardware none spring unidentified 1 21.3 y y
59.59 O19 metal unknown hardware none unidentified ring 1 1.7 y
247 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
59.60 O19 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 24.2 y
59.61 O19 metal fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 2 8.2 y
59.62 O19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 42.8 y
60.1 O20 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 3 160.6 y y
60.2 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 29.6 40 y
60.3 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 2 13.4 y
60.4 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 13.3 y
60.5 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 19 217.2 y
60.6 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 15 132 y
60.7 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle case bottles? 4 29.3 y
60.8 O20 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 6 33.7 y (4of6)
60.9 O20 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 3 6 y
60.10 O20 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 65.2 40 y
60.11 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 4 120.2 y
60.12 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle beer? 1 51.9 y
60.13 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 8 102.3 y
60.14 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 87.8 y
60.15 O20 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 4 173.5 y
60.16 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 4 19.1 y
60.17 O20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 3 40.1 y natural 60.18 O20 shell fragment resource none shell oyster 1 15.2
60.19 O20 metal fragment transportation automobile part leaf bolt 1 464.4 y y
60.20 O20 metal fragment hardware none strapping unidentified 1 79.7 y
248 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
60.21 O20 metal unknown household lighting oil lamp bracket 1 443.4 y
60.22 O20 metal fragment transportation automobile part exhaust pipe 1 555.5 y y
60.23 O20 metal unknown transportation automobile part bracket 1 236.7 y y
60.24 O20 metal fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 39.2 y y
60.25 O20 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 73.2 y
60.26 O20 metal fragment building none sheathing/flashing unidentified 1 29.6 y
60.27 O20 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 9 366.5 y
61.1 O21 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 610 39 y y
61.2 O21 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle alcohol, liquor? 1 660 y y
61.3 O21 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 396.7 39 y y
61.4 O21 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 406.2 y
61.5 O21 glass complete kitchen food jar unidentified 1 453.7 39 y y
61.6 O21 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 228.1 39 y
61.7 O21 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 12 595.5 39 y
61.8 O21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 91.5 40 y
61.9 O21 metal fragment transportation automobile part air filter? 1 263 y y
61.10 O21 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 80.1 y
61.11 O21 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 80.1 y
61.12 O21 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 65.6 y
61.13 O21 metal fragment household none can paint 3 155.3 y
62.1 O22 8 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 660 38 y y
62.2 O22 8 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 2 793.9 38 y glass 62.3 O22 8 (metal) complete kitchen drink jar postum 1 157.9 38 y
249 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
glass 62.4 O22 8 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 184.5 38 y y
62.5 O22 8 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 70 39 y
62.6 O22 8 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified unidentified 1 50.8
62.7 O22 8 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware bowl porcelain 1 5.3 glass 63.1 O23 8 (metal) complete kitchen drink jar postum 1 220 37 y glass 63.2 O23 8 (metal) complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 285.6 38 y
63.3 O23 8 glass complete kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 463.4 38 y
63.4 O23 8 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 47.8 y
63.5 O23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 324.9 y
63.6 O23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 325.3 y
63.7 O23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 159.8 y
63.8 O23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 68 y
63.9 O23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 118 y
63.10 O23 8 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 27 111 y
64.1 O25 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 3 953.4 37 y y
64.2 O25 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 97 y
65.1 O29 3 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 232.6 97 y
65.2 O29 3 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 234.8 97
65.3 O29 3 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 140.6 97 y
65.4 O29 3 metal both unidentified kitchen can unidentified 5 486.4 y
65.5 O29 3 metal both unidentified kitchen can unidentified 6 488 y
65.6 O29 3 metal both unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 207.9 y
65.7 O29 3 metal both unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 343.3 y
250 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
65.8 O29 3 metal both unidentified kitchen can unidentified 5 537.2 y
65.9 O29 3 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 52.3 y
65.10 O29 3 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 13 169 y
65.11 O29 3 metal fragment unidentified kitchen jar lid 1 6.6 y
65.12 O29 3 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 12 4.5 y
65.13 O29 3 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 4 303.2 y
65.14 O29 3 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 73 y
65.15 O29 3 metal complete unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 80 y
65.16 O29 3 metal complete unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 245.3 y
66.1 O35 1 glass complete kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 393.7 37 y
66.2 O35 1 glass complete household medicine bottle cardui 1 381.9 37 y
66.3 O35 1 metal unknown kitchen food prep pan enamel 1 305.7 y
67.1 P17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 5.2 y
67.2 P17 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 3 y
67.3 P17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 2 4.3 y
67.4 P17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 4.7 y
67.5 P17 glass fragment household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 1.3 y synthetic 67.6 P17 (rubber) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 3.1 y
67.7 P17 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 56.3 y
67.8 P17 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 30.4 y
68.1 P18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 3 1.8 y
68.2 P18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 22.7 y
68.3 P18 10 glass fragment kitchen food prep jar canning 1 3.9 37
251 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
68.4 P18 10 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified porcelain 1 2.3
69.1 P19 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 100.1 36 y
69.2 P19 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 95.4 36 y
69.3 P19 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 351.5 36 y
69.4 P19 10 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 3 57.4
69.5 P19 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 26.1 y
69.6 P19 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 4 29 y synthetic 69.7 P19 10 (plastic) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 1 12.3 y
69.8 P19 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 199.9 y
70.1 P20 glass complete household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach? 1 468.4 36 y
70.2 P20 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 362.4 36 y
70.3 P20 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 95.5 36 y
70.4 P20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 51.8 y
70.5 P20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 46.7 y synthetic 70.6 P20 (plastic) fragment household entertainment music record 1 3.3 y
70.7 P20 metal complete unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 99 y
70.8 P20 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 91.6 y
70.9 P20 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 61.2 y
71.1 P21 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 177.5 98 y
71.2 P21 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 150 98
71.3 P21 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 141.5 101 y
71.4 P21 metal both unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 271.8 y
71.5 P21 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 7 245 y
252 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
synthetic 71.6 P21 (plastic) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 39.9 y y
71.7 P21 metal fragment transportation automobile can gas cannister 1 940 y y
72.1 P23 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 44.1 y
72.2 P23 7 metal complete unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 323.5 y y
72.3 P23 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 153.9 y
72.4 P23 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 98.1 35 y
72.5 P23 7 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 26 y
72.6 P23 7 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 13.1 y
73.1 Q11 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 145.9 35 y
74.1 Q16 10 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 2 752.4 25 y
74.2 Q16 10 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 2 758.3 25 y y condiment, hot sauce or 74.3 Q16 10 glass complete kitchen food bottle vinegar? 1 198.7 25 y y condiment, 74.4 Q16 10 glass complete kitchen food bottle mustard? 1 137.1 25 y y
74.5 Q16 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 104.2 25 y condiment, hot 74.6 Q16 10 glass complete kitchen food bottle sauce 1 74 y
74.7 Q16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 13.5 26 y
74.8 Q16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 15.4 y
74.9 Q16 10 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 8.1 y
74.10 Q16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 26.6 y
74.11 Q16 10 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 0.9 y
74.12 Q16 10 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 2.8
74.13 Q16 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware plate glassware 1 2.2 y
253 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
74.14 Q16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 11 81.4 y
74.15 Q16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 8 102.7 y
74.16 Q16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 39.9 y
74.17 Q16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 3 41.3 y
74.18 Q16 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 3 24.4 26 y
74.19 Q16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 15.5 y
74.20 Q16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 8.7 y
74.21 Q16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 7.2 y
74.22 Q16 10 brick fragment building none masonry brick 2 509.1 y
74.23 Q16 10 metal fragment household none battery dry cell 3 60.1 y y
74.24 Q16 10 metal fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 10.6 y head/tail light 74.25 Q16 10 metal fragment transportation automobile part cover 1 28.4 synthetic 74.26 Q16 10 (plastic) fragment household entertainment music record 1 1.2 y leather 74.27 Q16 10 (metal) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 3 67.3 y
74.28 Q16 10 metal complete kitchen alcohol can beer 3 298.8 y
74.29 Q16 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 146.4 y
74.30 Q16 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 6 74.8 y
75.1 Q17 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 1220 26 y y
75.2 Q17 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 719.8 26 y
75.3 Q17 10 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 2 791.5 26 y y glass 26, 75.4 Q17 10 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 361.3 27 y y
75.5 Q17 10 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 255.6 27 y y
75.6 Q17 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 142.2 27 y
254 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
75.7 Q17 10 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 395.8 27 y y
75.8 Q17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 5 484.2 27 y
75.9 Q17 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 77.6 27 y y
75.10 Q17 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 93.7 y y
75.11 Q17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 5 464.5 15 y
75.12 Q17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 6 93.9 y
75.13 Q17 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 236.3 y
75.14 Q17 10 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 2 54 y
75.15 Q17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 3 79.6 y
75.16 Q17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 11 185.3 y
75.17 Q17 10 glass fragment building none window pane, thick 1 33.1
75.18 Q17 10 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 18.8
75.19 Q17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 4 37.8 y
75.20 Q17 10 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 14.1 y
75.21 Q17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 11 y
75.22 Q17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 2.5 y
75.23 Q17 10 glass complete household toiletry jar lotion 1 164.4 15 y
75.24 Q17 10 glass complete household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 53.2 y y
75.25 Q17 10 ceramic fragment household none flower pot terra cotta 1 183 y
75.26 Q17 10 metal fragment household none battery dry cell 2 139.4 y
75.27 Q17 10 metal fragment household none battery dry cell 4 10.2 y natural 75.28 Q17 10 bone fragment resource none mammal? unidentified 1 9.9 both (4 75.29 Q17 10 metal complete, kitchen alcohol can beer 8 628.4 y
255 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS # 3 fragment)
75.30 Q17 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 476.4 y y
75.31 Q17 10 metal complete unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 130.4 y y
75.32 Q17 10 metal complete unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 86.2 y
75.33 Q17 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 54.8 y
75.34 Q17 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 9 157.5 y
75.35 Q17 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen jar lid 2 6.8 y
75.36 Q17 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 85.9 100 y condiment, pickles or 75.37 Q17 10 glass complete kitchen food bottle vinegar? 1 197.1 100 y
75.38 Q17 10 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate whiteware 1 85.2 y
76.1 Q17 10 4 metal complete kitchen alcohol can beer 1 104.9 y
76.2 Q17 10 4 metal complete unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 122 y y
76.3 Q17 10 4 metal fragment transportation automobile can motor oil can 1 117.7 y
76.4 Q17 10 4 metal fragment farmstead none tool post hole digger 1 2200 y y
77.1 Q18 10 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 400 15 y
77.2 Q18 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 169.9 15 y y
77.3 Q18 10 glass complete kitchen soft drink bottle soda 2 395.8 15 y
77.4 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 3 122.3 28 y y liquor, whiskey 77.5 Q18 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle (bourbon) 1 239.9 28 y
77.6 Q18 10 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 4 168 28 y y
77.7 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 4 45 28 y
77.8 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle alcohol, liquor? 1 13.5 y
256 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
77.9 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 47.3 y
77.10 Q18 10 glass fragment kitchen food prep jar canning 2 86.9 28 y
77.11 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 47.7 28 y
77.12 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 4 37.3 y
77.13 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 16 82.3 y
77.14 Q18 10 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach 1 171.5 29 y
77.15 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 23 229.2 y
77.16 Q18 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 4 285.4 29 y
77.17 Q18 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 88.4 y
77.18 Q18 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine? 6 196 29 y
77.19 Q18 10 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 10 81.5 y (2of10)
77.20 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 3 23.3 y
77.21 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 12.5 y
77.22 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 11 y
77.23 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 7.5 y
77.24 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 2.8 y
77.25 Q18 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 3 46.3 y glass 77.26 Q18 10 (metal) fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 32.7 y
77.27 Q18 10 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 26.6 y y
77.28 Q18 10 glass fragment household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 28.1 y
77.29 Q18 10 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 1.3
77.30 Q18 10 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 4.1
77.31 Q18 10 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified porcelain 1 2.5
257 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
figurine 77.32 Q18 10 ceramic fragment household none bric-a-brac (porcelain) 1 2.9
77.33 Q18 10 lithic fragment prehistoric none chert debitage 1 3 synthetic 77.34 Q18 10 (plastic) fragment household entertainment music record 9 21.6 y synthetic 77.35 Q18 10 (plastic) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 3 4.1 y
77.36 Q18 10 metal fragment household none battery dry cell 5 337.8 7 y synthetic 77.37 Q18 10 (plastic) fragment personal toiletry comb unidentified 1 19.9
77.38 Q18 10 metal fragment kitchen food prep jar canning 1 14.4
77.39 Q18 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 6 43.7 y
77.40 Q18 10 mortar fragment building none masonry mortar 2 34.7 y
77.41 Q18 10 brick fragment building none masonry brick 2 93.4 y
77.42 Q18 10 metal complete unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 98.3 y
77.43 Q18 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 205.7 y
77.44 Q18 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 370.9 y
77.45 Q18 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 6 84.2 y
77.46 Q18 10 metal fragment kitchen food prep pan enamel 1 304.3 y y glass 78.1 Q19 10 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 860 29 y y
78.2 Q19 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 650 29 y y
78.3 Q19 10 glass complete household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach? 1 467.1 29 y
78.4 Q19 10 glass complete household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach 2 301.9 31 y
78.5 Q19 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 235 31 y
78.6 Q19 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 14 y y
78.7 Q19 10 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 47.5 31 y
78.8 Q19 10 glass complete household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 111.5 31 y y
258 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
78.9 Q19 10 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach? 1 5 y
78.10 Q19 10 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 2.7 synthetic 78.11 Q19 10 (plastic) fragment household entertainment music record 1 2.9 y synthetic 78.12 Q19 10 (rubber) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 29.9 y
78.13 Q19 10 metal fragment household none stove pipe 1 580 y y
78.14 Q19 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 300 y
78.15 Q19 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 104.3 y
78.16 Q19 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 105.5 y
79.1 Q20 metal complete transportation bicycle part seat 1 1240 y glass 79.2 Q20 (metal) complete household cleaning bottle cleaner? 1 478.6 31 y y glass 79.3 Q20 (metal) complete household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach? 1 471.1 31 y y glass 79.4 Q20 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 660 32 y y glass 79.5 Q20 (metal) complete kitchen drink jar postum 3 474.3 32 y condiment, 79.6 Q20 glass complete kitchen food jar mustard? 1 136 32 y y synthetic 79.7 Q20 (plastic) complete unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 34 y y
79.8 Q20 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 94.7 y
79.9 Q20 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 6 163 y
79.10 Q20 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 8.1 y
79.11 Q20 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 200 y
79.12 Q20 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 14.2 y
80.1 Q22 7 glass complete kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 393.5 32 y
80.2 Q22 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 270.6 32 y y glass 80.3 Q22 7 (plastic) complete household medicine bottle unidentified 1 185.5 33 y
259 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
80.4 Q22 7 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 8 215.6 33 y
80.5 Q22 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 292.9 33 y
80.6 Q22 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 4 405.9 33 y
80.7 Q22 7 metal fragment transportation automobile can motor oil can 1 133.7 33 y
80.8 Q22 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 112.8 y y
80.9 Q22 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 8 704.4 y y (body, 80.10 Q22 7 metal fragment kitchen food can baking powder 2 64.1 34 saved lid)
80.11 Q22 7 metal complete kitchen alcohol can beer 2 195.2 y (1of2)
80.12 Q22 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 163.5 y
80.13 Q22 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 211.9 y
80.14 Q22 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 72.3 y
80.15 Q22 7 metal fragment kitchen food can tomato sauce? 1 98.8 97 y
80.16 Q22 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 112.8 y
80.17 Q22 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 13 429.9 y
81.1 Q21 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 342.8 97 y
81.2 Q21 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 141.8 97 y
81.3 Q21 7 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 484.5 98 y y
81.4 Q21 7 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 350 98 y y
81.5 Q21 7 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 192.1 98 y
81.6 Q21 7 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 3 58.4 y
81.7 Q21 7 glass fragment unidentified none vessel unidentified 1 52.2 98 y
81.8 Q21 7 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 11.8 y
81.9 Q21 7 metal both unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 349.8 y
260 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
81.10 Q21 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 67.9 y
81.11 Q21 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 170.1 y
81.12 Q21 7 metal fragment household none can paint 1 56 y
81.13 Q21 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 123.5 y
81.14 Q21 7 metal fragment kitchen food can seafood 1 35.7 y
81.15 Q21 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 18 106.2 y glass 82.1 Q23 7 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 610 34 y
82.2 Q23 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 360.9 34 y glass 82.3 Q23 7 (metal) complete kitchen food prep jar canning 1 282.2 34 y y
82.4 Q23 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 233.9 34 y
82.5 Q23 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 98.5 34
82.6 Q23 7 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jug unidentified 5 331.2 y
82.7 Q23 7 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 17.6 y
82.8 Q23 7 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 192.7 35 y
82.9 Q23 7 metal fragment household none battery dry cell 1 70 y synthetic 82.10 Q23 7 (plastic) fragment activities entertainment toy vehicle 1 16.8
83.1 Q24 lithic fragment prehistoric none chert debitage 1 2.9
84.1 Q31 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 151.6 35 y
85.1 Q33 glass complete household medicine jar Vaseline 1 71.9 35
86.1 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 87.1 19 y
86.2 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 48.8 19 y
86.3 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 28.5 19 y
86.4 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 4 367.2 y
261 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
86.5 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 2 12.7 y
86.6 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 3 144.4 y
86.7 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 7 61.7 y
86.8 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 67 y
86.9 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen food prep jar canning 2 54.6 19 y
86.10 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 54 512.9 y
86.11 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 14 71.7 y
86.12 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 6 391.7 y
86.13 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 10 307.5 19 y
86.14 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 26.5 y
86.15 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 3 27.1 y
86.16 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 70 959.8 y
86.17 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 7 132.4 17 y
86.18 R15 10 glass fragment household medicine bottle unidentified 1 9.9 17 y
86.19 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 144.2 17 y
86.20 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 5 81.7 y
86.21 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 40 350.3 y
86.22 R15 10 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 3.5
86.23 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 9 680 18 y
86.24 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 3 21.8 y
86.25 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle unidentified 2 12.3 y
86.26 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 6 45.4 y
86.27 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 15.5 y
262 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
86.28 R15 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 62.6 y
86.29 R15 10 metal fragment hardware none strapping unidentified 2 38.4 y
86.30 R15 10 metal fragment transportation automobile part carriage bolt? 1 24.1
86.31 R15 10 metal complete kitchen alcohol can beer 1 88.6 y
86.32 R15 10 metal fragment household lighting flashlight tube 1 93.1 17
86.33 R15 10 metal fragment household none battery dry cell 1 58.7 y
86.34 R15 10 mortar fragment building none masonry mortar 1 19.2 y
86.35 R15 10 concrete fragment building none masonry concrete 3 295 y (2of3) wire,twisted 86.36 R15 10 metal fragment hardware none unidentified around nail 1 28.5 y y natural 86.37 R15 10 bone fragment resource none aves unidentified 1 0.9
86.38 R15 10 SKIPPED?
86.39 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 17 308.2 18 y
86.40 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 8 474.1 18 y
86.41 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 48.2 y
86.42 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 45 y
86.43 R15 10 glass fragment kitchen none jug, 1-gallon unidentified 2 288.1 y
86.44 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 120.4 18 y
86.45 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 356.2 18 y
86.46 R15 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 180 100 y
86.47 R15 10 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle wine 1 680
86.48 R15 10 glass complete kitchen none bottle unidentified 1 413.2 16 y y
86.49 R15 10 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 2 795.9 16 y
86.50 R15 10 brick fragment building none masonry brick 3 671.1 y
263 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
86.51 R15 10 metal fragment farmstead none tool shovel 1 620 y y
87.1 R16 10 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 2 808.7 17 y
87.2 R16 10 glass complete household medicine bottle cardui 1 268.3 16 y condiment, 87.3 R16 10 glass complete kitchen food jar mustard? 1 136.3 16 y
87.4 R16 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 110 16 y y glass 87.5 R16 10 (metal) complete household medicine jar Vaseline 1 78.2 16 y
87.6 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 178.9 y
87.7 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware shaker? glassware 1 49.5 y y
87.8 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 45 353.6 y
87.9 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 9 74.1 y
87.10 R16 10 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade? 7 48.2 y
87.11 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 6 91.8 y
87.12 R16 10 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 11 1.3 y
87.13 R16 10 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 24 242.6 y (23of24)
87.14 R16 10 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 5 40.8 y (4of5) condiment, hot sauce or 87.15 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen food bottle vinegar? 1 112.3 20 y
87.16 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware bowl glassware 1 61 20 y
87.17 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 20.9 y
87.18 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 4 147.7 20 y
87.19 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 5 64 y
87.20 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 41.7 20 y
87.21 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 34.4 20 y
264 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
87.22 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 56.8 20 y
87.23 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 13.5 y
87.24 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 17.3 y
87.25 R16 10 glass fragment household medicine bottle unidentified 1 12 21 y
87.26 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 3 22.1 y
87.27 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 27.9 y
87.28 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 12 132.6 y
87.29 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 2 20.5 y
87.30 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 3.3 y
87.31 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 4 33.2 y
87.32 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, gin 2 26 21 y
87.33 R16 10 glass fragment household medicine bottle unidentified 2 9 21 y
87.34 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 34 21 y
87.35 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 15 21 y
87.36 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 30.8 y
87.37 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware plate glassware 1 83.7
87.38 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware pitcher glassware 1 228.8 y y
87.39 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware pitcher glassware 1 56.1 y y
87.40 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware pitcher glassware 1 4.7 y y drinking glass? 87.41 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware Bowl? glassware 1 3.4 y
87.42 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 19 579.5 21 y
87.43 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 89 708 y
87.44 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 46.6 y
265 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
87.45 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 7 201.5 y
87.46 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 11 232.7 y
87.47 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 62.5 22 y
87.48 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 2 37.8 y
87.49 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 20.3 y
87.50 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 18 152.6 y
87.51 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 3 157.5 y
87.52 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle soda? 2 106 22 y
87.53 R16 10 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 9 38.6 y
87.54 R16 10 glass fragment household toiletry jar cosmetic 5 41.9 22 y
87.55 R16 10 glass fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 4.5 y
87.56 R16 10 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 7.1
87.57 R16 10 metal fragment household none battery dry cell 2 97.6 y
87.58 R16 10 metal fragment household none battery dry cell 4 203.8 y
87.59 R16 10 mortar fragment building none masonry mortar 1 18.5 y natural 87.60 R16 10 shell fragment resource none shell whelk 3 55.6
87.61 R16 10 metal complete munitions none bullet shot gun 1 6.8
87.62 R16 10 brick fragment building none masonry brick 1 5.1 y
87.63 R16 10 metal both unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 226 y
87.64 R16 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 21.5 y
87.65 R16 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 17 197 y
87.66 R16 10 metal fragment household none stove pipe 5 50.3 y
87.67 R16 10 metal complete clothing none hanger wire 3 143.8 y
266 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
88.1 R17 10 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 544.6 22 y y
88.2 R17 10 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 595 22 y y
88.3 R17 10 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 680 22 y y
88.4 R17 10 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 404 23 y y
88.5 R17 10 glass complete household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach 1 464.5 23 y
88.6 R17 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 218.7 23 y y
88.7 R17 10 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 149.1 y y
88.8 R17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 8 335.3 23 y
88.9 R17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 104.2 y
88.10 R17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 61.9 y
88.11 R17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 27.7 23 y
88.12 R17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 34.7 y
88.13 R17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 6 51.2 23 y
88.14 R17 10 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 7 24.5 y (6of7)
88.15 R17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 3 10 y
88.16 R17 10 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 1.9 y
88.17 R17 10 glass fragment building none window pane, thick 1 63.8
88.18 R17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 14 2.7 y
88.19 R17 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 4 82.2 y y
88.20 R17 10 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 20.5 y
88.21 R17 10 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 31.8 y
88.22 R17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 4 25.1 y
88.23 R17 10 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach 2 11.3 24 y
267 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
88.24 R17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 25.9 y
88.25 R17 10 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 1.9 y
88.26 R17 10 glass fragment household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 92 y synthetic 88.27 R17 10 (plastic) fragment household entertainment music record 1 2.8 y synthetic 88.28 R17 10 (plastic) fragment transportation automobile part tire 1 1.8 24 y
88.29 R17 10 mortar fragment building none masonry mortar 1 4.7 y
88.30 R17 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 122.5 y
88.31 R17 10 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 13 550.8 y
88.32 R17 10 metal fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 38.3 y
89.1 R18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 4 26.7 y
89.2 R18 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 3.5
89.3 R18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 6.9 y synthetic 89.4 R18 (plastic) fragment activities entertainment toy vehicle, truck 1 0.9 y synthetic 89.5 R18 (plastic) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 4.5 y
90.1 R18 10 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 2 4.7 y
90.2 R18 10 4 metal complete kitchen food can spice 1 42.8 y y
91.1 R22 7 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 500 24 y
91.2 R22 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 717.8 24 y y 24, 91.3 R22 7 glass complete kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 228.7 30 y
91.4 R22 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 6 867.9 30 y
91.5 R22 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 301.3 30 y
91.6 R22 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 15 1500.6 30 y
91.7 R22 7 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 194.6 30 y
268 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
91.8 R22 7 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 21.3 y
91.9 R22 7 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 20.5 y
91.10 R22 7 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 23.1 y synthetic 91.11 R22 7 (plastic) fragment activities entertainment toy vehicle, truck 1 5.8
91.12 R22 7 metal unknown kitchen food jar unidentified 3 23.9 y (2of3)
91.13 R22 7 metal unknown kitchen food jar unidentified 1 9.7
91.14 R22 7 metal unknown kitchen food jar unidentified 1 0.4 y
91.15 R22 7 metal unknown kitchen food jar unidentified 1 13.8 y
91.16 R22 7 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 4 33.1 y
92.1 S11 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 610 14 y
93.1 S13 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, gin 1 56.7 1 y
93.2 S13 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 93 y
94.1 S14 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 16.2 1 y
94.2 S14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 6.5 y synthetic 95.1 S15 (plastic) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 1.6 y
96.1 S16 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 2.1 y
96.2 S16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 8 y
96.3 S16 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 2 1 y
96.4 S16 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 7.4
96.5 S16 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware cup? porcelain 1 8.4 synthetic 96.6 S16 (plastic) fragment activities entertainment toy vehicle, car 1 0.9 y
97.1 S17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 7.4 y
97.2 S17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 6 y
269 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
97.3 S17 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 3.7
97.4 S17 metal fragment building none window screen 1 4.9
98.1 S18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 10.4 y
98.2 S18 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 2 8.8
99.1 S19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 3 149.5 1 y
99.2 S19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 3 7 y
100.1 S21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 6.3 y
100.2 S21 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 4 glass 101.1 S25 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 199.1 14 y
101.2 S25 glass complete household childcare jar fuller's earth 1 12.5 14
101.3 S25 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 27 y
101.4 S25 glass fragment kitchen tableware bowl glassware 1 15.5 y
101.5 S25 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 14.7 y
101.6 S25 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 8.8 y
101.7 S25 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 25.4 y
101.8 S25 brick fragment building none masonry brick 4 1384 y (3of4)
101.9 S25 metal fragment household lighting oil lamp collar 1 53.1 y
101.10 S25 metal unknown kitchen food prep kettle enamel 1 80.6
101.11 S25 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 35.3 y
102.1 T14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 14 y
102.2 T14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 7 59 y
102.3 T14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 3 24.7 y
102.4 T14 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 1.5 y
270 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
102.5 T14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 7 33 y
102.6 T14 metal complete personal toiletry curler unidentified 1 5.1 y
102.7 T14 metal fragment household none battery dry cell 1 30.5 y synthetic 102.8 T14 (plastic) fragment household entertainment music record 1 1 y
102.9 T14 brick fragment building none masonry brick 1 3.9 y
102.10 T14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 23.2 y
102.11 T14 glass complete kitchen tableware decanter glassware 1 50.7 y
102.12 T14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container canning jar? 1 2.5 y
102.13 T14 glass fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 2.2 y
103.1 T15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 25.3 y
103.2 T15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 5 56 y
103.3 T15 glass fragments building none window pane, thick 1 22.5
103.4 T15 glass fragments building none window pane, thin 1 4.8
103.5 T15 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 12.6 y synthetic 103.6 T15 (plastic) fragments household entertainment music record 1 3.3 y
104.1 T16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 6 Y
104.2 T16 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 13
104.3 T16 glass fragments building none window pane, thick 1 21.5
105.1 T17 glass fragment kitchen food prep jar canning 1 2.2 10 y
106.1 T19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 2 153.2 10 y
106.2 T19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 17.2 y
106.3 T19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 35.9 y
106.4 T19 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 55.6 y
271 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
106.5 T19 metal fragment building none roofing tin sheet 1 31 y 9, 107.1 T20 glass complete household medicine bottle unidentified 1 25 10
107.2 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 7 58.4 y
107.3 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 2.9 y
107.4 T20 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 1 44.2 y
107.5 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 4.7 y
107.6 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 14.5 y
107.7 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 15 103.3 y
107.8 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 30.5 y
107.9 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 27.9 y
107.10 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 28.3 y
107.11 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 4.9 y
107.12 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 79 366.3 y
107.13 T20 glass fragment kitchen food prep jar canning 2 30.5 9 y
107.14 T20 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 2 9.5 y
107.15 T20 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 5 22.5 y
107.16 T20 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 4 3.6 y
107.17 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 4 27.8 y
107.18 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 9.4 y
107.19 T20 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 14 8.3 y (9of15)
107.20 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 6.3 y
107.21 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container canning jar? 2 6.2 y
107.22 T20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 3 19.3 y
272 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
107.23 T20 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 2 8.9
107.24 T20 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 3.2
107.25 T20 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate? whiteware 1 2.9
107.26 T20 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate? whiteware 2 8.1
107.27 T20 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware cup? unidentified 1 4.4
107.28 T20 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified porcelain 1 1
107.29 T20 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified unidentified 1 2.9
107.30 T20 metal unknown building none fastener nail, wire 2 6.1 y
107.31 T20 metal unknown building none fastener nail, wire 2 18.2 terminal 107.32 T20 metal fragment transportation automobile part (threaded)? 1 3.6 y
107.33 T20 metal fragment unidentified none unidentified cast iron 1 24.8 y D-ring 107.34 T20 metal unknown hardware none fastener attachment 1 4.6 y
107.35 T20 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 1.4 y
107.36 T20 metal fragment household none clock? unidentified 1 5.9 synthetic 107.37 T20 (plastic) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 9.1 y
107.38 T20 brick fragment building none masonry brick 5 72.9 y
107.39 T20 mortar fragment building none masonry mortar 4 40
107.40 T20 concrete fragment building none masonry concrete 1 16 y natural 107.41 T20 lithic fragment resource none rock sandstone 1 19.7 synthetic 107.42 T20 (plastic) fragment activities entertainment toy vehicle 2 3.7
108.1 T21 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 5.3 y
108.2 T21 glass fragment household medicine bottle unidentified 1 7.8 9 y
108.3 T21 glass fragment household medicine bottle unidentified 1 4.7 9 y
273 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
108.4 T21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 16.8 9 y
108.5 T21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 7.9 y
108.6 T21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 19 63.1 y
108.7 T21 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 2 1.9 y
108.8 T21 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 2 2.8 y (1of2)
108.9 T21 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 23.8 y
108.10 T21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 8 y
108.11 T21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 1.9 y
108.12 T21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 0.6 y
108.13 T21 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified porcelain 1 2.9
108.14 T21 metal complete unidentified kitchen bottle lid, screw-on 1 2.6 y natural 108.15 T21 shell fragment resource none shell oyster 1 0.3
108.16 T21 brick fragment building none masonry brick 2 8.9 y synthetic 108.17 T21 (unknown) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 0.5 synthetic 108.18 T21 (unknown) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 0.2
109.1 T25 glass complete household toiletry jar moroline 1 100.9 1
109.2 T25 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 4 19 y
109.3 T25 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 5 26.3 y
109.4 T25 brick fragment building none masonry brick 1 316.9
109.5 T25 ceramic frgment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 1.9
110.1 U13 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 367 5 y
110.2 U13 glass complete unidentified kitchen Jar unidentified 1 67.1 4 y
110.3 U13 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 19.5 4 y
274 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
111.1 U14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 58.2 4 y
111.2 U14 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 15.2
111.3 U14 glass fragment kitchen alcohol Bottle beer 2 10.7 y
111.4 U14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 2.7 y
111.5 U14 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 3.8 y
111.6 U14 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 0.7 y natural 111.7 U14 shell fragment resource none shell oyster 1 18.9 y
112.1 U15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 7.1 y
112.2 U15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 10.6 y
112.3 U15 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 2 19.2 y (1of2)
112.4 U15 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 44.4 y
113.1 U16 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 4 16.2 y (3of4)
113.2 U16 glass fragment unidentified none vessel unidentified 1 19 y
113.3 U16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 9.4 y
113.4 U16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 8 33.8 y
113.5 U16 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 0.6 y
113.6 U16 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 2 y
113.7 U16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 0.5 y
113.8 U16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 0.8 y
113.9 U16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 1.7 y synthetic 113.10 U16 (plastic) fragment activities entertainment toy vehicle 1 0.2 y
114.1 U20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 3 6 y
114.2 U20 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 1 6.7 y
275 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
synthetic 114.3 U20 (plastic) fragment unidentified kitchen bottle lid, screw-on 1 0.3 y
114.4 U20 coal fragment household none fuel coal 1 2.7 natural 114.5 U20 bone fragment resource none mammal artiodactyl, deer? 2 2.7
115.1 U21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 5.3 y
115.2 U21 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 4.5
115.3 U21 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 0.1 y
115.4 U21 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate? whiteware 1 1.5
115.5 U21 metal fragment household none clock? unidentified 1 4.3
115.6 U21 mortar fragment building none masonry mortar 1 7.1 y condiment, 116.1 U25 glass complete kitchen food jar mustard? 1 136.9 1 y
116.2 U25 concrete fragment building none masonry concrete 1 253.5 y
117.1 V14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 60.7 y
117.2 V14 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 61 y
117.3 V14 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 2.1 y
119.1 V15 19 3 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 3 1219.8 8 y
119.2 V15 19 3 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 346.2 8 y
119.3 V15 19 3 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 116.3 8 y
119.4 V15 19 3 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 8 429.6 y
119.5 V15 19 3 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 3 214.5 y
119.6 V15 19 3 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 10 y
119.7 V15 19 3 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 19.9 y
119.8 V15 19 3 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 4 22.5 y
119.9 V15 19 3 Glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 5 31.1 y
276 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
119.10 V15 19 3 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 1.7 y
119.11 V15 19 3 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 3 9.4 y
119.12 V15 19 3 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified porcelain 1 9
119.13 V15 19 3 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 11.3
119.14 V15 19 3 concrete fragment building none masonry concrete 1 305 y
119.15 V15 19 3 brick fragment building none masonry brick 2 700 y
119.16 V15 19 3 metal complete kitchen food can spice 1 55 8 y
119.17 V15 19 3 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 143.5 y
119.18 V15 19 3 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 36.9 y
119.19 V15 19 3 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 31.3 y
119.20 V15 19 3 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 35.5
120.1 V15 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 3 4.8 y
120.2 V15 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 2 172.8 y
120.3 V15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 24.1 y
120.4 V15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 4.2 y
120.5 V15 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 40.8 t
120.6 V15 glass fragment unidentified none vessel unidentified 2 41.7 y
120.7 V15 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 3 27.4 y
121.1 V16 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach 4 145.5 7 y
121.2 V16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 3 16.8 y
121.3 V16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 10 y
121.4 V16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 15.5 y
121.5 V16 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 4.1
277 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
121.6 V16 glass fragment household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 5.9 y
121.7 V16 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 2 5 6
121.8 V16 glass fragment household medicine bottle unidentified 1 107.4 7 y
121.9 V16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 23 7 y
121.10 V16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 11 7 y
121.11 V16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 50 7 y
121.12 V16 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 2 27.7 y
121.13 V16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 6.3 6 y
121.14 V16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 11.5 y
121.15 V16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 28 167.5 6 y
121.16 V16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 6.2 y
121.17 V16 glass complete household childcare bottle castoria 1 93
121.18 V16 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware bowl porcelain 1 8.7 y
121.19 V16 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 4.6 6
121.20 V16 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware plate porcelain 1 4.1 6 synthetic 121.21 V16 (plastic) fragment activities entertainment toy vehicle 6 3.7 y synthetic 121.22 V16 (plastic) fragment personal toiletry comb unidentified 1 0.1 y synthetic 121.23 V16 (plastic) fragment household none shelf paper unidentified 3 0.1
121.24 V16 mortar fragment building none masonry mortar 3 34 y
121.25 V16 brick fragment building none masonry brick 3 73 y
121.26 V16 metal fragment household none clock? unidentified 1 5.8
121.27 V16 metal complete kitchen alcohol can beer 1 106.6 y
121.28 V16 metal fragment kitchen alcohol can beer 1 80.6 y
278 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
121.29 V16 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 160.9 y
121.30 V16 metal fragment transportation automobile can motor oil can 1 105.5 y
121.31 V16 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 141 y
121.32 V16 metal fragment kitchen food prep pan aluminum 1 87.6 y y natural 121.33 V16 bone fragment resource none vertebrata unidentified 1 0.3 y 122.1 V17 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 136 1214.3 (135of136)
122.2 V17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 13.5 6 y
122.3 V17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 32 y
122.4 V17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 44.8 5 y
122.5 V17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 18.7 y
122.6 V17 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 3.9 y
122.7 V17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 36.6 y
122.8 V17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 10 5 y
122.9 V17 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 2.3
122.10 V17 glass fragment kitchen table ware vessel glassware 1 6.3 y
122.11 V17 glass fragment kitchen table ware cup glassware 1 0.6 y
122.12 V17 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 5.6 y
122.13 V17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 4.9 y
122.14 V17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 14 75.2 y
122.15 V17 ceramic fragment kitchen table ware plate porcelain 1 1.5
122.16 V17 ceramic fragment kitchen table ware plate? porcelain 1 6
122.17 V17 ceramic fragment kitchen table ware bowl whiteware 1 14.2
122.18 V17 ceramic fragment household none bric-a-brac porcelain 1 6.9 y
279 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
122.19 V17 glass fragment kitchen table ware drinking glass glassware 1 194.9 5 y y
122.20 V17 ceramic fragment prehistoric none vessel check stamped 1 4.2
122.21 V17 metal fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 4.5 y
122.22 V17 metal fragment transportation automobile part chrome 1 2.1 y
122.23 V17 metal unknown building none fastener nail, wire 2 7.5 synthetic 122.24 V17 (plastic) complete clothing none button 4-hole 1 2 5 y synthetic 122.25 V17 (plastic) complete clothing none button 2-hole 1 1 5 y synthetic 122.26 V17 (plastic) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 2 0.4 y synthetic 122.27 V17 (plastic) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 0.6 y synthetic 122.28 V17 (plastic) fragment household none shelf paper unidentified 2 0.1
122.29 V17 limestone fragment building none gravel limestone 21 120.3 y (19of21)
122.30 V17 brick fragment building none masonry brick 1 19.9 y natural 122.31 V17 lithic fragment resource none rock quartzite 1 54 natural 122.32 V17 bone fragment resource none reptile turtle 1 0.9 y natural 122.33 V17 bone fragment resource none mammal unidentified 1 1.6 y
122.34 V17 ceramic fragment kitchen table ware bowl whiteware 1 4.4
122.35 V17 ceramic fragment kitchen table ware bowl whiteware 1 12.2
123.1 V19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 21.5 y
123.2 V19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 4.6 y
123.3 V19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 8.7 y
123.4 V19 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 1 9.4 y
124.1 V20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container canning jar? 1 6.6 y
125.1 V21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 5.8 y
280 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
glass 126.1 V25 5 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 190.3 14 y y
126.2 V25 5 glass fragment household medicine bottle unidentified 1 16.8 y
126.3 V25 5 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 3.2 y
126.4 V25 5 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 2.6 y
126.5 V25 5 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 104.8 y metal 126.6 V25 5 (ceramic) fragment Transportation automobile part coil 1 680 y y
127.1 V26 5 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 347.4 y y
127.2 V26 5 metal complete household none chamber pot enamel 1 640 y y
127.3 V26 5 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 89.7 y
127.4 V26 5 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 65.1 y
127.5 V26 5 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 60.4 y
128.1 W11 metal complete kitchen alcohol can beer 1 16.9 y
129.1 W15 19 3 Metal complete household none chamber pot enamel 1 517 y y
130.1 W17 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 1 396.7 4 y
131.1 W19 glass fragment kitchen tableware cup glassware 1 17.4 y
131.2 W19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 1 0.8 y
131.3 W19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 0.4 y
131.4 W19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 0.8 y
131.5 W19 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified porcelain 1 1.4
132.1 W20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 29.6 y
132.2 W20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 3 7.6 y
132.3 W20 glass fragment building none window pane, thick 1 12.1
132.4 W20 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 3.3
281 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
132.5 W20 Metal fragment personal jewelry brooch unidentified 1 4
132.6 W20 brick fragment building none masonry brick 1 19.4 y
132.7 W20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 3.2 y
133.1 W21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 4 7.6 y
133.2 W21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 4.8 y
133.3 W21 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 3 24.3 y (2of3)
133.4 W21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 5.1 y
133.5 W21 glass fragment kitchen tableware vessel glassware 1 9.5 y
133.6 W21 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 2 3.4 y
133.7 W21 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 6.3 y
133.8 W21 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade? 1 0.6 y
133.9 W21 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 3.5
133.10 W21 coal fragment household none fuel coal 1 16.5
134.1 W22 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 4.1 y
135.1 W24 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 155.6 2 y
136.1 W25 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 408 1 y
136.2 W25 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 51 y
137.1 X13 metal complete kitchen food can spice 1 138.4 y y
137.2 X13 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 3.7 y
138.1 X14 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 144 4 y paint? 138.2 X14 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can evaporated milk? 2 182.1 y
139.1 X16 glass complete kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 500 4 y
139.2 X16 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 238.1 3 y
282 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
139.3 X16 glass complete farmstead none bottle insecticide 1 137.2 3 y y
139.4 X16 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 141.8 3 y
139.5 X16 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 4 64 3 y
139.6 X16 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 1 211.1 y
139.7 X16 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 51.2 y
139.8 X16 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade? 1 20.4 y
139.9 X16 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 2
139.10 X16 glass fragment kitchen table ware vessel glassware 1 26.2 y
139.11 X16 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 5.7 y
139.12 X16 glass fragment household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 36.6
139.13 X16 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade? 1 3.5 y
139.14 X16 metal fragment household lighting flashlight tube 1 86.5 y
139.15 X16 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 425.3 y
139.16 X16 metal fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 10 766.7 y
140.1 X17 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 394.3 3 y
140.2 X17 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 332.4 3 y
140.3 X17 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 2 466.6 13 y
140.4 X17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 106 y
140.5 X17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 11.6 y
140.6 X17 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 2.9 y
140.7 X17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 17.8 y
140.8 X17 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 3.5 y
140.9 X17 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 40.5 y
283 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
140.10 X17 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp shade 1 28.4 y
140.11 X17 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 4 16.8 y
140.12 X17 glass fragment kitchen tableware vessel glassware 3 17.6
140.13 X17 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 4 7 y
140.14 X17 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 1 110.2 y synthetic 140.15 X17 (plastic) fragment household entertainment music record 2 6.8 y
140.16 X17 metal fragment building none window screen 3 119.7 y
140.17 X17 metal fragment kitchen food can seafood 1 111 y
140.18 X17 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 796.3 y
140.19 X17 metal fragment farmstead none tool bucket 1 620 y y
141.1 X18 glass complete kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 339.5 13 y
141.2 X18 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 189.6 13 Y
141.3 X18 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 177.4 Y
141.4 X18 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 196.4 13 y
141.5 X18 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 3 471.5 13 y
141.6 X18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 143.1 12 y
141.7 X18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 46.9 Y
141.8 X18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 13.6 Y
141.9 X18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 8.6 Y
141.10 X18 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 1 2
141.11 X18 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 2 0.5 y
141.12 X18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 4 17.8 Y
141.13 X18 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 2 492.2 y
284 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
141.14 X18 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 2 11.14 Y
141.15 X18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 6.4 y
141.16 X18 ceramic fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 5
141.17 X18 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 152.8 y
141.18 X18 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 28.1 y
142.1 X19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 72.8 y
142.2 X19 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 2 56.5 99 y
142.3 X19 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 27.5 99 y
142.4 X19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 4.8 y
142.5 X19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 3 25.8 y
142.6 X19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 2 y
142.7 X19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 4.1 y
142.8 X19 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 2 11.8
142.9 X19 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 2 11.3 y (1of2)
142.10 X19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 5 29.4 y
142.11 X19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 33.2 y
142.12 X19 glass fragment kitchen tableware vessel glassware 1 10.8
142.13 X19 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 10 15.5 y
142.14 X19 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 5.4
142.15 X19 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified creamware 1 7.7
142.16 X19 metal complete personal toiletry razor guard 1 14.9 y
142.17 X19 metal fragment unidentified kitchen bottle lid, screw-on 1 1.6 11 y synthetic 142.18 X19 (plastic) fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 1 y
285 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
synthetic 142.19 X19 (plastic) fragment household entertainment music record 1 0.6 y
142.20 X19 mortar fragment building none masonry mortar 2 69.5 y
142.21 X19 brick fragment building none masonry brick 1 41.3 y
142.22 X19 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 54.4 y
142.23 X19 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 2
142.24 X19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 36.7 99 y
142.25 X19 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 1.1 y
142.26 X19 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 1 1.4 y
143.1 X20 4 glass complete kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 368.1 12 y
143.2 X20 4 glass complete household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach? 1 465.7 12 y glass 143.3 X20 4 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 469 12 y
143.4 X20 4 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 140.9 12 y
143.5 X20 4 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 266.2 11
143.6 X20 4 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 37 y
143.7 X20 4 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 2 120 y condiment, hot 143.8 X20 4 glass fragment kitchen food bottle sauce? 1 67.4 y y
143.9 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 25.6 11 y
143.10 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 41 11 y
143.11 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 2 30.9 y
143.12 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 8.3 y
143.13 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 8 64.6 y
143.14 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 2 82.8 11 y
143.15 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 9 61.3 y
286 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
143.16 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 2 33.4 y
143.17 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 37 185.6 y
143.18 X20 4 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 29 180.5 y (28of29)
143.19 X20 4 glass fragment building none window pane, thick 1 77.5
143.20 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container canning jar? 1 14.9 y
143.21 X20 4 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach 1 44.4 11 y
143.22 X20 4 glass complete unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 83.3 10
143.23 X20 4 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 4 13 y (3of4)
143.24 X20 4 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 1 0.9 y glass 143.25 X20 4 (metal) fragment household lighting oil lamp oil font 1 12.9 y
143.26 X20 4 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 11.3 10
143.27 X20 4 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware tureen creamware 9 71.8
143.28 X20 4 ceramic fragment household none flower pot terra cotta 1 12.1 natural 143.29 X20 4 lithic fragment resource none rock sandstone 1 62 y musical harmonica, reed 143.30 X20 4 metal fragment activities entertainment instrument plate 1 16.8 y
143.31 X20 4 metal complete building none fastener nail, wire 1 4.5 y
143.32 X20 4 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 141.3 y y
143.33 X20 4 metal complete unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 182.2 y
143.34 X20 4 metal fragment building none roofing tin sheet 5 211.2 y
143.35 X20 4 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 6 175.7 y
143.36 X20 4 metal fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 13.5 y
143.37 X20 4 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 5.1
143.38 X20 4 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 11.3
287 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
143.39 X20 4 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware bowl whiteware 1 10.8
143.40 X20 4 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach? 2 37 y
143.41 X20 4 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach? 1 45.2 y
143.42 X20 4 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach 5 46 y
143.43 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 8 29.9 y
143.44 X20 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 3 31.4 y
144.1 X20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 50.3 y
144.2 X20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 2 12 10 y
144.3 X20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 17 y
144.4 X20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 18.1 y
144.5 X20 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 7 34.4 y
144.6 X20 glass fragment kitchen tableware vessel glassware 1 8.5 y
144.7 X20 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 9 46.7 y (8of9)
144.8 X20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 9.9 y
144.9 X20 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 1 3.9 y
144.10 X20 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 14 45.4 y
144.11 X20 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified porcelain 1 7
144.12 X20 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 9.4
144.13 X20 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified stoneware 1 4.2
144.14 X20 brick fragment building none masonry brick 1 26 y
144.15 X20 metal complete kitchen food prep pan enamel 1 620 y y
144.16 X20 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 147.1 y
145.1 X21 4 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach 1 44.1 y
288 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
glass 145.2 X21 4 (metal) fragment unidentified kitchen bottle cleaner, bleach? 1 21 2 y
145.3 X21 4 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach? 5 5.2 y
145.4 X21 4 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach? 2 14.8 y
145.5 X21 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 14 56 y
145.6 X21 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 42.7 y
145.7 X21 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 3 53.6 y
145.8 X21 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 3 14.1 y
145.9 X21 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 6 50.9 y
145.10 X21 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 36 146.6 y
145.11 X21 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 4 16.2 y
145.12 X21 4 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 150.7 2 y y (all but 2 145.13 X21 4 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 13 49.8 frags)
145.14 X21 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container canning jar? 1 3.2 y
145.15 X21 4 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 2 1.1 y
145.16 X21 4 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified creamware 2 55.5
145.17 X21 4 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware? 1 4.1
145.18 X21 4 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 2 18.9
145.19 X21 4 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 2 8.5
145.20 X21 4 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware unidentified whiteware 1 6.5
145.21 X21 4 ceramic fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 56.6
145.22 X21 4 ceramic fragment prehistoric none vessel plain 1 5.7 complicated 145.23 X21 4 ceramic fragment prehistoric none vessel stamped 1 2.1
145.24 X21 4 brick fragment building none masonry brick 1 230.5 y
289 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
natural 145.25 X21 4 lithic fragment resource none rock quartzite 1 2.4 natural 145.26 X21 4 shell fragment resource none shell oyster 1 11.7
145.27 X21 4 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 8 36.8 y
145.28 X21 4 metal fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 21.9 y
145.29 X21 4 metal fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 5.9 y
145.30 X21 4 metal unknown building none fastener nail, cut 1 4.5
145.31 X21 4 metal fragment hardware none fencing wire, barbed 1 9.3
145.32 X21 4 metal fragment building none window screen 1 3.8 y
146.1 Y18 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 610 2 y y
146.2 Y18 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 559.8 2 y
147.1 Y19 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 3.7 y
147.2 Y19 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 7 24.3 y (5of7)
148.1 X24 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 158 y
149.1 R13 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 13 503.2 14 y
149.2 R13 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 8 291.3 y
149.3 R13 metal complete transportation automobile can motor oil can 1 141.7 19 y y
149.4 R13 metal complete transportation automobile can brake fluid 1 89.7
150.1 Q18 10 4 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 2 33.2 y
150.2 Q18 10 4 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 46.5 y
150.3 Q18 10 4 glass fragment household cleaning bottle cleaner bleach 1 8.7 35 y glass 150.4 Q18 10 4 (metal) complete household lighting eletrical light bulb 1 10 natural 150.5 Q18 10 4 shell fragment resource none shell oyster 1 12.4 synthetic 150.6 Q18 10 4 (rubber) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 1 170
290 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
condiment, 151.1 K35 1 glass complete kitchen food jar mustard or jelly? 1 203.6 66 y y
151.2 K35 1 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 86.2 66 y y
151.3 K35 1 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 25.2 y
151.4 K35 1 glass fragment unidentified kitchen vessel unidentified 1 2.1 y
151.5 K35 1 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 3 240 y
151.6 K35 1 glass fragment kitchen food prep jar canning 2 113.5 y y
151.7 K35 1 ceramic fragment prehistoric none vessel plain 1 14.1
152.1 U31 6 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 808.9 86 y (1of2) glass 152.2 U31 6 (metal) complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 377.9 86 y
152.3 U31 6 glass complete household cleaning bottle cleaner, bleach 2 626.1 87 y y (1of2)
152.4 U31 6 glass complete kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 1 660 87 y
152.5 U31 6 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 367.9 87 y
152.6 U31 6 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 334.2 87 y y
152.7 U31 6 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 255 87 y y
152.8 U31 6 glass complete kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 241.9 88 y
152.9 U31 6 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 218.4 88 y
152.10 U31 6 glass complete household medicine bottle unidentified 1 130.8 88 y
152.11 U31 6 glass fragment household medicine bottle unidentified 1 113.9 88 y y
152.12 U31 6 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 148.6 88 y
152.13 U31 6 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 183.4 89 y condiment, 152.14 U31 6 glass complete kitchen food jar mustard? 1 140.6 89 y y glass 152.15 U31 6 (metal) complete household medicine jar Vaseline 7 473.2 89 y
152.16 U31 6 glass complete household none jar paint 1 175.8 89 y y
291 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
152.17 U31 6 glass complete household none jar paint 1 130.1 89 y y
152.18 U31 6 glass complete household none jar paint 1 155.5 89 y
152.19 U31 6 glass complete household none jar paint 1 101.6 90
152.20 U31 6 glass complete unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 50.9 90 y
152.21 U31 6 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 102.1 90 y y
152.22 U31 6 glass complete unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 53.7 90 y y
152.23 U31 6 glass complete household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 36 y
152.24 U31 6 glass partial kitchen drink bottle beer/soda 4 657.1 90 y
152.25 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, whiskey 2 494 90 y
152.26 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 9 354.3 91 y
152.27 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor, gin 5 524.2 91 y y
152.28 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 5 502.2 91 y
152.29 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 2 385.3 91 y y
152.30 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle oil? 4 247.7 91 y
152.31 U31 6 glass fragment household medicine bottle unidentified 5 147.7 92 y
152.32 U31 6 glass fragment household medicine bottle unidentified 4 201.6 92 y glass 152.33 U31 6 (plastic) fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 4 137.2 y
152.34 U31 6 glass fragment household medicine bottle unidentified 11 297.8 92 y
152.35 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen food jar condiment? 3 122.8 92 y
152.36 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen tableware bowl glassware 5 121.4 y y
152.37 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen tableware bowl glassware 3 58 y
152.38 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle milk 2 178.9 92
152.39 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 3 276.2 93 y
292 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
152.40 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 2 95 93 y
152.41 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen tableware bowl glassware 1 81.2 93 y y
152.42 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 60 93 y
152.43 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen drink bottle mineral water 3 79.7 93 y
152.44 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass? glassware 1 189.7 y y
152.45 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 54.2 y
152.46 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 52.6 y glass 152.47 U31 6 (metal) fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 2 90.5 y
152.48 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 27 y
152.49 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 45.4 y
152.50 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 3 62.6 y
152.51 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified none vessel unidentified 2 31.9 93 y
152.52 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 1 41.7 94 y
152.53 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 11 124.3 y
152.54 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen soft drink bottle soda 1 30.3 94
152.55 U31 6 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 52 84.5 y
152.56 U31 6 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 2 19 y
152.57 U31 6 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 3 15.3 y
152.58 U31 6 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 17 23 y
152.59 U31 6 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 2 25.3 y
152.60 U31 6 glass fragment household lighting oil lamp chimney 2 17.7 y
152.61 U31 6 glass fragment household medicine bottle aspirin 1 9.9 94 y
152.62 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen tableware drinking glass glassware 1 30.5 94 y
293 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
152.63 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 15 159.1 y
152.64 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container unidentified 43 309.1 y
152.65 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 4 514.9 94 y
152.66 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle wine 3 437 y
152.67 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 7 230.3 94 y
152.68 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle unidentified 4 47.6 y
152.69 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle liquor 1 33.8 y
152.70 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 342.1 95 y
152.71 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 1 85.5 y
152.72 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 2 46.9 95 y
152.73 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen alcohol bottle beer 3 41.3 y
152.74 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen bottle unidentified 1 64 95 y y
152.75 U31 6 glass fragment household toiletry jar shaving cream 1 88.4 95 y
152.76 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen tableware pitcher glassware 1 452.8 y
152.77 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen container canning jar? 1 16.1 y
152.78 U31 6 glass fragment household lighting lamp shade 3 29.5 y
152.79 U31 6 glass fragment household toiletry jar cosmetic 1 20 y y 152.80 U31 6 glass fragment building none window pane, thin 169 2944.6 95 (166of169)
152.81 U31 6 glass fragment kitchen tableware cup glassware 3 25.9 glass 152.82 U31 6 (metal) fragment kitchen food prep jar canning 1 149.9 95 synthetic 152.83 U31 6 (plastic) unknown unidentified kitchen bottle lid, screw-on 1 2.1 y metal 152.84 U31 6 (other) complete building none door knob plate 2 800 y
152.85 U31 6 ceramic fragment kitchen tableware bowl stoneware 1 266.4
294 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
natural 152.86 U31 6 shell fragment resource none shell oyster 2 53.2 natural 152.87 U31 6 bone fragment resource none mammal unidentified 1 13.8 leather 152.88 U31 6 (metal) fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 2 6.2 y y
152.89 U31 6 leather fragment clothing none shoe unidentified 1 5.2 y
152.90 U31 6 metal fragment household none battery dry cell 2 49.8 y
152.91 U31 6 metal complete kitchen tableware shaker unidentified 1 5.6 96 y metal 152.92 U31 6 (rubber) unknown unidentified kitchen jar lid 1 11.5 y y metal 152.93 U31 6 (rubber) unknown unidentified kitchen jar lid 1 4.4 y
152.94 U31 6 metal unknown hardware none unidentified hook? 1 57.9 y y y
152.95 U31 6 metal unknown hardware none unidentified latch? 1 37.1 y y y
152.96 U31 6 metal fragment hardware none unidentified wire 1 5.9 y
152.97 U31 6 metal fragment activities entertainment smoking tobacco tin 2 57.7 96 y y
152.98 U31 6 metal fragment unidentified none unidentified unidentified 1 21.5 y y y
152.99 U31 6 metal fragment kitchen unidentified can unidentified 1 196.9 y y
152.100 U31 6 metal fragment activities subsistence fishing reel 1 61.4 y
152.101 U31 6 metal fragment hardware none strapping unidentified 3 98.2 y
152.102 U31 6 metal fragment building none window screen 1 49.2 y
152.103 U31 6 metal fragment transportation automobile part chrome 1 35.7 y
152.104 U31 6 metal complete household toiletry can powder 1 40.5 y y
152.105 U31 6 metal lid kitchen food prep pan enamel 1 283.5 y
152.106 U31 6 metal fragment unidentified none pan unidentified 2 98.3 y y
152.107 U31 6 metal fragment household none can paint 2 512.7 y
152.108 U31 6 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 2 487.8 y
295 Table B.1 –continued.
Catalog Unit Functional Functional Weight Material Condition Class Type # # Group Sub-Group (grams) Photo Total # Total Page # Discard Discard Drawing Old AS # Feature # Feature New AS #
152.109 U31 6 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 3 225.4 y
152.110 U31 6 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 103.9 y
152.111 U31 6 metal fragment kitchen food can seafood 2 24 y
152.112 U31 6 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 25 303.5 y
152.113 U31 6 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 30 y
152.114 U31 6 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 4 55.9 y
152.115 U31 6 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 20 79.5 y
152.116 U31 6 metal fragment unidentified kitchen can unidentified 1 3.8 y
152.117 U31 6 glass fragment unidentified kitchen jar unidentified 3 114.5 y
296
APPENDIX C
ARTIFACT CLASSIFICATION AND DATE TABLES
297
Table C.1. Functional Groups by Count and Weight.
% of Total % of Total Functional Group Count Weight Assemblage Assemblage Activities 17 0.41 167.9 0.09 Building 569 13.86 14,174 7.78 Clothing 13 0.32 407.8 0.22 Farmstead 5 0.12 4,023.8 2.21 Hardware 15 0.37 1,962.6 1.08 Household 387 9.43 14,771.2 8.11 Kitchen 874 21.29 67,415.04 37.02 Munitions 1 0.02 6.8 0.00 Natural resources 22 0.54 335.5 0.18 Personal 5 0.12 44 0.02 Prehistoric 5 0.12 17.9 0.01 Transportation 18 0.44 5,063.6 2.78 Unidentified 2,175 52.97 73,733.1 40.49 Grand Total 4,106 100 182,123.2 100
Table C.2. Functional Groups, Revised Kitchen, by Count and Weight. A % of Total % of Total Functional Group Count Weight Assemblage Assemblage Activities 17 0.41 167.9 0.09 Building 569 13.86 14,174 7.78 Clothing 13 0.32 407.8 0.22 Farmstead 5 0.12 4,023.8 2.21 Hardware 15 0.37 1962.6 1.08 Household 387 9.43 14,771.2 8.11 Kitchen 2,997 72.99 139,751.4 76.73 Munitions 1 0.02 6.8 0.00 Natural resources 22 0.54 335.5 0.18 Personal 5 0.12 44 0.02 Prehistoric 5 0.12 17.9 0.01 Transportation 18 0.44 5,063.6 2.78 Unidentified 52 1.27 1,396.7 0.77 Grand Total 4,106 100 182123.2 100 A In this table, the Kitchen Functional Group includes all kitchen-related artifacts previously classified under the Unidentified Functional Group.
298
Table C.3. Functional Sub-Groups by Count and Weight.
Functional Functional Group Count % of FG Weight % of FG Sub-Group Activities Entertainment 16 94.1 106.5 63.4 Subsistence 1 5.9 61.4 36.6 Household Childcare 3 0.8 161.8 1.1 Cleaning 37 9.6 4,421.7 29.9 Entertainment 18 4.7 43.5 0.3 Lighting 197 50.9 1,725.7 11.7 Medicine 45 11.6 2,436.3 16.5 None 66 17.1 4,882.7 33.1 Toiletry 21 5.4 1,099.5 7.4 Kitchen Alcohol 571 65.3 44,891.8 66.6 Drink 81 9.3 6,782.2 10.1 Food 33 3.8 3,171.2 4.7 Food prep 18 2.1 2,238.6 3.3 None 4 0.5 1,011.3 1.5 Soft drink 39 4.5 5,671.1 8.4 Tableware 128 14.6 3,648.8 5.4 Personal Jewelry 1 20.0 4.0 9.1
Toiletry 4 80.0 40.0 90.9
Transportation Automobile 17 94.4 3,823.6 75.5 Bicycle 1 5.6 1,240.0 24.5 Unidentified Kitchen 2,123 97.6 72,336.4 98.1 (None) 52 2.4 1,396.7 1.9
Table C.4. Classes by Count and Weight.
Functional Functional Sub- % of % of FS- % of % of Class Count Weight Group Group FG G FG FS-G
Musical Activities Entertainment instrument 1 5.88 6.25 16.8 10.01 15.77 Smoking 2 11.76 12.5 57.7 34.37 54.18 Toy 13 76.47 81.25 32 19.06 30.05 Subsistence Fishing 1 5.88 100 61.4 36.6 100 Building Door 2 0.35 - 800 5.64 - Fastener 8 1.41 - 40.8 0.29 - Gravel 21 3.69 - 120.3 0.85 - Masonry 58 10.19 - 7132.1 50.32 - Roofing 7 1.23 - 342.1 2.41 - Sheathing/ Flashing 1 0.18 - 29.6 0.21 - Window 472 82.95 - 5709.1 40.28 - Clothing Button 2 15.38 - 3 0.74 - Hanger 3 23.08 - 143.8 35.26 - Shoe 8 61.54 - 261 64 -
299
Table C.4 –continued. Functional Functional Sub- % of % of FS- % of % of Class Count Weight Group Group FG G FG FS-G
Farmstead Bottle 1 20 - 137.2 3.41 - Tool 4 80 - 3886.6 96.59 - Hardware Fastener 2 13.33 - 1584.6 80.74 - Fencing 1 6.67 - 9.3 0.47 - Spring 1 6.67 - 21.3 1.09 - Strapping 6 40 - 216.3 11.02 - Unidentified 5 33.33 - 131.1 6.68 - Household Childcare Bottle 1 0.26 33.33 93 0.63 57.48 Can 1 0.26 33.33 56.3 0.38 34.8 Jar 1 0.26 33.33 12.5 0.08 7.73 Cleaning Bottle 37 9.56 100 4421.7 29.93 100 Entertainment Music 18 4.65 100 43.5 0.29 100 Lighting Eletrical 2 0.52 1.02 14.7 0.10 0.85 Flashlight 2 0.52 1.02 179.6 1.22 10.41 Lamp 60 15.5 30.46 664.1 4.5 38.48 Oil lamp 133 34.37 67.51 867.3 5.87 50.26 Medicine Bottle 36 9.3 80 1813 12.27 74.42 Jar 9 2.33 20 623.3 4.22 25.58 (None) Battery 26 6.72 39.39 1124.3 7.61 23.03 Bottle 3 0.78 4.55 102.3 0.69 2.1 Bric-a-brac 2 0.52 3.03 9.8 0.07 0.2 Can 7 1.81 10.61 996.6 6.75 20.41 Chamber pot 2 0.52 3.03 1157 7.83 23.7 Clock? 3 0.78 4.55 16 0.11 0.33 Flower pot 2 0.52 3.03 195.1 1.32 4 Fuel 2 0.52 3.03 19.2 0.13 0.39 Jar 4 1.03 6.06 563 3.81 11.53 Shelf paper 5 1.29 7.58 0.2 0 0 Stove 10 2.58 15.15 699.2 4.73 14.32 Toiletry Bottle 1 0.26 4.76 3 0.02 0.27 Can 1 0.26 4.76 40.5 0.27 3.68 Jar 19 4.91 90.48 1056 7.15 96.04 Kitchen Alcohol Bottle 553 63.27 96.85 43371.8 64.34 96.61 Can 18 2.06 3.15 1520 2.25 3.39 Drink Bottle 71 8.12 87.65 5117.8 7.59 75.46 Jar 10 1.14 12.35 1664.4 2.47 24.54 Food Bottle 7 0.8 21.21 1222.2 1.81 38.54 Can 12 1.37 36.36 764.5 1.13 24.11 Jar 14 1.6 42.42 1184.5 1.76 37.35 Food prep Jar 13 1.49 72.22 862.6 1.28 38.53 Kettle 1 0.11 5.56 80.6 0.12 3.60 Pan 4 0.46 22.22 1295.4 1.92 57.87 (None) Bottle 1 0.11 25 413.2 0.61 40.86 Jar 1 0.11 25 310 0.46 30.65
Jug 2 0.23 50 288.1 0.43 28.49
300
Table C.4 –continued. Functional Functional Sub- % of % of FS- % of % of FS- Class Count Weight Group Group FG G FG G Soft drink Bottle 39 4.46 100 5671.1 8.41 100 Tableware Bowl 19 2.17 14.84 794.7 1.18 21.78 Butter dish 2 0.23 1.56 82.3 0.12 2.26 Cup 5 0.57 3.91 43.9 0.07 1.20 Cup? 2 0.23 1.56 12.8 0.02 0.35 Decanter 1 0.11 0.78 50.7 0.08 1.39 Drinking glass 25 2.86 19.53 1002.6 1.49 27.48 Drinking glass? 2 0.23 1.56 193.1 0.29 5.29 Pitcher 4 0.46 3.13 742.4 1.10 20.35 Plate 5 0.57 3.91 176.7 0.26 4.84 Plate? 6 0.69 4.69 21.3 0.03 0.58 Shaker 1 0.11 0.78 5.6 0.01 0.15 Shaker? 1 0.11 0.78 49.5 0.07 1.36 Tureen 9 1.03 7.03 71.8 0.11 1.97 Unidentified 38 4.35 29.69 322.5 0.48 8.84 Vessel 8 0.92 6.25 78.9 0.12 2.16 Munitions Bullet 1 100 - 6.8 100 - Natural Bone, aves 1 4.55 - 0.9 0.27 - Resource Bone, mammal 4 18.18 - 18.1 5.39 - Bone, mammal? 1 4.55 - 9.9 2.95 - Bone, reptile 1 4.55 - 0.9 0.27 - Rock 4 18.18 - 138.1 41.16 - Shell 10 45.45 - 167.3 49.87 - Bone, vertebrata 1 4.55 - 0.3 0.09 - Personal Jewelry Brooch 1 20 100 4 9.09 100 Toiletry Comb 2 40 50 20 45.45 50 Curler 1 20 25 5.1 11.59 12.75 Razor 1 20 25 14.9 33.86 37.25 Prehistoric Chert 2 40 - 5.9 32.96 - Vessel 3 60 - 12 67.04 - Transportation Automobile Can 6 33.33 35.29 1528.3 30.18 39.97 Part 11 61.11 64.71 2295.3 45.33 60.03 Bicycle Part 1 5.56 100 1240 24.49 100 Unidentified Kitchen Bottle 454 20.87 21.38 15487 21 21.41 Can 466 21.43 21.95 21758 29.51 30.08 Container 677 31.13 31.89 7270.4 9.86 10.05 Jar 294 13.52 13.85 26115 35.42 36.10 Jug 5 0.23 0.24 331.2 0.45 0.46 Vessel 227 10.44 10.69 1373.4 1.86 1.90 (None) Pan 2 0.09 3.85 98.3 0.13 7.04 Unidentified 44 2.02 84.62 1153.6 1.56 82.59 Vessel 6 0.28 11.54 144.8 0.20 10.37
301
Table C.5. Types by Class and Weight.
Functional Functional % of Class Type Count % of Class Weight Group Sub-Group Class
Musical Activities Entertainment Harmonica, reed plate 1 100 16.8 100 instrument Smoking Tobacco tin 2 100 57.7 100 Toy Vehicle 10 76.92 24.4 76.25 Vehicle, car 1 7.69 0.9 2.81 Vehicle, truck 2 15.38 6.7 20.94 Subsistence Fishing Reel 1 100 61.4 100 Building Door Knob plate 2 100 800 100 Fastener Nail, cut 1 12.5 4.5 11.03 Nail, wire 7 87.5 36.3 88.97 Gravel Limestone 21 100 120.3 100 Masonry Brick 36 62.07 5566.1 78.04 Concrete 7 12.07 1338.3 18.76 Mortar 15 25.86 227.7 3.19 Roofing Tin sheet 7 100 342.1 100 Sheathing/ Unidentified 1 100 29.6 100 flashing Window Pane, thick 8 1.69 417.9 7.32 Pane, thin 458 97.03 5113.6 89.57 Screen 6 1.27 177.6 3.11 Clothing Button 2-hole 1 50 1 33.33 4-hole 1 50 2 66.67 Hanger Wire 3 100 143.8 100 Shoe Unidentified 8 100 261 100 Farmstead Bottle Insecticide 1 100 137.2 100 Tool Bucket 2 50 1066.6 27.44 Post hole digger 1 25 2200 56.60 Shovel 1 25 620 15.95 Hardware Fastener D-ring attachment 1 50 4.6 0.29 Hinge 1 50 1580 99.71 Fencing Wire, barbed 1 100 9.3 100 Spring Unidentified 1 100 21.3 100 Strapping Unidentified 6 100 216.3 100 Unidentified Hook? 1 20 57.9 44.16 Latch? 1 20 37.1 28.30 Ring 1 20 1.7 1.30 Wire 1 20 5.9 4.50 Wire around a nail 1 20 28.5 21.74 Household Childcare Bottle Castoria 1 100 93 100 Can Powder 1 100 56.3 100 Jar Fuller's earth 1 100 12.5 100 Cleaning Bottle Cleaner bleach? 1 2.70 8.7 0.20 Cleaner, bleach 34 91.89 3834.8 86.73 Cleaner, fluid 2 5.41 578.2 13.08
302
Table C.5 –continued. Functional Functional % of Class Type Count % of Class Weight Group Sub-Group Class Household Entertainment Music Record 18 100 43.5 100 Continued Lighting Electrical Light bulb 2 100 14.7 100 Flashlight Tube 2 100 179.6 100 Lamp Shade 60 100 664.1 100 Oil lamp Bracket 1 0.75 443.4 51.12 Burner? 1 0.75 78.4 9.04 Chimney 128 96.24 251.1 28.95 Collar 1 0.75 53.1 6.12 Oil font 1 0.75 12.9 1.49 Shade 1 0.75 28.4 3.27 Medicine Bottle Aspirin 1 2.78 9.9 0.55 Cardui 1 2.78 268.3 14.80 Unidentified 34 94.44 1534.8 84.66 Jar Vaseline 9 1001 623.3 100 (None) Battery Dry cell 26 100 1124.3 100 Bottle Bostonian shoe cream 1 33.33 83.9 82.01 Ink 2 66.67 18.4 17.99 Bric-a-brac Figurine (porcelain) 2 100 9.8 100 Can Paint 7 100 996.6 100 Chamber pot Enamel 2 100 1157 100 Clock? Unidentified 3 100 16 100 Flower pot Terra cotta 2 100 195.1 100 Fuel Coal 2 100 19.2 100 Jar Paint 4 100 563 100 Shelf paper Unidentified 5 100 0.2 100 Stove Pipe 10 100 699.2 100 Toiletry Bottle Perfume? 1 100 3 100 Can Powder 1 100 40.5 100 Jar Cosmetic 16 84.21 702.3 66.51 Lotion 1 5.26 164.4 15.57 Moroline 1 5.26 100.9 9.55 Shaving cream 1 5.26 88.4 8.37 Kitchen Alcohol Bottle Beer 215 38.88 15780.5 36.38 Liquor 175 31.65 12306.2 28.37 Liquor, gin 8 1.45 606.9 1.40 Liquor, martini 10 1.81 603.3 1.39 cocktail/vermouth Liquor, whiskey 94 17 9849.6 22.71
Liquor, bourbon 1 0.18 239.9 0.55
Unidentified 8 1.45 294.9 0.68 Wine 42 7.59 3690.5 8.51 Can Beer 18 100 1520 100
303
Table C.5 –continued. Functional Functional % of Class Type Count % of Class Weight Group Sub-Group Class Kitchen Drink Bottle Beer/Soda 37 52.11 4060.2 79.33 Continued Milk 2 2.82 178.9 3.50 Mineral water 30 42.25 578.8 11.31 Unidentified 2 2.82 299.9 5.86 Jar Postum 10 100 1664.4 100 Food Bottle Condiment 1 14.29 435.6 35.64 Condiment, hot sauce 4 57.14 452.4 37.02 Condiment, mustard 1 14.29 137.1 11.22 Condiment, pickles or 1 14.29 197.1 16.13 vinegar? Can Baking powder 2 16.67 64.1 8.38
Seafood 6 50 365.4 47.80
Spice 3 25 236.2 30.90 Tomato sauce? 1 8.33 98.8 12.92 Jar Condiment 3 21.43 122.8 10.37 Condiment, mustard 4 28.57 560.2 47.29 Unidentified 7 50 501.5 42.34 Food prep Jar Canning 12 92.31 726.6 84.23 Condiment, mustard 1 7.69 136 15.77 Kettle Enamel 1 100 80.6 100 Pan Aluminum 1 25 87.6 6.76 Enamel 3 75 1207.8 93.24 (None) Bottle Unidentified 1 100 413.2 100 Jar Unidentified 1 100 310 100 Jug Unidentified 2 100 288.1 100 Soft drink Bottle Soda 39 100 5671.1 100 Tableware Bowl Enamel 1 5.26 135.6 17.06 Glassware 11 57.89 337.1 42.42 Porcelain 2 10.53 14 1.76 Stoneware 1 5.26 266.4 33.52 Whiteware 4 21.05 41.6 5.23 Butter dish Glassware 2 100 82.3 100 Cup Glassware 5 100 43.9 100 Cup? Porcelain 1 50 8.4 65.63 Unidentified 1 50 4.4 34.38 Decanter Glassware 1 100 50.7 100 Drinking glass Glassware 25 100 1002.6 100 Drinking glass? Glassware 2 100 193.1 100 Pitcher Glassware 4 100 742.4 100 Plate Glassware 2 40 85.9 48.61 Porcelain 2 40 5.6 3.17 Whiteware 1 20 85.2 48.22
304
Table C.5 –continued. Functional Functional % of Class Type Count % of Class Weight Group Sub-Group Class Kitchen Tableware Shaker Unidentified 1 100 5.6 100 Continued Shaker? Glassware 1 100 49.5 100 Tureen Creamware 9 100 71.8 100 Unidentified Creamware 3 7.89 63.2 19.60 Porcelain 7 18.42 26.1 8.09 Stoneware 1 2.63 4.2 1.30 Unidentified 2 5.26 53.7 16.65 Whiteware 25 65.79 175.3 54.36 Vessel Glassware 8 100 78.9 100 Munitions Bullet Shot gun 1 100 6.8 100 Natural Bone, aves Unidentified 1 100 0.9 100 Resource Bone, mammal Artiodactyl, deer 2 50 2.7 14.92 Unidentified 2 50 15.4 85.08 Bone, mammal? Unidentified 1 100 9.9 100 Bone, reptile Turtle? 1 100 0.9 100 Rock Quartzite 2 50 56.4 40.84 Sandstone 2 50 81.7 59.16 Shell Oyster 7 70 111.7 66.77 Whelk 3 30 55.6 33.23 Bone, vertebrata Unidentified 1 100 0.3 100 Personal Jewelry Brooch Unidentified 1 100 4 100 Toiletry Comb Unidentified 2 50 20 50.00 Curler Unidentified 1 25 5.1 12.75 Razor Guard 1 25 14.9 37.25 Prehistoric Chert Debitage 2 100 5.9 100 Vessel Check stamped 1 33.33 4.2 35.00 Complicated stamped 1 33.33 2.1 17.50 Plain 1 33.33 5.7 47.50 Transportation Automobile Can Brake fluid 1 16.67 89.7 5.87 Gas 1 16.67 940 61.51 Motor oil can 4 66.67 498.6 32.62 Part Air filter? 1 9.09 263 11.46 Bracket 1 9.09 236.7 10.31 Carriage bolt? 1 9.09 24.1 1.05 Chrome 2 18.18 37.8 1.65 Coil 1 9.09 680 29.63 Exhaust pipe 1 9.09 555.5 24.20 Head/tail light cover 1 9.09 28.4 1.24 Terminal (threaded)? 1 9.09 3.6 0.16 Tire 1 9.09 1.8 0.08 Bicycle Part Seat 1 100 1240 100
305
Table C.5 –continued. Functional Functional % of Class Type Count % of Class Weight Group Sub-Group Class Unidentified Kitchen Bottle Alcohol, Liquor? 3 0.66 682.6 4.41 Beer? 1 0.22 51.9 0.34
Case 4 0.88 29.3 0.19
Cleaner, bleach? 1 0.22 21 0.14 Lid, screw-on 4 0.88 6.6 0.04 Oil? 4 0.88 247.7 1.60 Soda? 2 0.44 106 0.68 Unidentified 435 95.81 14342.3 92.61 Can Paint? evaporated milk? 2 0.43 182.1 0.84 Unidentified 464 99.57 21576 99.16
Container Canning 7 1.03 49.5 0.68
Unidentified 670 98.97 7220.9 99.32 Jar Lid 5 1.70 29.3 0.11 Unidentified 289 98.30 26086.6 99.89 Jug Unidentified 5 100 331.2 100 Vessel Unidentified 227 100 1373.4 100 (None) Pan Unidentified 2 100 98.3 100 Unidentified Cast iron 1 2.27 24.8 2.15 Unidentified 43 97.73 1128.8 97.85 Vessel Unidentified 6 100 144.8 100 Grand Total 13662 738728
Table C.6. Kitchen Tableware Material by Count and Weight. % of % of Material Count Weight Tableware Tableware Ceramic 65 50.78 841.2 23.05 Glass 61 47.66 2666.4 73.08 Metal 2 1.56 141.2 3.87 Grand Total 128 100 3648.8 100
306
Table C.7. Kitchen Tableware Material and Class by Count and Weight. % of % of Material Class Count Weight Material Material Ceramic Bowl 7 10.77 322 38.28 Cup? 2 3.08 12.8 1.52 Plate 3 4.62 90.8 10.79 Plate? 6 9.23 21.3 2.53 Tureen 9 13.85 71.8 8.54 Unidentified 38 58.46 322.5 38.34 Glass Bowl 11 18.03 337.1 12.64 Butter dish 2 3.28 82.3 3.09 Cup 5 8.2 43.9 1.65
Decanter 1 1.64 50.7 1.9
Drinking glass 25 40.98 1002.6 37.6 Drinking glass? 2 3.28 193.1 7.24 Pitcher 4 6.56 742.4 27.84 Plate 2 3.28 85.9 3.22 Shaker? 1 1.64 49.5 1.86 Vessel 8 13.11 78.9 2.96 Metal Bowl 1 96.03 135.6 96.03 Shaker 1 3.97 5.6 3.97 Grand Total 128 3648.8
Table C.8. Kitchen Tableware Material and Type by Count and Weight. % of % of Material Type Count Weight Material Material Ceramic Creamware 12 18.46 135 16.05 Porcelain 13 20 60.1 7.14 Stoneware 2 3.08 270.6 32.17 Unidentified 3 4.62 58.1 6.91 Whiteware 35 53.85 317.4 37.73 Glass Glassware 61 100 2666.4 100 Metal Enamel 1 50 135.6 96.03 Unidentified 1 50 5.6 3.97 Grand Total 128 3648.8
Table C.9. Natural Resource Material by Count and Weight. Material Count % of FG Weight % of FG
Bone 8 36.36 30.1 8.97 Lithic 4 18.18 138.1 41.16 Shell 10 45.45 167.3 49.87 Grand Total 22 100 335.5 100
307
Table C.10. Natural Resource Material and Class by Count and Weight. Material Class Count % of Material Weight % of Material
Bone Aves 1 12.5 0.9 2.99 Mammal 4 50 18.1 60.13 Mammal? 1 12.5 9.9 32.89 Reptile 1 12.5 0.9 2.99 Vertebrata 1 12.5 0.3 1 Lithic Rock 4 100 138.1 100 Shell Shell 10 100 167.3 100 Grand Total 22 335.5
Table C.11. Natural Resource Material and Type by Count and Weight. % of Material Class Type Count Weight % of Material Material Bone Aves Unidentified 1 12.5 0.9 2.99 Mammal Artiodactyl, deer 2 25 2.7 8.97 Unidentified 2 25 15.4 51.16 Mammal? Unidentified 1 12.5 9.9 32.89 Reptile Turtle? 1 12.5 0.9 2.99 Vertebrata Unidentified 1 12.5 0.3 1 Lithic Rock Quartzite 2 50 56.4 40.84 Sandstone 2 50 81.7 59.16 Shell Shell Oyster 7 70 111.7 66.77
Whelk 3 30 55.6 33.23
Grand Total 22 335.5
308
Table C.12. Functional Groups by Artifact Scatters. % of % % % % % % % % % Scatter Grand Functional Group A B C D E F G H I Grand FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG Total Total Total Activities 0 0 1 7.7 0 0 0 0 2 11.8 6 35.3 1 5.9 3 17.6 0 0 13 76.5 17 Building 5 0.9 0 0 11 1.9 67 11.8 32 5.6 173 30.4 73 12.8 172 30.2 0 0 533 93.7 569 Clothing 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 53.8 0 0 2 15.4 0 0 3 23.1 0 0 12 92.3 13 Farmstead 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 0 0 4 80 5 Hardware 0 0 0 0 3 20 3 20 1 6.7 0 0 1 6.7 6 40 0 0 14 93.3 15 Household 8 2.4 2 0.6 17 4.4 81 20.9 10 2.6 22 5.7 70 18.1 125 32.3 0 0 335 86.6 387 Kitchen 35 4.6 21 2.7 174 19.9 337 38.6 22 2.5 30 3.4 74 8.5 75 8.6 0 0 768 87.9 874 Munitions 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Natural Resource 0 0 0 0 1 4.5 6 27.3 2 9.1 4 18.2 3 13.6 3 13.6 0 0 19 86.4 22 Personal 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 1 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 3 60 5 Prehistoric 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 1 20 2 40 0 0 0 0 4 80 5 Transportation 0 0 1 7.7 4 22.2 4 22.2 1 5.6 2 11.1 0 0 1 5.6 0 0 13 72.2 18 Unidentified 127 6.6 109 5.7 358 16.5 584 26.9 150 6.9 108 5.0 239 11.0 187 8.6 58 2.7 1,920 88.3 2,175 Grand Total 175 4.8 134 3.7 568 13.8 1094 26.6 220 5.4 349 8.5 466 11.3 575 14 58 1.4 3,639 88.6 4,106
Table C.13. Functional Groups by Artifact Middens. % of Functional % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Midden Grand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Grand Group FG FG FG FG FG FG FG Total Total Total Activities 2 11.8 2 11.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 23.5 17 Building 16 2.8 5 0.9 9 1.6 0 0 6 1.1 0 0 0 0 36 6.3 569 Clothing 0 0 1 7.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.7 13 Farmstead 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 5 Hardware 0 0 1 6.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6.7 15 Household 9 2.3 19 4.9 15 3.9 1 0.3 5 1.3 1 0.3 2 0.5 52 13.4 387 Kitchen 14 1.6 60 6.9 14 1.6 5 0.6 5 0.6 0 0 7 0.8 105 12.0 874 Munitions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Natural Resource 1 4.5 0 0 2 9.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13.6 22 Personal 1 20 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 40 5 Prehistoric 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 5 Transportation 0 0 4 22.2 0 0 0 0 1 5.6 0 0 0 0 5 27.8 18 Unidentified 56 2.6 118 5.4 38 1.7 8 0.4 26 1.2 5 0.2 4 0.2 255 11.7 2175 Grand Total 99 2.4 212 5.2 79 1.9 14 0.3 43 1 6 0.1 13 0.3 466 11.4 4106 Table
309
Table C.14. Functional Sub-Groups by Artifact Scatters. % of Functional Functional % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Scatter Grand A B C D E F G H I Grand Group Sub-Group FSG FSG FSG FSG FSG FSG FSG FSG FSG Total Total Total Activities Entertainment 0 0 1 6.25 0 0 0 0 2 12.5 6 37.5 1 6.25 2 12.5 0 0 12 75 16 Subsistence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 100 1 Building 5 0.88 0 0 11 1.93 67 11.78 32 5.62 173 30.4 73 12.83 172 30.23 0 0 533 93.7 569 Clothing 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 53.85 0 0 2 15.38 0 0 3 23.08 0 0 12 92.3 13 Farmstead 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 0 0 4 80 5 Hardware 0 0 0 0 3 20 3 20 1 6.67 0 0 1 6.67 6 40 0 0 14 93.3 15 Household Childcare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33.3 3 Cleaning 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 13.51 0 0 4 10.81 18 48.65 2 5.41 0 0 29 78.4 37 Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 61.11 0 0 0 0 3 16.67 0 0 0 0 14 77.8 18 Lighting 1 0.51 0 0 10 5.08 22 11.17 6 3.05 8 4.06 47 23.86 81 41.12 0 0 175 88.8 197 Medicine 1 2.22 1 2.22 1 2.22 6 13.33 3 6.67 1 2.22 0 0 30 66.67 0 0 43 95.6 45 (None) 5 7.58 1 1.52 6 9.09 28 42.42 1 1.52 7 10.61 1 1.52 8 12.12 0 0 57 86.4 66 Toiletry 1 4.76 0 0 0 0 9 42.86 0 0 1 4.76 1 4.76 4 19.05 0 0 16 76.2 21 Kitchen Alcohol 20 3.5 6 1.05 141 24.69 268 46.94 6 1.05 12 2.1 16 2.8 39 6.83 0 0 508 89 571 Drink 7 8.64 0 0 31 38.27 21 25.93 1 1.23 0 0 4 4.94 10 12.35 0 0 74 91.4 81 Food 3 9.09 10 30.3 1 3.03 6 18.18 0 0 1 3.03 2 6.06 6 18.18 0 0 29 87.9 33 Food prep 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 33.33 2 11.11 1 5.56 1 5.56 2 11.11 0 0 12 66.7 18 (None) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 75 4 Soft drink 2 5.13 2 5.13 1 2.56 13 33.33 3 7.69 1 2.56 9 23.08 1 2.56 0 0 32 82.1 39 Tableware 3 2.34 3 2.34 0 0 20 15.63 10 7.81 15 11.72 42 32.81 17 13.28 0 0 110 85.9 128 Munitions 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Natural Resource 0 0 0 0 1 4.55 6 27.27 2 9.09 4 18.18 3 13.64 3 13.64 0 0 19 86.4 22 Personal Toiletry 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 1 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 3 75 4 Prehistoric 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 1 20 2 40 0 0 0 0 4 80 5 Transportation Automobile 0 0 1 5.88 4 23.53 4 23.53 1 5.9 2 11.76 0 0 1 5.88 0 0 13 76.5 17 Unidentified Kitchen 127 5.98 108 5.09 355 16.72 578 27.23 146 6.9 102 4.8 223 10.5 182 8.57 58 2.73 1879 88.5 2123 (None) 0 0 1 1.92 3 5.77 6 11.54 4 7.7 6 11.54 16 30.77 5 9.62 0 0 41 78.8 52 Grand Total 175 4.26 134 3.26 568 13.83 1094 26.64 220 5.4 349 8.5 466 11.35 575 14 58 1.41 3639 88.6 4106
310
Table C.15. Functional Sub-Groups by Artifact Middens.
% of Functional Sub- % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Midden Grand Functional Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Grand Group FSG FSG FSG FSG FSG FSG FSG Total Total Total Activities Entertainment 2 12.50 2 12.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 25 16 Building 16 2.81 5 0.88 9 1.58 0 0 6 1.05 0 0 0 0 36 6.33 569 Clothing 0 0 1 7.69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.69 13 Farmstead 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 5 Hardware 0 0 1 6.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6.67 15 Household Childcare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33.33 0 0 1 33.33 2 66.67 3 Cleaning 0 0 8 21.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21.62 37 Entertainment 2 11.11 2 11.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 22.22 18 Lighting 6 3.05 4 2.03 11 5.58 0 0 1 0.51 0 0 0 0 22 11.17 197 Medicine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.22 1 2.22 0 0 2 4.44 45 (None) 1 1.52 2 3.03 3 4.55 1 1.52 1 1.52 0 0 1 1.52 9 13.64 66 Toiletry 0 0 3 14.29 1 4.76 0 0 1 4.76 0 0 0 0 5 23.81 21 Kitchen Alcohol 6 1.05 45 7.88 7 1.23 3 0.53 1 0.18 0 0 1 0.18 63 11.03 571 Drink 0 0 4 4.94 1 1.23 1 1.23 0 0 0 0 1 1.23 7 8.64 81 Food 0 0 1 3.03 0 0 1 3.03 1 3.03 0 0 1 3.03 4 12.12 33 Food prep 1 5.56 4 22.22 0 0 0 0 1 5.56 0 0 0 0 6 33.33 18 (None) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 1 25 4 Soft drink 3 7.69 2 5.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.56 6 15.38 39 Tableware 4 3.13 4 3.13 6 4.69 0 0 2 1.56 0 0 2 1.56 18 14.06 128 Munitions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Natural resources 1 4.55 0 0 2 9.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13.64 22 Personal Jewelry 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Toiletry 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 4 Prehistoric 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 5 Transportation Automobile 0 0 3 17.65 0 0 0 0 1 5.88 0 0 0 0 4 23.53 17 Bicycle 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Unidentified Kitchen 53 2.50 110 5.18 38 1.79 8 0.38 26 1.22 5 0.24 4 0.19 244 11.49 2123 (None) 3 5.77 8 15.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 21.15 52 Grand Total 99 2.41 212 5.16 79 1.92 14 0.34 43 1.05 6 0.15 13 0.32 466 11.35 4106
311
Table C.16. Classes by Artifact Scatters
Functional Functional % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Scatter % of Class Class A B C D E F G H I Group Sub-Group Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Total Total Total Musical Activities Entertainment instrument 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Smoking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 2 100 2 Toy 0 0 1 7.69 0 0 0 0 2 15.38 6 46.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 69.23 13 Subsistence Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 100 1 Building Door 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 2 100 2 Fastener 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 50 2 25 2 25 0 0 0 0 8 100 8 Gravel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 100 21 Masonry 5 8.62 0 0 0 0 16 27.59 12 20.69 10 17.24 5 8.62 0 0 0 0 48 82.76 58 Roofing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 71.43 0 0 0 0 5 71.43 7 Sheathing/ flashing 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Window 0 0 0 0 10 2.12 51 10.81 16 3.39 140 29.66 61 12.92 170 36.02 0 0 448 94.92 472 Clothing Button 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 Hanger 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100 3 Shoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 37.50 0 0 7 87.50 8 Farmstead Bottle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Tool 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 50 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 0 0 3 75 4 Hardware Fastener 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 2 Fencing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Spring 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Strapping 0 0 0 0 1 16.67 2 33.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 50 0 0 6 100 6 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 1 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 60 0 0 5 100 5 Household Childcare Bottle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Cleaning Bottle 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 13.51 0 0 4 10.81 18 48.65 2 5.41 0 0 29 78.38 37 Entertainment Music 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 61.11 0 0 0 0 3 16.67 0 0 0 0 14 77.78 18 Lighting Electrical 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 Flashlight 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 Lamp 0 0 0 0 5 8.33 7 11.67 0 0 0 0 32 53.33 3 5 0 0 47 78.33 60 Oil lamp 1 0.75 0 0 4 3.01 13 9.77 6 4.51 8 6.02 14 10.53 78 58.65 0 0 124 93.23 133 Medicine Bottle 1 2.78 1 2.78 1 2.78 5 13.89 3 8.33 1 2.78 0 0 23 63.89 0 0 35 97.22 36 Jar 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 77.78 0 0 8 88.89 9 (None) Battery 0 0 0 0 1 3.85 21 80.77 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7.69 0 0 24 92.31 26 Bottle 0 0 0 0 2 66.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 66.67 3 Bric-a-brac 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 Can 1 14.29 1 14.29 3 42.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 28.57 0 0 7 100 7
312
Table C.16 –continued. Functional Functional % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Scatter % of Class Class A B C D E F G H I Group Sub-Group Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Total Total Total Household (None) Continued continued Clock? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33.33 1 33.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 66.67 3 Flower pot 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 Jar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 100 0 0 4 100 4 Shelf paper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 100 5 Stove 4 40 0 0 0 0 5 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 90 10 Toiletry Can 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 100 1 Jar 1 5.26 0 0 0 0 9 47.37 0 0 1 5.26 1 5.26 3 15.79 0 0 15 78.95 19 Kitchen Alcohol Bottle 20 3.62 4 0.72 141 25.50 255 46.11 6 1.08 10 1.81 16 2.89 39 7.05 0 0 491 88.79 553 Can 0 0 2 11.11 0 0 13 72.22 0 0 2 11.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 94.44 18 Drink Bottle 1 1.41 0 0 31 43.66 21 29.58 1 1.41 0 0 4 5.63 10 14.08 0 0 68 95.77 71 Jar 6 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 60 10 Food Bottle 1 14.29 0 0 0 0 5 71.43 0 0 0 0 1 14.29 0 0 0 0 7 100 7 Can 2 16.67 4 33.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.33 1 8.33 2 16.67 0 0 10 83.33 12 Jar 0 0 6 42.86 1 7.14 1 7.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 28.57 0 0 12 85.71 14 Food prep Jar 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 38.46 2 15.38 0 0 0 0 1 7.69 0 0 8 61.54 13 Pan 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 1 25 1 25 1 25 0 0 4 100 4 (None) Bottle 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Jug 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 Soft drink Bottle 2 5.13 2 5.13 1 2.56 13 33.33 3 7.69 1 2.56 9 23.08 1 2.56 0 0 32 82.05 39 Tableware Bowl 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.26 0 0 4 21.05 1 5.26 10 52.63 0 0 16 84.21 19 Butter dish 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 Cup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 3 60 0 0 4 80 5 Cup? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 2 Drinking glass 0 0 3 12 0 0 70 28 0 0 2 8 9 36 1 4 0 0 22 88 25 Drinking glass? 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 2 100 2 Pitcher 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 4 100 4 Plate 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 60 0 0 2 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 100 5 Plate? 1 16.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 50 1 16.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 83.33 6 Shaker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 100 1 Shaker? 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Tureen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 100 0 0 0 0 9 100 9 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10.53 6 15.79 4 10.53 17 44.74 0 0 0 0 31 81.58 38 Vessel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.50 6 75 0 0 0 0 7 87.50 8
313
Table C.16 –continued. Functional Functional % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Scatter % of Class Class A B C D E F G H I Group Sub-Group Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Total Total Total
Munitions Bullet 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1
Natural Resources Bone, aves 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Bone, mammal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 1 25 0 0 2 50 4 Bone, mammal? 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1
Bone, reptile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Rock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 1 25 2 50 0 0 0 0 4 100 4 Shell 0 0 0 0 1 10 4 40 1 10 0 0 1 10 2 20 0 0 9 90 10 Vertebrata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Personal Toiletry Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 Razor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Prehistoric Chert 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 2 Vessel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33.33 2 66.67 0 0 0 0 3 100 3 Transportation Automobile Can 0 0 1 16.67 0 0 1 16.67 0 0 1 16.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 50 6 Part 0 0 0 0 4 36.36 3 27.27 1 9.09 1 9.09 0 0 1 9.09 0 0 10 90.91 11 Unidentified Kitchen Bottle 9 1.98 1 0.22 153 33.70 185 40.75 20 4.41 18 3.96 18 3.96 20 4.41 0 0 424 93.39 454 Can 108 23.18 59 12.66 14 3 74 15.88 1 0.21 11 2.36 27 5.79 58 12.45 54 11.59 406 87.12 466 Container 6 0.89 1 0.15 176 26 205 30.28 15 2.22 44 6.50 135 19.94 59 8.71 0 0 641 94.68 677 Jar 2 0.68 46 15.65 12 4.08 90 30.61 7 2.38 15 5.10 27 9.18 45 15.31 4 1.36 248 84.35 294 Vessel 2 0.88 1 0.44 0 0 24 10.57 103 45.37 14 6.17 16 7.05 0 0 0 0 160 70.48 227 (None) Pan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 2 100 2 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 3 6.82 6 13.64 4 9.09 4 9.09 16 36.36 1 2.27 0 0 34 77.27 44 Vessel 0 0 1 16.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 33.33 0 0 2 33.33 0 0 5 83.33 6 Grand Total 175 4.26 134 3.26 568 13.83 1094 26.64 220 5.36 349 8.50 466 11.35 575 14 58 1.41 3639 88.63 4106
314
Table C.17. Classes by Artifact Middens
Functional Functional % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Scatter % of Class Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Group Sub-Group Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Total Total Total
Activities Entertainment Toy 2 15.38 2 15.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 30.77 13 Building Masonry 1 1.72 1 1.72 2 3.45 0 0 6 10.34 0 0 0 0 10 17.24 58 Roofing 0 0 1 14.29 1 14.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 28.57 7
Window 15 3.18 3 0.64 6 1.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 5.08 472 Clothing Shoe 0 0 1 12.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.50 8 Farmstead Tool 0 0 1 25.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25.00 4 Hardware Fastener 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 2 Household Childcare Can 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 100 1 Jar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Cleaning Bottle 0 0 8 21.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21.62 37 Entertainment Music 2 11.11 2 11.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 22.22 18 Lighting Lamp 0 0 3 5.00 10 16.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 21.67 60 Oil lamp 6 4.51 1 0.75 1 0.75 0 0 1 0.75 0 0 0 0 9 6.77 133 Medicine Bottle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.78 0 0 0 0 1 2.78 36 Jar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.11 0 0 1 11.11 9 (None) Battery 1 3.85 1 3.85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7.69 26 Bottle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33.33 1 33.33 3
Chamber pot 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 Clock? 0 0 0 0 1 33.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33.33 3 Fuel 0 0 0 0 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 Stove 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 10 Toiletry Bottle 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Jar 0 0 3 15.79 0 0 0 0 1 5.26 0 0 0 0 4 21.05 19 Kitchen Alcohol Bottle 6 1.08 45 8.14 7 1.27 2 0.36 1 0.18 0 0 1 0.18 62 11.21 553 Can 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.56 18 Drink Bottle 0 0 0 0 1 1.41 1 1.41 0 0 0 0 1 1.41 3 4.23 71 Jar 0 0 4 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 40 10 Food Can 0 0 1 8.33 0 0 1 8.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16.67 12 Jar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.14 0 0 1 7.14 2 14.29 14 Food prep Jar 1 7.69 4 30.77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 38.46 13 Kettle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 1
(None) Jar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 100 1 Soft drink Bottle 3 7.69 2 5.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.56 6 15.38 39 Tableware Bowl 0 0 1 5.26 0 0 0 0 1 5.26 0 0 1 5.26 3 15.79 19
315
Table C.17 –continued.
Functional Functional % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Scatter % of Class Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Group Sub-Group Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Total Total Total
Cup 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 5 Cup? 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 2 Decanter 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Drinking glass 1 4.00 1 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.00 3 12.00 25 Plate? 0 0 0 0 1 16.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.67 6 Unidentified 1 2.63 2 5.26 3 7.89 0 0 1 2.63 0 0 0 0 7 18.42 38 Vessel 0 0 0 0 1 12.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.50 8 Natural Resource Mammal 0 0 0 0 2 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 50 4 Shell 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 10 Personal Jewelry Brooch 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Toiletry Curler 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Prehistoric Chert 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 2 Transportation Automobile Can 0 0 3 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 50 6 Part 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.09 0 0 0 0 1 9.09 11 Bicycle Part 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 Unidentified Kitchen Bottle 8 1.76 9 1.98 2 0.44 1 0.22 5 1.10 3 0.66 2 0.44 30 6.61 454 Can 1 0.21 46 9.87 2 0.43 3 0.64 7 1.50 1 0.21 0 0 60 12.88 466 Container 18 2.66 12 1.77 5 0.74 0 0 1 0.15 0 0 0 0 36 5.32 677 Jar 5 1.70 24 8.16 5 1.70 3 1.02 6 2.04 1 0.34 2 0.68 46 15.65 294 Jug 0 0 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 100 5
Vessel 21 9.25 14 6.17 24 10.57 1 0.44 7 3.08 0 0 0 0 67 29.52 227 (None) Unidentified 2 4.55 8 18.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 22.73 44 Vessel 1 16.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.67 6 Grand Total 99 4.55 212 9.75 79 3.63 14 0.64 43 1.98 6 0.28 13 0.60 466 21.43 2175
Table C.18. Kitchen Tableware Material by Artifact Scatters. % of Functional % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Scatter Grand Material A B C D E F G H Grand Sub-Group Material Material Material Material Material Material Material Material Total Total Total Tableware Ceramic 1 1.54 0 0 0 0 5 7.69 10 15.38 11 16.92 27 41.54 1 1.54 55 84.62 65 Glass 2 3.28 3 4.92 3 4.92 15 24.59 0 0 4 6.56 15 24.59 15 24.59 54 88.52 61 Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 2 Scatter Total 3 3 3 20 10 15 42 17 110
316
Table C.19. Kitchen Tableware Material by Artifact Middens. % of Functional % of % of % of % of % of % of Midden Grand Material 1 2 3 5 6 7 Grand Sub-Group Material Material Material Material Material Material Total Total Total
Tableware Ceramic 2 3.08 3 4.62 4 6.15 1 1.54 0 0 0 0 10 15.38 65 Glass 2 3.28 1 1.64 2 3.28 1 1.64 0 0 1 1.64 7 11.48 61 Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 1 50 2 Midden Total 4 4 6 2 0 2 18
Table C.20. Natural Resource Material by Artifact Scatters. % of Gran Functional % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Scatter Material A B C D E F G H Grand d Group Material Material Material Material Material Material Material Material Total Total Total Natural Resource Bone 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 25 0 0 3 37.5 0 0 1 12.5 6 75 8 Lithic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 1 25 2 50 0 0 4 100 4 Shell 0 0 0 0 1 10 2 20 1 10 0 0 1 10 1 10 6 60 10 Scatter Total 0 0 1 4 2 4 3 2 16
Table C.21. Natural Resource Material by Artifact Middens % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Midden Grand Functional Group Material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Grand Material Material Material Material Material Material Material Total Total Total
Natural Resource Bone 0 0 0 0 2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 25 8 Lithic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shell 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 10 Midden Total 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3
317
Table C.22. Glass Dates by Artifact Scatters.
New Median Mean New Median Mean New Median Mean Date Total Date Total Date Total AS # Date Date AS # Date Date AS # Date Date
A 1940 1 1940 1944.8 C 1940 2 1940 1941.8 D 1940 3 1940 1944.5 1944 1 1944 1941 1 1941 1941 3 1941 1942 4 1942 1948 7 1948 1942 1 1942 1920 - 1959 3 1939.5 1943 1 1943 1943 1 1943 1925+ 2 - 1946 1 1946 1945 1 1945 1946 1 1946 1926 - 1948 1 1937 1920 - 1964 2 1942 1950 1 1950 1934+ 1 - 1924 + 1 1939 or 1930 or 1952 2 1952
1949 1 1944 1940 1 1935 1953 1 1953 1940 - 1964 1 1952 1931 or 1941 2 1936 1925+ 5 1946+ 6 - 1932 - 1953 2 1942.5 1930 - 1940 1 1935 A Total 24 1933+ 1 1932 - 1953 2 1942.5 B 1940 1 1940 1945.5 1934 or 1934 or 1941 1 1941 1944 2 1939 1944 5 1939 1935 or 1949 1 1949 1937 or 1947 3 1942 1945 3 1940 1925+ 1 1938 + 1 1936 or 1926 - 1947 1 1937.5 1938 or 1946 1 1941 1930 or 1948 1 1943 1938 or 1940 1 1935 1939 or 1948 8 1943 1932 - 1953 1 1942.5 1949 2 1944 1938+ 1 1938+ 4 1940 - 1953 1 1946.5 1940 - 1953 3 1946.5 1939 or 1940 - 1964 1 1952 1940 - 1964 9 1952 1949 1 1944 1940+ 2 1940+ 2 1940 - 1958 1 1949 D Total 57 1940 - 1964 3 1952 C Total 28 E 1924+ 1 1940+ 8 1940+ 1 1945 - 1960 1 1952.5 1941 + 1 B Total 25 E Total 3
318
Table C.22 –continued.
New Median Mean New Median Mean Date Total Date Total AS # Date Date AS # Date Date
F 1941 1 1941 1938.5 J 1943 1 1943 1937.4 1944 1 1944 1943.1 1905 - 1917 1 1911 1905 - 1917 1 1911 1910 - 1930 2 1920 1933 - 1953 1 1943 1920 - 1964 8 1942 1934 or 1930 or 1944 2 1939 1940 1 1935 1944 + 1 1932 - 1953 1 1942.5 1945 - 1960 1 1952.5 1933 or 1943 2 1937 F Total 8 1934 or H 1940 2 1940 1942.3 1944 4 1939 1941 4 1941 1935 or 1942 1 1942 1945 2 1940 1938 or 1946 2 1946 1948 1 1943 1920 - 1964 4 1942 J Total 24 1924+ 3 K 1940 1 1940 1942.6 1930 - 1950 1 1940 1941 3 1941 1932 - 1953 2 1942.5 1934 or 1942 1 1942 1944 1 1939 1943 1 1943 1936 or 1920 - 1964 4 1942 1946 2 1941 1925+ 1 1937 or 1930 or 1947 2 1942 1940 1 1935 1938+ 2 1933+ 1 1939 or 1934 or 1949 2 1944 1944 2 1939 1940 - 1964 1 1952 1935 or H Total 29 1945 1 1940 1938 or I 1938+ 1 1946.5 1948 2 1943 1940 - 1953 1 1946.5 1940 - 1960 1 1950 I Total 2 1940 - 1964 2 1952 K Total 21
319
Table C.22 –continued.
New Median Mean New Median Mean Date Total Date Total AS # Date Date AS # Date Date
L 1941 2 1941 1945.8 N 1940 1 1940 1936.9 1926 - 1948 1 1937 1881 - 1905 1 1893 1940 - 1964 3 1952 1911 - 1929 1 1920 1946+ 1 1916 - 1929 1 1922.5 L Total 7 1920 - 1964 4 1942 M 1940 1 1940 1944.2 1927+ 2 1941 2 1941 1934+ 1 1935 or 1942 1 1942 1945 1 1940 1943 2 1943 1937 or 1948 1 1948 1947 3 1942 1949 2 1949 1938+ 1 1950 1 1950 1940 - 1968 1 1954 1951 1 1951 1945 - 1960 1 1952.5 1903 - 1937 1 1920 N Total 18 1920 - 1964 6 1942 O 1941 1 1941 1944.7 1925+ 1 1942 1 1942 1934 or 1926 - 1948 1 1937 1944 1 1939 1931 or 1935 or 1941 1 1936 1945 3 1940 1937 or 1932 - 1953 3 1942.5 1947 1 1942 1940 - 1964 4 1952 1940 - 1953 3 1946.5 1940+ 2 1940 - 1964 5 1952 1946+ 3 1940 + 1 O Total 16 1946+ 7 M Total 40
320
APPENDIX D
CSH SURFACE COLLECTION, GLASS CONTAINER DATES
321 Table G.1. Glass Container Dates.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
Ball in script, plus 6.1 Ball crown symbol 1933+ Glass Mfr.; liquor bottle 1933+
6.2 1934+ Patent Date 5/8/1934
27.1 Knox Glass Bottle Company K in a keystone 1933 - 1968 Glass Mfr; liquor bottle 1933+
27.3 Illinois Glass Company I in a diamond 1916 - 1929 Glass Mfr
27.4 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr
28.1 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
28.1 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
28.1 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr Knox Glass Bottle Company of 28.10 Mississippi J in a keystone 1940 - 1953 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
28.12 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
28.12 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940 + Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1933 or 1943 (single digit, no 28.13 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1943 period); stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 28.14 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1948 period); Duraglas, stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 28.15 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1951 Base Mark 1951 (two digits)
28.2 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1939 or 1949 (single digit, no 28.24 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1949 period); stipple 1940+; patent date 3/12/1935 I in a circle and a Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 28.25 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period); stipple 1940+
28.26 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
28.3 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 28.39 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period) I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 28.39 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period) I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 28.39 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period) I in a circle and a Base Mark 1941 (single digit, period); 28.39 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 Duraglas 1940+; beer bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a 1937 or Base Mark 1937 or 1947 (single digit, no 28.40 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1947 period)
322 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
I in a circle and a Base Mark 1939 or 1949 (single digit, no 28.42 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1949 period); Duraglas, stipple 1940+ North British Bottle Manufacturing 28.45 Company, Limited N B 1903 - 1937 Glass Mfr
28.5 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
28.6 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
28.7 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ Knox Glass Bottle Company of 28.8 Mississippi J in a keystone 1940 - 1953 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ Knox Glass Bottle Company of 28.9 Mississippi J in a keystone 1940 - 1953 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1937 or Base Mark 1937 or 1947 (single digit, no 29.10 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1947 period)
29.11 Knox Glass Bottle Company K in a keystone 1940 - 1968 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
29.12 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 1937 or Base Mark 1937 or 1947 (single digit, no 29.13 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1947 period); patent date 3/22/1932
29.14 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr Anchor w/ 29.15 Anchor Hocking superimposed H 1938+ Glass Mfr
29.17 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 1937 or Base Mark 1937 or 1947 (single digit, no 29.18 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1947 period)
29.19 Fairmount Glass Works, Inc. F in a hexagon 1945 - 1960 Glass Mfr
29.21 Chattanooga Glass Company C in a circle 1927+ Glass Mfr
29.21 Chattanooga Glass Company C in a circle 1927+ Glass Mfr
29.22 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
29.23 Owens Bottle Company O in a square 1911 - 1929 Glass Mfr
29.27 Streator Bottle & Glass Company S B & G Co 1881 - 1905 Glass Mfr
29.28 Illinois Glass Company I in a diamond 1916 - 1929 Glass Mfr
29.5 (Unknown) G in a diamond 1934+ Patent Date 7/31/1934 I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 29.8 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period)
323 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
I in a circle and a Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 29.9 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period); beer bottle 1933+
30.10 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
30.10 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
30.1 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
30.13 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1933 or 1943 (single digit, no 30.16 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1943 period); Duraglas, stipple 1940+
30.17 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr
30.2 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or 1942 (single digit, no 30.25 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1942 period); beer bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 30.25 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period)
30.3 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
30.5 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 30.6 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1950 Base Mark 1950 (two digits)
30.7 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1931 or 1941 (single digit, no 30.8 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 period); stipple 1940+
32.1 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ Florida Glass Manufacturing 32.2 Company T F in a diamond 1926 - 1948 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1931 or 1941 (single digit, no 32.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 period); patent date 11/29/1938; stipple 1940+
32.4 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1931 or 1941 (single digit, no 32.6 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 period); stipple 1940+
32.7 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
32.8 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1936 or Base Mark 1936 or 1946 (single digit, no 33.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1946 period) C in an inverted 34.1 Canada Dry Ginger Ale Company triangle 1930 - 1950 Glass Mfr
324 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
I in a circle and a 1936 or Base Mark 1936 or 1946 (single digit, no 34.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1946 period); patent date 3/22/1932
38.1 1937+ Patent Date 1937 I in a circle and a Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 40.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period); beer bottle 1933+
40.3 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
40.4 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
40.5 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr
40.6 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 41.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period) I in a circle and a Base Mark 1933 or 1943 (single digit, no 41.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1943 period); Duraglas 1940+ I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 46.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period); patent date 12/28/1933
48.3 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
48.5 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1938 - 1948 (single digit, period); 49.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1948 Duraglas, stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1938 - 1948 (single digit, period); 49.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1948 Duraglas, stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1938 - 1948 (single digit, period); 49.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1948 Duraglas, stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1938 - 1948 (single digit, period); 49.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1948 Duraglas, stipple 1940+
49.10 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
49.10 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
49.10 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
49.10 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
49.10 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
49.11 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
49.12 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 49.13 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period); stipple 1940+
325 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
49.14 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr
49.15 1934+ Patent Date 5/1/1934 I in a circle and a 1939 or Base Mark 1939 or 1949 (single digit, no 49.16 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1949 period) I in a circle and a Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (unknown); Duraglas, 49.17 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1938 - 1948 (single digit, no 49.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1948 period); Duraglas & stipple 1940+
49.20 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1948 (two digit); patent date 49.4 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 8/3/1937 Florida Glass Manufacturing 49.7 Company T F in a diamond 1926 - 1948 Glass Mfr
49.8 Swindell Brothers S in a circle 1920 - 1959 Glass Mfr
49.8 Swindell Brothers S in a circle 1920 - 1959 Glass Mfr
49.8 Swindell Brothers S in a circle 1920 - 1959 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 49.9 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or 1942 (single digit, no 51.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1942 period); beer bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or 1942 (single digit, no 51.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1942 period); beer bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 51.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period) I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 51.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period) Florida Glass Manufacturing 52.1 Company T F in a diamond 1926 - 1948 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 1931 or Base Mark 1931 or 1941 (single digit, no 52.10 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 period) I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or 1942 (single digit, no 52.11 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1942 period); stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1931 or 1941 (single digit, no 52.13 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1941 period); Duraglas 1940+
52.14 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ Knox Glass Bottle Company of 52.17 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr
52.3 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
52.3 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
326 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
52.5 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
52.5 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
52.5 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
52.7 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglass 1940+ Duraglas 1940+
52.7 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglass 1940+ Duraglas 1940+ Knox Glass Bottle Company of 52.8 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr Knox Glass Bottle Company of 52.8 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr
52.9 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
53.11 Ball Ball in script 1933+ Patent Date 7/25/1933 I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 53.12 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period)
53.14 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1933 or 1943 (single digit, no 53.15 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1943 period); stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1931 or 1941 (single digit, no 53.18 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1941 period); Duraglas 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1931 or 1941 (single digit, no 53.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1941 period); Duraglas 1940+; beer bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 53.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period) I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 53.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period) I in a circle and a 53.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 Base Mark 1941 (single digit, period)
53.21 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
53.22 Tygart Valley Glass Company T V 1940 - 1960 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 53.24 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period)
53.25 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1930 or Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 53.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period) I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 53.7 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period); patent date 2/20/1934 I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or 1942 (single digit, no 53.9 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1942 period); Duraglas 1940+
327 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 54.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 54.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period); patent date 1932
54.6 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
54.7 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr T in an inverted 54.8 Turner Brothers Company triangle 1910 - 1930 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 1930 or Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 54.9 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period)
55.10 Pierce Glass Company P in a circle 1905 - 1917 Glass Mfr T in an inverted 55.11 Turner Brothers Company triangle 1910 - 1930 Glass Mfr; patent date (4/8/1930)
55.14 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
55.14 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
55.14 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
55.14 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
55.15 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 1933 or Base Mark 1933 or 1943 (single digit, no 55.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1943 period) I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 55.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 55.28 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period) I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 55.4 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period) I in a circle and a 1933 or Base Mark 1933 or 1943 (single digit, no 55.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1943 period); patent date 12/30/1930 I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 55.6 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period); patent date 3/22/1932 Knox Glass Bottle Company of 55.8 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr
55.9 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 59.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period); beer bottle 1933+
59.15 Diamond Glass Company diamond shape 1924 + Glass Mfr Knox Glass Bottle Company of 59.21 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr
328 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
I in a circle and a 1931 or Base Mark 1931 or 1941 (single digit, no 59.34 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 period) I in a circle and a 1937 or Base Mark 1937 or 1947 (single digit, no 59.34 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1947 period) Anchor w/ 59.46 Anchor Hocking superimposed H 1938 + Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 1939 or Base Mark 1939 or 1949 (single digit, no 59.46 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1949 period) I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 59.46 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) I in a circle and a 1937 or Base Mark 1937 or 1947 (single digit, no 59.46 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1947 period) I in a circle and a Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 59.46 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period); beer bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a 1939 or Base Mark 1939 or 1949 (single digit, no 59.46 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1949 period) I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 60.10 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) I in a circle and a 1937 or 61.4 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1947 Base Mark 1937 or 1947 (unknown)
61.5 Ball Ball in script 1933+ Patent Date 7/25/1933 I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 62.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period) I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 62.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period)
62.3 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
62.4 Fairmount Glass Works, Inc. F in a hexagon 1945 - 1960 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1938 - 1948 (single digit, no 62.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1948 period); Duraglas 1940+
63.1 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr Knox Glass Bottle Company of 63.3 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr Knox Glass Bottle Company of 65.1 Mississippi J in a keystone 1940 - 1953 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ Anchor w/ 65.3 Anchor Hocking superimposed H 1938+ Glass Mfr
66.2 Chattanooga Glass Company C in a circle 1927+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or 1942 (single digit, no 70.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1942 period); Duraglas 1940+
70.2 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 1937 or Base Mark 1937 or 1947, (single digit, no 70.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1947 period)
329 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
71.1 Tygart Valley Glass Company T V 1940 - 1960 Glass Mfr
71.2 Diamond Glass Company diamond shape 1924+ Glass Mfr
72.4 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+
73.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or 1942 (single digit, no 74.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1942 period); beer bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1950 (two digits); patent date 74.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1950 8/3/1937
74.3 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr Knox Glass Bottle Company of 74.4 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 74.6 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 Base Mark 1935 or 1945; stipple 1940+
75.1 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
75.1 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
75.11 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
75.2 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
75.2 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
75.23 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 75.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 75.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period) Knox Glass Bottle Company of 75.4 Mississippi J in a keystone 1940 - 1953 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 75.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period) Anchor w/ 75.6 Anchor Hocking superimposed H 1938+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1952 (two digits); Duraglas, stipple 75.8 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1952 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or1942 (single digit, no 77.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1942 period); beer bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 77.16 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period); beer bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or 1942 (single digit, no 77.16 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1942 period); beer bottle 1933+
330 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 77.16 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 77.18 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period) Knox Glass Bottle Company of 77.2 Mississippi J in a keystone 1940 - 1953 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1943 (two digit); patent date 77.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1943 8/3/1937 I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 77.7 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period)
78.1 Florida Glass Manufacturing T F in a diamond 1926 - 1947 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1933 or 1943 (single digit, no 78.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1943 period); Duraglas 1940+ I in a circle and a 78.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1952 Base Mark 1952 (two digits); stipple 1940+
78.4 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
78.4 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr
78.5 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
78.9 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+
79.2 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 79.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1952 Base Mark 1952 (two digits) I in a circle and a Base Mark 1931 or 1941 (single digit, no 79.4 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 period); stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 80.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1949 Base Mark 1949 (two digits)
80.2 Fairmount Glass Works, Inc. F in a hexagon 1945 - 1960 Glass Mfr
80.3 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr
80.4 Florida Glass Manufacturing T F in a diamond 1926 - 1947 Glass Mfr
80.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+
80.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+
80.6 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+
81.1 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
81.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+
331 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
I in a circle and a 81.4 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 Base Mark 1940 (two digit) I in a circle and a Base Mark 1941 (single digit, period); 81.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1941 Duraglas, stipple 1940+ Knox Glass Bottle Company of 82.1 Mississippi J in a keystone 1940 - 1953 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
82.2 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
82.4 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 82.8 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1951 Base Mark 1951 (two digits)
84.1 Anchor Hocking ANCHORGLAS 1946+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 86.13 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period)
86.2 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr; liquor bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a 86.45 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 Base Mark 1931 or 1941; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1936 or Base Mark 1936 or 1946 (single digit, no 86.48 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1946 period); patent date 3/22/1932 I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 86.49 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or 1942 (single digit, no 87.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1942 period); beer bottle 1933+
87.15 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr
87.16 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 87.18 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period)
87.19 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+ I in a circle and a 87.20 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1946 Base Mark 1936 or 1946; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 87.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period)
87.21 Florida Glass Company F G 1930 - 1940 Glass Mfr. I in a circle and a 87.22 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 Base Mark 1941 (single digit, period)
87.24 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+
87.25 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr Knox Glass Bottle Company of 87.3 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr
332 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
87.4 Brockway B in a circle 1925+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 87.42 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period); beer bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1941 (single digit, period); 87.42 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 Duraglas 1940+ I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 87.42 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period) I in a circle and a 1935 or Base Mark 1935 or 1945 (single digit, no 87.42 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1945 period) I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 87.42 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period) I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 87.42 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period) I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 87.52 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period)
87.54 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 88.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1952 Base Mark 1952 (two digits)
88.11 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 88.4 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) I in a circle and a Base Mark 1953 (two digit); Duraglas, stipple 88.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1953 1940+ I inside a circle and a Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 88.6 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1940 period); Duraglas 1940+ Knox Glass Bottle Company of 88.8 Mississippi J in a keystone 1940 - 1953 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
91.2 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
91.2 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ Knox Glass Bottle Company of 91.3 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr Anchor w/ 91.4 Anchor Hocking superimposed H 1938+ Glass Mfr Anchor w/ 91.4 Anchor Hocking superimposed H 1938+ Glass Mfr Anchor w/ 91.4 Anchor Hocking superimposed H 1938+ Glass Mfr
91.4 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Glass Mfr
91.4 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Glass Mfr
91.4 Maywood Glass Company MG 1940 - 1958 Glass Mfr
333 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
I in a circle and a 1930 or Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 91.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period) I in a circle and a 1939 or Base Mark 1939 or 1949 (single digit, no 91.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1949 period)
91.6 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+
91.6 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+ Anchor w/ 91.6 Anchor Hocking superimposed H 1938+ Glass Mfr Knox Glass Bottle Company of 92.1 Mississippi J in a keystone 1940 - 1953 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1937 or 1947 (single digit, no 99.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1937 - 1947 period) United Glass Bottle 106.1 Manufacturers, Ltd. U. G. B. 1933 - 1968 Glass Mfr; liquor bottle 1933+
107.1 1941 + Patent Date 7/15/1941
108.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+
108.3 Diamond Glass Company diamond shape 1924+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 109.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1949 Base Mark 1949 (two digit); stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 110.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period) I in a circle and a 110.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1950 Base Mark 1950 (two digit)
116.1 W. J. Latchford Glass Company L 1925 - 1938 Glass Mfr. I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 119.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 119.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) I in a circle and a 119.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 Base Mark 1941 (single digit, period) Knox Glass Bottle Company of 119.2 Mississippi J in a keystone 1933 - 1953 Glass Mfr; FLF ("Feceral Law Prohibits…")
119.3 Fairmount Glass Works, Inc. F in a hexagon 1945 - 1960 Glass Mfr
121.17 Pierce Glass Company P in a circle 1905 - 1917 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 121.8 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 Base Mark 1944 (single digit, period)
122.2 Federal Glass Company F in a crest 1944 + Glass Mfr
126.1 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
334 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 136.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) I in a circle and a 1930 or Base Mark 1930 or 1940 (single digit, no 138.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period) I in a circle and a 1931 or 139.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 Base Mark 1931 or 1941
139.2 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or 1942 (single digit, no 139.4 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1942 period); beer bottle 1933+ I in a circle and a 1930 or Base Mark 1930 or 1940; Plant #8 1930 - 140.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 1939; applied color label 1934+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1933 or 1943 (single digit, no 141.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1943 period); Duraglas 1940+ I inside a circle and a Base Mark 1936 or 1946 (single digit, no 141.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1946 period); Duraglas 1940+ I in a circle and a 1938 or Base Mark 1938 or 1948 (single digit, no 143.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1948 period)
143.14 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+ I inside a circle and a Base Mark 1941 (single digit, no period); 143.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1941 Duraglas, stipple 1940+
143.3 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
143.4 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
143.41 Owens-Illinois Glass Company Duraglas 1940+ Duraglas 1940+ Knox Glass Bottle Company of 143.9 Mississippi J in a keystone 1940 - 1953 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+ Knox Glass Bottle Company of 144.2 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 146.1 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period) Anchor w/ 152.1 Anchor Hocking superimposed H 1938+ Glass Mfr Anchor w/ 152.1 Anchor Hocking superimposed H 1938+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1930 - 1940 (single digit, no 152.10 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 period); stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1937 or Base Mark 1937 or 1947 (single digit, no 152.11 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1947 period)
152.12 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1940 - 1964 Glass Mfr; stipple 1940+
152.13 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr Knox Glass Bottle Company of 152.14 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr
335 Table G.1 –continued.
Catalog # Glass Mfr Maker's Mark Date Basis for Dating
152.17 Diamond Glass Company diamond shape 1924+ Glass Mfr
152.18 Diamond Glass Company diamond shape 1924+ Glass Mfr
152.19 Diamond Glass Company diamond shape 1924+ Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1932 or 1942 (single digit, no 152.2 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1942 period); Duraglas, stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 1939 or Base Mark 1939 or 1949 (single digit, no 152.20 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1949 period) I in a circle and a 1936 or Base Mark 1936 or 1946 (single digit, no 152.21 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1946 period) I in a circle and a 1937 or Base Mark 1937 or 1947 (single digit, no 152.22 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1947 period) I in a circle and a 1939 or Base Mark 1939 or 1949 (single digit, no 152.24 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1949 period) I in a circle and a 1934 or Base Mark 1934 or 1944 (single digit, no 152.27 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1944 period)
152.28 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
152.29 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark (1936 or 1946 -no period); stipple 152.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1946 (1940+) I in a circle and a Base Mark (1936 or 1946 -no period); stipple 152.3 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1946 (1940+) I in a circle and a 152.30 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1940 Base Mark 1930 or 1940; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a Base Mark 1931 or 1941; stipple 1940+; Plant 152.31 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 # 18 1932 - 1948 I in a circle and a 152.32 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 Base Mark 1931 or 1941; stipple 1940+ I in a circle and a 152.34 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1941 Base Mark 1931 or 1941; stipple 1940+ Knox Glass Bottle Company of 152.35 Mississippi J in a keystone 1932 - 1953 Glass Mfr
152.39 Sierra Club S in a diamond 1930 - 1950 Glass Mfr I in a circle and a Base Mark 1931 or 1941 (single digit, no 152.5 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond; Duraglas 1941 period); Duraglas 1940+ I in a circle and a 1936 or Base Mark 1936 or 1946 (single digit, no 152.70 Owens-Illinois Glass Company diamond 1946 period)
152.9 Hazel-Atlas Glass Company A under an H 1920 - 1964 Glass Mfr
336 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Natalie P., Mark Swanson, Leslie Raymer, Lisa D. O’Steen, J. W. Joseph and Arthur Cohen. 2004 The Free Cabin Site (9Ri1036): Archaeological Examination of a Postbellum Tenant Occupation near Hephzibah, Richmond County, Georgia. Report submitted to Earth Tech and GDOT.
Austin, Rachel A. 1936 Margrett Nickerson. Work Project Administration Slave Narrative Project, Florida Narratives 3. Electronic document, http://fcit.usf.edu/FLORIDA/docs/s/slave/slave08.htm, accessed March 5, 2008.
Avant, Fenton Garnett Davis Avant 1983 My Tallahassee. L’Avant Studios, Tallahassee, Florida.
Baptist, Edward E. 2002 Creating an Old South: Middle Florida’s Plantation Frontier Before the Civil War. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Barnes, Althemese and Anne Roberts 1999 Black America Series: Tallahassee, Florida. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.
Brueckheimer, William R. 1988 Leon County Hunting Plantations: An Historical and Architectural Survey, Volume. I. Florida Department of State, Bureau of Historic Preservation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Bullard, Lacy Folmar 1974 A Guide to Maclay Gardens. Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks, Interpretive Services.
Burroughs, Tony 2001 Black Roots: A Beginner’s Guide to Tracing the African-American Family Tree. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Cabak, Melanie A., Mark D. Groover, Mary M. Inkrot 1999 Rural Modernization During the Recent Past: Farmstead Archaeology in the Aiken Plateau. Historical Archeology 33(4):19-43.
Clark, Diane E. 1996 Alfred B. Maclay Gardens, Tallahassee, Florida. Unpublished manuscript on file, Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, Tallahassee, Florida.
Commission on Interracial Cooperation 1937 The South’s Landless Farmers. Commission on Interracial Cooperation, Atlanta, Georgia.
Davis, Mary Lamar ca. 1970 Andalusia. Unpublished manuscript on file, Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, Tallahassee, Florida. ca. 1980 Killearn Gardens. Unpublished manuscript on file, Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, Tallahassee, Florida.
Delle, James A., Stephen A. Mrozowski, and Robert Paynter 2000 Lines that Divide: Historical Archaeologies of Race, Class, and Gender. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
337
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks 2003 Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park Unit Management Plan. Manuscript on file, Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.
2005 Florida State Parks History. Electronic document, http:/www.floridastateparks.org/information/history.cfm, accessed July 12, 2007.
Department of State, Division of Historical Resources 2006 Documentation on the June 2006 Archaeological Resource Monitor Training Fieldwork at the Cedar Shake House (8LE1947), Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, Tallahassee, Florida. Manuscript on file, Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.
Derr, Mark 1998 Some Kind of Paradise: A Chronical of Man and the Land in Florida. University Press of Florida, Tallahassee.
Doran, Glen H. 1991 Archaeological Potential of the Lake Overstreet Property, Leon County, Florida. Department of Anthropology, Florida Sate University. Submitted to Trust for Public Land, Southeast Regional Office. Copies (restricted per Florida Statute, Chapter 267) available from Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.
1992a Archaeological Investigations of the Lake Overstreet Property, Leon County, Florida. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University. Submitted to Trust for Public Land, Southeast Regional Office. Copies (restricted per Florida Statute, Chapter 267) available from Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee, Florida.
1992b Archaeological Site Form, Florida Master Site File for the Cedar Shake House (8LE1947). Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahssee.
Doran, Glen H. and Rochelle Marrinan 1992 Rural Resources of Leon County, Florida, 1821-1950, Vol II, An Archaeological Investigation of the Charles Bannerman Plantation and Theus-Roberts Farm. Historic Tallahassee Preservation Board, Tallahassee, Florida.
Downes, Alan J. 1955 Change and Stability in Social Life: Tallahassee, Florida, 1870-1900. Master’s Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Ellis, Mary Louise and William Warren Rogers 1986 Tallahassee and Leon County: A History and Biography. Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
Ellis, Mary Louis and William Warren Rogers 1999 Favored Land: Tallahassee History of Tallahassee and Leon County. Danning Company, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Fite, Gilbert C. 1984 Cotton Fields No More: Southern Agriculture 1865-1980. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
338
Floyd-Smith, Julia 1973 Slavery and Plantation Growth in Antebellum Florida 1821-1860. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Foner, Eric 1988 Reconstruction, America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863 – 1877. Harper & Rowe, New York
Freedman’s Savings and Trust Company 1867 Registers of Signature of Depositors, Daniel Hall, 1867. Family History Resource File, CD-ROM Library; Family History Support, Family and Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
1870a Registers of Signature of Depositors, Robert Robinson #1100, 22 December, 1870. Family History Resource File, CD-ROM Library; Family History Support, Family and Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
1870b Registers of Signature of Depositors, Samuel Edwards #1100, 22 December, 1870. Family History Resource File, CD-ROM Library; Family History Support, Family and Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
1871a Registers of Signature of Depositors, Harriet Daniels, 20 June, 1871. Family History Resource File, CD- ROM Library; Family History Support, Family and Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
1871b Registers of Signature of Depositors, Robert Robinson #822-2, 23 December, 1871. Family History Resource File, CD-ROM Library; Family History Support, Family and Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
1872 Registers of Signature of Depositors, Isaac Gilliam #882, 13 January, 1872. Family History Resource File, CD-ROM Library; Family History Support, Family and Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Granger, Mary 1940 “Drums and Shadows: Survival studies among the Georgia coastal negros”, 1940 Savannah Unit of the Georgia writer’s project of the WPA, republished in 1986 by the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Groene, Bertram H. 1981 Ante-bellum Tallahassee. Florida Heritage Foundation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Hall, Robert 1987 “Yonder Come Day”: Religious Dimensions of the Transition from Slavery to Freedom in Florida. Florida Historical Quarterly 65(4):411-432.
Heath, Barbara J. and Amber Bennett 2000 “The little Spots allow’d them”: The Archaeological Study of African-American Yards. Historical Archeology 34(2):38-55.
Heiland, Sharyn 2001 The Verdura Place: A Historical Overview and Preliminary Archaeological Survey. Master’s Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Hester, Thomas R., Harry J. Shafer, Kenneth L. Feder 1997 Fields Methods in Archaeology, 7th edition. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, California.
339
Hodder, Ian 1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
2001 Archaeological Theory Today. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Hodder, Ian, Michael Shanks, Alexandra Alexandri, Victor Buchli, John Carman, Johnathan Last and Gavin Lucas (editors) 1997 Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past. Routledge, London, United Kingdom.
Horkan, A. M. 1996 Maclay Gardens: A Legacy of Beauty. Interpretive brochure on file, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee, Florida.
Johnson, Dudley S. 1969 The Florida Railroad after the Civil War. Florida Historical Quarterly 47(3):292-310.
Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan 1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass and Closures. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture, and History. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Keel, Frank 1999 An Archaeological Assessment of the Maclay-Phipps Heritage Greenway Leon County, Florida. Submitted by The Jaeger Company, Gainesville, Georgia. Copies available (restricted by Florida Statute, Chapter 276) from Division of Historical Resources, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
Kelsey, Carl 1903 The Negro Farmer. Jennings and Pye, Chicago, Illinois.
Lanier, Gabrille M. and Bernard L. Herman 1997 Everyday Architecture of the Mid-Atlantic: Looking at Buildings and Landscapes. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Leon County Clerk of Courts 1846 Property Deed, Jane Hall to Robert Hall, 15 June 1846. Deed Book J:519. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1849 Property Deed, Leon County Sheriff to M.D. Papy, December 1849. Deed Book K:123. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1852 Property Deed, M.D. Papy to Benjamin Crossman, 7 February 1852. Deed Book L:74. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1852 Property Deed, M.D. Papy to Alfred A. Fisher, 29 May 1852. Deed Book K:376. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1853 Property Deed, William Hall and Mary E. Branch to Robert Hall, 31 May 1853. Deed Book K:594. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1854 Property Deed, George N. and Landonia Heir to M.D. Papy, 7 June 1854. Deed Book K:673. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1856 Property Deed, Jane Hall to Robert Hall, 13 January 1856. Deed Book L:356. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
340
1856 Property Deed, Robert H. Hall to M.D. Papy, 11 February 1856. Deed Book L:356. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1856 Property Deed, John T. J. and Mary Ann Wilson to M.D. Papy, 31 June 1856. Deed Book L:273. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1856 Property Deed, William Hall's Heirs to Robert Hall, 1856. Deed Book L: 316-323. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1856 Property Deed, John A. and Sarah Jane Craig to Robert Hall, 11 July 1856. Deed Book L:331. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1857 Property Deed, M.D. Papy to James T. Archer, 27 April 1857. Deed Book L:557. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1857 Property Deed, Richard and Harriet Hayward to M.D. Papy, 16 June 1857. Deed Book L:552. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1863 Property Deed, M.D. Papy and Sarah Francis Papy to Joseph John Chaires, 2 March 1863. Deed Book N:123. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1863 Property Deed, Thomas Y. and Sarah F. Maxwell to M.D. Papy, 11 July 1863. Deed Book N:191. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1866 Property Deed, James Rose to M.D. Papy, 2 August 1866. Deed Book N:513. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1866 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to John R. Bradford, 20 October 1866. Deed Book N:625. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1869 Property Deed, J. Caroline and Charles Rogers to M.D. Papy, 5 March 1869. Deed Book P:54. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1869 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to Nannie T. Bradford, 9 May 1869. Deed Book P:30. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1869 Property Deed, John Bradford to M.D. Papy, 29 May 1869. Deed Book P:29. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1869 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to Carsten N. Halderman, 28 June 1869. Deed Book P:55. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1869 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to Alvin B. Munger, 28 June 1869. Deed Book P:55. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1869 Property Deed, William D. and Mary C. Bloxham to M.D. Papy, 26 November 1869. Deed Book P:146. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1870 Property Deed, Joseph L. Smallwood to M.D. Papy, 13 May 1870. Deed Book P:374. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1870 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to Samuel Edwards, 31 December 1870. Deed Book P:539. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1871 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to Spencer Robinson, 7 January 1871. Deed Book S:32. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
341
1871 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to Tobias Payne, 3 March 1871. Deed Book P:647. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1871 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to Edward Nelson, 10 November 1871. Deed Book S:531. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1871 Property Deed, M.D. Papy to John Day Perkins, 12 December 1871. Deed Book P:877. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1872 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to Frank Aiken, 21 June 1872. Deed Book Q:463. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1872 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to Patrick Houston and Benfoot Williams, 16 July 1872. Deed Book R:183. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1873 Property Deed, Leon County Sheriff to M.D. Papy, 15 February 1873. Deed Book R:75. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1874 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to William Richard, 18 June 1874. Deed Book U:133. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1875 Property Deed, John Pratorius to M.D. Papy, 4 December 1875. Deed Book S:503. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1875 Property Deed, M.D. Papy to Virginia Johnston, Dora Johnston, Fannie S. Papy and Annie R. Papy, 13 July 1875. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1875 Property Deed, Sarah Francis Papy to Horace Farmer and Daniel B. Farmer, 12 November 1875. Deed Book S:487. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1877 Property Deed, M.D. and Sarah Francis Papy to Daniel Hall, 16 January 1877. Deed Book U:153. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1877 Marriage Record, Rachel Robinson to Lawrence Edwards, 21 December 1877. Official Records CY:153. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1880 Property Deed, Sarah Francis Papy to Matthew Lively, 24 June 1880. Deed Book W:450. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1882 Marriage Record, Emma Paynes and Henry Sawyer, 16 December 1882. Official Record CY:238. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1883 Property Deed, Tobias Payne to John Whitaker, More(s) Spencer, Pompey Jordan, John Mark and William Macon, 20 March 1883. Deed Book W:572. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1883 Property Deed, Sarah Francis Papy to Edward S. Thompson, 8 June 1883. Deed Book W:236. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1884 Property Deed, Sarah Francis Papy to Annie Papy, Fannie L. Johnston, Mariano Papy, Mariano D. Papy and Susan Garnett 22 January 1884. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1884 Marriage Record, Creasy Robinson and Bill Young, 3 February 1884. Official Record CY:360. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
342
1885 Property Deed, Tobias and Anne Payne to Jon A. Craig, 10 January 1885. Deed Book Z:575. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1885 Marriage Record, Creasy Robinson and Julius Simmons, 27 April 1885. Official Records CY:282. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1890 Property Deed, Andrew Paine to William B. Radford, 15 February 1890. Deed Book CC:371. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1891 Property Deed, Andrew Paine to Samuel Fitz, 4 February 1891. Deed Book DD:101. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1893 Property Deed, Daniel and Ann Maria Hall to Frederick Daniel Hussey, 7 March 1893. Deed Book EE:189. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1893 Property Deed, Daniel and Ann Maria Hall to Frederick Daniel Hussey, 20 April 1893. Deed Book EE:198. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1900 Property Deed, Spencer Robinson to Lucretia Simmons, Emily Robinson, Lucy Robinson, Rachel and Lawrence Edwards, and Robert Robsinson, 16 January 1900. Deed Book HH:540. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1900 Property Deed, Spencer Robinson, Platt Map of Subdivision. Deed Book HH:588. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1900 Property Deed, Robert and Lydia Robertson to Joseph A. Edmondson, 25 January 1900. Deed Book HH:562. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1904 Property Deed, Lucy Robinson to Ida Simmons, 26 March 1904. Deed Book KK:219. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1904 Property Deed, Lucy Robinson to Lucretia Simmons, 1 October 1900. Deed Book KK:391. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1905 Property Deed, Francis Hussey to Georgia O. Law, 25 July 1905. Deed Book LL:21-22. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1907 Property Deed, Lawrence Edwards, Spencer and Charlotte Edwards, Louisa Edwards and Susan Jackson to John Law, 17 April 1907. Deed Book MM:274. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1907 Property Deed, Spencer Edwards to J. Q. Staats, 10 August 1907. Deed Book NN:445. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1908 Property Deed, Anne and Phelps Wilson to John H. Law, 12 August 1908. Deed Book NN:447. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1909 Property Deed, Lucretia Robinson to John Law, 14 April 1909. Deed Book OO:230. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1911 Property Deed, Lucretia Robinson to John Law, 4 February 1911. Deed Book QQ:113. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1913 Marriage Record, Depen (Depew) Smith and Jennie Edwards, 24 July 1913. Official Record C4:317. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
343
1916 Marriage Record, Annie Gallon and Henry Sawyer, Jr., 19 October 1916. Official Record C5:158. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1923 Property Deed, Hugh Meek to Alfred B. Maclay, 23 December 1923. Deed Book 7:187. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1923 Property Deed, Hugh Meek to Alfred B. Maclay, 23 December 1923. Deed Book 7:185. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1941 Marriage Record, Martha Thompson and Henry Sawyer, Jr., 13 August 1941. Official Records C10:116. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
1943 Divorce Record #7578, Charlie Fitts vs. Nellie Fitts, 19 November 1943. Manuscript on file, Leon County Clerk of Courts, Tallahassee, Florida.
Leon County Tax Collector’s Office 1860 Leon County Tax Rolls, Mariano D. Papy. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1861 Leon County Tax Rolls, Mariano D. Papy. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1862 Leon County Tax Rolls, Mariano D. Papy. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1863 Leon County Tax Rolls, Mariano D. Papy. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1866 Leon County Tax Rolls, Mariano D. Papy. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1868a Leon County Tax Rolls, Mariano D. Papy. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1868b Leon County Tax Rolls, Robert Robinson. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1868c Leon County Tax Rolls, Ned Nelson. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1868d Leon County Tax Rolls, Daniel Hall, Sr. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1873a Leon County Tax Rolls, Mariano D. Papy. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1873b Leon County Tax Rolls, Ed Daniels. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1873c Leon County Tax Rolls, Sam Edwards. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1873d Leon County Tax Rolls, Daniel Hall, Sr. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
344
1873e Leon County Tax Rolls, Tobias Payne. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1873f Leon County Tax Rolls, Spencer Robinson. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1874a Leon County Tax Rolls, Mariano D. Papy. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1874b Leon County Tax Rolls, Tobias Payne. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1874c Leon County Tax Rolls, Spencer Robinson. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1876a Leon County Tax Rolls, Daniel Hall, Sr. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1876b Leon County Tax Rolls, Tobias Payne. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1876c Leon County Tax Rolls, Spencer Robinson. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1877 Leon County Tax Rolls, Spencer Robinson. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
1878 Leon County Tax Rolls, Spencer Robinson. Manuscript on file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
Leone, Mark P. and Neil Asher Silberman 1995 Invisible America: Unearthing our Hidden History. Henry Holt, New York, New York.
Leone, Mark P. et al 1997 Can an African-American Historical Archaeology be an Alternative Voice? In Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 110-124. Routledge, London, United Kingdom.
Lewan, Todd and Dolores Barclay 2001a Stealing Land, Robbing Futures. Tallahassee Democrat, 2 December 2001. Front Page, Section A.
2001b Torn from the Land. Documentary series, Associated Press. Electronic document, http://www.theauthenticvoice.org/Torn_From_The_Land_Intro.html, accessed March 17, 2008.
Lindsey, Bill 2008 Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website. Electronic document, http://www.sha.org/bottle/, accessed March 6, 2008. United States Bureau of Land Management and Society for Historical Archaeology.
Lindstrom, Triel Ellen 2002 Site Interpretation of an African-American Tenant Farm House, Maclay Gardens State Park, Tallahassee, Florida. Masters of Arts, Thesis Prospectus. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Litwack, Leon F 1979 Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery. Vintage, New York, New York.
345
Lockhart, Bill 2004 The Dating Game: Owens-Illinois Glass Company. Bottles and Extras 15(3):24-27.
Lucas, Gavin 1997 Interpretation in Contemporary Archaeology, Some Philosophical Issues. In Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 37-44. Routledge, London, United Kingdom.
Maclay, Alfred B. ca. 1930 Original unpublished notes of Alfred B. Maclay of tenants’ rental status. Manuscripts on file, Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, Tallahassee, Florida.
Maclay, Louise Fleischmann 1951 Letter to Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials, 5 December 1951. Manuscript on file, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee, Florida.
1953 Letter to Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials, 1 April 1953. Manuscript on file, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee, Florida.
Maynard, Jackson Wilder Jr. 2004 “According to Their Capacities and Talents”: Frontier Attorneys in Tallahassee During the Territorial Period. Unpublished Master of Arts thesis, Department of History, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
McDavid, Carol 2000 Archaeology as Cultural Critique: Pragmatism and the Archaeology of a Southern United States Plantation. In Philosophy and Archaeological Practice: Perspectives for the 21st Century. Bricoleur, Goteborg, Sweden.
Miles, Diane 2000 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. The Jaeger Company. Submitted to Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. Copies available from DRP, DEP.
Mullins, Paul R. 2002 Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African America and Consumer Culture. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, New York.
Mullins, Paul R. 2006 Manufacture-Deposition Lag Analysis, Historical Archaeology Anthropology P330, Fall 2006. Electronic document, http://www.iupui.edu/~anthpm/330mandep.html, accessed on March 18, 2008.
Cornell University Cooperative Extension. 1985 Nicotine (Black Leaf 40) Chemical Profile 4/85. Cornell University Cooperative Extension, Pest Management Education Program. Electronic document, http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/insect- mite/mevinphos-propargite/nicotine/insect-prof-nicotine.html, accessed on March 18, 2008
National Park Service, Historic Preservation Training Center 2008 Historic Structure Assessment Report: Cedar Shake House and Near Dock House, Alfred B. Maclay Gardens. Submitted to Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee, Florida. Copies available from DRP, DEP.
Odell, Digger 1999 Antique Bottles Price Guide. Electronic document, http://www.bottlebooks.com/, accessed on March 8, 2008. Digger Odell, Mason, Ohio.
346
Orser, Charles E. Jr 1988 Material Basis of the Postbellum Tenant Plantation: Historical Archaeology in the South Carolina Piedmont. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
2001 Race and the Archaeology of Identity. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.
2004 Race and Practice in Archaeological Interpretation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2007 The Archaeology of Race and Racialization in Historic America. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Ouzts, Clay 1996 Landlord and Tenants: Sharecropping and the Cotton Culture in Leon County, Florida, 1865 – 1885. Florida Historical Quarterly 75(1):1-19.
Paisley, Clifton 1968 From Cotton to Quail: An Agricultural Chronicle of Leon County, Florida 1860-1967. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
1989 The Red Hills of Florida, 1528-1865. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Preucel, Robert W. and Ian Hodder 1996 Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Random House 2004 Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Electronic document, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personal, accessed March 6, 2008.
Richardson, Joe M. 1965 The Negro in the Reconstruction of Florida 1865 – 1877. Florida State University Studies 46. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Richardson, Joe M. 1969 Florida Black Codes. Florida Historical Quarterly 47(4):366-380.
Rivers, Larry E. 1980 Slavery in Microcosm: Leon County, Florida, 1824 to 1860. The Journal of Negro History, edited by Alton Hornsby, Jr., 66(31):235-245.
Rivers, Larry E. 2000 Slavery in Florida, Territorial Days to Emancipation. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Royce, Edward 1993 The Origins of Southern Sharecropping. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Shackel, Paul A. 2002 Archaeology and Created Memory: Public History in a National Park. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, New York.
2003 Memory in Black and White: Race, Commemoration, and the Post-bellum Landscape. Altamira, Walnut Creek, California.
2004 Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology. Routledge, New York, New York.
347
Shackel, Paul A. and Barbara J. Little 1992 Post-Processual Approaches to Meaning and Uses of Material Culture in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 26(3):5-11.
Shackel, Paul A., Paul R. Mullins, and Mark S. Warner (editors) 1998 Annapolis Pasts: Historical Archaeology in Annapolis, Maryland. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Shofner, Jerrel H. 1966 Political Reconstruction in Florida. Florida Historical Quarterly 45(2):145-170.
1977 Custom, Law, and History: The Enduring Influence of Florida’s “Black Code.” Florida Historical Quarterly 55(3):277-299.
Singleton, Theresa A. 1990 The Archaeology of the Plantation South: A Review of Approaches and Goals. Historical Archaeology 24(4):70-77.
Singleton, Theresa A. (editor) 1999 “I, Too, Am America:” Archaeological Studies of African-American Life. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Smith, Julia 1965 The Plantation Belt in Middle Florida, 1850-1860. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Smith, Julia Floyd 1973 Slavery and Plantation Growth in Antebellum Florida 1821-1860. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
South, Stanley. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. Academic Press, New York, New York.
2002 Archaeological Pathways to Historic Site Development. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, New York.
State of Florida 1885 Florida State Census, Leon County. On file, Florida State Archives, Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.
St. John, Paige 2001 Diversity Figures for Leon County. Tallahassee Democrat 1 April 2001, Tallahassee, Florida.
Stine, Linda France 1990 Social Inequality and Turn-of-the-Century Farmsteads: Issues of Class, Status, Ethnicity and Race. Historical Archaeology 24(4):37-49.
Stine, Linda F., Martha Zierden, Lesley M. Drucker, and Christopher Judge 1997 Carolina’s Historical Landscapes: Archaeological Perspectives. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Tallahassee Democrat 1955 Mrs. Alfred Maclay Tells Killearn Story. Tallahassee Democrat 17 February 1955, Tallahassee, Florida.
Tesar, Louis D., B. Calvin Jones, Jeanne Marie Warzeski, and Steve Martin 1995 Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park/Lake Overstreet Addition Unit Management Plan Revision, Leon County, Florida, June 7, 1995 Field Trip Results. Manuscript on file, Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.
348
The Jaeger Company 1999a Cultural Landscape Master Plan for the Maclay-Phipps Heritage Greenway. Prepared for the Florida Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
1999b From Plantation to Park: The Evolving Cultural Landscape of the Maclay-Phipps Heritage Greenway. Prepared for the Florida Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
Thompson, Sharyn 1997 A Board House with a Tin Top: Life at Ayavalla –Personal Histories from the Plantation. Submitted to Elinor Klapp-Phipps Park, Northwest Florida Water Management District, and Phipps Foundation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Tolnay, Stewart A. 1999 The Bottom Rung: African American Family Life on Southern Farms. University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1830 The 5th Census of the United States. Washington, D.C.
1840 The 6th Census of the United States. Washington, D.C.
1850a The 7th Census of the United States. Washington, D.C.
1850b The 7th Census of the United States, Slave Schedules. Washington, D.C.
1860a The 8th Census of the United States. Washington, D.C.
1860b The 8th Census of the United States, Slave Schedules. Washington, D.C.
1860c The 8th Census of the United States, Agricultural Census for Florida. Electronic document, http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/fl/alachua/census/1860agri.txt?cj=1&o_xid=0001027214&o_lid=00 01027214, accessed March 14, 2008. Original records on file, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
1870 The 9th Census of the United States. Washington, D.C.
1880 The 10th Census of the United States. Washington, D.C.
1890 The11th Census of the United States. Washington, D.C.
1900 The 12th Census of the United States. Washington, D.C.
1910 The13th Census of the United States. Washington, D.C. . 1920 The 14th Census of the United States. Washington, D.C.
1930 The 15th Census of the United States. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Supreme Court 1886 Littlefield v. Internal Improvement Fund, 117 U.S. 419. Electronic document, http://supreme.justia.com/us/117/419/case.html, accessed on March 14, 2008.
Veverka, John A. 1998 Interpretive Master Planning. Acorn Naturalists, Tustin, California.
349
Westmacott, Richard Noble 1992 African-American Gardens and Yards in the Rural South. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
White, Gregory C. 2002 Papy Family Genealogy Forum. Electronic document, http://genforum.genealogy.com/papy/messages/1.html, accessed March 6, 2008.
Whitley, David S. (editor) 1998 Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post-processual and Cognitive Approaches. Routledge, NewYork, New York.
Whitten, David 2005 Glass Factory Marks on Bottles. Electronic document, http://myinsulators.com/glass- factories/bottlemarks.html, accessed March 6, 2008.
Wight, Willard E. (edited) 1957 Horace Greeley, Presidential Candidate: A Floridian’s View. Florida Historical Quarterly 35(3):271 275.
Wilkie, Laurie A. 2000 Creating Freedom: Material Culture and African American Identity at Oakley Plantation, Louisiana 1840- 1950. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Wikipedia 2008a Lydia Pinkham. Electronic document, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Pinkham, accessed on March 18, 2008.
Wikipedia 2008b Pluto Water. Electronic document, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto_Water, accessed on March 18, 2008.
Woodson, Carter Goodwin 1930 The Rural Negro. The Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, Washington, D.C.
Wylie, Alison 2002 Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. University of California, Berkeley, California.
Yamin, Rebecca and Karen Bescherer Metheny 1996 Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Younker, Don 2004 Personal Communication, Florida Park Service Biologist. Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.
Yronwode, Cat 2003 Lucy Heart Cosmetics and Spiritual Supplies. Electronic document, http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyheart.html, accessed on March 6, 2008. The Lucky W Amulet Archive, The Lucky Mojo Curio Company.
350
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Triel Ellen Lindstrom is the Historic Collections Administrator for the Florida Park Service. She has worked for the agency for five years, and has had the great honor of traveling all over Florida visiting some of the most beautiful places in the state. Since moving to Tallahassee, Florida, she has also had the opportunity to work for the National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center. Ms. Lindstrom holds an undergraduate degree in Community Studies from the University of California, Santa Cruz. She spent the previous decade working at feminist sexual assault crisis centers and domestic violence shelters in the West.
351