Investigating the Archaeology of Shifting Community Values at Chrisholm Farmstead

A thesis submitted to

the Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department of Anthropology

of the College of Arts and Sciences

2019

By Theresa Fish

B.A., Ohio University, 2017

Committee: Sarah Jackson, Ph.D., Chair

C. Jeffrey Jacobson, Ph.D.

Abstract

Throughout the 19th century, Amish and Mennonite settlers fleeing persecution in Europe

settled in the United States. In this study, I focus on families who settled in what is now Butler

County, Ohio. For these settlers, there is a robust historic record telling a story of the community

shifting from conservative Amish to more liberal Mennonites. I investigate to what extent the

archaeological remains recovered from the Augspurger family’s farmstead, Chrisholm, align

with that story. Are the found possessions indicative of changes in identity in the same way that

the documents are? I hypothesize that as religious tendencies of these families shifted, so did

their personal everyday possessions, which should be seen in the archaeological record through

change over time in artifact type. I expected to find positive correlations between my two data sources, archaeological data previously collected by the Cincinnati Museum Center in a preliminary survey of the Chrisholm site and historical objects including written materials and photographs from this community.

The results help to understand if, for this group of people, possessions used for daily practices can be linked with known values of intentional communities, or if there are tensions between these data types that need to be considered. The historical data were able to provide evidence for the stories of changes in identities and values overtime at Chrisholm. These materials pointed to changes to aspects of Amish and Mennonite identity such as outward appearance, language, and education. The project shows that the archaeological remains recovered from the site were not able to address changes in identity as they were hypothesized to do. These findings suggest complexities in how these datasets might intersect, and perhaps in how historical archaeologists are able to examine changes in religious identities and group values.

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Friends of Chrisholm, especially Anne Jantzen, who so graciously accepted me into their fold and allowed me full access to any materials they had available. I would also like to thank Robert Genheimer, Tyler Swinney, and the Cincinnati Museum Center who also allowed me access to the archaeological data collected at Chrisholm, as well as the field notes from the survey. To my parents who pushed me to keep working and not give up, I would not have been able to finish without your support. And finally, a special token of gratitude goes to my chair, Dr. Sarah Jackson Ph.D., without whom I would have been lost. Thank you for keeping faith in me and pushing me to be my best throughout this process.

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………... ii

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………… iv

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………… v

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………… vi

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………... 1

Chapter 2: Religious Change: Historical Context and Theoretical Approaches….…………….. 16

Chapter 3: Historical Data Analysis……………………………………………………………. 32

Chapter 4: Archaeological Data Analysis………………………………………………………. 55

Chapter 5: Discussions and Conclusions………………………………………………………... 69

Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………... 74

Appendix A: Sample of the Friends of Chrisholm’s collections list…………………………….. 79

Appendix B: Sample of nominal count data…………………………………………………….. 81

Appendix C: Volume Data……………………………………………………………………… 82

Appendix D: Density Data……………………………………………………………………… 83

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: 1855 map of Butler County, Ohio…………………………………………………… 2

Figure 1.2: 1855 map of Butler County, Ohio, focused on Chrisholm Farmstead………………. 3

Figure 1.3: Map of Alsace Region, France…………………………………………………….... 12

Figure 3.1: Photo of Samuel Augspurger………………………………………………………...36

Figure 3.2: Photo of Eliza Augspurger…………………………………………………………. ..40

Figure 3.3: Photo of Elias and Will Compton…………………………………………………... 41

Figure 3.4: Title page of Confessions of Faith and Minister’s Manual, 1890…………………... 43

Figure 3.5: Title page of English language bible, 1881………………………………………….. 44

Figure 3.6: Photo of Elisa and Otelia Augspurger, 1877………………………………………… 48

Figure 3.7: Photo of Otelia Augspurger, c.1880………………………………………………..... 49

Figure 4.1: Site map of 2003 archaeological survey at Chrisholm Farmstead…………………... 56

Figure 4.2: Timeline of historic ceramic ware types in North America………………………..... 59

Figure 4.3: Bar graph of nominal count data…………………………………………………….. 62

Figure 4.4: North wall profile view of test unit 11……………………………………………...... 63

Figure: 4.5: Results of Kruskal-Wallis testing…………………………………………………. ..65

Figure 4.6: Results of Mann-Whitney U testing between levels A and B……………………….. 65

Figure 4.7: Results of Mann-Whitney U testing between levels A and C……………………… 66

Figure 4.8: Results of Mann-Whitney U testing between levels A and features……………….. 66

Chapter 1: Introduction

This project is concerned with questions of identity and how an attribute such as religious

identity, and its change over time, can be seen in two different, although related, datasets.

Throughout the project, it is my goal to investigate how researchers have been able to analyze

past identities, and to explore how historical and archaeological assemblages may work together,

or if there can be tension between them. I want to come to a better understanding of how identity, particularly religious identity, can be studied. I will mainly be using anthropological, historical, and archaeological studies to inform my research in order to place the analysis within the larger scope of similar work. This study is by no means exhaustive, but it sheds a light on a particular intentional community, and how members of the community may have enacted their own religious identities, as well as how others may have placed them.

This project focuses in on the Amish Mennonite community of Butler County, Ohio. It specifically looks at the Augspurger family that was living at Chrisholm Farmstead in

Woodsdale outside of Trenton, Ohio during the 19th century (figures 1.1 and 1.2). As will be

discussed, the Augspurger family experienced significant changes in their religious identity

within a short period of time. The Chrisholm site is now open to the public every Sunday

afternoon for children’s activities and tours of the home. Tours at the site are run by the Friends

of Chrisholm, an organization aiming to preserve the history of Chrisholm and the Augspurger

family. Their tours are based on the stories of the family which come from research on the

community conducted by other members of Friends of Chrisholm such as Anne and Carl

Jantzen, as well as the published works of Reverend W.H. Grubb (2001) and Doris Page (1999).

The members of Friends of Chrisholm are trained with the stories and have a guidebook to

inform the main points of the family’s history. According to these stories told at the site, the

family emigrated to the area in the early nineteenth-century under a very conservatively Amish patriarch, Christian Augspurger. Per the stories, within just one to two generations, the family living at Chrisholm had shifted to a more liberal, and perhaps more secular, lifestyle under one of

Christian Augspurger’s sons, Samuel. Rather than living an isolated, simple, farming lifestyle

and adhering closely to Amish tradition, the family began to take part in local industries,

education, and the greater community’s social atmosphere. One of the main goals of this project

is to use the historical documents and materials available to evaluate these assertions. What did

the family leave behind that could point to this apparent change in identity over such a short

period of time? It also leads to the question of if the archaeological remains recovered from the

site also intersect with the oral traditions and historical evidence.

Figure 1.1: 1855 Map of Butler County, Ohio Source: “1855 Map of Butler County.” Butler County Historical Society, May 31, 2018. https://bchistoricalsociety.com/2015/06/20/1855-map-butler-county/.

Figure 1.2: 1855 map of Butler County, Ohio. The red circle indicates the location of Chrisholm and the lands of the Augspurger family. Source: “1855 Map of Butler County.” Butler County Historical Society, May 31, 2018. https://bchistoricalsociety.com/2015/06/20/18 55-map-butler-county/.

Throughout the next sections of this introductory chapter, I will review some of the leading theories about identity and identity change. I will focus on religious identity while keeping in mind that religious identity overlaps with other identities and is affected by outside forces; more on this will be discussed later in this chapter. I will also give a brief history of the

Amish and Mennonites to provide foundational background about the people and materials I am studying. In order to think about the Augspurgers as they were in the 1800s, it is also crucial to understand their intentional community’s history. An intentional community can be defined as “a planned residential grouping whose members share basic social and/or religious and/or economic values, and intend to create a living alternative to the mainstream of which they were previously a part” (Kozakavich 2017:12). In the following chapter, I will explore some patterns of Amish and Mennonite migration to North America and the intentional communities created, as well as archaeological theories of religious identity.

Key Ideas About Identity

Before digging into historical and archaeological theories of religious identity and data

analysis, I would like to take a moment to address what I mean by the terms identity and

religious identity. While I am not trying to define these complex terms, it is prudent to recognize

some of their main components and attributes to better utilize them in this study. It is the

consensus of many archaeologists (e.g. Diáz-Andreu and Lucy 2005; Insoll 2004; Insoll 2007;

Jones 2007; Meskell 2007; White and Beaudry 2009) that identity cannot be thought of as a set

or concrete thing. Rather, identity is fluid and always changing. Previously, some researchers believed that “group identities are represented as unified, monolithic wholes with linear and continuous histories” (Jones 2007:93) but is clear that this is not the case. There are many factors that affect identity, from personal choices to the social, political, and/or economic atmospheres.

Insoll (2007) describes identity construction as “multivalent […] it is not defined by the singular but rather by multiple elements even though one might be ascribed precedence, which can alter depending upon context and audience” (25).

Each person has a multitude of identity markers such as gender, ethnicity, age, social standing, religious or political affiliation, and many more. This mixture of sources and types means that we cannot say that any person or group of people is of one identity. One’s complete identity is “affected (defined, subverted, suppressed, or made overtly manifest) by other factors”

(Diáz-Andreu and Lucy 2005:11). Identity is the conglomeration of this multitude of effects and will change or adjust as those other attributes are also altered. Meskell (2007) likewise describes the phenomenon as individuals having “a number of social identities which entail constant negotiation and [which] organize our relationships to other individuals and groups in our social worlds” (55). Again, identities are not one thing as one is not just male or female, or young or

old, or religious or not. One’s identity is created by the mixing of those, and many other, markers

of identity. They all play off of and affect each other; change in one marker can also alter others.

Throughout this study, I will attempt to show how the historical and archaeological materials

from Chrisholm Farmstead are able to show how different aspects of the Augspurger family’s

total identity affected their specific religious identity, which will be described further later in this

section.

Due to the fact that different types of identity, such as age, gender, religion, political

affiliation, etc., all influence each other, focusing on one type of identity without considering

those other effects is not as useful to the overall discussion of identity. This project does focus

heavily on the religious identities of the Amish and Mennonites, specifically the Augspurger

family, but it will also touch on other factors that affect their identity. Style of dress, education,

language, isolation, etc. are all markers of identity that can reflect the overall religious identities

of the groups in question. There is a “rigidity of Western taxonomizing, especially where it

concerns identity [that] necessitates that all individuals be neatly pigeonholed and categorized

according to a set of pre-determined labels” (Meskell 2007:53-40). In reality though, this is not

how identity works.

As we have seen, and will be discussed further later, there can be many different

manifestations of identity, even for members of the same groups. For this project, it is important to remember that there are general trends that most Amish and Mennonite communities in North

America follow, and I am trying to place the Augspurger family within them, but these are just contexts to help think about Amish and Mennonite identities. The Augspurgers are one specific family within a large and spread out group of peoples. It is important to think about larger ideas

of Amish and Mennonite communities in order to have a starting place of how to think of the

Augspurgers and their identity.

Another aspect of identity that will be considered for the Augspurger family is how they may have thought of their identity might not have been the same as how others may have categorized them. Some identity markers are how we personally see ourselves, while some are manifested in how others place us. Many times, we are placed into a social category or “set of persons marked by a label or distinguished by rules deciding membership and (alleged) characteristic features or attributes (Fearon 1999:2). Meskell (2007) also describes this idea by saying “although some aspects of our identity are given to us as a starting point […] this frames the self, it does not rigidly determine the sort of person we might become or our actions in the future (55). There are certain identities that we may be put into by others such as gender or ethnicity. How we feel that we fit within those perceived identities might be the same but could also differ from them and “there are many ways that a person might define who he or she is”

(Fearon 1999:20). It is “through identity [that] we perceive ourselves and others see us as belonging to certain groups and not others” (Diáz-Andreu and Lucy 2005:11), and in many cases this would be for outwardly expressed markers such as clothing and language.

Perceiving identity is not always so easy when there are not clear indicators, especially for religious identity. For many, Amish and Mennonites are considered easy to identify because of their restrictions on clothing, hair, and technology. But as Pollack (1981) states “a Mennonite man […] may be virtually indistinguishable from his neighbors, he may live in an urban setting, have a college education, and may work in a business or professional occupation” (56). For this reason, we have to be aware of how those religious identities, for the particular group in

question, are made manifest. That understanding will help inform the analysis of the data for this

project.

Investigating Religious Identity, Beliefs, and Practices

For the purpose of this study, I would like to elaborate on what I mean when I use the

term religious identity. As described above, one’s identity is made up of many different factors,

one of which can be one’s religion or religious affiliation. A major part of a religious identity is the group in which one practices. When someone states that they are part of a particular religious faith such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism, that is a clear marker of a particular

identity. But saying that someone is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu are very broad

statements. In Judaism, there are traditional groups such as the Hassidic Jews who are able to be

spotted by their dress and hair regulations, not unlike many Amish or Mennonite groups. There

are also more liberal groups whose religious affiliation or identity cannot be immediately

discerned. It is through materials, practice, and actions that different groups within the same

religion can distinguished. This is the case for the Amish and Mennonite groups that I will be

studying. The Amish and Mennonite faiths are specific subgroups of Christianity. As we will

see, even within these two identity groups, there is a lot of variation, but there are certain trends

and patterns that can be seen for the groups.

Religious identity is created through the practice of belief. Religious belief is what the

religion is built upon; the core attributes and doctrines of the community are based on those

beliefs. The practices of the faithful are how those beliefs are interpreted and expressed, and it is

in practice where differences between groups can be seen. Communities can have the same basic

beliefs, but if their practices contrast, their religious identities will also vary from each other.

Further, as practices change, religious identity can also shift, but this does not necessarily mean

7 the beliefs are altered. This concept will be assessed for Amish and Mennonite groups, as well as the Augspurger family and Butler County, Ohio congregations, as their core beliefs remained consistent, but their practices and interpretations of their beliefs did not. Nolt (2008) suggests that “variety is an unmistakable feature of Amish experience” (377). Being Amish or Mennonite is a religious identity, but being conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between, in terms of practice, further distinguishes the groups. The goals of this project aim to explore if religious identities shifting over time can be recognized in the data available. It is not my goal to say that the Augspurger family was any less Amish or Mennonite, just that they adjusted what that label or type of religious identity meant, both for themselves and those around them.

Diáz-Andreu and Lucy (2005) state that “identity will be understood as individuals’ identification with broader groups on the basis of differences socially sanctioned as significant”

(11). This will be how I will try to understand the idea of identity and religious identity throughout this project. I hope to show how the Augspurger family may have been identifying themselves within the larger Amish or Mennonite communities, while also thinking about how that would be manifest in the materials they left behind, both historical and archaeological. This is why I rely so heavily on the existing research of Amish and Mennonite migration trends.

Although we cannot think of Amish and Mennonite groups as having only one identity, it is prudent to understand the usual paths they have taken in North America. This will enable me to place the Augspurger family and the Butler County congregation within their larger religious identity as Amish or Mennonite. Without that general idea of these groups’ identities, I would not be able to try to see how the Augspurgers fit or did not fit within them. The first step in this analysis is to understand who the Amish and Mennonite are, why they came to North America, and specifically, the history and creation of the Butler County, Ohio community.

Who are the Amish and Mennonites?

To better understand the dynamics that led to shifting religious identities of the Amish

Mennonite community in Butler County, Ohio, it is necessary to review some of the history of

these groups. By the early-mid sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformation had spread

throughout the European continent (Epp 1974:23-28; Kraybill 1989:3; Nolt 2003:8-9; Nolt and

Meyers 2007:4). The Reformation uprooted the centuries old power hold of the Catholic Church and caused significant amounts of political and social unrest. While the followers of Martin

Luther and John Calvin were the initial groups to break away from the Catholic Church, many other, more radical sects began to emerge that would further affect the religious, social, and political climates of Europe. The Anabaptists were one such group. Anabaptists get their name from the Latin anabaptismus meaning ‘second baptism’ (Nolt 2003:12). The name comes from the belief that baptism should take place in adulthood rather than infancy. The Catholic Church, which was really the only Christian church in Western Europe up to this point, believes in infant baptism. Because of this, the people who were following the Anabaptist faiths had to have a second baptism as adults (Epp 1974:29-30; Good and Good 1995:7; Kraybill 1989:3-4; Nolt

2003:12; Nolt and Meyers 2007:5). The Anabaptists were also pacifists, meaning they would not partake in military service, which would later cause issues with the governing nations they lived under. Many governments saw the pacifist beliefs of the Anabaptists as being harmful to almost every aspect of life in their lands (Epp 1984; Keim 1993; Nolt and Meyers 2007). From their very inception, the Anabaptists faced harsh persecution from those state governments everywhere they were found. In many places, they were hunted and killed for their beliefs which

“left lasting marks on the Anabaptist movement. The re-baptizers developed a deep distrust of larger society” (Nolt 2003:13). This distrust of those around them fostered the idea of isolation

from those outside the faith, which was carried with the Amish and Mennonites when migrating

to North America.

In the mid-1500s, after a violent uprising of Anabaptists in Münster, which led to further

distrust of the group by governments (Epp 1984:33), Menno Simmons emerged as a leader who

denounced the violent actions and pushed for the core Anabaptist ideals of nonviolence (Epp

1984). By 1545, Simmons and his followers were being called Mennonites (Good and Good

1995; Nolt 2003; Nolt and Meyers 2007). Due to persecution in southern Europe, many

Mennonites and similar reformers were forced to migrate to northern French and German

regions, including Alsace, Hesse, and the Palatinate. For a time in these regions, reformers were able to find less persecution and better economic prospects. Alsace, where Christian Augspurger and his family immigrated from, was “home to German-speaking Alsatians, but governed by religiously tolerant French aristocrats” (Nolt 2003:23). For a time, the Mennonite church was united in their beliefs, but some felt that they were assimilating to the society around them (Nolt

2003:20). Tensions over assimilation caused a great rift between leaders in the Church. Most

notably, Jakob Ammann and Hans Reist disagreed on the practice of shunning members who fell

from grace with the church. Ammann believed in strict shunning for sinners, meaning not

sharing common meals and not having any kind of social interaction with them (Good and Good

1995; Epp 1984; Nolt 2003; Nolt and Meyers 2007). Reist, on the other hand, thought this was

too harsh and that shunning should not be a central part Mennonite belief and practice. The

growing arguments between the followers of these two men led to a schism between what

became the Mennonites, following Reist, and the Amish following Ammann (Nolt 2003:39-40).

The Amish were adhering more closely with the earlier ideals of the Anabaptists, while the

Mennonites were moving away from those strict interpretations (Good and Good 1995).

Overtime, the Amish would be thought of as more conservative, while the Mennonites

became the more progressive group. Ammann and the Amish believed in strictly following

simplicity in life, including untrimmed beards and not using buttons on their clothing, as they

were seen as decorative (Nolt 2003, 44). In contrast, the Mennonites believed “it appropriate to

follow the customs of the land and that of the people one is with and of one’s surroundings”

(Nolt 2003, 50), meaning following some of the customs of those around them, not just with

clothing. They also began to incorporate the piano and other musical instruments into their

homes as others in their communities did (Nolt 2003, 110).

While in some areas of Europe Amish and Mennonites were allotted a fair amount of

freedom, they did not have the same opportunities as members of state churches. They relied on local lords to let them lease lands, but those lands could be taken away whenever the lord said

(Nolt 2003, 97). Other than farming leased lands, the Amish and Mennonites had no other options for economic growth without forsaking their faith for the state church. Also, at this time,

French and German governments were requiring mandatory conscription of all men, no matter religious affiliation (Nolt 2003). Amish and Mennonite men were no longer able to receive pardon due to their pacifist beliefs. These two factors, combined with the hope for less persecution, led many Amish and Mennonites to move to the United States or Canada. The

Amish and Mennonites would make up a sizable portion of the millions of Europeans emigrating to Canada and the United States in the early nineteenth century.

The Amish and Mennonites that emigrated to the United States during the eighteenth-

century settled mostly in Pennsylvania (Epp 1984; Nolt and Meyers 2007). Some of the present-

day Amish communities in Lancaster and Somerset counties are descendants of those first

immigrants. It is estimated that between 1817 and 1860, around 3,000 Amish and Mennonite

people emigrated to the United States and Canada. Most settled throughout what is now

considered the mid-west of the US, as well as Ontario, New York, and Louisiana (Nolt

2003:114). This is the period in which Christian Augspurger and his family chose to come to the

United States, and eventually to Butler County, Ohio.

The Augspurgers and the Butler County, Ohio Congregations

While it is not entirely clear why Christian Augspurger and his family decided to move to

America, it can be assumed that it was for many of the same reasons as others from the Alsace

region (figure 1.3), including economic gain and religious freedom. Christian Augspurger was

considered a prosperous man, with a very successful farm in France for which he was awarded

the medal of the Legion of Honor (Page and Johns 1999, 10).

Figure 1.3: Alsace region of France Source: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Alsace." Encyclopædia Britannica. December 31, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/place/Alsace.

Christian Augspurger, like many Amish and Mennonite farmers, did not own his farm, but rather leased it from a French noble. The farm fell under new management in 1819, leading the Augspurgers to want to move to the United States (Page and Johns 1999:10). They were able to convince thirty-six other families to emigrate with them, but only six would join the

Augspurgers all the way to Butler County (Page and Johns 1999:10). Although the community

was small to start, it quickly grew as more groups joined them in the area. The group that came

with the Augspurger family was “the first ripple of what would become a wave of nineteenth-

century Amish immigration” (Nolt 2003:122). According to Leroy Beachy (2004), the

community Christian Augspurger founded “may have been the fastest growing of any new

Amish community in America, but after a generation or two, it disappeared about as rapidly as it

had grown” (437). This perhaps could be due to the introduction of the more tolerant Hessian

Mennonites into the community. Rev W.H. Grubb states that at first, the Hessians “were

accepted into the congregation, but not having been connected with the Amish branch before

they came to Butler County and having come from a different German state could not always

accept the views of their brethren” (2001:3). Due to the differences between the two groups, on

May 8, 1835, two separate congregations were formed (Grubb 2001; Page and Johns 1999).

These congregations became known as the Augspurger Church and the Hessian Church. The

Hessians believed in a much more relaxed version of life, including “curtains on their windows, rugs on the floors, and musical instruments” (Page and Johns 1999:30). They were also less rigid

when it came to clothing and men’s beards, as well as education of their children. For 62 years,

these congregations would remain separate, until they came together again in 1897, in part due to

declining interest in the conservative church. For this project, I will be mainly interested in the

period prior to 1897 when the congregations were still separate.

When considering the trends of isolation for conservative Amish, which will be discussed

in detail in the following chapter, one might anticipate that Christian Augspurger and his family

would have remained members of the conservative Augspurger church throughout the split, but

this was not the case, at least for Samuel Augspurger. Grubb suggests that it was through

intermarrying, along with resistance to the traditional strict discipline of the Amish branch and

changing attitudes towards worldly pursuits, that the Augspurger congregation slowly decreased

in size, while the Hessian congregation continued to grow and flourish (Grubb, 2001). Samuel

Augspurger, the son who took over Christian Augspurger’s lands, become a member of the

Mennonite congregation. This was in part due to him marrying Eliza Holly, as the Hollys were part of the founding members of the Hessian Mennonite church in Butler County, Ohio. This combined with Samuel Augspurger’s economic pursuits, including multiple successful mills in

Woodsdale and Trenton, led him to joining the tolerant Mennonite congregation (Page and Johns

1999:41). When looking at photos of Samuel Augspurger and his daughter Otelia Augspurger

Compton (figures 3.1, 3.6, and 3.7), one might find it difficult to know they were of Amish, or

even Mennonite, heritage, from their appearances. Specific reasons for this will be discussed in

Chapter 3. This thought comes back to the idea that their personal identity may not have been

reflected in a way in which the outside world would have been able to place them within the

Amish or Mennonite group. Samuel Augspurger also encouraged his children to get a higher

education (Page and Johns 1999:30). Otelia Augspurger Compton graduated from the Western

Female Seminary, now part of Miami University, becoming one of the first Mennonite women to

do so (Nolt 2015). Within just one generation, those living at Chrisholm, had gone from very

conservative Amish, to much more lenient Mennonite, even leaning towards secular lives.

In the following chapters, I will examine evidence related to this shift in religious identity

for the Augspurger family from the time of settlement to Samuel and Otelia Augspurger’s

generations. Part of Chapter 2 aims to give a broad awareness of common trends of Amish and

Mennonite migrants to North America. I will show how the Augpurger family fit within these

trends so that we can think about how their experiences might correspond with the larger Amish

and Mennonite world. Later in Chapter 2, I will also use various sources of archaeological theory focused on religion in the field. I will then analyze historical and archaeological data in Chapters

3 and 4, respectively, for evidence of these ideas in the materials left by the Augspurger family.

These analyses are aimed to further the discussion of identity for these intentional communities.

Finally, in Chapter 5, I will discuss my findings and think more deeply about how identity and religious identity can be studied in archaeology.

Chapter 2: Religious Change: Historical Context and Theoretical Approaches

Introduction

In order to place Chrisholm Farmstead and the Butler County, Ohio congregations within a larger context of Amish Mennonite communities, it is necessary to think about how those other communities have survived or changed over time. In this chapter, case studies will be used to understand the overarching themes of how Amish and Mennonite communities have changed due to migration, interactions with outsiders, and changing attitudes among members. By doing this, the story of the Augspurger family at Chrisholm Farmstead will be better contextualized within the general trends of Amish Mennonite communities throughout North America. It is also the goal of this chapter to discuss various sources of archaeological theory focused on identity and religious identity. These theories can help us understand the changes that may have been occurring for the Augspurger family at Chrisholm Farmstead.

Just as identity, broadly understood, is complex and can be difficult to describe, it is also challenging to express what identity means for those who are a part of Amish or Mennonite communities. This is in part due to the fact that “the concept of identity is complicated, paradoxical, and culturally situated in time, place, and society” (White and Beaudry 2009:2010).

Some researchers suggest that it is very difficult to define Amish Mennonite groups due to their numerous origins and how outside factors have affected the groups (Koop 2014). As with all forms of identity, there are many factors that create them. We cannot study religious identity on its own; we must consider the other forms of identity and aspects of life that impact religion. The identity of an Amish or Mennonite group is very much dependent on many factors, including when and where they emigrated from, where they settled in North America, their relationship to those outside their communities, and their adherence to the Ordnung or the rules that dictate

Amish Mennonite life. One way to attempt to account for these possible differing understandings of identity among members of these groups, is to focus in on the personal and everyday lives of smaller groups, such as a single household or community. Some suggest that “the household is a critical social unit and vital medium for understand innumerable aspects of social life” (Beaudry

2004:254). By focusing on a single household or community, such as Chrisholm Farmstead and

Butler County, Ohio, it becomes possible to think more deeply about the identities of those who lived there. Using the personal materials, both historical and archaeological, of the Augspurger family enables us to focus on where they may have fallen within the larger trends of Amish and

Mennonite communities in North America. Using the trends and theories together gives us the insight to enable possible meaningful conclusions about the Augspurger family from the materials. These theories focus more specifically on religion and religious identity and how these concepts can be thought about and studied in archaeology. They will be the foundation on which the archaeological data from Chrisholm Farmstead are analyzed. The first half of this chapter will help us understand certain factors that can instigate religious change for Amish and

Mennonites in North America; the second half helps us discern how we may be able to see those changes within the archaeological record.

Amish and Mennonites in North America

The consensus of many researchers, including historians and sociologists, (e.g. Anderson

2011; Epp 1974; Foster 1984; Hostetler 1964; Hurst and McConnell 2010, Loewen 1999; Nolt and Meyers 2007; Pollack 1981) is that there are numerous factors that affect the way in which an Amish or Mennonite community changes or remains the same in North America. Some of the factors that will be discussed further include the time period in which the group migrated from

Europe to North America, the area in which the group settled, the relationship between the

17 community and the surrounding non-Amish world, and how strictly they adhered to the

Ordnung. While there may be many other factors at play that can be community specific, these four seem to be present in many different case studies of Amish and Mennonite communities throughout North America, including the Augspurger family in Butler County, Ohio. Throughout this section, these catalysts will be accessed for multiple communities that have been previously studied. These case studies may help to illuminate some of the reasons the trajectory of the

Amish Mennonite community of Butler County played out in the way that it did. It is important to remember, as I will point to throughout, that the changes were different for each community and we are looking at major trends that are seen in many Amish and Mennonite communities of the Midwest, not concrete models that every community followed.

Time of Migration

There were two major ‘waves’ of migration of Amish and Mennonite groups to Midwest

North America, including part of Canada (Hurst and McConnel 2010; Loewen 1999; Nolt and

Meyers 2007). The first wave consisted of migrants coming out of the Amish and Mennonite communities settled in Pennsylvania in the 18th century. Members of these communities began moving westward in the mid-nineteenth century (Nolt and Meyers 2007). The second wave included settlers who came to the Midwest directly from Europe. Rather than first settling in

Pennsylvania then slowly moving on to the Midwest, the second wave of migrants went directly to states such as Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa (Nolt and Meyers 2007). The two waves consisted of very different factions of Amish and Mennonite groups: some came from generations in

Pennsylvania and others were fresh to North America. The mixing of these to waves would prove to be a catalyst for change within the resulting communities.

Many of the settlers in the first wave came from communities that are still thriving today

in Pennsylvania. Most of these communities are still regarded as being part of the Old Order,

meaning conforming most closely with the traditional regulations of the faith. Today,

descendants of these followers can be found in what is now considered the ‘Amish Country’ of

Ohio and Indiana, as well as other locations such as parts of Canada (Epp 1974; Nolt and Meyers

2017). In the early to mid-nineteenth century, the first wave settlers had the same urge as the

non-Amish around them, which was to move westward. It was at the same time that the second wave of Amish and Mennonite settlers were beginning to migrate from Europe (Nolt and Meyers

2007). Rather than following the trends of previous Amish migrants and first settling in and around Pennsylvania, the second wave would go straight to the Midwest. The Augspurger family and Butler County, Ohio congregation would have been considered part of the second wave of settlers. The second wave of emigrants were more likely to convert or move away from traditional Amish practice patterns (Nolt and Meyers 2007). Many times, they were a bit more relaxed with their interpretation of the Ordnung, as well as more open to communities outside of themselves. As will be discussed later, this seems to be the case for the Augspurgers and others in the Butler County, Ohio communities.

This trend of the second wave migrants being more lenient was not always the case. As

Royden Loewen (1999) discusses, the groups in his study who had been in North America longer were more likely to use English over German or Pennsylvania Dutch. His work used personal diaries of different groups of Mennonites in Canada, specifically Waterloo County, Ontario and

Montioba, and showed how those who had migrated from Pennsylvania were using English for their personal diaries much more than those who were more recent arrivals directly from Europe.

This is important to mention here to show that while there are some general trends that seem to run through many Amish and Mennonite communities, they are not the same for all groups.

One other point to mention here is the process of further migration west from the areas of

Ohio and Indiana. Researchers (e.g. Hostetler 1964; Nolt and Meyers 2007; Pollack 1981) point out that many groups would break off and move elsewhere if they were unhappy with the way their community was being run. This seems to be the case mainly with groups that wanted to stay more in tune with tradition but found themselves in communities where the majority was more open to interaction with outsiders and less strict interpretations of the Ordnung. In other words,

“migration, for the Amish, is one of the most important factors in resisting acculturation”

(Hostetler 1964: 197). This was the strategy of some members of the Butler County, Ohio congregations; there was continued migration westward as the community became more lenient and secular by those members that wanted to remain more traditional in their lifestyles (Grubb

2001, Page and Johns 1999).

Place of Settlement

While it is important to think about where a settlement was created in terms of whether or not it was in Pennsylvania first or the Midwest, it is also crucial to think about where the settlement was in proximity to large cities. It seems that the closer settlements were to larger cities, the more likely they were to interact with those outside their communities. In settlements that are close to cities, more members of the group took part in non-traditional careers, such as industrial and factory jobs. This is shown in Randy Pollack’s study “Culture Change in an Amish

Community” (1981). Pollack discusses how the proximity of one Amish community to a large city, as well as the settlement patterns of more liberal churches, caused the community to shift

from predominantly Old Order Amish to Mennonite, in a similar way as the Butler County

congregation.

Pollack’s study focuses on the Amish community of Plain City, Ohio which is located approximately 25 miles from Columbus, Ohio. Pollack shows how there were changing views on

“language, family patterns, occupations, and education” for the Plain City community (Pollack

1981:51). This study is especially interesting for this project because the example of the Amish and Mennonite community in Plain City is very similar to what will be discussed for the

Augspurgers and the Butler County community. The proximity of Plain City to a large city such as Columbus opened the door to non-traditional occupations for members of the community.

Pollack points out that less than 30% of Mennonite households in the Plain City area engaged in farming at the time of his study (1981:58). This is in stark contrast to most Old Order Amish homes where farming was the main means of income. By taking part in occupations other than farming, members of the community were naturally interacting with groups that were either more liberal, or outside of the Amish and Mennonite umbrella all together. As will be discussed in the following section, that interaction with outsiders is another major catalyst for change within

Amish and Mennonite communities.

In terms of occupation, Pollack also addressed differing stances of the work of women in the communities. Most married women in traditional Amish communities did not work outside the home and were responsible solely for child rearing. For Mennonites, a large number of women are employed outside the home, many of whom are employed full time which “has resulted in increased contact with outsiders among Mennonites as compared to Amish” (Pollack

1981:56).

A major part of Pollack’s study also centers on the settlement patterns of multiple different Amish and Mennonite churches in the same area. The first Amish settlers in Plain City were Old Order Amish who strictly adhered to traditional ways of life. Not long after their settlement, more liberal Mennonite groups also arrived in the area. Over time, multiple sects of

Amish and Mennonites broke off within Plain City until there were seven separate Anabaptist churches in the area which all took different stances on conservative or liberal belief (1981:56-

57). Pollack suggests that “major cultural changes have taken place in Plain City since the opening of these various churches, and they may be traced directly to the more relaxed rules that characterize these denominations” (1981:57). The study found that for a community that was founded by entirely Old Order Amish “by 1977 only about 4% of Plain City families belonged to this church” (1981: 58). Again, Pollack’s study is very important to the current study because as we will see, there are many close similarities to the Butler County, Ohio congregations. Some of the explanations other than proximity to a large city and other more liberal churches will be discussed further in later sections of this chapter.

T.W. Foster studied traditional Amish communities in the Ohio counties of Geauga,

Trumbull, and Ashtabula which are located close to the cities of Cleveland and Youngstown, both of which were industrial centers for factory and steel work during the time of the study. The study states that in 1982, 32% of households in the research area partook in non-traditional occupations, most of which involved factory work (Foster 1984:74). If we think about the general trends of other Amish and Mennonite communities that similarly participated in industrial work, one would think that these Northeastern Ohio groups would have shifted to a more non-traditional way of life. Foster disputes this by stating “contrary to the theoretical expectations of some scholars, the movement of the Geauga Amish out of farming and into more

22 diversified — and often more secular — types of occupations has not resulted in the destruction, or the radical transformation, of their traditional Amish values” (Foster 1984:74). Rather than viewing factory work as a catalyst of change in the community, Foster points out that many of the members are really only taking part in the work out of financial necessity. For many, farming alone is not a viable enough endeavor to support their families, so they pick up work in the factories. Foster illustrates through the study that “there was no evidence that any radical changes in values or in behaviors were occurring among Amish factory workers” (Foster

1984:81). Foster’s study is significant to mention here to point to the trends that we may see in the analysis of the Augspurgers and Butler County congregations.

The two studies discussed above show us two different understandings of how proximity to a large industrial center can affect an Amish community. Pollack suggests that this closeness to a larger city and interaction with outsiders through non-traditional occupations, can lead to a breakdown of strict adherence to traditional Amish customs. Foster, on the other hand, suggests that this is not always the case. While he concedes the most researchers do see this kind of change, the communities he studies show that factory work does not always mean the end of a traditional community. I would like to point to how the Butler County, Ohio congregation and

Augspurgers fit here. The Amish and Mennonite communities of Butler County seems to fit most closely to that of Pollack’s study of Plain City. The families that first settled in and around Butler

County were very conservative in their traditional ways of life, but over time, as more lenient

Mennonite groups took root there, there was a less strict adherence to those traditions. Also,

Butler County and Chrisholm are about 35 miles from the cities of Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio, and it seems that the trends of industrial work touched the Butler County Amish and Mennonites

as well. It is clear that there are other factors at work that affect the communities than merely

their connection with an industrial city.

Interaction with Outsiders and the Ordnung

I combine discussion of the last two major trends of change within Amish and Mennonite communities into one section because, in many ways, they go hand in hand. An Amish or

Mennonite community’s willingness to interact and engage with the outside world seems to coincide with how much they are willing to adjust their take on the Ordnung. The Ordnung is an orally passed down set of rules or standards meant to hold Amish and Mennonite communities together (Nolt and Meyers 2007:38). The Ordnung can be further described as:

“the collected wisdom of past generations combined with the commands of Scripture and insights into human nature and the workings of the natural world. Ordnung prescribes and proscribes, directing and limiting activity. Ordnung governs the particular style of clothes one puts on in the morning and how one travels to work. It mandates certain activities on Sunday and labels others taboo. It counsels general virtue like humility and submission to authority, while also requiring stubborn allegiance to God rather than to the state if the two should come into conflict” (Nolt and Meyer 2007:38).

In shorter terms, the Ordnung is what structures Amish life. When strictly adhered to, as the Old

Order Amish do, life is very regimented and restricted. That is, strict adherence to the Ordnung

does not open those followers to outside forces in the same way as those who are more lenient

with their interpretations. An exacting interpretation to the Ordnung can be seen in the Old Order

Amish in that they “drive horse-drawn carriages, dress ‘plain,’ refrain from the use of electricity,

emphasize occupations close to the farm and the home, and forbid higher education” (Good and

Good 1995:8). These practices are in an effort to remain true to the Ordnung and reject modern

conveniences. Some of this is rooted in the Amish’s proclivity to look more towards the past and

tradition than to the future and progress, and “the slowly evolving Ordnung finds relevance in the

experience of ‘our forefathers’ as much as in contemporary contexts” (Nolt and Meyers 2007:

21). By staying close to those traditions and rules, the Amish church was able to remain true to its purpose.

It also seems that is it through isolation that the Old Order Amish have been able to remain so closely connected with the Ordnung as “the related principles of isolation and conservatism underlie these rules […] which serve to differentiate and isolate the Amish from their neighbors and maintain uniformity within the group” (Pollack 1981:53). This isolation is not just in occupation or place of living but a total “separation from the world – [which] forbids marriage with outsiders, it prohibits members from establishing business partnerships or sustained association with outsiders, and it keeps intimate human associations within the ceremonial community” (Hostetler 1964: 186). It was when members of the community, or other groups of Anabaptists such as the Mennonites “find personal fulfillment outside of the Amish community [that] the relationship to the traditional community is altered” (Hostetler 1964:188).

When community members began interacting more with the outside world and became less isolated, strict connection to the Ordnung could have begun to falter.

There are many ways in which some Mennonite and other Anabaptist communities began moving away from a strict interpretation of the Ordnung. Some of these include their stances on language, clothing, education, discipline, technology, and occupation. Notably, none of these changes necessarily directly reference actual religious belief, but rather might be characterized as lifestyle or practice changes. More on this will be discussed a little later. Pollack (1981) describes some of the main differences in these stances between Old Order Amish and groups of

Mennonites. For example, the Old Order Amish wear plain clothing in solid colors that are free from ornamentation, including jewelry and buttons. Married men have longer hair and beards with no moustaches while women must keep their hair long and covered. Depending on the

25 conservativeness of a Mennonite community, women only wear a prayer cap at services and men are not required to have beards of any kind (Pollack 1981:55). Another example is language, in that the Amish almost exclusively use Pennsylvania Dutch or German other than when speaking to outsiders. For more lenient groups of Mennonites, English is normally the language used. This can be directly linked with interaction with the outside world in that most Mennonite groups do not forbid work and personal relationships with those outside the community. For those who may marry outside the Church, English becomes the dominant language. One final example would be stances on education. As stated above, for old Order Amish, higher education is forbidden. But as Hostetler points out, there have been many young Amish who want that higher education

(1964). To be able to go to school, the young people were forced to break away, or at the very least, start attending the less conservative Mennonite churches that did allow education.

These are only a couple examples that show the ways in which a different interpretation of the Ordnung can lead to changes in lifestyle between Amish and Mennonite groups. But it all seems to lead back to the amount of isolation from versus interaction with the outside world. It seems to be the general trend that the more interaction with the outside world there is, the likelihood of the community to become more lenient with their interpretation of the Ordnung also increases. Through business relations, marriages, and attending higher education institutions, it seems that certain groups moved away from traditional ways of life and became more willing to accept certain modern technologies and conveniences. But significantly, interaction with the outside world does not always mean a disintegration of a traditional Amish lifestyle. Hurst and McConnel suggest that it is the way in which the community reacts to the external factors, opportunities, and forces that will determine how much, or little, the community will change (2010). To circle back to the family in question, the Augspurgers seems to fit with

26 the communities that were more willing to interact with the outside world. As will be discussed later, their dress, occupation, language, and attitude towards education seem to point to the fact that they were willingly and actively interacting with the outside communities around them, both the more liberal Hessian congregation, but also their non-Amish or Mennonite neighbors.

Again, it is extremely important here to note that these shifts in outward identity and lifestyle do not equate a change in religious beliefs (Foster 1984; Hostetler 1964; Good and

Good 1995; Pollack 1981). It is Hostetler (1964) who asserts that “the central doctrines remain essentially the same, but the applications change” (196). The differences in the groups are in understanding of appropriate lifestyle and practice, not in the core doctrines or beliefs (Good and

Good 1995:7; Pollack 1981:53). The goal of this project is not to find an understanding of how the Augspurger family changed their religion in the most elementary form of what they believed.

The goal is to understand how their religious identities changed as they moved from a conservative to more liberal Amish Mennonite lifestyle. I hope to address how, through the historical and archaeological data, we can think about changes in religious identity. The following sections will think about how religion and religious identity can be studied through archaeological research.

Archaeological Theories of Religion

As discussed by a number of anthropologists and archaeologists (e.g. Edwards 2005;

Insoll 2004; Insoll 2007; Díaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005; Jones 2007; Meskell 2007), religion is a concept that is similar to other forms of identity in that one’s religious identity can be fluid and changing. What religion is can be different for each person, even those within the same religious group. Insoll describes religion as “indefinable, being concerned with thoughts, beliefs, actions, and material, and how these are weighted will vary” (Insoll 2004:7). Due to the fact that religion

27 is so difficult to describe and define, it has made understanding it in the material record a challenging task for archaeologists.

Both Edwards and Insoll point to the fact that within archaeology, there has been little headway made in describing what an archaeology of religion might consist of. There is no guide on how to research religion in archaeology or the best methods for a meaningful study on the matter. Durkheim described the world as being dichotomously separated between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘profane’. The sacred being that which is religious such as rituals, magic, and holy objects, while the profane are the aspects of life that could be considered secular or worldly

(Durkheim 1912 [1995]). If we are to understand religion as Durkheim describes it, religion is set apart from the rest of life, it is not as accessible as the ‘profane’ aspects of life, and thus would not be affected by those other parts. However, as other researchers (e.g. Díaz-Andreu and

Lucy 2005; Edwards 2005; Insoll 2004; Insoll 2007; Jones 2007; Meskell 2007) have pointed out, identity, including religious identity, is very much impacted, at least on an individual level, by outside factors. Other identity markers such as ethnicity, gender, and age can affect how one identifies with religion as well. There is not always such a simple separation between what is religious, and what is not (Insoll 2004:6). This is in part why it is so difficult to come up with a clear method of how to do an archaeology of religion. As Edwards points out “archaeology itself has no theory of religion, and when theoretical stances are taken, these look to other areas of the social science” (Edward 2005:182). Part of the goal of my project is to show that everyday materials may point to a change in religious identity, which would mean that, for this community, the sacred was not as separated from the profane in the way Durkheim describes. As we have seen, and will continue to discuss, many aspects of religious identity are linked to other markers of routine activity, especially for the Amish and Mennonite groups. This idea is why I

28 am investigating if the change in identity for the Augspurger family can be seen in their everyday materials.

We are still left with how changes in religious identity are materialized. How can we even begin to try to understand the beliefs of past people within in the material record? Such study is “very complex – as it is comprised of the residue associated almost wholly with people’s beliefs” (Insoll, 2004:1). This complexity leads to “perceived problems in recognizing or explaining ‘irrational’ religious behavior on the basis of material remains” (Edwards 2005:183).

Edwards points out that this is much easier to do for historical religions due to the historical record that helps us know what certain beliefs and practices were, whereas ancient religions are more difficult due to being based on material alone. But also, most of the archaeology of religion deals with material remains that are obviously religious such as sanctuaries or offerings

(Edwards 2005). So, what do we do when there are no clear markers of religion in the material record? Is it possible to see remnants of religious identity in the material record when those markers are not present? For this study, I am working with materials recovered from a family home, not a church or sanctuary. I do not have evidence of offerings or any other materials that are clearly religious. But with my hypothesis, I do not think that this means that religious identity is something that cannot be thought about with this material assemblage.

Andrew Gardner describes identity as the “activities that people undertake—eating, dressing, building, disposing of waste, writing, speaking and so on” (Gardner, 2010:17). These categories are “the mechanisms by which people are categorized by others, or themselves, as they interact” (Gardner, 2010: 17). This is useful for the current project because many of these factors are what are focused on here. This description, as well as the factors laid out above, will help guide my analysis of the data. The project aims to think about how the family at Chrisholm

farmstead would have been both categorized by the outside world, but also about how they

would have enacted their own identities through things such as how they dressed, spoke, or other

outward mechanisms that show identity. In the archaeological record, it could be difficult to see

these markers of identity, as not all of these elements are available to us in archaeological data.

But that does not mean that we cannot think about their identity in archaeology, we just must do

so with other materials, and other ways in which identity can be approached.

Discussion

The goal of this chapter was to outline some historical context and theoretical

groundwork for this project. It is necessary to understand where my work fits into the broader

body of research on the subjects of Amish and Mennonite communities as well as an

archaeology of religion and identity. This idea also helps guide the ways in which I understand and interpret my data, so that I can evaluate the best ways to attempt to analyze it, as well as being able to place it within that larger body of work.

The main takeaway from this chapter that will inform my data analysis is that the study of

religious identity, especially that of Amish and Mennonite communities both historically and

archaeologically, is difficult due to the complexities of identity. There are multiple factors that

can affect any form of identity, including religion, from outside forces to other identity markers.

How we can do a historical and archaeological study of religious identity for a group who in

itself has multiple different possible identities? The titles of Old Order Amish or Mennonite are

not good enough distinctions as there are many other groups along the spectrum from

“ultraconservative” to very liberal (Hurst and McConnel 2010; Pollack 1981). This makes

understanding Amish or Mennonite identities extremely difficult.

It seems that the changes in identity that we may see between these groups are not clear

cut. We must use the cultural changes between, and within, communities to investigate how their

religious identities have been experienced differently. There is a bit of a push and pull between

what is cultural and what is religious; it appears that for these groups, these spheres are very

much intertwined. Again, it is not my goal to assert that the Augpurger family changed their

beliefs. I will instead be thinking about how the historical and material remains of their lives can

show us how their identities within their religious group changed and shifted over time.

The following chapters will attempt to delve into historical and archaeological data to

apply the above themes and theories to the Augspurger family of Chrisholm Farmstead in Butler

County, Ohio. I have already addressed how the family may fit into some of the general themes

of other Amish and Mennonite communities in the Midwest, but the two data chapters will serve

as evidence for this. Returning to the main questions of the project, I will be evaluating how the two data sets can either work together to tell a similar story of the family, or if there are certain tensions between them that could open additional questions about the study of this group of people.

Chapter 3: Historical Data Analysis

Introduction

The historical data for the Augspurger family and the Amish Mennonite community of

Butler County are wide ranging in form and content. While there is little documentation that explicitly states the beliefs of the people in question, through the abundance of other documents, photos, and artifacts, one is able to get an idea of the religious tendencies of the Augspurger family. The story maintained by the Friends of Chrisholm and researchers such as Grubb (2001) and Page and Johns (1999) is that within one or two generations following Christian

Augspurger’s patriarchy, the family became part of the more lenient, perhaps worldly thinking, branches of the Amish Mennonite community in Butler County. These generations in question are those of Christian Augspurger’s son, Samuel Augspurger, as well as Samuel’s daughter

Otelia Augspurger Compton. I will look specifically at these descendants as they were the ones who lived at Chrisholm after Christian Augspurger passed and thus are the focus of the data that are available. The goal of this chapter is to investigate if the historical data available for the

Augspurgers living at Chrisholm farmstead can support the idea that the family shifted their religious identities within a short amount of time.

Before exploring the data, I would like to introduce where the data comes from, and how

I was able to gain access to the materials. All historical data used in this project were made available to me by the generosity of the Friends of Chrisholm. This organization is a small group of men and woman working to preserve the history of Chrisholm Farmstead. Their mission statement reads “Friends of Chrisholm in cooperation with MetroParks of Butler County preserve, restore and maintain the Chrisholm historic farmstead. We are focusing on our agricultural heritage as well as the significance of the Amish Mennonite Settlement in this area”

(“About Friends of Chrisholm”, 2019). With these goals in mind, the organization has amassed a collection of documents and artifacts through research and donations. Anne and Carl Jantzen and

Doris Page have conducted large amounts of research about the Augspurger family and the

Amish Mennonite community in Butler County. Through these investigations into the history of the family, they have acquired documents, artifacts, and statements from descendants of the family. A number of artifacts and documents have also been donated by other members of

Friends of Chrisholm, as well as outsiders who are interested in the history. This has led to a diverse collection that tells the story of who the Augspurgers were, and the trajectories members of the family took. Their mission statement is also why the organization was so willing to help with this project, as its questions and goals will further the understanding of the Augspurger family and the Amish Mennonite community in Butler County.

Over the past couple of years, Friends of Chrisholm have worked to fully catalogue their documents and artifacts into a complete collections list (see appendix A). This collection list indexes every document, artifact, photo, or other item that is part of Friends of Chrisholm’s assemblage. It includes a short description of the piece, its condition, where it is located, and who donated it. Not all items listed are located at the Chrisholm site, but a majority of them are.

Some are housed with the Butler County Historical Society, or in personal collections of members.

Assemblage Description

The data at Chrisholm include a large range of materials, including farm inventories, letters, photos, books, researcher notes, and more. This section will analyze key pieces that came from the Friends of Chrisholm’s collection that can be connected to how the family and community were living in terms of their religious identities. There were some main factors that

were used when deciding which pieces would be used for this discussion. I wanted to try to use

only primary sources, which meant that the large amount of research notes would not be used.

There was also the issue of a language barrier as there were many documents that were in

German. As I have no background in the language, only pieces written in English could be used.

The language barrier excluded many personal letters and some family books. For further

investigations, it would be interesting to include these sources if they were to be translated, but

this was not feasible for the present project. The collection includes many other pieces which let

us see glimpses into the lives of the Augspurger family, such as song books, correspondence

between Samael Augspurger and a neighbor about a disagreement over the building of a fence,

an inventory of Christian Augspurger’s estate, farm records, obituaries, wedding invitations, and

much more. For the purpose of this project, the pieces that were chosen to be analyzed are those

that can be most closely understood as commenting on something about the identities of the

family and community. While this did limit the sample size, it allowed me to focus on these key

pieces that provided information about a shift in identity over time for this family. Additionally, I

wanted to include a range of data types, including personal accounts, official histories,

declarations of faith or belief, evidence of social changes in the form of language and clothing,

and other direct ways of showing change in belief or identity. The items I chose, which will be

discussed in greater detail below, include: History of the Mennonites of Butler County, Ohio by

Rev. W.H. Grubb, Proceedings of the Amish Ministers’ Meetings 1862-1878, an 1881 English language bible, family photographs, Otelia Augspurger Compton’s diploma, and a copy of the

Mennonite Confession of Faith.

The History of the Mennonites of Butler County, Ohio by Rev. Grubb was originally published in 1916, and re-edited and published again in 2001. Although Grubb did not grow up

within the Amish Mennonite community in Butler County, when he became a minister for the

congregation, he set out to write a history of it. He states in his introduction that it can be

difficult to write about Mennonite communities, especially those of the past when there is no

longer anyone alive who were part of them. One of the main issues he encountered was that

family records at that time were not always well kept. Using family bibles, diaries, and memories

of those who were there, Grubb was able to piece together the history of the group. This

publication is important because, even though it is not contemporaneous with the time period in question, it offers a perhaps more accurate account of the community than later histories written

150 years or more after the founding of the congregation. This book offers a more official history of the family and congregation using materials and accounts that are no longer available.

Another important document is Proceedings of the Amish Ministers’ Meetings 1862-1878 as it offers clear statements of faith of the ministers, and by extension, their congregations. The ministers that attended these meetings came from Amish communities throughout the country, including the Butler County congregations. The purpose of these meetings was an attempt on the part of the ministers to unify the congregations in the country. They were to discuss issues that some congregations were having and try to come to agreements on how the ministers of those congregations should proceed. These meeting minutes are some of the only clear expressions of faith available for the Augspurger family and their church community. There are direct quotes from the ministers of their church in these minutes, which provides primary evidence for their stances on certain church matters. The proceedings were translated into English from the original

German starting in 1984 by Paton Yoder. Yoder and Steven Estes are both members of modern

Amish communities and wished to “give these nineteenth century believers a voice for telling their story in their own words” (Yoder and Estes, 1999: v). Through the translation, modern

researchers and members of Amish and Mennonite communities are able to better understand the

beliefs of earlier ministers.

There are a number of photographs taken of the family in albums that were made by

family members, namely Otelia Augspurger Compton, Samuel Augspurger’s daughter. These

photographs (figures 3.1-3.3 and 3.6-3.7) offer a look into what the family and community

actually looked like and how they expressed themselves through their appearances. Photographs,

or lack thereof, can be telling of religious identity for an intentional community such as the

Amish or Mennonites whose way of dress say something about their religious tendencies.

Figure 3.1: Samuel Augspurger, son of Christian Augspurger. Note the lack of beard and use of buttons, as well as the use of ‘father’ in English for the caption.

The Mennonite Confession of faith (figure 3.4) is a sort of manual compiled in 1890 in

English by John S. Coffman and John F. Funk. Both Coffman and Funk were Mennonite ministers in the mid-late 19th century and were considered to be progressive in their thoughts and

teachings. They both pushed education, missionary work, and publications to spread progressive

ideas to Mennonite groups. This was in part to a fear that the church was losing young members

to more modern churches, and a need to also move with the times (Burkholder and Friesen 2018:

148-150; Scott 1996:2-3). There were many groups that disliked Coffman and Funk because of

their leading the church into a more liberal direction. These groups pushed against these

ministers and formed what was considered the Old Order Mennonite Church which was a more

conservative branch (Scott 1996:3-4). The Confession of Faith dates to 1632 and includes

guidelines for many different aspects of Mennonite life, such as the ordination of ministers and

baptism. The Confession of Faith is an official declaration of the faith and way of life for those

who followed it. This publication offers a look into the core principles of the Mennonite faith, as

well as an interesting conversation on language, as it was published completely in English. The

publishers wanted to provide a clear statement of Mennonite beliefs and practices in a form that

was more easily accessible to Mennonite Church members because of it being in English, which

many were using over German by this point (Coffman and Funk, 1890). This Confession of Faith

is not the only of its kind. Some Mennonite groups have published others, but this one is seen as

significant due to the fact that it is among the possessions of the Augspurger family.

The importance of language use can also be thought about with one of the bibles that is among the family’s collection. The bible is an English language bible dated 1881 (figure 3.5).

This would have placed it directly within the time period in question, that of Samuel and Otelia

Augspurger’s generations. The fact that it is an English rather than German bible points to a shift in identity, especially when thinking about isolation versus interaction with the outside world. If the Augpurger family was less isolated, they may have made a change to using English over

German. This will be unpacked further in the analysis, but the use of English in worship, such as

reading and studying their bible, would be a significant change.

A final piece that will be analyzed is the college diploma of Otelia Augspurger Compton.

It may not seem clear how a simple college diploma would be important when thinking about

religious identity changes, but if we remember the stances of higher education for most

conservative Amish and Mennonite groups, it becomes more apparent. Again, as some

researchers (e.g. Kraybill 2010; Meyers 1993) have pointed out, higher education is many times

forbidden by the Amish and some Mennonites. The diploma of Otelia Augspurger Compton has

been framed and displayed on the main level of Chrisholm Farmstead by the Friends of

Chrisholm. It is in plain sight for visitors to see as a reminder of the shifts the Augspurger family

in the generations following Otelia’s grandfather, Christian Augspurger. The diploma and each

of these other objects, documents, books, and materials will be further discussed below to better

conceptualize how they offer evidence that the Augspurger family did in fact shift religious

identities.

Analysis

The analysis section of this chapter aims to examine each of these sources further in order to show how they can be used to understand the shifting religious identities of the Augspurger family. Each piece will be examined closely in order to think about the main questions of this project. Is it possible to show through these historical data that the Augspurger family shifted

their religious and social identities over a short period of time? In what ways can we see this

change in identity through the materials that were left by the family? This section aims to

provide evidence for the idea that the Augspurger family shifted religious identities within a

short period of time. In order to do this, these materials will need to show how they may have

38 changed those identity markers. Four main themes will be considered to attempt to answer these questions and achieve these goals: education, language, outward appearances, and declarations of faith. These themes were chosen because they are indicators of change for many researchers (e.g.

Grubb 2001; Hostetler 1964; Hurst and McConnel 2010; Nolt 2008; Nolt 2015; Nolt and Meyer

2007; Page and Johns 1999). If the materials are able to show changes in the practices of the family around these themes, they would support the idea of identity change.

Education

For most conservative Amish groups, both historically and today, education past the 8th grade is not allowed for young adults as it is seen as unnecessary for typical vocations of farming or carpentry (Kraybill 2010:104). These regulations would have been in place for the Amish during the mid-late 19th century and remain a common practice for many modern Amish communities. Part of the reason many conservative groups have traditionally barred further education is because they believe that “public schools emphasize […] competition, individualism, nationalism, scientific models of thought, and the teenage subculture [and] all of these clash with the Amish way of life” (Meyers, 1993:102). These conservative groups also believe that higher education “will lead youth away from the church and erode the church’s identity and social boundaries” (Kraybill, 2010:104). These fears and convictions led, and continue to lead, traditional Amish to only allow their children to attend private schools where they will be taught by Amish, be surrounded by other Amish children, and be under the watch of parents and the community (Kraybill 2010; Meyers 1993). “Assimilated” groups of Mennonites were, and are still, more willing to allow their children to attend higher education institutions. In the 1800s, many of these institutions were church affiliated, but would later become part of universities and colleges (Kraybill, 2010).

This seemed to be the case for the groups of Butler County as well. In his History of the

Mennonites of Butler County, Ohio, W. H. Grubb explains how a group of Hessian Mennonites migrated to Butler County in 1832. Grubb (2001) states that the Hessian congregation was much more encouraging of education (4). Samuel and Eliza Augspurger, being members of the progressive congregation (Grubb 2001; Nolt 2015), allowed, and perhaps even encouraged, their daughter Otelia Augspurger Compton to attend the Western Female Seminary, which is now part of Miami University in Oxford, OH. She graduated and received her degree from the Seminary in 1886 (Nolt 2015: 210).

Figure 3.2: Eliza (Elise) Holly-Augpurger, wife of Samuel Augspurger and mother of Otelia Augspurger Compton. Note the slight changes from traditional forms, such as no full bonnet and some ornamentation on the dress. Also, the English word ‘mother’ used for the caption.

The fact that Samuel and Eliza Augspurger allowed their daughter to pursue higher education aligns them with the more “assimilated” groups that did not see it as unnecessary or going against their faith. Otelia Augspurger Compton continued the movement into higher education as she and her husband Elias Compton also encouraged their children to pursue degrees. Nolt (2015) states that their children would go on to be major figures in higher educational institutions.

Figure 3.3: Brothers Elias and Will Compton. Elias was the husband of Otelia Augspurger Compton. Note the markers of short hair, no beards, and secular clothing, including buttons

Their daughter, Mary Elias, became a missionary teacher in India. Their son, Karl Compton, was a president of MIT while his brother Wilson Compton was a president of Washington State

University. Their last son, Arthur, won the 1927 Nobel Prize in Physics, and was the chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis (261). Otelia Augspurger Compton’s diploma from the

Western Seminary is now housed at Chrisholm farmstead. Due to the fact that higher education

is so frowned upon by conservative and traditional groups, both during the time of the family as

well as now, the very fact that the diploma exists shows a shift in the family’s stance within the faith. The diploma not only points to the shifting ideals of Samuel and Eliza, but also the continued trajectories of Otelia Augspurger Compton and her offspring. At first glance, the diploma would not be able to tell us much about Otelia, but in reality, it is a revealing and important artifact in the story of changing identities for the Augspurger family at Chrisholm.

Language

Most Amish and Mennonite groups come from German speaking regions of Europe and

thus used the German language when immigrating to North America. Most of these groups

continued to use German or Pennsylvania Dutch in North America as a way to continue to

separate themselves from the secular world around them as “the use of non-English dialects is a powerful marker of religious and cultural identity” (Kraybill, 2010). By the mid-1800s, less conservative groups began to use English more rather than their native dialects. The use of

English over German is “a key marker of assimilation into mainstream society” (Kraybill, 2010).

With this in mind, seeing a transition to English for the groups in Butler County suggests that those groups were becoming less conservative in their identities and perhaps more connected to the secular world.

The Confession of Faith which is part of the collection at Chrisholm was published in

1890, putting it at a period where many Mennonite groups, including those in Butler County, had accepted the use of English over German. Again, this is not the only Confession of Faith that was available to Mennonites or similar groups, but it is significant for this study because it is the one that was possessed by the Augspurger family. It is also important because, as discussed above,

42 the editors Coffman and Funk, were not liked by many traditional groups because they were seen as so progressive (Scott 1996:3-4) This would lead us to believe that this was the version that the

Augspurger family was using when expressing their stances, and that they were open to the teachings of these forward-thinking editors.

Figure 3.4: Confession of Faith and Minister’s Manuel complied by John S. Coffman and John F. Funk, 1890. As seen here, the manual touches on many of the core beliefs for Mennonites, using English over German to do so.

Coffman and Funk (1890) stated that there was a need to have a “book, in the English language, containing, […] our confession of faith” (1). This shows that in the Mennonite church, there was a significant shift to English by this time. This suggests a sort of assimilation to the outside world as they were moving away from something that set them apart from that world. As discussed in Chapter 2, isolation is a major part of the Amish strategy for keeping themselves separated from the outside world. It was through less isolation that many groups started using

English more, as well as assimilating on other ways. The fact that the Augspurger family owned a copy of this book suggests that they too were using English over German. In turn, the use of

English can suggest the possibility that they were also interacting more with members of communities outside of the Amish and Mennonites.

Within the Friends of Chrisholm assemblage is a bible dated 1881 (figure 3.5). What is relevant about this particular bible is that it is in English.

Figure 3.5: 1881 English language bible from the collections at Chrisholm Farmstead

In the assemblage at Chrisholm, there are a great number of documents that are written in

German, including bibles, but later pieces, those of Samuel Augspurger and his children, use

English almost exclusively. Even in personal documents, such as family photo albums, farming logs, and letters, English is used. For example, in Otelia Augspurger Compton’s family photo

44 albums, her handwritten captions on the photos are in English. She labels the photos with

“father”, “brother”, “cousin”, and other English labels rather than their German counterparts (see figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.7). This suggests that the family could have been influenced by the people around them, as those living outside the Amish Mennonite community would have been speaking English. As Samuel Augspurger and his descendants become more a part of the industries in Woodsdale and Trenton, communities that were not part of the Amish Mennonite groups, it would have been necessary to engage in English rather than their native tongue. This

English bible and Confession of Faith show that even in worship, family members at Chrisholm were choosing English over the traditional German.

This interplay between the use of English or German opens further questions about private versus social identities. As seen in Chapter 2, there are some groups that use English when speaking to those outside of their communities, but at home and in worship, they are still choosing German or Pennsylvania Dutch. The use of English with outsiders did not affect their personal identification and use of language. Here though, we are seeing a change for the

Augspurger family over time to using English even in their personal lives. The fact that Otelia

Augspurger Compton used English terms to label the photos in her albums speaks to the fact that those who would be viewing the photos, which were likely other family or community members, would have also been using English regularly. It points to Otelia choosing English as her main mode of communication, whereas most all of the private letters or materials that were written by her grandfather, Christian Augspurger, were in German. This shift in language use suggests that by the time of Otelia Augspurger Compton, the family at Chrisholm had shifted to using English even within the household, which also suggests they were less isolated from the greater community and perhaps less distinguishable from them.

Outward Appearances

By outward appearance, I refer to the ways in which the family presented themselves, mainly in regard to dress and hair; these visual expressions can provide evidence which shows the extent to which they were assimilating to the outside world versus staying within traditional modes of appearance. For this section, I rely on the photos we have of the family. I also note the lack of photos for some key family members. How one dresses is a strong indicator or identity: how one fits in, or clashes, with their community. For traditional minded Amish and Mennonite groups, “clothing is simply another expression of their deepest convictions […] to practice humility, simplicity, non-conformity, and modesty” (Good and Good 1995:26). With those ideas in mind, most conservative Amish and Mennonite groups wore, and continue to wear, simple clothing free of things such as buttons, jewelry, silk ribbon, or anything deemed to be unnecessary ornamentation. Most women were required to wear some kind of head covering, though the style differed greatly between communities, and their hair was uncut and worn in a simple bun. For most traditional groups, men were required to wear untrimmed beards without mustaches (Good and Good, 1995; Kraybill, 2010; Page and Johns 1999; Pollack 1981). The distinction between conservative Amish and Mennonites and their liberal counterparts, or secular communities, may be easier to see in modern times. Contemporary non-Amish or Mennonite clothing is drastically different than the clothing traditional groups still wear, making it easier to perceive an Amish or Mennonite identity on community members. In the time period in question, the mid-late nineteenth century, the changes may have been a bit more subtle. I look at changes in stances on ornamentation, such as jewelry, buttons, or fabric choice, as well grooming, particularly for men. If the Augspurger family was shifting to a less conservative and traditional identity, it could be seen through their outward appearance, or how they dressed and wore their

46 hair. I am using these photographs to show that the Augspurgers were making decisions to move away from the traditional modes of dress and grooming of the Amish. By doing so, outsiders may not have identified them as being Amish or Mennonite as easily by their outward appearances.

Christian and his wife Katherine are believed that have been strict in their conservative

Amish beliefs due to their being part of founding, and remaining members, of the more conservative church in Butler County, Ohio (Grubb 2001; Page and Johns 1999). This would have meant they would have most likely abided by the clothing and hair guidelines laid out above. It is not possible to assert this for certain, as there are no available, and perhaps no existing, images of Christian or Katherine Augspurger. This could be in part due to the fact that they died in 1848 and 1846, respectively, when photographic portraits were still a relatively new technology (Gernsheim et al. 2019). Or, this could have been that that they chose not to have a likeness of themselves produced due to the Amish belief that posing for pictures is a sign of pride or would be considered a “graven image” which goes against the second commandment

(Kraybill, 2010, Yoder and Estes 1999: 37). The lack of imagery of Christian and Katherine

Augspurger could possibly be an indicator of their more conservative religious beliefs, but a conclusive interpretation is not possible.

Christian and Katherine Augspurger’s granddaughter, Otelia Augspurger Compton, kept family photo albums that include many portraits of herself and her family members. This is significant for two main reasons. First, as discussed above, many traditional or conservative groups may have been less likely to have photographs of themselves at all. Thus, the fact that

Otelia Augpurger Compton kept family albums can suggest a change in beliefs about photographs or “graven images.” Second, we are able see changes over time for the family

through the photographs. Samuel and Elisa Augpurger (see again figures 3.1 and 3.2) do show some clear indicators of change, but they are not as blatant. They both still wear simple clothing but show subtle changes such as some ornamentation on Elisa’s dress. Also, Samuel does not abide by the Amish beard regulations, as in both photos of him, he does not wear a beard at all.

The following generation’s photos show even more significant differences from the traditionally mandated forms of dress. Figure 3.3 shows Otelia Augspurger’s husband Elias

Compton and his brother Will Compton, in clothing with buttons, no beards, and short hair, all of which go against traditional clothing regulations. In figure 3.6, we see Otelia Augpurger and her cousin Elisa wearing dresses with ornamentation such as buttons, as well as hairstyles that do not abide by the rule of simple buns. Otelia is also seen wearing jewelry in figure 3.7.

Figure 3.6: Cousins Elisa and Otelia Augspurger in 1877. This photo shows shifts in hairstyle and ornamentation on the young women’s dresses.

Figure 3.7: Otelia Augspurger c.1880. This photo again shows the young woman wearing a hairstyle other than a traditional simple bun as well as jewelry.

When looking at these photos, one may not immediately realize that they are looking at the images of an Amish or Mennonite family. The members of the family wore clothing that would have been considered fashionable for the time and included some of the ornamentation that traditional groups did not have, such as buttons, broaches, jewelry, and more ornate materials. There was a lack of beards on men and the women did not wear head coverings and had their hair in styles other than a simple bun. This all suggests that by the time of these photos, most of which date to the late 19th and early 20th century, the family had moved away from many of the traditional rules of outward appearance. This interpretation aligns with Pollack’s assertion that many times liberal Mennonite groups “are visibly indistinguishable from other American men and women” (1981:55).

Clothing and hair for the Amish and Mennonites are normally clear indicators of their

faith and mark them as non-conforming with the secular world. The photographs kept by Otelia

Augspurger Compton show how the Augspurger family at Chrisholm were in many ways

adjusting their outward appearances to conform more with that secular world.

Declarations of Faith

The most direct way to understand a shift in ideas or belief is to look at declarations of

faith. For the purpose of this project, a declaration of faith will be understood as any assertion or

action that clearly indicates religious belief. A declaration of faith can come in many forms, from

statements that indicate the beliefs of group members to more official documents that address

practice, methodology, and reasoning behind the beliefs. For this project, the two examples of a

declarations of faith that we have are the Mennonite Confession of Faith and quotations from the

Butler County, Ohio ministers from the Proceedings of the Amish Ministers’ Meetings 1862-

1878. Both sources offer us a look into the beliefs of the Amish Mennonite Community in Butler

County, Ohio in the late 19th century.

It is important to look at the Mennonite Confession of Faith in order to understand some of the key principles that the Augspurger family and the Amish Mennonite community of Butler

County would have been following. The edition of the Confession of Faith that was published in

1890 was intended to give a clear expression of the beliefs of the Mennonite people and to try to

unite churches in different locations (Coffman and Funk, 1890). In the same way the Catholic

Catechism works, this publication allows all members of any Mennonite church throughout the

country to read and understand what the core beliefs of the faith are, and the guidelines they

should be following to be upstanding members of the Church. Coffman and Funk (1890) state

that the translation was used so that their “people may become better acquainted with both the

50 forms of service, and the doctrines of our faith, which are matters of great importance in establishing and confirming the people in the teachings of the Bible and the Church” (4). The

English translation of Confession of Faith was meant to be a declaration of faith that the people who read it would be able to understand and follow. The fact that the members of the

Augspurger family would have acquired and used this document speaks to their particular stances within their faith.

For the purpose of this project, the Confession of Faith is important as it allows one to have a better understanding of the beliefs that the Mennonite and Amish churches were built upon. After each article of the Confession, there is a list of bible passages that the authors consulted in order to come to the beliefs that they did. For example, the first article which is

“Concerning God and the Creation of All Things,” four bible passages are cited, from both the

Old and New Testaments including Genesis 17:1, Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 46:9, and 1 John 5:7

(Coffman and Funk, 1890:5). Each of these particular verses speak on there being one God that the faithful should follow and have faith in. This tells readers that everything that is being expressed in these articles are drawn from specific scriptural verses.

Perhaps one of the most telling pieces of evidence of shifting ideas comes from the minutes of the Amish Ministers’ meetings that took place from 1862-1878 (Yoder and Estes

1999: iv). In 1862, at the first meeting, the question of having music and instrumentation in the home and in services was brought up, specifically for the congregation of Butler County, OH

(Yoder and Estes 1999:16-18). During the fourth day of the meeting on June 12, 1862, the issue of wanting to ordain a bishop for the Butler County congregation was brought forward. But there was resistance against this as it was believed that the congregation was being lenient on dress as well as allowing music to be used in the home and services. When questioned, Christian Holly

said that he was “willing to do away with the piano if he is given clear proof that it is wrong to have something like that” (Yoder and Estes, 1999:17). He also stated that “he did not believe that morally their congregation was inferior to any other congregation” (Yoder and Estes, 1999:17).

By these declarations of faith, Christian Holly was stating that he was willing to allow some musical instrumentation if it was not shown to be against biblical scripture. This stance went against the Ordnung for traditional and conservative groups. Another Butler County minister,

Joseph Augspurger advised that “ministers in their congregation did not approve of luxurious dressing, musical ‘Instreumenten’, and worldly practices’” (Yoder and Estes 1999:18). These two declarations show that there were clear differences in how the ministers of Butler County were interpreting the Ordnung, and thus how conservative or liberal their stances on things such as music and dress were.

Here, it is important to remember that most of the Hollys were members of the Hessian congregation (Grubb 2001:3), which was more willing to allow such worldly things to be a part of their lives. Yoder and Estes (1999) state that there were three different ministers by the name of Joseph Augspurger that attended the meetings, but the one quoted above would be one of the minsters of the conservative Augspurger congregation (36). At this point in history, the two congregations of Butler County had been split for about 30 years, and would not come together again for another 30, but it is clear that there were some core differences with their beliefs. Even among the other ministers, the Hessian congregation was seen as going against the stricter traditions of the Amish churches.

This trend towards more liberal ideas was not something that was isolated to the Hessian congregation in Butler County, Ohio. One of the ministers who was questioning the use of

instruments in Butler County was Jonathon Yoder of Illinois. According to the authors, Yoder

52 had difficulties with the Hessian Amish that were part of his church in 1853 and 1854 as they

“would allow buttons on clothes and the use of musical instruments” (Yoder and Estes, 1999).

This shows that the Hessian Amish were causing waves throughout the country with their less conservative ways. It also suggests that the division between those who stuck with tradition and those willing to move past it was something that was being dealt with in many different Amish

Mennonite communities. This is all telling of the stances of Samuel Augspurger and his descendants, as they were part of the Hessian congregation. We can assume that the declarations of faith that were being made by their ministers at these meetings, were beliefs that were also held by Samuel Augspurger and his family due to the fact that they were actively taking part in the congregation those ministers were overseeing.

Discussion

In order to show that the Augspurger family living at Chrisholm farmstead shifted their religious identity within a matter of only one to two generations, it is necessary to explore the historical documents that are available for the family. As Grubb suggests, this is not always easy, as clear records about such things were not well kept. By bringing together a collection of other documents and items that may not be as straightforward, this picture of the Augspurger family and Amish Mennonite community in Butler Co, can become clearer.

As shown above, there are only a handful of clear declarations of faith for the community in Butler County, the Mennonite Confession of faith, and statements made by the ministers of the community at the Amish Ministers’ Meetings. But in reality, many of the other pieces used are in a way a declaration of faith, or at least a result of one. Through their views on education, language, and outward appearances, the Augspurgers are, in a way, making a declaration of their faith. They were communicating through clothing, acceptance of higher education, and the use of

English, that they are more open and connected to the outside world than more conservative

Amish Mennonite community members. The family was expressing that they were, in many

ways, assimilating to the secular world, even if their affiliation did not change. They were

making statements that showed that they did not have to be non-conforming and removed from

the outside world to be faithful. The Mennonite Confession of Faith shows that their basic beliefs

were still strongly rooted in Christian scripture, that had not changed. What had shifted was how

they expressed and identified with those beliefs.

The historical data examined in this chapter show us how the Augspurgers and the

members of their community were able to shift their identity to something more open to their

modern world, while also retaining their religious beliefs. The following chapter explores the

archaeological data available from excavations at Chrisholm farmstead with the aim to

understand how that data can be analyzed in conjunction with the data laid out here to understand this shift in identity.

Chapter 4: Archaeological Data Analysis

Assemblage Description

The archaeological data and artifacts that are being used for this project come from the collections of the Cincinnati Museum Center. In 2002 members of an archaeological team led by

Robert Genheimer at the Museum Center conducted a preliminary survey at Chrisholm

Farmstead. One of the main goals of that survey was to identify the location of the original structures of the farmstead (Genheimer 2003: 123). These included the original home built on the property, the summer kitchen, and the outhouse. It was the belief of researchers and the Friends of Chrisholm that the 1874 house, which is still standing, was at least partially built on top of the original structure’s foundation. It was the goal of the archaeologists to find that original foundation to either corroborate or disprove that theory. Although the Museum Center archaeologists were primarily working to locate these structures, the artifacts they found will be used as one of the main data sources for this project and to further research the history of the people who lived at Chrisholm. There are some issues that have arisen from using this data set for the particular questions of this project, which will be addressed throughout this chapter.

The archaeological survey that took place at the Chrisholm site yielded large amounts of varying materials, including glass, metal, bone, prehistoric remains, rubber, and ceramics. These artifacts were recovered from 22 test units dug at the site. These test units ranged in size from

50cm by 50cm to 2m by 2m. The units were dug in levels according to soil change meaning that each level varied in depth depending on the soil composition within each unit (see figure 4.4).

The map of the site (figure 4.1) shows that 13 units are clustered on the north rear side of the existing house. This area was the location of the summer kitchen and outhouses that are no longer present at the site. In this area, 11 of the units are focused around the summer kitchens,

55 and 2 for the outhouses. Test unit 21, a 2m by 2m, unit connected to two groups. There were 2 test units dug on the west wall of the house, while the remaining 7 units were located on the east side of the house. These 9 test units were dug in an attempt to locate the foundation of the first home built on the site by Christian Augspurger. The 2 units on the west wall are near the still existing cellar, which was believed to be part of the original home at Chrisholm. Those on the east side were meant to find the remainder of that original cellar and foundation. The locations of the test units were chosen in order to identify these previous structures, as again, this was the major goal of excavation at Chrisholm. This thesis project allowed the materials found in these units from the preliminary survey to be analyzed in a new way to address questions that were not part of these original goals.

Figure 4.1: Site map of preliminary archaeological surveys conducted at the Chrisholm Farmstead site showing locations of test units. Source: Source: 2007. A Report of Preliminary Archaeological Testing at the Chrisholm Farmstead in Butler County, Ohio. Unpublished manuscript. The Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal, Cincinnati, Ohio.

I was allowed full access to the materials and field notes from the preliminary survey at

Chrisholm. To start, I cataloged all of the materials that were recovered from the excavation. As seen in appendix B, this consisted of count data for each material type, specifically different ceramic ware types. This process also allowed me to work with those ceramic wares types and

56 see the similarities and differences, even among sherds of the same ware type. It was during this process that I began to question if these sherds would be able to express a shift in identity. The field notes and unit maps informed the study with unit dimensions which were used to calculate volume and density values, which will be discussed in more detail later.

As stated above, the purpose of this project, the ceramic materials recovered will be focused on. This is due to the fact that these ceramic sherds can be used to identify temporal and use changes better than any of the other materials. For example, there are not enough intact pieces of glass to say much about temporal change. The three main ceramic ware types recovered from Chrisholm were redware, whiteware, and yellowware. There were also some examples of stoneware and earthenware found, but in much smaller quantities. If a significant temporal or stratigraphic change in ware type can be detected, it could support that theory that the family adjusted their identity over time. As we have seen, Amish and Mennonite identity can be very much connected with culture or other aspects of identity that are not religious, so could be assumed that routine practices may be visible in these everyday objects as well. It may be possible to consider changes in religious identity through those everyday materials recovered at the site. The different ware types would have been used by most everyone during this time period, but I am particular interested in what extent the Augspurger family was moving away from the basic forms to more ornate or less simple materials.

Description of Ware Types

It is necessary to understand something about each of these ware types, and when they were most popular in America, in order to think about their importance to this project’s questions. One of these main questions is how well the material remains recovered from

Chrisholm align with the story that the historical data give us of shifting identities. The four main

57 ware types that are seen in the recovered materials are redware, yellowware, whiteware, and stoneware. There are variances in each of these categories as well in terms of slips and decorations. The reason that these ceramics could show a shift over time is that there are clear stylistic changes overtime that can be seen in small sherds of ceramics that are not visible in other materials. Due to the fact that the assemblage from Chrisholm is mainly small sherds, it makes most sense to focus on ceramics for these particular questions. This section aims to lay out the differences between each ware type, and the variances within those ware types, in terms of temporal change.

A major temporal difference between the ware types is in the level of refinement in the materials being used. Stoneware and redware use unrefined materials, have more porous bodies, and normally have some kind of lead or salt slip (Rotman 2009: 210). Whiteware and porcelain use materials that are much more refined, and most were decorated with paint through hand painting, transfer prints, or other decoration techniques. Yellowware and pearlware fall somewhere in the middle of these. Rotman describes yellowware as being “finer than course earthenware but coarser than whiteware” (2009:212). Pearlware was also an improvement on earlier wares but was not quite as refined as later whitewares. Stoneware, redware, and yellowwares are described as being mostly for utilitarian uses, such as jugs, chamber pots, and pitchers (Rotman 2009: 210-212). Whiteware or porcelain were used more for table and tea settings (Florida Museum 2019). While these ware types may have been used somewhat contemporaneously, there is a rough timeline that can be made when thinking about these wares

(see figure 4.2). Redware started being used around 1730 and continued to be produced in this form until about 1840. Stoneware with salt slips appear around 1790 and became the “daily use pottery in America” (Rotman 2009: 210, Stelle 2001). While pearlware and yellowware were

being produced in England in earlier years, they did not become more present in America until

the early-mid 19th century. Pearlware became popular with the lower classes after 1810 when a

heavier glaze was created. Yellowware is easily mass produced and many factories in the states

were started in the 1840s. Porcelain, with its long history, did not become very popular in

America until about 1826, and this was mainly among the higher classes. Finally, whiteware can

be traced to the 1840s, but became more present in the 1870s with changes to decoration types

(Florida Museum 2019).

c. 1810: 1870s: c.1730: Pearlware c1840: Redware Whitewares Redware becomes falls in becomes more production and popular with production and popular with use lower classes use new designs

c.1790: c.1826 1840s: Yellow Stoneware Porcelain and Whitewares with slips becomes begin to popular in become popular the Unites states

Figure 4.2: General timeline of ware type uses in North America

Question and Goals

With the knowledge of the different ware types that are present at Chrisholm, and an idea about how they were used, it is perhaps possible to use them to think about how the Augspurger family shifted their religious and social identities while at the site. The questions and goals for the project are based around the consumer and discard behaviors of the Augspurger family.

Charles LeeDecker (1994) describes consumer behavior as “the patterns of individual, household, or group expenditures and, specifically, the acquisition, use, and discard of material

59 items” (347). This idea of consumer behavior is crucial for the current project’s questions because it focuses on the patterns in which the Augspurger family would have been acquiring more ornate pieces. Perhaps more significant for the study though, is the patterns of discarding those materials. Monica Smith (2010) discusses the importance of discarding patterns in that “its timing, frequency, and location – is a matter of individual autonomy within a cultural context that is itself actively maintained or modified in each act of throwing away” (139-140). The act of discarding earlier more simple ceramics could be an indication of a cultural or identity change for the Augspurger family, but there are many other reasons for discarding materials, such as breakage, that could also affect the assemblage.

With these ideas in mind, I have hypothesized that there will be a difference between the stratigraphic distribution of ceramic ware types that could be indicative of change in identity over time. We would like to see evidence of the family using different materials as their identities changed. I have hypothesized that as the Augspurger family identified as more conservative, they may have been using more simplistic ware types, such as stoneware and redware. As they moved to a more secular lifestyle, they might have acquired and used the decorative pieces, and perhaps discarded of some of their earlier pieces. If this hypothesis is to be supported, stoneware and redware artifacts will be found predominantly at deeper depths, while yellowware and whiteware should be found closer to the surface. If the artifacts do not show these stratigraphic patterns, it could be concluded that the materials cannot speak to identity change, or that there are other factors that affected the assemblage in a way that makes these questions hard to answer. The following sections discuss the steps taken to test this statistically.

Preliminary Steps and Tests

For this project, I used statistical tests to show how the ware types were distributed

between levels. It was necessary to show if there were any significant differences between levels

and the amounts of each ware type that were found in those levels. The results will point to if

there is any difference in the types of ceramics that were being used at the site throughout time.

In order to do this, the assemblage data needed to be transformed into a workable dataset that

could be run through these tests and give meaningful results.

From the beginning of analyzing this assemblage, there were some major issues that

needed to be accounted for in order to do meaningful statistical tests. Due to the purpose of the

excavation being focused more on finding the location of structures than artifact collection,

analysis of those artifacts becomes a bit harder. For some units there is no level data, rather the

artifacts are labeled ‘entire unit’, which makes it impossible to do any analysis of stratigraphic

differences for those units. Also, there was only nominal count data for the assemblage. This told

me how many pieces of a type of material was found in each level or unit, but not much beyond this. The raw nominal count data is difficult to use in order to think about how the materials were distributed across the site (see appendix B).

In order to understand better the artifacts, a simple bar graph was created to show how the ceramic ware types were distributed in terms of levels (figure 4.3). As stated above, during excavation, levels were denoted by soil change. Level A was the highest level, with levels B and

C following respectively at each soil change. Figure 4.4, a profile view of the north wall profile

of test unit 11, shows an example of the levels. In this graph, each bar includes all materials

found in each level from the entire site. Thus, the ‘Level A’ section includes all ceramic

materials found in any level A at the site, broken down by ware type. The same is true for ‘Level

B’, ‘Level C’ and so on. With this graph, it seems that there is some kind of anomaly occurring throughout the A levels, as they are showing a drastically different artifact distribution than other levels. The categories of level B, feature, and entire unit are for the most part similar, with whiteware being the most prevalent ware type, followed by redware. In level A, however, there is a much larger sum of artifacts, as well as redware and yellowware being the more dominant ware types. This led to the question of what was going on in level A, or if there was a way to account for these differences. Some of this could be accounted for in the fact that the site was a functioning farm for decades, this means that these upper levels would have probably been disturbed many times throughout the years.

Figure 4.3: Graph of nominal count data. All artifacts are combined for each level and separated by ware type. For this example, earthenware and stoneware are combined into on category due to the very small amounts of earthenware that were no visible on the graph when kept separate. This graph suggests an anomaly in level A across the site.

Figure 4.4: North wall profile view of test unit 11. This profile example shows an example of how the test until levels were excavated, in term of soil change. Source: 2007. A Report of Preliminary Archaeological Testing at the Chrisholm Farmstead in Butler County, Ohio. Unpublished manuscript. The Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Keeping my hypothesis in mind, there could be a difference between the levels in the way in which the different ware types are distributed. Even if some of the anomalies in level A can be accounted for through site formation processes, there could still be a difference in ware types between the levels

Because I was working with nominal data, Chi-squared tests were first thought to be the best option for testing the data, but the composition of the assemblage was not conducive with the test. Due to some ware types such as earthenware, stoneware, and yellowware, having values below five for some levels, they could not be used for Chi-squared tests. Also, some levels have very large sums of artifacts where others again have very small quantities. This would lead to

63 doubts in the accuracy of these tests. For these reasons, these data did need to be transformed into range or scale data in order to be better suited for statistical testing.

In order to transform the data, I decided to calculate volume data (appendix C) for each level in each unit so that artifact density could also be calculated. The anomaly that was seen in level A after the first bar graph was made is accounted for with volume and density data as the irregularities observed could be due to the combined volume of A levels being much larger than the volumes of other combined levels. Level dimensions were available for 12 of the 22 units, but only 11 are able to be used here. These units included test units 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20,

21, 22, and 29. While volume was able to be calculated for TU 5, the artifacts were not labeled by level, so they cannot be used to think about differences between levels. Even though the assemblage size was drastically decreased by the limitations of the data available, these units still offer samples from each of the major areas of excavations (see image 4.1).

Density Testing

Once volume was found, density was calculated for each ware type by taking the total number of a ware type in each level and dividing those values by the volume of the level

(calculated in m3) (see appendix D). This allowed the assemblage to be tested using non- parametric tests to see if there are any statistical differences in the density of each ware type within the different levels.

A Kruskal-Wallis test (figure 4.5) was chosen to be used for this data when looking at all levels together as it is able to compare multiple variables to each other. A significance value of p<0.05 was used for these tests. A Mann-Whitney U test (figures 4.6-4.8) was used to compare level A with each of the other levels individually. These tests were chosen as they offer the opportunity to see if there is any significant difference in the distribution of ware types both

64 between all levels, and specifically between level A and the other levels. The results should tell both if there are any significant difference between all of the units, as well as if there is actually an anomaly happening in level A, or if using artifact density accounted for this. These tests also point to if there are significant temporal changes in ceramic ware type for this assemblage.

All Levels Test Statisticsa,b SWDensity RWDensity WWDensity YWDensity EWDensity Kruskal-Wallis H 1.810 2.408 .738 .788 3.478 Df 3 3 3 3 3 Asymp. Sig. .613 .492 .864 .852 .324 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: Level Values

Figure 4.5: Kruskal- Wallis test results. All levels were compared in this test and the results do not show a significant difference between levels when all are compared together.

Level A and Level B Test Statisticsa

SWDensity RWDensity WWDensity YWDensity EWDensity

Mann-Whitney U 26.000 17.000 30.000 30.000 24.500 Wilcoxon W 54.000 45.000 58.000 75.000 52.500 Z -.622 -1.539 -.159 -.182 -1.288

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .534 .124 .874 .855 .198

b b b b b Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .606 .142 .918 .918 .470 a. Grouping Variable: Level Values b. Not corrected for ties.

Figure 4.6: Mann-Whitney U test 1 results: level A and B. This test shows that there is not a significant difference seen between the artifact distribution of levels A and B.

Level A and Level C Test Statisticsa SWDensity RWDensity WWDensity YWDensity EWDensity Mann-Whitney U 8.000 8.500 13.000 13.000 10.500 Wilcoxon W 14.000 14.500 19.000 19.000 16.500 Z -1.086 -.926 -.093 -.110 -.853 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .278 .354 .926 .912 .394 Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .373b .373b 1.000b 1.000b .600b a. Grouping Variable: Level Values b. Not corrected for ties.

Figure 4.7: Mann-Whitney U test 2 results: level A and C. This test shows that there is not a significant difference seen between the artifact distribution of levels A and C.

Level A and Features Test Statisticsa SWDensity RWDensity WWDensity YWDensity EWDensity Mann-Whitney U 16.000 16.500 18.000 18.000 17.500 Wilcoxon W 31.000 31.500 33.000 63.000 32.500 Z -.925 -.801 -.603 -.664 -1.094 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .355 .423 .547 .506 .274 Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .438b .438b .606b .606b .518b a. Grouping Variable: Level Values b. Not corrected for ties.

Figure 4.8: Mann-Whitney U test 3 results: level A and features. This test shows that there is not a significant difference seen between the artifact distribution of level A and features.

Results/ Discussion

The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test show that none of the ware types have a significant p-value when all levels are tested together. There are also no ware types that show a significant different in any of the Mann-Whitney U tests. This suggests that when using density by volume data for this assemblage, there is not a significant difference in the distribution of ware types by level. This means that the hypothesis of this project, that the archaeological data would illustrate a similar shift in identity through time as the historical data, is not supported by this line of

testing. That is, the distribution of artifacts does not show a temporal change in religious identity

for the Augspurger family at Chrisholm Farmstead. This leads me to question why this would be

the case for this particular assemblage.

There are many factors that could have led to the archaeological data not telling the same

story as the historical data. While there is a rough timeline of ceramic wares and when they

would have been manufactured (see image 4.2), we must also keep in mind use patterns and assemblage formation. The Augspurger family could have acquired the pieces along that timeline, but that does not mean that they would have discarded them in any such way. By this I mean, that while the family may have started buying and using more ornate wares as they shifted to a more secular identity, this does not mean that they would have disposed of all of their earlier pieces right away. It is more likely, that they would have continued using those pieces until they were not functional. Because of this, the resulting archaeological assemblage may not reflect the shift in identity as originally thought. If the family is not discarding the materials in the same order that they may have been acquiring them, the archaeological evidence will not be able to show that story of changing identity that can be seen in historical documents. This could explain why there was not significant difference in the distribution of ware types between levels. For example, although the family may have bought an ornate piece of whiteware much later than a piece of redware, if that whiteware became unusable prior to the redware, it would have been discarded earlier, and thus be at a lower stratigraphic level. When thinking of material goods, it seems that, for this assemblage, the story of identity change is one that would be better told through when the family acquired materials, not when they discarded them. Archaeological remains though, are better suited to tell the later part of the story, when and how the family got rid of the materials. This means that, for this assemblage and the way in which it was tested, the archaeological remains cannot tell us the same story as the historical data.

One other possible reason that this particular assemblage does not provide evidence for identity change is that the majority of artifacts are coming from the general yard area of the site.

LeeDecker suggests that “sealed feature deposits [are] more suitable than sheet refuse deposits for consumption studies because of a greater degree of archaeological integrity” (1994:353). This would mean that areas such as privies, cellars, or cisterns would be more suitable for addressing temporal questions, such as those posed here. The yard areas “may accumulate [materials] throughout the entire occupation of the site” (LeeDecker 1994:345). This idea perhaps opens the possibility for further archaeological excavations at the Chrisholm site. If it is possible to further investigate the sealed features of the site, these questions about change in identity over time may be better addressed. The Chrisholm site does have previous outhouses, and the original cellar is still under the current home, so there could be the opportunity for further investigations into identity through the archaeological record that go past this project.

Chapter 5: Discussions and Conclusions

The central question of this project was to determine if the historical and archaeological data sets analyzed here would tell similar stories of identity change for members of intentional community such as the Augspurger family and the Butler County, Ohio Amish Mennonite congregations. One of my main questions was if the found possessions were indicative of change in identity in the same way that the historical materials are. I also wanted to determine if personal everyday objects, such as the ceramic pieces studied, could show an insight into that change in identity. Through the course of this project, I have been able to show evidence that the

Augspurger family fits in with the general patterns of Amish and Mennonite communities in

North America and how their religious and cultural identities changed over a short period of time. The analyses of the project also disproved my hypothesis that the archaeological data collected at Chrisholm were able reflect the same theory of change over time, at least when analyzed in these ways. It seems that there were more tensions between the data sets then initially thought at the genesis of the research.

The historical data and written histories of the Augspurger family and the Butler County

Amish and Mennonite communities are what give us the story of shifting religious identities. The ways in which the family changed their stances on certain aspects of life such as clothing, education, and language, were in a way a declaration of faith. But the Augspurgers and others in the community like them, were not changing their core religious beliefs, they were instead changing their identity or values within the religious community. As illustrated in the sections above, the Amish adhere to strict interpretations of their Ordnung which dictates how they live their lives. As communities such as the Hessian congregation of Butler County began interacting with the outside communities and became less isolated, they moved to a more lenient

69 interpretation of the Ordnung. This does not mean that they completely abandoned their

Anabaptist roots of simplicity, hard work, and tradition. Perhaps they were more relaxed in that they allowed education and music, or that they more willingly interacted with outsiders and used

English, but this not evidence that their actual beliefs changed. It is evidence that perhaps they reworked what it meant to identify as Mennonite, or what being Mennonite really entailed.

The changing self-identification would have also altered how those outside the communities would have seen the members of Amish and Mennonite communities. The Amish and many Mennonite groups have what has been described as “cultural distinctiveness” (Pollack

1981:51). That cultural distinctiveness sets the Amish and some Mennonite groups clearly apart from mainstream society. From language to clothing, it is many times easy to spot members of these communities. When it is not as easy to make such a distinction, those outside the communities may not ascribe an Amish or Mennonite identity on members. These changes in external markers of identity for the Augspurgers is what the historical documents and photos are able to show us. We can see and interpret that they were not so set apart from the secular world as more conservative and traditional groups were, at least in terms of these types of identity markers.

This understanding is not as easy to see in the archaeological data available for the

Augspurger family at Chrisholm. There are no clear markers of religiosity, no church or sanctuary, nor a clear indication of offerings or worship of some kind. The material remains are those of everyday household possessions. Is it possible that these types of materials are not as well suited to illustrate a change in religious identity as their historical counterparts? Some of the reasons for this lack of correlation between data sets is discussed above, but it seems that the materials available, studied in the way they were for this project, are not able to tell a story of

70 religious identity change. While no less valuable to get a glimpse into the lives of the family at

Chrisholm, they do not seem to be capable of answering these questions regarding changes in identity.

As discussed in Chapter 4, there are multiple reasons that these archaeological materials were not able to speak on change in identity in the same way as the historical documents did.

One of the main explanations can be drawn from site formation processes. Chrisholm Farmstead was a functioning farm for decades which could have altered the stratigraphy of materials from plowing over the years. This site was not untouched before the archaeological survey, which means that the materials were not necessarily in the location in which they were discarded. Also, we must account for patterns of discarding materials. The questions posed in this project, specifically how the Augspurger family shifted identity values over time, may be better answered with when or how the acquired the ceramic material, not when they discarded them. As discussed above, the Augspurger family may have acquired the more ornate materials as they moved to a more liberal lifestyle, but that does not mean that they would have thrown out all of their previous materials. It is more likely that they would have been discarding materials as they became unusable. This would help account for why the materials were more randomly distributed throughout the site. An ornate piece of whiteware could break at the same time as an earlier piece of redware, and they may be discarded at the same time. Finally, as will be discussed again below, identity is fluid and can mean many different things for different people.

Perhaps materials such as ceramics would not have been a marker of identity as thought at the genesis of the project. We have seen that some materials can be markers of change, such as clothing, photos, and written materials, but it is possible that the Augspurger family would not have thought of their ceramic materials as saying anything about their identities. They may have

been going with the times and acquiring new materials as they were available, but not using them

as a statement about their identities. With these ideas in mind, stratigraphic methods of studying

the recovered materials are not able to answer the questions of identity posed in this project.

With the hypothesis of this project being disproven, it is still prudent to think about the

benefit of the study. While I was not able to show how the archaeological and historical data

were able to come together, I hope that I have been able to contribute to the idea of the difficulty

and sometimes ambiguity of studying religious identity. We have to remember that “identity can

be hybrid and multiple” (Díaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005:12) and is affected by many different

factors. The religious identities of the Augspurger family were not changed independently, but in

relation to their cultural positions and alterations to other identification markers. After studying

this particular archaeological dataset, I have been made aware of some of those limitations, in

that I cannot necessarily think about the religious identities of the Augspurgers through it. If

using the material remains alone, the interpretation of religious identity for those living at

Chrisholm may not have been possible. The two datasets do not necessarily tell two different

stories, the historical data just seems to be more able to tell that of religious identity change.

One last thought to end this project is to circle back to the ideas of Durkheim and the

sacred versus the profane. Other researchers (e.g. Edwards 2005; Insoll 2004; Insoll 2007)

discuss how religious identity is affected by outside factors other than religion. This would make

one think that the Durkheimian theory of the sacred being totally separated from the profane is not enough to understand the phenomena. But perhaps, in this particular case, this theory may still be useful. The location in question is that of a family home, it is not one where there are formal religious or ritual practices taking place such as sanctuaries or groups of votive offerings

(Edwards 2005). It would be logical to conclude then that perhaps some everyday possessions

72 cannot actually give us insight particularly to religious identity. The hypothesis was driven by

Pollack’s idea of the cultural distinctiveness of Amish and Mennonite communities, in that

Amish and Mennonite cultural and religious identities are very much intertwined. But it is possible that those everyday possessions did not reflect a religious affiliation as it was thought they would. Perhaps, in this case, the religious is more separated than previously thought before the study. Insoll suggests that in some cases “there is not really a separation between what is religious and what is not” (Insoll 2004 2004:6), but there can be between what is set apart as sacred versus the everyday. It was thought that this could be one in the same for a community whose identities are so intertwined, but the results of this study could suggest that there is more of a disconnect of religious identity for the Augspurger Family at Chrisholm Farmstead.

Works Cited

Anderson, Cory 2011 Retracing the Blurred Boundaries of Twentieth-Century ‘Amish Mennonite’ Identity. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 85(3): 361-384.

Beachy, Leroy 2011 Unser Leit: The Story of the Amish. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Goodly Heritage Books. Millersburg, Ohio.

Beaudry, Mary C. 2004 Doing the Housework: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Households. In Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology, edited by Kerri S. Barlie and Jamie C Brandon, pp. 254-262. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Burkholder, J. Lawrence, and Lauren Friesen 2018 Mennonite Ethics : From Isolation to Engagement. Friesen Press, Victoria, Canada.

Butler County Historical Society 2018 1855 Map of Butler County. Published online May 31, 2018. https://bchistoricalsociety.com/2015/06/20/1855-map-butler-county/.

Coffman, John S., and John F. Funk 1890 Confession of Faith and Minister’s Manual. Herald Press, Scottdale, Pennsylvania.

Diáz- Andreu, Margarita, and Sam Lucy 2005 Introduction. In Archaeology of Identity, pp. 10-30. Routledge, London; New York.

Durkheim, Emile 1912 The Elementary From of Religious Life. Translated by Karen E Fields 1995. Free Press, New York.

Edwards, Daniel N 2005 The Archaeology of Religion. In Archaeology of Identity, pp 181-210. Routledge, London; New York.

Epp, Frank H. 1984 Mennonites in Canada, 1786-1920: The History of a Separate People. Macmillan of Canada, Toronto.

Fearon, James D. 1999 What is Identity (as we now use the word)?. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford California.

Florida Museum 2019a Whiteware, Hand Painted. University of Florida. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/typeceramics/type/whiteware-hand-painted/.

2019b Whiteware, Transfer Printed. University of Florida. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/typeceramics/type/whiteware-transfer-printed/.

2019c Pearlware, Hand Painted Polychrome Late. University of Florida. https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/typeceramics/type/pearlware-hand-painted- polychrome-late/.

Foster, Thomas W. 1984 Occupational Differentiation and Change in an Ohio Amish Settlement. Ohio Journal of Science 84(3): 74-81.

Friends of Chrisholm 2019 About Friends of Chrisholm. Chrisholm Historic Farmstead – Heritage Center for Amish Mennonite Settlement in the Trenton, Ohio Area. Website. https://www.chrisholmhistoricfarmstead.org/about.php

Gardner, Andrew 2010 Paradox and Praxis in the Archaeology of Identity. In Identity Crisis: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Identity pp. 11-27. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

Genheimer, Robert 2003 Excavations at Chrisholm: A Nineteenth Century Amish-Mennonite Farmstead Comes to Life. Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology 18:120-134.

2007 A Report of Preliminary Archaeological Testing at the Chrisholm Farmstead in Butler County, Ohio. Unpublished manuscript. The Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Gernsheim, Helmut Erich Robert, Andy Grundberg, Beaumont Nehall, and Naomi Rosenblum. 2019 History of Photography. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. www.britannica.com/technology/photography.

Good, Merle, and Phyllis Pellman Good. 1995 20 Most Asked Questions about the Amish and Mennonites. Rev. ed. People’s Place Book, no. 1. Good Books, Intercourse, Pennsylvania.

Grubb, Rev. W. H. 2001 History of the Mennonites of Butler County, Ohio. 2nd ed. The Board of Friends of Chrisholm, Trenton, Ohio.

Hostetler, John, A 1964 Persistence and Change Patterns in Amish Society. Ethnology 3(2): 185-198.

Hurst, Charles E., and David L McConnell 2010 An Amish Paradox: Diversity and Change in the World’s Largest Amish Community. Young Center Books in Anabaptist and Pietist Studies. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Insoll, Timothy 2004 Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. Routledge, London; New York.

2007 Configuring Identities in Archaeology. In The Archaeology of Identities, A Reader, edited by Timothy Insoll, pp. 15-48. Routledge, London; New York.

Jones, Siân 2007 Discourses of Identity in the Interpretation of the Past. In The Archaeology of Identities, A Reader, edited by Timothy Insoll, pp. 93-121. Routledge, London; New York.

Keim, Albert N. 1993 Military Service and Conscription. In The Amish and the State, edited by Donald B. Kraybill, pp. 43-64. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Koop, Karl 2014 Anabaptist and Mennonite Identity: Permeable Boundaries and Expanding Definitions. Religious Campass 8(6): 199-207.

Kozakavich, Stacy C. 2017 The Archaeology of Utopian and Intentional Communities. The University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Kraybill, Donald B. 1989 The Riddle of Amish Culture. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

1993 The Amish and the State. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

2010 Concise Encyclopedia of Amish, Brethren, Hutterites, and Mennonites. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

LeeDecker, Charles H. 1994 Discard Behavior on Domestic Historic Sites: Evaluation of Contexts for the Interpretation of Household Consumption Pattern. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(4): 345-375.

Loewen, Royden 1999 From the Inside Out: The Rural Worlds of Mennonite Diaries, 1863 to 1929. The University of Manitoba Press, Manitoba, Canada.

Meskell, L. 2007 Archaeologies of Identity. In The Archaeology of Identities, A Reader, edited by Timothy Insoll. Routledge, London; New York.

Meyers, Thomas, J 1993 Education and Schooling. In The Amish and the State, edited by Donald B. Kraybill, pp. 87-106. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Nolt, Steven M. 2003 A History of the Amish. 2nd ed. Good Books, Intercourse, Pennsylvania.

2008 Who are the Real Amish? Rethinking Diversity and Identity Among a Separate People. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 82: 377-394.

2015 A History of the Amish. 3rd ed. Good Books, New York.

Nolt, Steven M., and Thomas J. Meyers 2007 Plain Diversity: Amish Cultures and Identities. Young Center Books in Anabaptist and Pietist Studies. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Page, Doris, and Marie Johns 1999 The Amish Mennonite Settlement in Butler County, Ohio. 4th ed.

Pollack, Randy Beth 1981 Culture Change in an Amish Community. Central Issues in Anthropology 3(1): 51-67.

Rotman, Deborah L. 2009 Historical Archaeology of Gendered Lives. Contributions to Global Historical Archaeology. Springer, New York; London.

Scott, Stephen 1996 An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups. Good Books, Intercourse, Pennsylvania.

Smith, Monica L 2010 ‘I Discard, Therefore I am’: Identity and LeaveTaking of Possessions. In Identity Crisis: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Identity, pp. 132-142. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

Stelle, Lenville J. 2001 An Archaeological Guide to Historic Artifacts of the Upper Sangamon Basin. Center for Social Research, Parkland College. http://virtual.parkland.edu/lstelle1/len/archguide/documents/arcguide.htm

The Editors of Enclyclopaedia Britannica 2018 Alsace. In Enclyclodaedia Britannica. Published online December 31, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/place/Alsace.

White, Carolyn L., and Mary C. Beaudry 2009 Artifacts and Personal Identity. In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, pp 209-226. Springer, New York.

Yoder, Paton, and Steven R. Estes. 1999 Proceedings of the Amish Minister’s Meetings 1862-1878. Mennonite Historical Society, Goshen, Indiana.

Appendix A: Sample of Chrisholm Collections List

Appendix B: Nominal Count Data Sample

Appendix C: Volume data

Appendix D: Density Data