INFORMATION TO USERS While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. For example: • Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed. • Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages. • Copyrighted material may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, 35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography. Order Number 8727161 Folk to national culture in nineteenth century Montgomery County: Archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence from a Maryland Piedmont plantation Sorensen, James Delmer, Ph.D. The American University, 1987 Copyright ©1987 by Sorensen, James Delmer. A11 rights reserved. U MI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or pages 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print ______ 3. Photographs with dark background 4. Illustrations are poor copy ______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy ______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page _______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements ______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine _______ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print _______ 11. Page(s)____________lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)____________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages num bered . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______ 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received _________ 16. Other ________________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International FOLK TO NATIONAL CULTURE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY MONTGOMERY COUNTY: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ETHNOHISTORICAL EVIDENCE FROM A MARYLAND PIEDMONT PLANTATION By James Delmer Sorensen submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of The American University in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology Signatures of Committee: Chairman: 1987 I The American University ^ ~ Washington, D.C. 20016 SPHE AMERICAN UlIIvEESITY LTTPAHY © COPYRIGHT BY JAMES DELMER SORENSEN 1987 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This Dissertation is Dedicated to My Mother lone Beall Sorensen August 5, 1913 to June 5, 1987 FOLK TO NATIONAL CULTURE IN NINETEENTH CENTURY MONTGOMERY COUNTY: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ETHNOHISTORICAL EVIDENCE FROM A MARYLAND PIEDMONT PLANTATION BY James Delmer Sorensen ABSTRACT The purpose of this research was to confirm archaeologically and ethnohistorically the presence of a traditional folk culture in nineteenth century Montgomery County and to document the mid-nineteenth century changes and expansions which were occurring in this regional tradition as it responded to pressures from a then-emerging more national culture. The problem centered around certain artifact material excavated from the Riggs family plantation called Oaks II. Why did its first owners, Reubin and Mary Riggs, scions of wealthy families and themselves the owners of 17 slaves, live with their seven children in a two-room log house and leave behind cast-off items little distinguishable from the middling farmer? The first part of the research answered this question by proposing a pattern of regional culture for the area with folk principles as leveling devices. The second part of the research uncovered when and how this living pattern was interrupted, for the artifacts, archives, and architecture of the mid-nineteenth century have a different cast and appearance. The analysis used a number of theoretical frameworks. Ideology was explored from approaches of a cognitive or structuralist position. Environmental concerns were analyzed incorporating traditional approaches in cultural ecology. Less common in archaeology is an interest in the individual's role in the process of culture change. That role in the ideological and ecological systems was examined using approaches from the anthropology of decision-making. By combining the ethnohistorical and archaeological analyses, the historical overview and material cultural data provided a basis for the in tra-site comparison between a large, early nineteenth century Ice House feature and a later mid-century Kitchen addition. These features also provided the basis for an inter-site comparison with certain other plantations, especially in the southern coastal areas of the Lower South. The results of the ethnohistorical and archaeological evidence were placed in narrative form. What emerged was a scenario for change along a border area of the Upland South during the mid-nineteenth century, showing how the availability and use of a certain inventory of material artifacts caused and was shaped by the ideologies of folk and national cultures. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Dr. June Evans, my committee chairperson, for her invaluable help in preparing this dissertation. Without her assistance, it could not have been realized. I also wish to thank Drs. Brett Williams and Charles McNett, Jr. for serving on my committee. I acknowledge the computer services and expertise of Patricia Mittleman, Bernard Manderville, and James Waring, as well as the word processing skills of Bob and Sue Morrisson of The Good Word. I appreciate the help and support that my parents, Delmer and lone Sorensen, gave to me. And, lastly, thanks must go to Dr. Estelle Gearon for her many contributions, both large and small, to the final production of this research. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................vil ILLUSTRATIONS ................................................................................................................... ix Chapter I: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 II: THEORETICAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................. 11 Folk and National C u l t u r e ................................................................. 13 Cultural Ecology ........................................................................................ 19 Anthropology of Decision Making ...................................................... 22 III: ETHNOHISTORY....................................................................................................... 27 Primary and Secondary Source Material ........................................ 27 Historical Overview ................................................................................. 34 IV: FIELD METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 65 V: TYPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 76 Ceramic Typologies ................................................................................... 76 Earthenware ........................................................................................ 76 Stonew are ................................................................................................. 82 P o rc e la in ................................................................................................. 84 Glass Typologies ........................................................................................ 86 Chronology and Form Analysis ............................................................... 89 VI: DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL ARTIFACT MATERIAL . 91 Ceramic Analysis ........................................................................................ 91 Ice H o u s e ................................................................................................. 91 K itc h e n ...........................................................................................................188 Glass Analysis ..................................................................................................130 Ice H o u s e .......................................................................................................130 K itc h e n ...........................................................................................................137