ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE HOOSIER HILLS:
EXPLORING ECONOMIC AND MATERIAL CONDITIONS
AT THE CHARLEY FARMSTEAD
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS
BY
KEVIN M. CUPKA HEAD
MARK D. GROOVER, CHAIR
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, IN
DECEMBER 2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply indebted to a number of individuals for their help and support
throughout this process. I must thank my thesis committee, Dr. Mark Groover, Dr. S.
Homes Hogue, and Dr. Mark Hill, for their sound advice, their time, and their patience
during the proposal, draft, and review processes. This project could not have been
completed without the help and generosity of my uncle and aunt, Larry and Judi Miles,
who graciously let me dig up their yard. I owe many thanks to Amanda Carver and S.
Homes Hogue for their significant contribution in conducting the faunal analysis for this
report, and to Andrew V. Martin for volunteering his time and expertise to take a look at
the prehistoric lithics. Tanya and Jennifer Faberson were very helpful in providing me
with some much needed experience and information regarding the analysis of historic
materials. I am also extremely grateful to Beth McCord for helping me process and
interpret my resistance data. I also must thank my amazing friends and colleagues who
made the trip down to the farm to assist with the fieldwork: Michael Lautzenheiser,
Christopher Chambers, Brent Alexander, Jacob Schmidt, Sarah Fosnight, and Jessie
Moore. You all were terrific, and there is no doubt that this project could not have been
completed without your help. This thesis was partially funded by a Troyer Grant,
Department of Anthropology, Ball State University. I am most grateful to Susan Blair for
helping me sort through all of the grant paperwork. I also owe a great deal to the
continued support of my parents throughout the duration of this project. Finally, I owe an
inconceivable amount of thanks to my wonderful and amazing wife, Sue, who has
tolerated more than she should ever have been asked to, and continued to share her love
and support through every twist and turn this project has presented us.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. i
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ iii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2: HISTORIC CONTEXT ............................................................................................ 9
Harrison County in the Nineteenth Century .................................................................................... 9
The Charley Family: Migration and Occupation History ............................................................. 15
Architectural History ..................................................................................................................... 19
Economic Activities........................................................................................................................ 33
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 37
Farmstead Archaeology ................................................................................................................. 37
Rural Economics Studies ............................................................................................................... 39
Regional Social Histories .............................................................................................................. 40
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 41
Site Survey and Data Recovery ...................................................................................................... 42
Analytical Methods ........................................................................................................................ 44
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 46
Soil Resistance Survey ................................................................................................................... 46
Shovel Testing ................................................................................................................................ 49
Test Unit Excavations .................................................................................................................... 53
Functional Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 71
Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 107
Time Sequence Analysis ............................................................................................................... 110
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................................. 117
REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................ 127
APPENDIX A: Faunal Analysis .................................................................................................. 137
APPENDIX B: Historic Artifact Inventory ................................................................................. 142
APPENDIX C: Lithic Analysis ................................................................................................... 178
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Harrison County, Indiana in 1876 ......................................................................10
Figure 2. George Charley family migration route..............................................................16
Figure 3. Map of Indiana showing the location of the Charley farmstead ........................17
Figure 4. John J. Mauck's mill, date unknown...................................................................20
Figure 5. 1882 plat map of Harrison Township .................................................................21
Figure 6. 1906 plat map of Harrison Township .................................................................22
Figure 7. Artist's depiction of the original log dwelling circa 1810 ..................................24
Figure 8. John J. Mauck, Addie Lee Mauck, Otto Hottell, Annie Hottell, Sarah B. Mauck,
Leo Hottell, and David Charley posing in front of the main dwelling circa 1895 ............24
Figure 9. Addie Lee Lockhart, Sarah B. Lockhart, Sarah B. Mauck, and David Charley
sitting on the porch of the main dwelling circa 1898.........................................................25
Figure 10. The main dwelling today, facing south .............................................................25
Figure 11. Outlet of Miles Spring and stone retaining wall near spring house, facing
southeast .............................................................................................................................27
Figure 12. Spring house, north gable end ..........................................................................27
Figure 13. Sugar house, facing north .................................................................................28
Figure 14. Apple house and sunken road/central drainage, facing southwest ...................28
Figure 15. "Memory map" of the Charley farmstead ........................................................31
Figure 16. Granary, facing southeast .................................................................................32
Figure 17. 1911 three portal barn, facing north .................................................................32
Figure 18. Value of farm, implements, and livestock, 1850–1880 ....................................36
Figure 19. Production of maize, wheat, and oats, 1850–1880 ...........................................36
Figure 20. GEOPLOT soil resistance map ........................................................................47
Figure 21. Schematic site map ...........................................................................................51
Figure 22. Trench 1, south wall profile ..............................................................................61
Figure 23. Trench 1, base of Feature 1, Level 2, plan view ...............................................62
Figure 24. Trench 1, base of Feature 1, Level 4, plan view ...............................................63
Figure 25. Trench 1, base of Feature 1, Level 5, plan view ...............................................64
Figure 26. Trench 1, base of Feature 1, Level 6, plan view ...............................................65
Figure 27. Trench 1, base of Feature 1, Level 6, photograph ............................................66
Figure 28. Unit 5, north wall profile ..................................................................................68
Figure 29. Unit 5, base of Level 5 .....................................................................................68
Figure 30. Unit 6, base of Level 2 .....................................................................................70
Figure 31. Unit 6, east wall profile ....................................................................................70
Figure 32. Breakdown of artifacts by functional group and class .....................................76
Figure 33. Nails and fasteners ............................................................................................77
Figure 34. Bone handle and buttons ..................................................................................80
Figure 35. Pearlware ..........................................................................................................86
Figure 36. Edge-decorated whiteware ...............................................................................86
Figure 37. Polychrome decorated ceramics .......................................................................87
Figure 38. Miscellaneous whiteware .................................................................................87
Figure 39. Ironstone ...........................................................................................................92
Figure 40. Yellowware and chromatic ironstone ...............................................................92
iii
Figure 41. Porcelain ...........................................................................................................93
Figure 42. Stoneware .........................................................................................................93
Figure 43. Redware ............................................................................................................94
Figure 44. Blown-in-mold container glass.......................................................................100
Figure 45. Automatic bottle machine container glass ......................................................100
Figure 46. Container closures ..........................................................................................101
Figure 47. Glass tableware ...............................................................................................101
Figure 48. Diachronic functional analysis ....................................................................... 113
Figure 49. Total artifacts and Household size, 1810-2010 .............................................. 114
Figure 50. Corner hutch and ceramics in the dining room of the main dwelling ............123
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Occupation History of the Charley Farmstead .....................................................16
Table 2. Historic Artifacts by Functional Group and General Provenience ......................75
Table 3. Mean Artifact Dates for all STPs, Test Units, and Surface Collection Cells ..... 112
iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Much of the history of the American Midwest is closely tied to the history of
American agriculture. Throughout the nineteenth century, family farms dotted the
landscape, and these individual farms represented the crux of countless small agrarian
communities. Now, the remnants of these farmsteads constitute an archaeological
resource that, both despite and because of their seemingly ubiquitous nature, provides
historical archaeologists a valuable data set for examining a critical component in the
development of the modern United States (Groover 2008). This study examines one such
site, the Charley farmstead (12HR680) in Harrison Township, Harrison County, Indiana.
The farm was occupied by eight generations of the Charley and Mauck families, from
1810 through 2010. However, special attention has been given to the first three
generations of occupation, from 1810 until approximately 1910. I have relied primarily
on an economic perspective, considering agricultural and manufactures production and
consumption as well as the status and wealth of the Charley family relative to the
community of Harrison Township.
The principal topic of this study is the identification of continuity and change in
the economic activity at the farmstead and the surrounding community through the
analysis of archaeological materials recovered from the site, architectural features
recorded on the landscape, primary source documents, and supplementary historical
1
research. By synthesizing a variety of data from different contexts, this study has strived
to generate a thorough understanding of the material conditions and standard of living
experienced at the Charley farmstead during the nineteenth century. The results and
interpretations produced through this process are intended to contribute to the existing
record and to articulate a practical model for farmstead archaeology in southern Indiana.
The “hill country” of southern Indiana remains a region largely neglected by
historians and historical archaeologists alike (Nation 2005). This region, settled by
households from Appalachia and the Upland South, represents a historically significant
community of early Indiana settler families and their descendants. While a number of
similar farmstead studies do exist (e.g. Bedell et al. 1994; Carlisle 1998; Groover 2003,
2007), studies of this particular region are few, and primarily confined to the “gray
literature” of cultural resource management (CRM) publications. It is the sincere hope of
the author that this thesis will help in filling however small an information gap in the
regional farmstead data and hopefully provide some suggestions for future research in the
region.
It should be noted from the onset that this author has a personal connection to the
site studied here. When I was younger, this farm was the home of my grandparents,
Carlton and Marie Miles, and one or more of my direct ancestors have owned or lived at
the farm since the 1840s. I spent many days as a boy tromping around the home place,
peering with imaginative curiosity into the nooks and crannies which always seemed to
conceal some arcane object whose true function was lost on my Nintendo and
Nickelodeon impelled mind. Of course the house was haunted. But the ghosts were
family so this only bothered me when I was left alone upstairs at night. I know I owe
2
much of my chosen vocation to that place as it was then. Walking the bottoms with my
grandfather, we would study the newly turned dirt looking for “flint arrowheads.”
Wandering through the house and the outbuildings, thoroughly experiencing the past,
instilled in me the passion for history that has endured for over two decades. Many of the
individuals discussed in this thesis are relations of mine, and although I have attempted to
remain an objective scholar throughout this process, it was inevitable that some traces of
this connection would influence my approach, interpretation, and discussion of the site.
The farm settled by George and Christena Charley in ca. 1810 lies just northeast
of Corydon, the last capital of the Indiana Territory and the first capital of the state of
Indiana. Nestled at the base of a ridge along a terrace above Big Indian Creek, the
farmstead rests atop a slight rise, astride an underground spring. In 1810, the area was no
doubt heavily forested, and this forest, along with the limestone outcroppings along the
creek and elsewhere in the area provided much of the raw materials for the construction
of a two story dogtrot log house as well as the necessary resources to establish the core of
a successful economic enterprise that would serve as the cornerstone of a family for
nearly two centuries. Today the original house, modified over the years, is still standing at
the site, along with a number of outbuildings.
The farm is no longer in operation. The springhouse is empty. There are no
livestock around the barn lot, no grain in the granary. But the presence of these and other
structures, along with accumulated items representing a century and a half of agriculture
suggest something of another way of life. A way of life that is easily seen as forgotten,
fixed in an increasingly distant memory. But I believe this and other farmsteads are better
viewed as samples of a critically dynamic period in the emergence of modern American
3
identity and ideology, and that, far from forgotten, the experiences of these nineteenth
century farm families continue to influence the character of rural America.
As mentioned above, my primary concern here is the economic setting at the
Charley farm, and while documentary evidence exists, there is little existing data on the
household prior to the mid-nineteenth century. Because of this, I set out to identify the
George Charley household and successive households archaeologically, tracking
continuity and change in the architectural landscape and material remains throughout the
three generations of the Charley family who occupied the site during the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. Two basic research questions were developed to guide this
research. First, what were the economic and material conditions experienced by the
George Charley household? Second, how did these economic and material conditions
change through the nineteenth century and what elements persisted?
Based on my preliminary research, it was expected that the economic activity at
the Charley farm during the nineteenth century would basically parallel the surrounding
community for that same period. By this, I mean the farm was likely a predominantly
grain and livestock operation focusing on corn and swine, incorporating a strategy of
surplus production as a means for extending holdings to provide land for successive
generations. Surplus produce likely was muted early on, becoming more substantial as
economic growth spurred an increased dependence on outside markets (Nation 2005;
Groover 2008). This assumption may be supported archaeologically by the abundance of
pig remains associated with early lead-glazed redware and pearlware recovered from the
base of a pit cellar at the site. Throughout the nineteenth century, it is probable that the
occupants at the farm followed trends toward increasing consumerism. Recovered
4
materials such as container glass, imported Staffordshire earthenwares, and massproduced glass tablewares seem to confirm this. But the Charley farm was also a larger
operation than many other farms in the community, and the archaeology is expected to
reflect a relatively successful economic situation with a diverse range of production and
consumption.
In the interest of exploring this topic further, five more detailed questions were
formulated to provide more specific direction to this research. What quantitative and
qualitative changes in production and consumption were experienced at the Charley
farmstead during the nineteenth century? What sorts of economic activity persisted
through successive generations and to what degree? What sorts of relationships, if any,
exist between this continuity and change in farmstead economic activity and household
organization? How did economic activity influence the domestic landscape and material
culture at the farmstead? And finally, what relationships, if any, exist between the
continuity and change in farmstead economic activity and external political, social, and
economic circumstances? To answer these questions, a combination of historical
documentary research and archaeological field and laboratory investigation was
employed. This thesis presents the results of this research, as well as some discussion of
possible interpretations and some suggestions for further research.
Chapter 2 explores the historic context of the Charley Farmstead by examining
the history of Harrison County, the migration history of the George Charley household,
the occupational history of the site, agricultural census schedules, and probate records.
The history of the architectural landscape at the site is also addressed in this chapter. Over
two decades, George Charley migrated to Harrison County from his home in the Virginia
5
Piedmont, by way of Western Pennsylvania and Kentucky. His farm, later inherited by his
son and then his grandson, experienced dramatic growth during the early and midnineteenth century, before production declined during the end of the nineteenth and earlytwentieth centuries. Throughout the nineteenth century, the architectural landscape of the
Charley farm was altered through the construction and demolition of numerous
outbuildings as well as the modification of natural features and the redefinition of space
to adapt to changing economic trends and culturally accepted models of style and
function.
Chapter 3 reviews the existing literature relevant to this project. A number of
significant farmstead studies, regional social histories, and economic studies are
identified. Additionally, the literature supporting various methods employed here is also
considered. Farmstead studies have become increasingly common in historical
archaeology, as historic farmsteads are widespread across the landscape and are often
encountered during both CRM and academic projects. However, at the time of this
writing, the author is unaware of any significant research on historic farmsteads in
Harrison County, Indiana. Nineteenth century economic studies and regional social
histories can provide good supplementary data for comparison and interpretation.
Literature on soil resistance survey, site survey, site testing, and the analysis of historic
materials was consulted prior to formulating the methods used in this project.
Chapter 4 presents the research methods employed during this investigation. Both
field and laboratory methods are discussed. Field methods included mapping, electrical
resistance survey, systematic shovel testing, and test unit excavation. Electrical resistance
survey was employed as an initial non-invasive method for locating subsurface features
6
and, to a small degree, assessing their archaeological potential. Shovel testing was used to
sample the entire house lot in an effort to identify possible features, areas of high density
artifact concentrations, and to assess the type and extent of previous disturbance to the
site. The final stage of fieldwork, the excavation of test units, explored three distinct loci
that had been identified based on the results of the previous fieldwork. These units
produced the bulk of the materials recovered from the site. The subsequent analysis of
these materials involved tabulation, functional analysis, time sequence analysis, faunal
analysis, and prehistoric lithic analysis.
Chapter 5 presents the results of the fieldwork and the subsequent analyses. A
total of 1,933 historic artifacts was recovered and separated into the following functional
categories: Architecture (N = 712), Arms (N = 1), Clothing (N = 6), Domestic (N = 416),
Floral and Faunal (N = 575), Maintenance and Subsistence (N = 47), and Unidentified (N
= 176). Forty-seven prehistoric lithics were also recovered and analyzed by Andrew
Martin, RPA with Cultural Resources Analysts, Inc. in Evansville, Indiana. Following
initial tabulation and functional analysis, the historic materials from the site were
subjected to a secondary analysis. This involved time sequence analysis, outside analysis
of the faunal materials by Amanda Carver and S. Homes Hogue of Ball State University,
and a diachronic analysis of utilitarian versus refined ceramic wares. As a result of these
analytical methods, a number of interpretations were generated in response to the main
research questions of this study.
Finally, in Chapter 6, the results of the investigation are discussed in detail. Seven
research questions were generated prior to conducting fieldwork. These questions are
addressed to the extent allowed by the data. While the George Charley household was not
7
definitively identified archaeologically, deposits were recovered that date to the early
Joseph Charley household, and could potentially be associated with the George Charley
household prior to 1833. Deposits were also recovered and dated to the David Charley
and/or subsequent households. These intact, stratified deposits generally conform to the
anticipated pattern of economic activity during the nineteenth century. Primarily based on
the prevalence of pig in the early faunal assemblage, and the increased prevalence of
container glass, imported earthenwares, and glass tablewares over time, it seems likely
that the Charley farm began as a corn and swine subsistence-level operation that adopted
and thrived in the market-dependent surplus agriculture beginning in the mid-nineteenth
century. Economic success and changing trends towards consumerism resulted in
increased consumption of store-bought goods during the late-nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. This transition from subsistence-level to market-dependent surplus agriculture
contributed to changes in the architectural landscape, as increased and diversified
production required the construction of newer and larger facilities. This trend is
exemplified in part, by additions made to the main house, the construction of a separate
dwelling, the construction and demolition of outbuildings over time, especially the
construction of a large three portal barn in ca. 1911. The artifact assemblage from the
Charley farmstead was somewhat limited in scope, and further interpretation has proven
difficult at this time.
8
CHAPTER 2: HISTORIC CONTEXT
Harrison County in the Nineteenth Century
Harrison County is located in the “Hill Country” of Southern Indiana (Figure 1).
It lies just west, across the Ohio River, from Louisville in Jefferson County, Kentucky.
The hill country was settled primarily by families from the middle and upper South, as
well as a significant population from the Northeast, and, to a much more limited extent,
the Mid Atlantic. The area of the Falls of the Ohio was initially settled on bounty land
warrants by the soldiers who had served under George Rogers Clark during the
Wilderness Campaign. The promise of cheap land attracted a great number of settlers,
especially those who could not find land in the East (Nation 2005).
Harrison County was the fourth county recognized in the Indiana Territory,
established in 1808. Most of the original settlements were located along the Ohio River,
in the southern part of the county. Today, the county encompasses nearly 1,261 sq km
(487 sq mi) and is bordered by Crawford, Floyd, and Washington Counties, as well as the
Ohio River to the south (Roos 1911:15–17; Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana
[HLFI] 1987:xiii). Harrison County is divided into twelve civil townships: Blue River,
Boone, Franklin, Harrison, Heth, Jackson, Morgan, Posey, Spencer, Taylor, Washington,
and Webster (HLFI 1897:xi). The town of Corydon was platted in 1808 on land originally
9
FIGURE 1. Harrison County, Indiana in 1876 (Baskin and Forster and Co. 1876).
10
owned by William Henry Harrison, and served as the capital of the Indiana Territory from
1813-1816, and the capital of the state of Indiana from 1816-1826 (Roos 1911).
The first European-American settlements in the county came in the late eighteenth
century. The first known settlers to occupy Harrison County were members of the
Pennington family, who, in 1792, settled on land near Lanesville. Squire Boone, the
brother of Daniel Boone, the famous pioneer, settled in Harrison County in 1802,
operated a mill along Buck Creek in Heth Township with his four sons. Josiah Lincoln,
the uncle of Abraham Lincoln, settled in Harrison County along the Blue River north of
Depauw in 1815 (HLFI 1987:xiii). Early towns in Harrison County included Bradford,
Byrnville, Corydon, Elizabeth, Laconia, Lanesville, Mauckport, Morvins Landing, New
Amsterdam, North Hampton, and Palmyra (Roos 1911). The town of Mauckport was
platted and named for Frederick Mauck, the father of John J. Mauck who would later
serve as head of household at the Charley farm (Wolph 1980).
Early religious congregations in Harrison County were primarily composed of
United Brethren, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, and Methodists. Old
Goshen Baptist church, one of the first Baptist churches in the state, was established by
the Boone family and other early settlers in Boone Township in 1813. Other early
churches included Pfrimmer Chapel (1818); Roger's Chapel (Posey Township);
Thompson's Chapel (1824); Dunkard Church (Morgan Township); Mount Solomon
Church (Scott Township, 1835); the Presbyterian Church (Corydon, 1819); and the
Catholic Cathedral (Lanesville, 1849) (Roos 1911:27–29). Family records indicate that
the George Charley family attended a United Brethren church, but the name of the church
was not recorded.
11
Early transportation consisted of travel by waterway, or early roads. Travel along
the Ohio River was vital to the early development of Harrison County, affecting the
development of river towns such as New Amsterdam, North Hampton, Mauckport, and
Morvins Landing. These ports were important refueling and trading stops for flat boats
traveling the Ohio River between Louisville and Evansville. In 1841, the New Albany
and Vincennes Turnpike was completed through the north of the county, following the
route of the Buffalo Trace. In 1853, the New Albany, Lanesville, and Corydon Plank
Road was completed. These roads allowed for more efficient overland transport of goods
and produce, and provided a more accessible route for farmers to reach more distant
markets (Roos 1911). Travel and trade along the Ohio River declined by the 1890s, as
transportation by rail displaced river shipping. The first railroad in the county was
completed in 1882, connecting New Albany in Floyd County to Princeton in Gibson
County. Towns such as Crandall, Mott Station, Depauw, Gresham, Ramsey, and Corydon
Junction were established in Harrison County along this rail line (HLFI 1987:xiii).
The early economy of Harrison County was based on agriculture, especially the
cultivation of corn, tobacco, fruit, potatoes, and wheat. Livestock was also a major
industry. The principal mode of transport of goods was the Ohio River, where flatboats
would transport agricultural products to the larger city markets such as Saint Louis and
New Orleans. By the mid-nineteenth century, the county also claimed 8 grist mills, 40
saw mills, and 38 stores (Indiana County History Preservation Society 2010). Harrison
County was a major source of building stone, and a number of limestone quarries were
operated throughout the nineteenth century. As a consequence, lime manufacture was also
an important industry. Harrison County was also an important source of glass sand,
12
shipping the raw material to glass manufacturers in New Albany and elsewhere (Perrin
1977).
The population of Harrison County steadily increased throughout the nineteenth
century. In 1820, the total population was 7,875. Sixty-nine free African Americans were
living in the county. Over the next twenty years the population increased to 12,459. By
this time 89 free African Americans lived in Harrison County. In 1850, 15,286 residents
occupied the county. There were 1,650 working farms recorded, indicating the
significance of agriculture to the community (United States Bureau of the Census
[USBC], Washington, D.C., 1820–1850).
Aside from being the site of Indiana's first capital, the county is probably best
known for its role in the Civil War, when Confederate General John Hunt Morgan‟s
troops defeated the local militia during the Battle of Corydon. In the summer of 1863,
General John Hunt Morgan and his 2,400 Confederate cavalrymen captured a pair of
steamboats on the Ohio River at Brandenburg, Kentucky and crossed into Indiana just
east of Mauckport, launching "Morgan's Raid." The troops crossed the river and scuttled
one of the steam boats, the "Alice Dean" with only minimal resistance from a small
company of Indiana Home Guards. After crossing, Morgan and his men proceeded north
and were met by a larger group of Indiana Home Guards under Colonel Lewis Jordan just
south of Corydon. Eleven men were killed in the brief skirmish, which became known as
the Battle of Corydon. Following the battle, Morgan and his men occupied Corydon for a
number of hours, as they raided the surrounding farmsteads and taxed local mills and
other industries (Roos 1911; HLFI 1987:xiii). Relevant to this study, Morgan demanded
tribute from the three largest mills in the area, including the mill of John J. Mauck.
13
Mauck was unable to be found, so his neighbors paid the $400 to Morgan (Roos 1911).
Also, it has been claimed that Morgan‟s soldiers watered their horses at Miles Spring on
the Charley Farm, but no supporting documentation exists.
Agriculture was one of the largest industries in Harrison County during the last
half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. In the 1870s, the most
productive crops in the county were wheat, Indian corn, potatoes, orchard products, and
oats. Stock breeding remained an important industry. In 1900, the county contained over
3,000 farms. By 1910, the total valuation of farm property was $7,733,962. This was a 56
percent increase since 1900 (USBC 1870–1910).
With the decline of the river transportation system, the population in Harrison
County began to stabilize and then decline by the early twentieth century. Between 1870
and 1890 the population had risen very slightly to 20,786. By 1900 the population rose
slightly to 21,702. By 1910, the population had declined to 20,032 (USBC 1890–1910).
This gradual decline in population continued through the first half of the twentieth
century. By 1950, the population of Harrison County had declined to 17,858. This decline
in population was accelerated by the decimation of old river towns during the floods of
1884, 1913, and, especially, 1937, which destroyed parts of New Amsterdam, Mauckport,
and Morvins Landing (USBC 1950; HLFI 1987:xiv).
The strong agricultural tradition in Harrison County continued into the twentieth
century. In addition to a host of cash crops grown in the fertile bottoms throughout the
county, the raising of poultry, thoroughbred horses, and Jersey cattle were major
industries. The county was also a major producer of fruit brandy. Other industries in
Harrison County in the first half of the twentieth century included canning factories, ice
14
and cold storage plants, mills, and the Keller Manufacturing Company, a wagon
manufacturer who employed more than 100 individuals as of 1911 (Roos 1911).
Harrison County and the surrounding hill country of Southern Indiana represent a
region neglected by conventional histories. The settlers of this region, being largely from
areas within and surrounding Appalachia, found in the hilly, karst topography, an ideal
country. The stories of these settlers and their descendants are largely untold (Nation
2005). And because these stories thus far remain unsung, this project, being the
examination of the Charley Farmstead, seeks to provide a more complete understanding
of agrarian life in Southern Indiana during the nineteenth century.
The Charley Family: Migration and Occupation History
George Charley, the patriarch of the first household to settle the Charley
Farmstead, was born on October 5, 1763. While his birthplace is unknown, he enlisted to
serve in the Virginia Line in Hampshire County, Virginia around 1779 or 1780, and was
discharged in Salisbury, North Carolina in January of 1782. As of 1790, Charley resided
in Washington County, Pennsylvania where he married Christena Lutz. By 1794, George,
Christena, and their young son Peter had moved to Jefferson County, Kentucky (near
Louisville), where they remained until about 1811. The family, with 8 children, then
moved to Harrison County, Indiana, just north of the new town of Corydon (Deter 1974)
(Figure 2).
It was here, overlooking the outlet of an underground spring at its confluence with
Big Indian Creek, that Charley established his farm (Figure 3). He and his family lived in
15
FIGURE 2. George Charley family migration route.
TABLE 1. Occupation History of the Charley Farmstead.
George and
Christena
Charley
c.18111833
1820 = 9
individuals
Joseph and
Sarah
Charley
1833-1861
1860 = 8
individuals
Sarah
(Charley)
and John J.
Mauck
David
Charley
c.1861c.1890
1880 ≈ 7
individuals
c.18611912
1900 = 9
individuals
Addie Lee
(Mauck)
and James
Lockhart
Sarah
(Lockhart)
and George
M. Miles
George C.
and Marie
Miles
Larry and
Judi Miles
1912-1947
1947-1974
1974-2000
2000-2010
1930 = 8
individuals
1960 ≈ 6
individuals
1980 = 2
individuals
2
individuals
16
FIGURE 3. Map of Indiana showing the location of the Charley farmstead.
17
a four-room, two-story, dog trot log house. At the time of the 1820 census, the Charley
household consisted of nine individuals (Table 1): George, his wife Christena, and six
children, including son Joseph who would inherit the farm after his father‟s death in 1833
(USBC 1820). At the time of his death, George Charley had provided land to all of his
sons, most of who lived nearby. All of his surviving daughters, likewise, had married into
neighboring farm families with land of their own (Deter 1974).
Joseph ran a saw mill on the site, located on Indian Creek just downstream from
the outlet of Miles Spring (USBC 1850c, Miles [1970s]) He married Sarah Blanche
Hayden on Jan 12, 1843. Joseph and Sarah had three children: David, Melvina, and
Matilda. As mentioned earlier, Joseph took over the farm following his father‟s death,
and ran it until his own death in 1861 (Deter 1974). The 1860 census indicates that the
household at that time consisted of eight individuals, including two farm laborers (USBC
1860a). In 1861, Joseph‟s widow Sarah married John J. Mauck, a riverboat pilot and
member of a prominent Harrison County family. John and Sarah (Charley) Mauck had
two daughters, Addie Lee and Anna. While John himself was a native of Harrison
County, his family, like the Charley family, came to Indiana from the Virginia Piedmont.
John Mauck operated a flour mill on 80 acres to the southwest of Corydon, IN, and spent
most of his time there (Miles [1970s]) (Figure 4). John Mauck, his step-son David
Charley, or both were likely responsible for the weather boarding and modification of the
original log house on the Charley farmstead that occurred during the latter half of the
nineteenth century.
After his mother remarried, David Charley continued to have an important role on
the farm, and is listed as head of household in the 1870 and 1900 censuses. John Mauck
18
is listed in the 1880 census, and there were no records for 1890 (USBC 1870a, 1880a,
1900). David was married, but his wife died of a short illness and he was left childless.
By the end of the nineteenth century, David and his mother had been joined on the farm
by his two half sisters, Addie Lockhart and Annie Hottel, their husbands, and their
children (Miles [1970s]) (Figures 5 and 6). At the time of the 1900 census, there were 9
individuals in residence at the Charley farmstead, including one farm hand, James Green
(USBC 1900). Following David's death in 1912, the farm was inherited by Addie and
James Lockhart. In 1920, the Lockharts were residing at the farm along with their
daughter Sarah, and son-in-law, George M. Miles (USBC 1920). George and Sarah Miles
took over the farm beginning in the 1930s, and resided there until their deaths in 1974,
along with their children and grandchildren. In 1974, the farm was inherited by their son,
George Carlton Miles, and his wife Marie. At the time of this thesis, the property was
owned by their son, Larry Miles, and his wife Judith.
Architectural History
The first building of note is the original log house (Figure 7). Erected circa 1810,
the structure was weather boarded around 1864 or 1865. A two-story front porch was also
added at this time. Because of this, the logs themselves are no longer visible, and analysis
of the log architecture is somewhat limited. It is a two-story, four room structure,
originally with a breezeway between the two lower story pens (representing the dog trot
19
FIGURE 4. John J. Mauck's mill, date unknown.
20
FIGURE 5. 1882 plat map of Harrison Township depicting the Charley farmstead
and the surrounding land as the property of David S. and Melvina Charley and
Sarah Blanche Mauck (Griffing 1882).
21
FIGURE 6. 1906 plat map of Harrison Township depicting the Charley farmstead,
the Charley cemetery, and the surrounding land as the property of David S.
Charley (Bulleit 1906).
22
style of log houses). The construction of the log house is mentioned in Sarah Miles‟
notes:
One of the first things to do and of great importance was to
build a house. A site was picked that would be close to the
large spring. Trees of walnut, oak, poplar, and sugar were
cut to build the house, two rooms down with hall sweep or
blow way down stairs, then two rooms same size were built
on the second floor. Large fireplaces and chimneys were
built at each end of the house (Miles [1970s]).
A later addition on the west side consisted of an expanded cellar, first floor dining room
and kitchen, and a second floor bedroom and bath. I was unable to locate an exact date
for this addition, but, considering the nature of the materials used, and the dates on old
family photographs this addition seems to have occurred sometime in the late-nineteenth
century, prior to 1895 (Figures 8 and 9). A garage was added to the east side of the house
in the 1930‟s (Head 2007) (Figure 10).
The site itself is located on and around an underground spring, Miles Spring, and
is adjacent to Big Indian Creek (Figure 11). The close vicinity to running water made the
site an ideal location for a mill. During the late antebellum period (circa 1840-1860),
there were two mills in operation by the Charley Family on Big Indian Creek. This
included both a gristmill and a saw mill, probably operated at about the same time, with
Joseph Charley having the saw mill on the farm, and his brother Jacob working the
gristmill nearby (Miles [1970s]). Joseph‟s sawmill, according to the 1850 Census of
23
FIGURE 7. Artist's depiction of the original log dwelling circa 1810 (Deter 1974).
FIGURE 8. (from left) John J. Mauck, Addie Lee Mauck (holding Otto Hottell),
Annie Hottell, Sarah B. Mauck (holding Leo Hottell), and David Charley posing
in front of the main dwelling circa 1895.
24
FIGURE 9. (from left) Addie Lee Lockhart (holding Sarah B. Lockhart), Sarah B.
Mauck, and David Charley sitting on the porch of the main dwelling circa 1898.
FIGURE 10. The main dwelling today, facing south.
25
Manufactures, was relatively small in relation to other nearby saw mills (USBC 1850c).
And, while not represented on any census schedule, Jacob‟s mill seems to have been a
fair-sized operation. Again, from Sarah Miles‟ notes:
Jacob Charley, son of George Charley, had a mill there. The
house had the usual big fireplace where the cooking was
done. (The same cooking utensils are still at the old family
home). People for miles around the country gathered there
to have their grinding done. They oft times brought their
own victuals with them as sometimes they were obliged to
stay for days at a time before they could get their grinding
done (Miles [1970s]).
Built at the base of a steep hill, to the northwest of the family dwelling is a two
story spring house and „sugar house' (Figure 12). At this location, Miles Spring runs
above-ground, with the surrounding hill shored up by a large dry-laid limestone retaining
wall (see Figure 11). The first story of the spring house is stone, incorporating large,
locally quarried limestone blocks. The second story is frame construction with a plank
floor. In this second story room, the Loom Room, are a large number of objects curated
by the current and previous occupants of the farm, including a large hand loom.
Unfortunately, this second story was largely destroyed by a damage sustained from a
fallen tree in 2009. At the west end of the springhouse is the sugar house, open on the
north and south ends, with a limestone wall on the west side (Figure 13). In the sugar
26
FIGURE 11. Outlet of Miles Spring and stone retaining wall near spring house,
facing southeast.
FIGURE 12. Spring House, north gable end.
27
FIGURE 13. Sugar house, facing north.
FIGURE 14. Apple house and sunken road/central drainage, facing
southwest.
28
house, the iron kettles are still in place in the stone hearth, and fragments of the wooden
buckets used for capturing and transporting the sap are scattered about (Head 2007).
The apple house was built directly west of the main dwelling, and has since been
converted into a residence (Figure 14). The processing of apples was a major event on the
Charley farm. An orchard was kept on a hill to the south of the house lot, and the apples
were dried and stored on the main floor of the apple house, which also has a cellar. Sarah
Miles detailed the process in her notes:
When it came time for apple drying, the apples were hauled
from the orchard on the hill south of the house in a 2 horse
wagon or sometimes a small load was brought in the black
spring wagon…the apples were brought to the dry house
which was a building about 8‟ x 10‟ with 4 slatted drawers
on each side up about 3 feet from the floor – a wood stove
was in the center with the pipe up through the roof, a fire
was kept going to dry the apples that were peeled, cored,
quartered and if not very large these quarters were cut in
half so the drying time would not be so long (Miles
[1970s]).
From the dimensions given, the „dry house‟ mentioned in these notes is potentially the
same structure labeled „smoke house‟ in a later memory map produced by Carlton Miles
and Larry Head (Figure 15). According to Sarah Miles' notes, this dry house was
constructed in 1888 (Miles [1970s]). The structure was located off the southwest corner
of the main dwelling (Head 2007).
29
The granary is located northwest of the spring house (Figure 16). While the
exterior of this structure has been modified, probably in the latter nineteenth century or
early twentieth, the large, hand-hewn beams seen inside are original. Since the granary
was in use well into the twentieth century, much of the structure is more recent, and the
few original elements that remain are in an increasing state of deterioration. In 1911,
David Charley had a large Midwest three portal barn constructed next to the granary. This
barn is still standing, and is an excellent example of typical barn architecture for the
region (Figure 17). In addition to the saw mill, grist mill, and dry house or smoke house
mentioned previously, there are a number of other structures on the site which are no
longer visible above ground (see Figure 15). This includes a summer kitchen, located in
between the family dwelling and the apple house, a wood shed, located behind the family
dwelling near the smoke house, and at least three privies (Head 2007). An additional
structure was located during excavations in the front house lot. This structure was
identified based on the presence of architectural materials, such as limestone fragments,
brick, nails, and window glass in the upper levels of a pit cellar feature. While the exact
function of this structure is unclear, it seems likely that it was a detached kitchen that
predated the summer kitchen depicted on the memory map.
30
FIGURE 15. "Memory map" of the Charley farmstead (Head and Miles [1970s]).
31
FIGURE 16. Granary, facing southeast.
FIGURE 17. 1911 three portal barn, facing north.
32
Economic Activities
Much of the economic activities at the farmstead may be inferred from the types
of structures at the farm. Obviously, at one time or another, the Charley households were
occupied with maple sugaring, apple processing, grain cultivation, and milling. But, since
absolute dates of construction or periods of operation have not been established for all of
the structures, information taken from Census of Agriculture schedules proved useful in
establishing a greater understanding of these activities, the extent of labor and
produce/products involved, and an understanding of the relative wealth and status of the
Charley family over time (Cupka Head 2009). The analysis of these records is
incomplete, but even following a preliminary examination, much of this information, at
least for the Joseph and David Charley households, may be discerned.
The Joseph Charley family enjoyed a standard of living above the average for the
surrounding community. As of 1850, the cash value of Joseph‟s land, equipment, and
livestock was significantly greater than the average of the surrounding households
(Figure 18). The census records indicate that the household was engaged in the raising of
sheep, cattle, and swine, as well as the cultivation of wheat and maize, activities typical
to many of the neighboring farms. Household manufactures were also produced, valued
at $25 for the year of 1849 (USBC 1850b). Over the next decade, the value of Joseph
Charley‟s holdings increased from about $3,500 to $16,500, indicating a successful
surplus operation. The averages for the value of the 30 surrounding farms for these years
are $1,117 and $4,220. As of 1860, the farm was raising more cattle, fewer sheep, a
comparable amount of swine, and cultivating significantly more wheat and maize, as well
33
as Irish potatoes (Figure 19). Butter and molasses were also being produced, and the
amount of household manufactures for 1859 was valued at $45 (USBC 1860b). So, by
1860, just a year prior to his death, Joseph Charley and his wife Sarah had seen a great
deal of prosperity, operating one of the most successful farms in Harrison Township.
David Charley inherited the farm from his father Joseph, and continued much of
the same activities, but the recorded value of his land, implements, and livestock as of
1870 is only $5, 290, far less than that of 1850, despite an increase in improved acreage
(the community average is $2,850). Less wheat, maize, and potatoes were produced, but
oats were also cultivated. In 1870, David‟s household was also raising fewer cattle and
swine, in favor of sheep. Butter and molasses continued to be produced (USBC 1870b).
The 1880 records are more detailed, and indicate an increase in value from $5,290 to
$8,800, while community average actually decreased to $2,199. By this time, most of the
surrounding farmland had been split up and sold off, so that few truly substantial farms
remained. A key difference between 1870 and 1880 is the appearance of 6 acres of
orchard land, supporting 300 apple trees. Cattle and sheep continued to be raised, along
with chickens, but, as of 1880, swine were not raised. Butter continued to be produced,
but not molasses. Maize, wheat, and both Irish and sweet potatoes were cultivated (USBC
1880b). While the David Charley household operated a successful farm, the operation
seems muted when compared to that of his father. It is also of note that David was a shoe
maker (Mauck 1882), although the extent to which he pursued this as a profession
remains unclear. The gradual decline in production may be related to David Charley
being childless, thus not motivated to extend his holdings in order to provide for his
children. Or perhaps it merely reflects the economic changes of his time.
34
While the census records provide a great deal of detail concerning the economic
activities of the Joseph and David Charley households, no such records exist for the
period between 1810 and 1833 when George Charley was head of household. The sole
record available, pending a more extensive search for probate inventories and farm
journals, is the record of his estate sale in 1833, included in Deter‟s genealogical work.
This is an incomplete inventory of the estate of George Charley at the time of his death.
Some economic activities are quite explicit, such as the listings for bushels of oats, corn,
wheat, and hay. Others may be implied from a consideration of the function of listed
items, such as sheep shears and a sawmill saw. Most of the items, however, are personal
or kitchen related, suggesting more about status and wealth than particular economic
activities. Items such as feather beds, silver watches, rifles, and other furniture suggest a
household of adequate means, possibly above average. Due to the limited textual
information concerning the economic activities of the George Charley household, this
period was of primary concern to the archaeological investigations at the site.
35
FIGURE 18. Value of farm, implements, and livestock, 1850–1880.
FIGURE 19. Production of maize, wheat, and oats, 1850-1880.
36
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW
Farmstead Archaeology
In the Eastern United States, historic period farmsteads, especially late nineteenth
and early-twentieth century farmsteads, are an extremely common archaeological
resource. Because of this, the significance of these sites is often questioned, and they may
even be overlooked or disregarded during archaeological surveys. However, the
pervasiveness of these sites is in itself significant. Agrarian life ways have dominated
much of the history of Eastern North America after 1500. And small, family operated
farms became a critically important facet in the U.S. during the late eighteenth,
nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. Farmsteads provide an opportunity for
archaeologists to examine virtually every aspect of American social history at both micro
and macro levels of analysis, diachronically, and between and within geographic regions
(Wilson 1990; Groover 2008).
Mark Groover‟s (2008) comprehensive book, The Archaeology of North
American Farmsteads, examines a number of case studies organized into time period
(Colonial, Federal/Antebellum, Postbellum/Modern) and region (Northeast, Southeast,
Midwest). Reading Groover‟s work, it became apparent that much of the information I
was striving to obtain (with regards to existing research) was already compiled quite
37
neatly in one little volume. In addition to the case studies, Groover introduces a
“regionally based research design for farmstead archaeology” which will serve as a
critical foundation for my approach to research at the Charley Farmstead. This research
design involves establishing historic context for a region, a community, and a specific
site, and using such contextual data in the analysis of archaeological information gathered
from the site (Groover 2008).
There have been a number of archaeological investigations relevant to my
research, either because of a similarity (architectural, economic, cultural, etc.) between
the sites being studied, or because of the geographic setting of the site. The Charley‟s
migrated from Washington County in Western Pennsylvania, a region that has been
previously studied, both at the Shaeffer site (Bedell et al. 1994; Groover 2008) and at
“Woodville” (Carlisle 1998), among others. The Gibbs Farmstead in Southern
Appalachia, excavated by Charles Faulkner (Groover 2003, 2008), bears some striking
similarities to the Charley Farmstead, especially with regards to the succession of
households over time. These three studies collectively represent, broadly, the region of
Appalachia which contributed the majority of settlers to the “hill country” of Indiana,
including the Charley family.
A number of relevant studies also exist for farms in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and
Michigan. Excavations at the Dunlap Farmstead in Northwest Ohio are of interest
because the site represents an early nineteenth century farmstead settled by a
Revolutionary War soldier, similar to the situation at the Charley Farmstead (Stothers et
al. 1998; Stothers and Tucker 2002). In Indiana, research at the Huddleston House in
Wayne County may provide comparative data in the future (Groover 2007). Research at
38
both the Rickenbaugh and Waldrip farmsteads in the Hoosier National Forest region have
produced a good deal of information concerning landscape use, architecture, and
economic activities for postbellum Southern Indiana farmsteads (Sieber and Munson
1992). It seems that a majority of published Midwest farmstead studies concern sites in
Illinois (McCorvie 1987; McCorvie et al. 1989; Phillippe 1990; Schroeder 1995; Gums et
al. 1999). These studies are useful in that they represent a broad range of site types within
the Midwest farmstead classification. Research at the Shepard site in Southwest
Michigan is also relevant, both as an example of successful geophysical investigation and
as an intensely studied antebellum Midwest site (Sayers 1999; Sayers and Nassaney
1999; Groover 2008). Additionally, studies exploring techniques for interpreting the
architectural landscape of North American farmsteads provide an excellent foundation for
my own investigation (Adams 1990; Ford 2008). All of these studies represent a solid
body of knowledge that has greatly contributed to the research at the Charley site.
Rural Economics Studies
Much of my thesis is concerned with defining the dynamics of the economic
setting at the Charley farmstead during the nineteenth century. Because of this, certain
studies of the history of rural economics during the nineteenth century are relevant. A
small number of studies stand out. Some are relatively broad multidisciplinary regional
studies that fall more in line with my social history category, and are not strictly
economic (Salamon 1992; Sieber and Munson 1992; Rugh 2001; Nation 2005). These
works illustrate and emphasize the interconnectedness between the social and the
39
economic realms within nineteenth century Midwest farm communities. Other works are
more specific in their economic focus, examining the processes influencing changes in
crop choices (e.g. Gregson 1993), the success of Midwestern and Northern farm
production on the eve of the Civil War (Atack and Bateman 1984), or specific economic
practices, such as maple sugar production (Roy 1976).
Regional Social Histories
Social histories are also very important here. Historical archaeology, being an
interdisciplinary endeavor, often requires a consideration of non-archaeological studies in
order to provide context and guidance for research. While Harrison County, Indiana has
not been the focus of much academic historical research, a couple of helpful early
volumes exist (Roos 1911; Funk 1974). To supplement the paucity of direct historical
information, as well as to provide context on a larger scale, volumes of regional histories
are helpful. A brief overview of the history of the Hoosier National Forest Region was
compiled on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Sieber and Munson 1992).
Also, Richard Nation (2005) published an interesting volume on the “hill country” of
Southern Indiana which focuses on agriculture, politics, and religion within the region
during the nineteenth century. Representing a case study in local level social history,
Susan Rughs‟s (2001) study of life in rural nineteenth century Fountain Green, Illinois
provides some excellent comparative information.
40
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
Prior to conducting fieldwork, it was assumed that archaeological investigations at
the Charley farmstead would yield data suitable for addressing a number of topical issues
not easily discerned from documentary research alone. This held especially true for the
George Charley household, since very little documentary evidence was available for this
period. It was held that the relationships between the occupants and the built landscape
may be perceived through archaeological investigations, by examining the development
and movement of outbuildings over time, for example. Additionally, obtaining and
analyzing a sample of the household material culture from the site can reveal details
about the standard of living experienced at the farm, and how this changed through time.
Analysis of ceramics and faunal materials can provide vital information on foodways and
household culture in general. Finally, considering the influence of migration on the
material culture at the farmstead may provide some insight into the ethnic development
of the Charley family and their community.
This process required a variety of methods both in the field and in the lab. To
present my methodology in an organized manner, this section is divided into two parts.
The first part examines the methods used for survey and data recovery at the Charley site.
The second part discusses the methods employed in analyzing data and placing that data
in context. The main concern in developing this methodology was producing an approach
41
that was specific enough to address the particular aims of this project, but comprehensive
enough to allow for further alternative analyses while preserving the integrity of the site.
In other words, I hoped to obtain an effective sample that would be useful for this and
other potential projects in a manner that would disturb as little of the site as possible.
Site Survey and Data Recovery
Before proceeding with any fieldwork, I set out to ensure that my project had
received all the proper sanctions necessary to proceed legally and ethically. In addition to
receiving an approval for this thesis proposal, I obtained permission from the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Division of Historic Preservation and
Archaeology (DHPA) and the consent of the land owner before entering the field.
Additionally, it was necessary to map the project area in order to establish a reference
grid for the survey and excavation. The English standard system was used for all
measurements as this system likely was used by the Charleys in developing the
architectural landscape of the site. Measurements were determined in tenths and
hundredths of feet. A standard measurement of 1 foot 6 inches, for instance, would be
recorded as 1.50 feet. Using a manual optical transit and tape, the entire house lot was
mapped as a grid using a base interval of 30 feet, and all structures and features – both
artificial and natural – were mapped. I initially set out to survey a 2-acre area of the house
lot, but chose to extend this area in an attempt to sample a larger portion of the site and
explore alternative options for the location of features.
Following mapping, the subsurface electrical resistance of the main house lot was
42
investigated using a GeoScan RM-15 electronic resistance meter. Soil resistance survey
has proven a useful method for identifying buried structural features on historic sites
(Gater and Gaffney 2004). Twin Probe readings were taken at 1-m intervals in a series of
14, 20-m grids, covering nearly 1.6-acre area of the house lot. Dummy readings were
taken for areas that proved inaccessible to the resistance meter. These areas included
heavily overgrown portions of the property, areas with an abundance of stone at the
ground surface, water, and standing structures and other above ground features. The
remainder of the site was surveyed and the data was dumped into Geoscan's GEOPLOT
software for analysis. The results of the resistance survey were analyzed to identify any
anomalies with archaeological potential. It was anticipated that this resistance survey
would identify the footprints of former structures at the site. Identifying features such as
midden, trenches, road/drive surfaces, septic fields, and privies was also a possibility.
An approximately 2-acre area of the house lot was examined more closely, with
shovel test probes (STPs) placed every 30 feet. STPs had diameters of no less than 11.8
in (30 cm) and were excavated into the subsoil. All dirt removed during testing was
screened through 1/4-inch mesh. The artifacts recovered from the STPs were tabulated,
classified into functional groups, and mean artifact dates (MADs) were assigned to each
STP after establishing date ranges for all temporally diagnostic artifacts. The results were
mapped in order to identify areas of high artifact concentration and areas of relatively
early MADs (before 1850). A portion of the site along a sunken drive/drainage
immediately to the east of the Apple House was characterized by good ground surface
visibility (greater than 30 percent) and an abundance of stone and rock made excavation
of STPs or test units extremely difficult. This narrow portion of the project area was
43
walked in two 5-ft transects, and artifacts were collected from the ground surface.
Based on the results of the resistivity survey and the shovel testing and surface
collection, three loci were identified for further testing, including areas with high artifact
concentration, relatively early MADs, and unidentified resistivity anomalies with
archaeological potential. A total of 6, 3-ft2 test units were opened in order to sample these
areas of interest. These units were excavated in 0.3 foot arbitrary levels into sterile
subsoil. Natural levels were maintained whenever they were identified. All soil removed
was screened through ¼ inch mesh, and all artifacts identified in the screen or test unit
were recovered, with the exception of brick, mortar, and other masonry material, for
which only a representative sample from each level was collected. The remaining
construction materials were tabulated prior to discard. Photographs were taken of any
features, and after the completion of each test unit excavation. Units and features were
mapped in plan view, and unit or feature profiles were mapped as necessary. These test
units yielded the bulk of the data set for the subsequent analysis.
Analytical Methods
Analysis commenced with the tabulation of artifacts and assigning each artifact to
a functional group (Architectural, Domestic, Clothing, Arms, etc.). All temporally
diagnostic artifacts were assigned date ranges based on existing literature on periods of
manufacture and usage trends. Mean artifact dates (MADs) were established for each unit
and level. It was anticipated that the bulk of artifacts would fall into the Architectural,
Domestic, and Floral and Faunal groups, and that these artifacts, especially ceramics,
44
glassware, and faunal remains, would likely yield the best information on economic
activities. Of primary concern was the reconstruction of the earlier landscape(s), and
examining continuity and change in the household material culture. Specifically, I
intended to quantitatively evaluate relationships between higher quality wares versus
lower quality wares and higher quality types and cuts of meat versus lower quality types
and cuts. For ceramics, this was accomplished by dividing the assemblage into major
ware types, vessel forms, and decoration and considering the average value for each type
of ware. Faunal remains were analyzed separately by Amanda Carver and Dr. S. Homes
Hogue at Ball State University (Appendix A). Prehistoric materials were analyzed by
Andrew Martin, RPA of Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc.
45
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
Soil Resistance Survey
Soil resistance testing commenced at the site in August of 2009. A small crew,
consisting of myself, Sue Cupka Head, Jacob Schmidt, and Sarah Fosnight completed a
twin probe survey of 14 20-m2 blocks, recording readings at 1 m intervals. Some areas of
the site were inaccessible and dummy readings were registered for these locations. For
this survey, a Geoscan RM-15 resistance meter was used, and all data was logged
automatically by the device. This data was subsequently dumped to a computer and
analyzed using Geoscan's GEOPLOT software. With the help of Beth McCord at the Ball
State Archaeological Resource Management Service, the data was filtered and enhanced,
and a number of anomalies became apparent (Figure 20). Three anomalies were identified
for further testing based on size, geometry, orientation on the landscape, and the relative
“strength” of the anomaly.
Anomaly A consisted of a circular area of extremely low resistance surrounding a
dense, high resistance region near the location of an existing pecan tree immediately to
the east of the house, and adjacent to the paved drive (See Figure 20). This anomaly was
investigated during shovel testing at the site, with two STPs (STPs 9-7 and 10-7) located
within the low resistance portion of the anomaly. Both STPs revealed a 0.15-ft thick layer
46
FIGURE 20. GEOPLOT soil resistance map depicting the results of the survey and
Anomalies A, B, and C, lighter tones indicate low resistance and darker tones indicate
high resistance.
47
of modern gravel approximately 0.3-ft below ground surface (bgs). The anomaly appears
to be a modern gravel drive that had been covered with sod. This interpretation of was
later confirmed by Carla Head, who lived on the farm from 1948 until 1966, and recalled
the gravel turn-around in use during the Indiana Sesquicentennial tours of the farmstead
(Head 2010). It is possible the high resistance concentration to the center of the gravel
drive was somehow related to the root structure of an older, much larger pecan tree that
used to stand at that location.
Anomaly B consisted of an approximately 8 ft by 8 ft square area of low
resistance to the southeast of the main house, near the location of the “1st Outhouse” on
the memory map (see Figure 14). One positive STP was excavated in the vicinity of this
anomaly, yielding 1 cut nail. It is possible this anomaly represents the location of a latenineteenth to early-twentieth century privy. However, excavating a privy was deemed
beyond the scope of this study, and the anomaly was left intact for the time being.
However, the investigation of this anomaly should likely be of paramount importance to
any further archaeological investigations at the site.
Anomaly C consisted of an approximately 20 ft by 15 ft rectangular anomaly
located immediately to the southeast of the apple house. The location, orientation, size,
and shape of this anomaly suggested that it could possibly represent a structure. Three
STPs were located in the vicinity of this anomaly, yielding brick, nails, and a blue
transfer-print porcelain cup base. The presence of historic materials in these STPs, and
the good archaeological potential of this anomaly led to the establishment of Locus C.
Test unit 6 was placed over Anomaly C. While it is possible that Anomaly C represents
the footprint of a former structure, the results of testing were inconclusive. A pit feature
48
with associated late-nineteenth to early-twentieth century architectural materials and
midden deposits was associated with this anomaly. Little more can be inferred without
further excavation.
Shovel Testing
On September 26, 2009, a crew of students from Ball State, consisting of myself,
Jessie Moore, Michael Lautzenheiser, Christopher Chambers, and Brent Alexander,
commenced the initial phase of shovel testing at the Charley farmstead. Over two days,
the crew excavated a total of 72 STPs to an average depth of approximately 1.5 feet
below ground surface (bgs). These 72 STPs were located along 11 north-south transects
at 30 ft. intervals. Of these 72 STPs, only 14 yielded cultural material (Figure 21). Both
historic and prehistoric materials were recovered. This initial phase of shovel testing was
confined to the rear house lot and the region between the main house and the apple house.
Contrary to initial expectations, no substantial midden deposits were identified in the rear
house lot as a result of this survey. This lack of midden deposits could be due to
disturbances at the site, unconventional refuse disposal patterns, or disposal areas located
elsewhere at the site.
In an effort to further define the extent of potential archaeological deposits at the
site, additional shovel testing was conducted to the west of the rear house lot and in the
front house lot. On October 18, 2009, three STPs were excavated to the west of the rear
house lot. None of these STPs were positive for cultural material. Between October 31
and November 1, 2009, an additional 7 STPs were excavated in the front house lot. Six of
49
these STPs were positive for cultural material. One STP (STP 14-2) was characterized by
the presence of a relatively deep cultural deposit and was excavated to a depth of 3 feet
before sterile soil was encountered. The feature (Feature 1) encountered in STP 14-2
initially yielded cut nails, window glass, whiteware, an animal tooth, and prehistoric
lithics. The materials recovered from this STP would prove to be an accurate sample of
the archaeological deposits encountered during the further investigation of the feature.
To better define the three loci investigated through test unit excavations, a number
of positive STPs from the first and second phases of shovel testing were delineated in 15
ft. intervals. These delineations took place on March 10, 2010. A total of 32 delineating
STPs were excavated to an average depth of 1.5 ft. Of these 32 STPs, six were positive
for cultural material. Of these 6, 2 were located in Locus A, 2 in Locus B, and 2 in Locus
C (see Figure 21). Positive delineations in Locus A were to the south and east of the
initial positive STP. Only nails were recovered from these STPs, but the cultural fill did
extend to a depth of approximately 3.0 ft suggesting that these STPs were also
encountering Feature 1 fill. Positive delineations in Locus B were to the north and east of
STP 3-7. These STPs yielded brick, container glass, ironstone, stoneware, redware, a
porcelain/prosser sew-through button, and a clay flower pot fragment. Positive
delineations in Locus C were to the east of STP 2-6 and to the west of STP 3-5. STP 2-6E
yielded nails, window glass, ironstone, whiteware, and a plastic container fragment. This
STP was located immediately south of the apple house. STP 3-5W yielded a blue
transfer-print porcelain cup base and was located within the low resistance area of
Anomaly C.
50
FIGURE 21. Schematic site map.
51
Soils at the site were mapped as Crider-Vertrees silt loams. Crider soils (Mesic
Typic Paleudalfs) are very deep, well-drained soils found in areas of karst topography,
and formed in loess and from the residuum of limestone. The typical pedon for Crider
soils is characterized by a brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam Ap horizon underlain by a brown
(7.5YR 4/4) silt loam subsoil (Neyhouse et al. 2009). Vertrees soils (Mesic Typic
Paleudalfs) are also very deep, well drained soils found in areas of karst topography, and
formed from the residuum of limestone. The typical pedon for Vertrees soils is
characterized by a grayish brown (10YR 4/3) Ap horizon underlain by a red (5YR 5/8)
clay (Neyhouse et al. 2009). Both Crider and Vertrees soils are classified as Alsifols
which are never flooded, and have a very slow rate of deposition (Soil Survey Staff
2010). Therefore, archaeological deposits were expected to be located on or very near the
surface at the Charley site.
Soils observed during shovel testing generally conformed to the range of color
and texture attributed to Crider silt loams. The typical shovel test was characterized by a
brown (10YR 4/3 to 4/4) silt loam over a brown (7/5YR 4/4 or 10YR 4/4) silt to silty clay
loam. Reddish clay subsoils were observed in STPs located to the extreme southwest of
the survey area. STPs to the immediate south and southeast of the houselot appeared
disturbed, likely during excavations for a new septic system that was installed circa 2004.
These disturbed STPs were characterized by a lack of topsoil and mottled clay with
moderate gravel content. Due to concerns over the placement of buried electrical lines,
STPs were not excavated within the fenced-in dog yard adjacent to the rear of the house.
A total of 16 STPs were not excavated as a result of obvious ground disturbance,
inaccessible soils, or concern over the presence of buried utility lines or septic system
52
features.
Test Unit Excavations
After considering the results of the soil resistivity and shovel test pit surveys,
three loci were determined to have the greatest potential to yield significant samples of
cultural materials. Locus A was located in the front house lot, approximately 60 ft. north
of the central entrance to the main dwelling. This location was selected for further testing
based on the apparent feature encountered in STP 14-2. Locus B was located between the
main dwelling and the apple house and was selected for further testing based on the
higher densities of materials recovered in this area during shovel testing and surface
collections. Locus C was located behind the apple house and was selected based on the
presence of an intriguing rectangular soil resistance anomaly and cultural materials
recovered from nearby shovel tests (see Figure 21).
Locus A, Trench 1 (Units 1-4)
Test unit excavations commenced at Locus A on November 8, 2009, further
investigating Feature 1, which had been encountered during the later phase of shovel
testing. Initially, Unit 1 was opened near the location of STP 14-2, and excavated in 5,
0.3-ft levels to a depth of 1.8 ft. Four soil strata were observed during this initial
excavation of Unit 1 (Figure 22). These soils consisted of an approximately 0.4-ft thick
brown (10YR 4/4) silt loam Ap horizon over an approximately 0.2-ft thick layer of strong
brown (7.5YR 5/6) silty clay with brown (10YR 4/4), pale brown (10YR 6/3) and strong
53
brown (10YR 5/6) mottles. This mottled layer appeared to be mixed fill from an
excavation disturbance of some kind, which was believed to be associated with the
feature that had been identified in STP 14-2. Beneath this initial mottled horizon, an
interface horizon of brown (10YR 4/4) silt loam mottled with strong brown (7.5YR 5/6)
silty clay extended to approximately 0.9 ft bgs. The base of this interface horizon has
since been identified as the top of the feature 1 fill, which was characterized by a brown
(10YR 4/4) silt loam with concentrations of limestone fragments. Because this feature fill
extended throughout the unit, the feature was excavated to a depth of 1.5 ft. bgs before
the decision was made to expand the excavation in an effort to better delineate the feature
boundaries.
Four cut nails were recovered from the Ap horizon in Unit 1. The mottled backfill
encountered in Levels 2 and 3 yielded ten cut nails, seven nails of indeterminate
manufacture, one clear fragment of machine-made container glass, one lead-glazed
redware sherd, one unidentified metal fragment, one prehistoric flake, and three
unidentified items of unknown material. Materials recovered from the first level of
Feature 1 included cut nails, window glass, machine-made container glass, unidentified
metal, bone, shell, and prehistoric lithics. The second level of Feature 1 yielded brick, cut
nails, window glass, a button, blown-in-mold container glass, lead-glazed redware,
whiteware, bone, charcoal, prehistoric lithics, and a piece of tinfoil. A substantial quantity
of limestone fragments, presumably architectural hammer-dressed stone fragments, were
observed within this level. These fragments were mapped in situ (Figure 23).
The excavation was expanded by opening an additional 3 ft2 test unit adjacent to
the west wall of Unit 1. This test unit was labeled Unit 2, and excavation commenced on
54
November 14, 2009. This Unit was also excavated in 0.3-ft arbitrary levels. However, the
mottled backfill layer beneath the Ap horizon was removed as a single layer due to the
mixed/disturbed nature of the deposits within this stratum. The soils encountered in Unit
2 were identical to those observed during the excavation of Unit 1. Feature 1 fill was
encountered in Level 3, at a depth of approximately 0.8 ft bgs. Two levels of Feature 1
were excavated to a total depth of 1.5 ft bgs, establishing an arbitrary floor based on the
limits of the previously excavated Unit 1 to the east. Some amorphous yellowish brown
clay stains and charcoal flecking was observed at the base of Feature 1, Level 2 in Unit 2,
as well as more fragments of hammer-dressed limestone (see Figure 23). As the Feature 1
fill extended throughout the entirety of Units 1 and 2, continued expansion of the
excavation was deemed necessary.
The Ap-horizon of Unit 2 yielded cut nails, machine-made and blown-in-mold
container glass, ironstone, bone, a prehistoric flake, and unidentified items. Materials
recovered from the mixed backfill included cut nails, plate glass, window glass, blownin-mold container glass, ironstone, redware, whiteware, and a prehistoric flake. Level 1
of Feature 1 in Unit 2 yielded cut nails, a .22 caliber rimfired bullet casing, bone,
cinder/slag, and prehistoric flakes. Materials recovered from the second level of Feature 1
in Unit 2 included brick, cut nails, nails of indeterminate manufacture, window glass,
blown-in-mold container glass, pearlware, redware, unidentified ceramic, bone, shell,
charcoal, general hardware, and a prehistoric flake.
Unit 3 was placed adjacent to the west wall of Unit 2, and opened on November
21, 2009. The practice of excavating in 0.3-ft arbitrary levels, with the exception of the
mixed backfill layer beneath the Ap-horizon was continued for this test unit. The soils
55
encountered were identical to those from Units 1 and 2, except that no interface was
identified between the mixed backfill and the brown Feature 1 fill. Instead, an extremely
distinct line was observed between the two horizons at a depth of approximately 0.9 ft
bgs. Two levels of Feature 1 were excavated to a total depth of 1.5 ft bgs, establishing an
arbitrary floor based on the limits of the previously excavated Units 1 and 2 to the east.
Very few limestone fragments were observed in Unit 3 (see Figure 23).
Materials recovered from the Ap-horizon included bone, brick, cut nails, nails of
indeterminate manufacture, ironstone, redware, and a clay flower pot fragment. The
mixed backfill layer yielded only a few cut and indeterminate nails and a prehistoric
flake. Since the backfill in Unit 3 did not include an interface, the paucity of materials
recovered suggests that the majority of the artifacts recovered from this layer in other
units were pushed up from the feature fill below as a result of bioturbation or other
disturbances. The first level of Feature 1 in Unit 3 yielded brick, blown-in-mold glass,
redware, whiteware, and yelloware. Materials recovered from the second level of Feature
1 included brick, cut nails, blown-in-mold glass, redware, whiteware, bone, shell,
prehistoric lithics, and unidentified fragments. Although Feature 1 fill was evident
throughout the entirety of Unit 3, expanding the excavation any further to the west was
impossible due to the close proximity of a water main immediately west of Unit 3.
Unit 4 was placed adjacent to the east wall of Unit 1, and opened on November
22, 2009. Again, all levels were removed as 0.3-ft arbitrary levels with the exception of
the layer of mixed backfill, which was removed as a single level. The soils observed in
Unit 4 were generally consistent with those observed in Units 1 and 2 (see Figure 22).
However, the mixed backfill layer was much more diffuse, characterized primarily by the
56
interface brown with strong brown mottling except in the westernmost portion of the unit,
where a thin lens of mottled backfill was observed. Feature 1 fill was encountered at a
depth of approximately 0.9 ft bgs. Two levels of Feature 1 were excavated to a total depth
of 1.5 ft bgs, establishing an arbitrary floor based on the limits of the previously
excavated Units 1, 2, and 3 to the west. Pockets of brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) clay and
brown (10YR 4/4) sandy loam were observed in the second level of Feature 1. A
substantial amount of hammer-dressed limestone fragments were also observed in this
level (see Figure 23).
The Ap horizon in Unit 4 yielded an asphalt shingle fragment, brick, cut nails,
indeterminate nails, window glass, whiteware, and a prehistoric flake. Artifacts recovered
from the mixed backfill/interface layer included cut nails, indeterminate nails, a metal
buckle, machine-made glass, cinder/slag, and a prehistoric lithic. The first level of
Feature 1 fill yielded cut nails, indeterminate nails, a wire nail, window glass, blown-inmold glass, redware, whiteware, bone, metal hardware, and unidentified fragments.
Materials recovered from the second level of Feature 1 fill included cut nails,
indeterminate nails, window glass, redware, whiteware, and bone.
Although Feature 1 extended throughout the entirety of Unit 4, time and available
resources did not allow for further expansion of the excavation at Locus A, especially
considering that, based on STP 14-2, the feature was anticipated to extend to a depth of
approximately 3 feet. However, the area surrounding Feature 1 was investigated by
systematic probing for wall foundations. No continuous wall foundations were identified
within a 15-ft radius of STP 14-2. The arrival of winter weather stalled further
investigation of Feature 1. The four test units, which will be collectively referred to as
57
Trench 1 from here on, were filled in after the arbitrary floor at the base of Feature 1,
Level 2 had been covered with black plastic sheeting for protection. Prior to covering the
feature, the trench floor was photographed and mapped in plan view (see Figure 23).
The investigation of Feature 1 continued in the spring and summer of 2010, with
the reopening and continued hand excavation of Trench 1. Feature 1 was excavated in
0.3-ft arbitrary levels into sterile soil. The trench was excavated one level at a time, and
the original test unit boundaries were preserved during excavation, screening, and
mapping. Excavation of Feature 1, Level 3 commenced on May 25, 2010. A slight color
change was immediately observed throughout the Feature fill. The soil was a dark brown
(10YR 3/3) silt loam. Additionally, a lens of pale brown (10YR 6/3) clay was
encountered in the westernmost portion of Unit 3. This clay lens was later identified as
the edge of Feature 1. Materials recovered from Feature 1, Level 3 included brick, cut
nails, indeterminate nails, a wire nail, plate glass, window glass, a brass button, redware,
porcelain, whiteware, ironstone, pearlware, bone, shell , teeth, a bone handle,
indeterminate stone, metal, and rubber, blown-in-mold glass, general hardware, charcoal,
and cinder/slag. Feature 1, Level 3 was excavated to a depth of 1.7 ft bgs. The base of the
level was photographed and mapped in plan view.
The excavation of Feature 1, Level 4 commenced on May 26, 2010. The dark
brown silt loam feature fill continued throughout much of the level. However, the pale
brown clay lens gradually expanded and shifted eastward with depth in Unit 3 (Figure
24). This same soil was observed to the extreme southeast in Unit 4 (see Figure 22). This
lens was also characterized by charcoal concentrations that increased in frequency and
density with depth. To the southwest and north of the pale brown lens in Unit 1, a brown
58
(10YR 4/4) silt loam mottled with strong brown (10YR 5/6) mottles was observed. This
soil was later identified as a culturally sterile B-horizon. Materials recovered from
Feature 1, Level 4 included brick, indeterminate nails, window glass, redware, pearlware,
whiteware, bone, shell, teeth, charcoal, unidentified metal, and prehistoric flakes. This
and subsequent levels of Feature 1 fill were characterized by an extremely high-density
concentration of faunal remains, primarily pig, cattle, and unidentified large mammal
bones and teeth (Carver and Hogue 2010). Feature 1, Level 4 was excavated to a depth of
2.0 ft bgs. Following excavation, this level was photographed and mapped in plan view.
Feature 1, Level 5 was excavated the following day, on May 27, 2010 (Figure 25).
During the excavation of this level, it became apparent that the base of Feature 1 was
basin shaped, consisting of a dark brown silt loam fill containing a high density
concentration of bone and some ceramics, lined with a pale brown clay lens with dense
charcoal concentrations, and underlain by a mottled brown and strong brown sterile Bhorizon. This sterile horizon was most apparent throughout Unit 3 and in the eastern half
of Unit 4. The clay lens was obvious along the border of Units 1 and 4 and again between
Units 2 and 3. Materials were only recovered from the dark brown feature fill and
included indeterminate nails, whiteware, redware, unidentified metal, prehistoric flakes,
and bone and teeth. The latter represented the bulk of materials recovered from the base
of Feature 1. Feature 1, Level 5 was excavated to a depth of approximately 2.3 feet bgs.
Two more levels were excavated to reach the culturally sterile soil beneath
Feature 1, which extended to a depth of approximately 2.8 feet bgs. No materials were
recovered during the excavation of these final levels, the last of which was only
excavated in Units 1 and 2 due to the basin-shaped truncation of the feature. The clay lens
59
was continuous along the bottom of the feature with the densest charcoal concentrations
located at the deepest and most centrally located portion (Figures 26 and 27). Following
excavation, the floor and walls were photographed, profiles were drawn, and the feature
was mapped in plan view. Following excavation, this level was photographed and
mapped in plan view.
Locus B, Unit 5
Excavations commenced at Locus B on April 18, 2010, with the placement of a
single unit intended to investigate an area of high artifact density in the vicinity of the
former summer kitchen and wood shed locations. Unit 5 was opened near the central
drainage/sunken drive located between the main dwelling and the apple house. This unit
was excavated in 5, 0.3-ft arbitrary levels to a total depth of 1.5 feet bgs. Heavy
bioturbation was noted throughout the unit. Four distinct soil horizons were observed
during the excavation of Unit 5. These included an approximately 0.2 ft thick dark brown
(10YR 4/4) silt loam A-horizon over a 0.3 ft thick light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) clay
with brown (10YR 4/4) and reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6) mottles that appears to be the
result of filling in and regrading the area following the demolition of the aforementioned
summer kitchen and/or woodshed. Below this mottled layer, an intact cultural horizon,
referred to in its entirety as Feature 2, was encountered. This horizon was characterized
by a dark brown (10YR 3/3) silt loam that extended to a depth of approximately 1.4 feet.
This Feature 2 fill was underlain by a strong brown (10YR 5/6) sterile clay B-horizon
(Figure 28).
Materials recovered from the A horizon in Unit 5 included brick, indeterminate
nails, wire nails, plate glass, window glass, machine-made and blown-in-mold glass,
60
61
FIGURE 22. Trench 1, south wall profile.
62
FIGURE 23. Trench 1, base of Feature 1, Level 2, plan view.
63
FIGURE 24. Trench 1, base of Feature 1, Level 4, plan view.
64
FIGURE 25. Trench 1, base of Feature 1, Level 5, plan view.
65
FIGURE 26. Trench 1, base of Feature 1, Level 6, plan view.
66
FIGURE 27: Trench 1, base of Feature 1, Level 6.
unidentified plastic, and a prehistoric lithic. Unfortunately, the mottled soils and the top
of Feature 2 in Unit 5, Level 2 were screened as one level. This was a result of difficulty
determining the boundary between horizons due to the extreme root disturbance
throughout the unit. Materials recovered from Unit 5, Level 2 included brick, cut nails,
indeterminate nails, wire nails, plate glass, window glass, door hardware, machine-made
and blown-in-mold glass, glass tableware, a plastic screw cap, whiteware, a screw, and
unidentified plastic, metal, and ceramic. The remaining materials were all recovered from
the dark brown Feature 2 fill, and included brick, cut nails, indeterminate nails, wire
nails, mortar, window glass, machine-made and blown-in-mold glass, ironstone, redware,
stoneware, whiteware, an animal tooth, and unidentified metal. Two large limestone
blocks were projected out of the east wall of Unit 5 (Figure 29). However, systematic
probing did not suggest the presence of a continuous foundation. The material recovered
from Unit 5 is discussed in detail in the analysis section below and is also presented in
Appendix B.
Locus C, Unit 6
Excavations commenced at Locus C on May 7, 2010, investigating Anomaly C
and an apparent area of high artifact density to the immediate southeast of the apple
house. Unit 6 was opened just to the west of the central drainage approximately 45 feet
southeast of the apple house. This unit was excavated in 6, 0.3-ft arbitrary levels to a total
depth of 1.8 ft bgs. Six distinct soils were noted during the excavation of this unit. These
included an approximately 0.15 ft thick brown (10YR 4/4) silt loam A horizon underlain
by a brown (10YR 4.4) silt loam with few strong brown (10YR 5/6) clay mottles and a
67
FIGURE 28. Unit 5, north wall profile.
FIGURE 29. Unit 5, base of Level 5.
68
considerable amount of gravel/cobbles. The latter appears to be fill associated with an
excavated pit feature and will be referred to as Feature 3 fill. Also directly beneath the Ahorizon, in the northeastern portion of the unit, was a small pocket of strong brown
(7.5YR 5/6) sandy loam (Figure 30). In the southeastern portion of the unit in the middle
of the Feature 3 fill at a depth of approximately 0.6-0.75 ft bgs, a small lens of charcoal,
ash, and burnt artifacts was observed projecting into the wall of the unit (Figure 31). The
Feature 3 fill was much deeper in the northern portion of the Unit, extending nearly to the
bottom of the unit in the northeast corner. The deepest portions of the feature were
characterized by a high density of gravel, and unmodified stone fragments, as well as
unidentified metal. The feature fill was underlain by an A/B interface of brown (10YR
4/4) silt loam with light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) and strong brown (10YR 5/6) clay
mottles with a considerable gravel content. This interface was underlain by a light
yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) silty clay sterile B-horizon.
Materials recovered from the A horizon of Unit 6 included brick, indeterminate
nails, wire nails, a metal buckle, a button, machine-made glass, glass tableware,
ironstone, whiteware, unidentified ceramic, and unidentified stone. The remainder of the
material recovered from Unit 6 was recovered from the Feature 3 fill and included brick,
cut nails, indeterminate nails, wire nails, window glass, machine-made, blown-in-mold,
and undiagnostic container glass, milk glass jar lid liners, glass tableware, ironstone,
porcelain, stoneware, fasteners, general hardware, bone, cinder/slag, prehistoric lithics,
unidentified ceramic, unidentified rubber, unidentified metal, and unidentified stone. The
materials recovered from Unit 6 and the previous test units are discussed in greater detail
in the analysis section below and presented again in Appendix B.
69
FIGURE 30. Unit 6, base of Level 2.
FIGURE 31. Unit 6, east wall profile.
70
Functional Analysis
Following the initial tabulation of artifacts, the historic assemblage was classified
and grouped using an adaptation of Stanley South's (1977) approach to functional
analysis. South's system attempts to identify functional patterning within a historic
artifact assemblage in order to address questions not only concerning the function of a
site or a component, but also the ethnic identity of associated occupants, as well as
regional patterns of behavior. This method involves assigning artifacts to one of a number
of functional groups. Although this model has been widely used by historical
archaeologists, a number of criticisms have been presented (Wesler 1984; Orser 1988). It
has been noted that South's original functional groups did not permit enough detail to be
included in analysis, drastically limiting the potential of this method. To correct this
oversimplification, Swann (2002) has advocated the addition of sub-groups to allow for
more detailed, and therefore more accurate and useful, analyses. Since South's main focus
was colonial and antebellum sites, his method, without modification, has been criticized
as ineffective for late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century sites due to the vast
diversity of material culture available during these periods that was left unaddressed in
South's original model (Sprague 1981).
In an attempt to address these and other concerns, it has been useful to adapt
South's system by incorporating previous revisions to the model (Stewart-Abernathy
1986; Orser 1988; Wagner and McCorvie 1992). Artifacts recovered from the Charley
site were grouped into the architecture, arms, clothing, domestic, floral and faunal,
maintenance and subsistence, and unidentified categories (Table 2). These groups were
71
selected in an attempt to generate the most efficient scheme for extrapolating behavior or
component function from the recovered materials. All of these groups are discussed in
detail below.
Following functional classification, artifacts were further separated into classes
and types in an effort to identify more detailed patterning and temporally diagnostic
attributes (Figure 32). Artifacts were dated based on information obtained from a number
of publications by experts on specific forms of material culture. Date ranges were
generated based on specific attributes that have been definitively assigned to a particular
span of time. These temporally diagnostic attributes often reflect one or more of the
following: a technological paradigm shift, a new technique introduced in the
manufacturing process, or changes in popular decorative techniques. A great deal of
attention has been directed toward changes in ceramic decorations over time, based both
on periods of manufacture and of popular usage (South 1977; Lofstrom et al. 1982;
Majewski and O'Brien 1987). However, dating historic materials is not a precise science.
Often, historic materials, especially ceramics, may be used, or in the case of some refined
wares, curated, long after a particular style fell from favor. Some artifacts can only be
accurately assigned either a beginning date or a terminal date. For these such objects, and
due to the known history of occupation at the site, a minimum date of 1800, and a
terminal date of 1960 was assigned to any open ended date ranges in order to necessitate
the development of mean artifact dates for each provenience. These dates should not be
taken as absolutes, but should rather be seen as providing a general insight into
diachronic patterning at the site, as well as an accurate estimate of the total period of
occupation at the site.
72
There were 1,883 historic artifacts and 52 prehistoric lithics recovered during the
fieldwork at the Charley farmstead (Table 2, Figure 32). These artifacts are discussed by
functional group, class, and type below. Relevant date ranges have been assigned when
possible. The entire assemblage from the site is presented by provenience in a detailed
table located in Appendix B.
Architecture Group (N=712)
A total of 712 artifacts was assigned to the architecture group. Artifacts in this
group include objects relating to the construction, modification, and decoration of
architectural features. Nails (n = 574) comprised the majority of the architectural
assemblage from the site, followed by flat glass (n = 84), construction materials (n = 50),
and fittings and hardware (n = 4). The architecture group is discussed in detail below.
Nails (n = 574)
Nail manufacture has progressed through three stages: hand wrought, machinecut, and wire-drawn. In North America, hand-wrought nails were the most widely used
construction fastener until circa 1810 when the introduction of the square, machine-cut
nail made the more irregular wrought nails obsolete. Introduced circa 1800, early cut
nails were characterized by a machine-cut shank with a wrought head. Early fully
machine-cut nails, characterized by a “rounded shank under the head,” resulting in a
pinched appearance at the joint, were in widespread use until the introduction of the fully
machine-cut nail by the late 1830s. By the mid-nineteenth century, the first wire-drawn
nails were being introduced. However, early wire nails were initially unsuited to
construction, and were mainly confined to box manufacturing. By the late-nineteenth
century, the wire-drawn nail began to replace the cut nail as the preferred construction
73
fastener (Nelson 1968).
A total of 574 nails was recovered during shovel testing and excavations at the
Charley site. These nails included 9 late machine-cut nails, 45 unspecified cut nails, 58
wire-drawn nails, and 273 nail fragments of indeterminate manufacture (Figure 33).
These indeterminate fragments were either too small or too corroded to accurately
determine whether the nail was cut or wire-drawn. This assemblage is consistent with the
known period of occupation at the farmstead, dating from the early nineteenth century to
the present (Nelson 1968).
Flat glass (n = 84)
Introduced in the late eighteenth century, cylinder glass refers to glass that was cut
flat after being blown into a cylinder. This method was developed as an inexpensive
approach to the manufacture of window glass, effectively rendering crown glass
manufacture, a technique developed during the middle ages, obsolete. By the early
twentieth century, cylinder glass manufacture was replaced by plate glass. By 1917, plate
glass window manufacture had completely overtaken the market (Roenke 1978). Since
cylinder glass gradually increased in thickness through time, a number of formulas have
been developed to use glass thickness as a temporally diagnostic attribute in order to
determine dates for building construction and modification episodes (Chance and Chance
1976; Roenke 1978; Ball 1984). Perhaps the most widely used technique for dating
window glass is that developed by Moir (1987). Moir's window glass regression formula
has been shown to generate accurate dates for window glass manufactured between 1785
and 1917, given that the sample size is satisfactory (Moir 1977; Roenke 1978). Any
74
TABLE 2. Historic Artifacts by Functional Group and General Provenience.
Functional Group
Locus A Locus B Locus C
N % N % N %
375 33.9 108 37.3 212 46.9
1 0.09 0
0
0
0
3 0.3 1 0.3 2 0.4
136 12.3 155 53.6 114 25.2
518 46.9 2 0.7 5 1.1
23 2.1 4 1.4 15 3.3
49 4.4 19 6.6 104 23
Other STPs
N %
17 45.9
0
0
0
0
11 29.7
0
0
5 13.5
4 10.8
Architecture
Arms
Clothing
Domestic
Floral and Faunal
Maintenance and Subsistence
Unidentified
Total
N %
712 37.8
1 0.05
6 0.3
416 22.1
525 27.9
47 2.5
176 9.3
Total
Percentage of Total
1,883 100 1,105 100 289 100 452 100 37
100
58.7
15.3
24
2
75
100
76
FIGURE 32. Breakdown of artifact inventory by functional group and class.
FIGURE 33. Nails and fasteners recovered during excavation: A) machine-cut nails; B)
wire-drawn nails; C) wood screw.
77
sample of 25 or more shards of window glass should be adequate to use the Moir formula
with certainty.
Using digital calipers, the thickness of every shard of flat glass recovered from the
Charley site was measured and recorded to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter.
Thickness was also used as the primary attribute distinguishing cylinder glass from
window glass. For each cylinder window glass shards, Moir's formula was employed to
assign a date. Seventy-six shards of window glass were recovered with a general date
range from the late eighteenth century to the first quarter of the twentieth century. The
mean window glass date for the entire sample was 1844. The mean window glass date for
Locus A was 1831, Locus B was 1875, and Locus C was 1869. However, the samples
from Loci B and C were too small to generate accurate dates. Eight plate glass shards
were also recovered. These shards dated from 1917 to the present.
Construction materials (n = 50)
Construction materials recovered from the Charley site included brick, stone, and
mortar. A total of 46 brick fragments was recovered, including 4 handmade, 1 machinemade, and 41 fragments of indeterminate manufacture. Handmade and early machine
made bricks are typically vitrified, characterized by an exterior glaze created when sand
in the clay turned to glass during firing. These early bricks are also characterized by
porous paste and an irregular shape. In contrast, later bricks are quite uniform, nonvitrified, possess a harder paste, and show extrusion marks as a result of the
manufacturing process (Gurcke 1987; Greene 1992). Brick fragments of indeterminate
manufacture were not assigned specific dates. No definitive research on early brick
manufacture was located for Harrison County, Indiana. Research in Franklin County,
78
Kentucky has shown that, for that area, hand-made bricks were generally replaced by
machine-made bricks by 1880 (Hockensmith 1987). This transition likely occurred at
about the same time in Southern Indiana. Three mortar fragments and a piece of asphalt
roofing were also recovered from the Charley site. These artifacts were not assigned
specific dates.
Fittings and Hardware (n = 4)
This class of artifacts consists of structural fittings, such as plumbing pipes and
door hardware. One ceramic water pipe fragment, two common hinges, and one door
latch were recovered from the Charley site. These artifacts were not assigned specific
dates.
Arms Group (N=1)
The Arms group consists of artifacts relating to firearms and hunting activities. A
single .22 caliber, brass, rimfired cartridge case was recovered and dated to after 1857
(Ball 1997).
Clothing Group (N=6)
All artifacts relating to clothes or the manufacture of clothing were assigned to the
Clothing Group. This included four buttons and two metal buckles. One brass, one piece,
added-shank button with a “TREBLE GILT COLOUR” backstamp was recovered dating
from 1800 to 1860 (IMACS 2001). One sew-through porcelain or “prosser” button was
recovered dating to from 1840 to 1910 (Albert and Kent 1949:35; Sprague 2002) (Figure
34). The two remaining buttons were small sew-through button fragments of
79
FIGURE 34. A) Bone tool handle; B) one-piece added shank brass button; C)
porcelain/prosser button fragment.
80
indeterminate manufacture. These buttons were not assigned a specific date. Two
iron/steel belt or harness buckles were also recovered. These items were not assigned a
specific date.
Domestic Group (N = 416)
A total of 416 artifacts was assigned to the domestic group. These artifacts include
items related to general domestic activities, such as food storage and meal preparation
and service. The domestic group consisted of ceramics (n = 231), container glass (n =
145), glass tableware (n = 23), container closures (n = 14), utensils (n = 1), and other
containers (n = 2). The materials from each of these artifact classes are discussed in detail
below.
Ceramics (n = 231)
The ceramic assemblage included both refined and utilitarian wares in a variety of
forms. Eight major ware types were represented, including pearlware (n = 6), whiteware
(n = 53), ironstone (n = 84), porcelain (n = 9), redware (n = 68), stoneware (n = 10), and
yellowware (n = 1). These ceramics were further divided based on temporally diagnostic
decorative treatments. The characteristics of each major ware type will be discussed in
brief, followed by a discussion of the relevant decorative treatments present within the
assemblage.
Pearlware (n = 6)
Pearlware, first introduced by Josiah Wedgeood circa 1779, is a refined
earthenware characterized by a white paste with a clear lead glaze (Noël Hume 1972;
Price 1979). Small amounts of cobalt were added to the glaze resulting in a bluish tint in
glaze puddles around footrings and handles. The majority of pearlware was decorated,
81
with blue or green shell-edge or edge decorations, hand-painting, and transfer-printing
being the most common decorative treatments (Sussman 1977). Pearlware was created as
an improvement over creamware, and is perhaps the most common refined ceramic type
recovered from early-nineteenth century sites (Noël Hume 1972, 1985). Pearlware began
to fall out of favor during the 1820s (Sussman 1977). This fall from grace had been
anticipated by Wedgwood, who predicted that, as his cream colored wares before it, he
“must have something ready to succeed [pearlware] when the public eye has palled (Finer
and Savage 1965).”
Six plain pearlware sherds were recovered from the Charley site (Figure 35). Four
of these were later refit into a single rim sherd. These sherds dated from 1780 to 1830
(Noël Hume 1970:128; Lofstrom et al. 1982; Lange and Carlson 1985). Pearlware was
often decorated and it is likely that these plain sherds simply represent undecorated parts of
decorated vessels.
Whiteware (n = 53)
Whiteware is a broad classification that encompasses a class of refined
earthenwares characterized by a semi-porous, white or grayish-white paste, often with a
white finish beneath a clear glaze. Typically the glaze is an aggregation of feldspar,
borax, sand, nitre, soda, and/or china clay (Wetherbee 1980). Some early whitewares are
difficult to distinguish from pearlware, as cobalt in the glaze can result in bluish or
greenish-blue tinting in areas where the glazed has pooled. Surfaces that have been
weathered will often exhibit a buff or off-white color (Majewski and O'Brien 1987). The
majority of early whitewares, like pearlware, had some sort of decoration. However,
these decorative treatments were not limited to whiteware, and decorative type cannot be
82
used, in and of itself, as a strong indicator of ware type (Price 1981).
Whiteware, especially undecorated whiteware, has often been referred to as
“ironstone.” However, true ironstones are typically characterized by a less porous paste
and often have a thicker body than whitewares. The line of distinction is admittedly quite
vague. However, for the purposes of this study, the porosity of the paste was used as the
exclusive diagnostic attribute separating ironstones from whitewares. A variety of
decorative treatments were represented in the whiteware assemblage from the Charley
site. Each of these decorative techniques is discussed below, followed by a description of
the sherds themselves.
Edge-decorated (n = 12)
Edge-decoration on whiteware simply continued the edge decorative treatments
that were popular on the pearlwares of the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries
(Noël Hume 1978). Shell-edge decorations for pearlware and whiteware have been dated
to between 1780 and 1860 (Hunter and Miller 1994). Whiteware was introduced circa
1830, and a date range from 1830 to 1860 has been proposed for blue or green edgedecorated whitewares (Majewski and O'Brien 1987). Edge-decoration may be associated
with additional decorative techniques (e.g. hand painting or spatter decoration). These
additional treatments are most commonly associated with the interior bases of plates
(Greaser and Greaser 1967). Later edge-decorated whitewares typically lacked additional
decorative treatments on the base. It is difficult to differentiate between early and late
edge-decorated wares, as differences in style and refinement are better indicators of cost
than age (Sussman 1977). For this study, a general date range of 1830-1860 was assigned
to edge-decorated whitewares unless further temporally diagnostic attributes were noted.
83
A total of 12 edge-decorated whiteware sherds was recovered from the Charley
site (Figure 36). These included 9 blue shell-edge decorated rim sherds and 3 red shelledge rims. Vessel forms included plates and platters. With no additional temporally
diagnostic attributes, all of these edge-decorated sherds were dated from 1830 to 1860.
Hand-painted (n = 14)
The use of hand-painted decorations on whitewares dates back to the introduction
of these ceramics circa 1830. Blue was the most common color, with pink, green, yellow,
and red being popular through the mid-nineteenth century. The most common design
includes some sort of floral motif. Floral motifs may be either fine line, broad line, or a
mixture of the two techniques, and were applied initially with a brush and stencil, or, in
the twentieth century, with the assistance of printed outlines (Majewski and O'Brien
1987). It is likely that some hand-painted Staffordshire wares were painted by children
(Greaser and Greaser 1967). Hand painting was also used to apply borderlines or bands
around the rim of a vessel. However, if only the borderline is recovered, this attribute is
not a good temporal indicator (Majewski and O'Brien 1987). Hand-painted wares may
be either monochrome or polychrome, and generally date from 1830-1870 (Lange and
Carlson 1985).
Fourteen hand-painted whiteware sherds were recovered from the Charley site
(Figure 37). These included 10 polychrome floral sherds, 2 monochrome sherds, and 2
overglaze borderline rims. Plates were the only identifiable vessel type present in the
hand-painted assemblage. The polychrome and monochrome sherds dated from 18301870. The overglaze borderline rims dated from 1830-1960 (Figure 38).
84
Transfer Print (n = 1)
Transfer printing, introduced on porcelain vessels circa 1756, was applied to
earthenwares circa 1780 with the introduction of Thomas Minton's blue willow pattern.
The process of transfer printing involved taking a tissue-paper print off an engraved
copper plate and applying the print to the vessel prior to glazing and firing (Little 1969;
Norman-Wilcox 1978). The majority of early transfer-printed wares were blue (Godden
1964; Hughes and Hughes 1968). However, brown and black prints were introduced circa
1825, and green, red, pink, mulberry, and light blue were introduced circa 1830 (Bemrose
1952; Little 1969; Wetherbee 1980). Polychrome transfer-printing was introduced circa
1840 (Godden 1964). Green transfer-print fell out of fashion after 1859 (Samford 1997).
A single green transfer-printed rim was recovered during surface collections in Locus B
(Figure 38). This rim sherd dated from 1830 to 1859.
Undecorated (n = 26)
The majority of whiteware recovered from the Charley site was undecorated
sherds (Figure 38). Undecorated or plain vessels were popular from around the end of the
Civil War into the early-twentieth century (Faulkner 2000). This rise in popularity was
directly related to the development of germ theory, and the early understanding of the
relationship between bacteria and diseases, giving rise to the “Purity Crusades” of the
late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries (Duffy 1978). A total of 26 undecorated or
plain whiteware sherds was recovered from the Charley site and dated from 1830 to
1960. It is likely that some of these sherds represent undecorated portions of decorated
vessels.
85
FIGURE 35. Pearlware recovered from the Charley site.
FIGURE 36. Edge-decorated whiteware recovered from the Charley site.
86
FIGURE 37. Examples of polychrome decorated ceramics. Polychrome hand painted
whiteware (Four sherds on left); polychrome decorated transferprint (Three sherds on
right).
FIGURE 38. Miscellaneous whiteware: A) green transfer print; B) hand painted
overglaze borderline; C) plain base with footring.
87
Chromatic (n = 1)
Chromatic-glazed ceramics were introduced in the twentieth-century as pottery
manufacturers developed new processes for producing cheaper wares in greater quantities
in order to supply the growing commercial distribution network (Majewski and O'Brien
1987; Blaszczyk 2000). These chromatic wares reached the peak of popularity between
1920 and 1970. A single blue chromatic whiteware sherd was recovered and dated from
1920 to 1970.
Ironstone (n = 84)
Like whiteware, ironstone is a broad classification including refined stonewares
that are characterized by a white or gray bodied, vitreous paste, and a clear glaze.
Additionally, ironstones are less likely to exhibit the crackle in the glaze often seen in
whitewares (Denker and Denker 1982). It is important to note that both whitewares and
ironstones were marketed under the labels “Patent Stone China,” “Pearl Stone China,”
“White English Stone,” “Royal Ironstone,” “Imperial Ironstone,” “Genuine Ironstone,”
“White Granite,” and “Granite Ware” (Gates and Ormerod 1982; Cameron 1986). Hence,
the name of a ware as depicted on a maker's mark is not a good indicator of the true ware
type. In this study, ironstone is differentiated from whiteware based primarily on the
porosity of the paste. Sherds with a semi-porous paste were classified as whiteware, and
vice versa.
Ironstone production occurred in two phases. The early phase of iron stone
production, beginning circa 1800, involved the production of ironstones with a blue-gray
hue decorated with oriental designs in an attempt to mimic Chinese porcelain (Godden
1964). Later ironstone production, after 1850, resulted in a more vitreous and grayish
88
white ware that was either undecorated or molded without the addition of colored
decoration (Collard 1967; Lofstrom et al. 1982). By the end of the nineteenth century,
ironstones had become the popular low cost tableware present in homes throughout
America (Collard 1967; Majewski and O'Brien 1987). Thin, light ironstones, sometimes
referred to as semi-porcelains, became popular during the twentieth century and continue
to be produced today (Majewski and O'Brien 1987). .
A total of 84 ironstone sherds was recovered from the Charley site (Figure 39).
Sixty-eight plain ironstone sherds were recovered and dated from 1830 to 1960
(Majewski and O'Brien 1987:122). Nine embossed or molded ironstone sherds were
recovered and dated to after 1860 (Faulkner 2000). One green spatter-decorated sherd
was recovered and dated from 1830 to 1860. Two blue edge-decorated sherds were
recovered dating from 1830 to 1860 (Faulkner 2000). Finally, four chromatic-glazed light
blue sherds were recovered and dated from 1930 to 1970 (Blaszczyk 2000:121) (Figure
40). One plain ironstone burnt base, recovered from Feature 3, had a “Societie
Ceramique” maker's mark, which dated from 1851 to 1958.
Porcelain (n = 9)
Porcelain refers to vitreous, translucent wares fired at extremely high
temperatures and were first introduced to Europe through trade with China in the
sixteenth century. Porcelain was not produced in Europe until the early-eighteenth
century (Boger 1971). Porcelain encompasses a variety of high temperature fired wares,
including hard paste porcelain, soft paste porcelains, and bone china. Porcelain wares
were generally associated with affluence in Europe and America during the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries (Fay 1986).
89
Nine porcelain sherds were recovered from the Charley site (Figure 41). Four
plain sherds dated from 1800 to 1960 (Faulkner 2000). These may represent undecorated
portions of decorated vessels. Two embossed sherds were recovered and dated from 1860
to 1900 (Faulkner 2000). Two blue transfer-printed sherds were recovered dating from
1830 to 1859 (Price 1979; Lofstrom et al. 1982; Lange and Carlson 1985; Samford 1997).
One twentieth-century blue transfer-printed sherd was also recovered.
Stoneware (n = 10)
Stonewares are semi-vitreous earthenwares produced by firing a dense clay at
higher temperatures, resulting in an extremely hard body with a paste that ranges from
gray to brown in color (Dodd 1964; Cameron 1986). These stonewares largely replaced
redwares as the utilitarian ware of choice by the mid-nineteenth century. Common vessel
forms included jars, churns, crocks, tubs, jugs, mugs, pans, and pots. Most stoneware
vessels were either salt-glazed or slip glazed. Salt-glazed stoneware, characterized by a
pitted surface and a predominantly clear glaze, was a common treatment on utilitarian
vessels from circa 1780 until about 1925. Albany-slip was introduced in the 1820s, when
a suspension of a fine, rich brown clay and pigment was applied to the interior of
American stoneware vessels. Albany-slip as an exterior treatment dates to after 1850. In
the late-nineteenth century, an opaque white slip known as Bristol glaze was introduced.
Bristol wares typically date from 1880 to 1825. Albany-slip and Bristol glaze were often
used in combination (Ketchum 1983; Raycraft and Raycraft 1990).
A total of 10 stoneware sherds was recovered from the Charley site (Figure 42).
These included 3 salt-glazed sherds dating from 1780 to 1925, 2 unidentified brown slipdecorated sherds dating from 1800 to 1925, 3 Albany-slip-decorated sherds dating from
90
1830 to 1925, and 2 Albany-slip and Bristol-glazed sherds dating from 1880 to 1925. The
latter included one crock rim sherd and one jug body sherd.
Redware (n = 68)
Redware refers to a class of coarse ceramics characterized by unrefined clays that
have been fired at low temperatures, resulting in a porous red paste. These wares were
either unglazed or lead-glazed, with interior glazing common on liquid bearing vessels
(Ramsay 1947). Redware was the most common utilitarian ware throughout the
Appalachia and the Upland South during the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth
centuries. Redware use in Kentucky was at its peak from circa 1780 until 1840 (O'Malley
1997), and it is likely that these dates were similar for Southern Indiana. Redware vessel
forms were typically hollowwares, and common decorative treatments included colored
slips, colored glazes, and incising (O'Malley 1997).
A total of 68 coarse redware sherds was recovered from the Charley Site,
primarily from a pit cellar feature in Locus A. All of these sherds were either lead-glazed
or unglazed, and dated from 1780 to 1840 (Figure 43). A crock was the only vessel form
definitively identified. Coarse, locally manufactured, lead glazed redwares have been
associated with early nineteenth century Appalachian farmsteads participating in
subsistence level corn and swine agriculture (Groover 2003).
Yellowware (n = 1)
Yellowware refers to a class of transitional earthenware characterized by a deep
yellow paste that is finer than coarse potteries, but coarser than refined earthenwares
(Ramsey 1939). Yellowware was typically used in the production of utilitarian vessels
91
FIGURE 39. Ironstone recovered from the Charley site: A) embossed/molded
sherds; B) plain ironstone, including base with 'Societe Ceramique' maker's mark.
FIGURE 40. Miscellaneous ceramics: A) yellowware body; B) light blue
chromatic ironstone.
92
FIGURE 41. Porcelain recovered from the Charley site: A) blue transfer print cup
body; B) blue transfer print cup base; C) molded rim; D) plain rim.
FIGURE 42. Stoneware recovered from the Charley site.
93
FIGURE 43. Lead glazed redware recovered from the Charley site
94
such as chamber pots, slop jars, urinals, mugs, pitchers, mixing bowls, cuspidors, pie
plates, food molds, and canning jars. One plain yellowware sherd was recovered from the
Charley site and dated from 1830 to 1925 (Raycraft and Raycraft 1990) (see Figure 40).
Container Glass (n = 145)
A total of 145 fragments of container glass was recovered from the Charley site.
When apparent, manufacture type, lip finish, mold, form, and markings were used to date
artifacts. In some cases, the color of the glass was considered a temporally diagnostic
attribute. Container glass manufacture has progressed through three stages: free blown,
blown in mold (BIM), and machine made (ABM) (Baugher-Perlin 1982). The container
glass assemblage from the Charley site was comprised of BIM, ABM, and undiagnostic
fragments.
BIM (n = 40)
A variety of molds were used in the manufacture of glass bottles during the
eighteenth, nineteenth, and early-twentieth centuries. The majority of these molds
resulted in diagnostic mold seams and other markings on the base and the body of the
bottle. The two exceptions were the dip mold and the turn paste mold which left no
seams. Dip molded bottles were common from the late-seventeenth through the midnineteenth century (Baugher-Perlin 1982). Turn paste molds came later, and were in use
from circa 1870 into the early-twentieth century. Other common mold types included the
key mold, common from circa 1750 to 1880, the three-part mold, which fell from favor
circa 1870, and the blow back mold, which was introduced in 1858 and primarily used in
the manufacture of canning jars (Jones and Sullivan 1985).
Often, molded glass vessels were embossed as a result of the transfer of engraved
95
writing and designs in the mold itself. Embossed container glass was common from the
mid-eighteenth century into the twentieth century. Panel, or “slug plate,” bottles were
introduced circa 1860 as a means for using a single mold with different engraved plates to
manufacture bottles for many different products. Patent dates and company or product
names embossed onto panel bottles are often an effective temporally diagnostic attribute
(Jones and Sullivan 1985). The top of a bottle neck or the mouth of a jar is referred to as
the finish. A broad selection of finish types were used in the production of molded glass
bottles (Jones and Sullivan 1985). Finishes common on BIM bottles include the laid-on
ring, flanged, rolled, tooled, and applied finish.
A total of 40 BIM glass fragments were recovered from the Charley site (Figure
44). These fragments included 1 light blue base with a molded spiral design, 1 clear
indeterminate lip and neck, 3 clear embossed bodies, 1 clear embossed panel, 4 aqua
embossed bodies, 1 yellow embossed body, 13 aqua bodies, 13 clear bodies, 2 light blue
bodies, and 1 olive body. One clear bottle was embossed with “Dr. YY [B. Caldwell]...
Montic[ello, Illinois],” which was determined to be a fragment of a W.B. Caldwell Pepsin
Syrup bottle dating from 1885 to 1920. The remaining clear BIM glass dated from 1864
to 1920. The remainder of the BIM assemblage was assigned a date from 1800-1920.
ABM (n = 96)
With the introduction of the Owens automatic bottle machine in 1903, machinemade bottles began to replace BIM glass. Owens' mold bottles are characterized by
suction scars and continuous mold seams that run onto the lip of the bottle. In 1925, the
Individual Section machine was introduced, and quickly became the most popular and
cost effective bottle manufacturing machine, effectively making the Owens machine
96
obsolete by 1955 (Jones and Sullivan 1985).
There were 96 ABM glass fragments recovered from the Charley site (Figure 45).
These fragments represented a variety of diagnostic attributes. Three aqua cup/post mold
base fragments were recovered and dated from 1903 to 1920. One amber individual
section mold, “Duraglass” beer bottle base was recovered and dated from 1941 to 1955.
Three unidentified bases were also recovered, including one amber fragment with
embossed numbering, and two aqua fragments. One aqua embossed panel, with the letters
“NOV,” was recovered. One clear embossed body, with the letters, “[FL]UID” was also
recovered. Finishes included one clear external thread, one cobalt external thread, and
one green crown finish. The remaining 84 ABM fragments consisted of body fragments
of various colors. Colors represented in the ABM assemblage included: clear (n = 66),
aqua (n = 13), yellow (n = 3), and green (n = 2). ABM glass dated from 1903-1960 unless
otherwise noted.
Undiagnostic (n = 9)
Ten container glass fragments were considered undiagnostic. For these fragments,
the color of the glass was used, when possible to assign an age to the artifact. Five colors
of glass are potentially diagnostic: purple or amethyst, straw or selenium, clear, cobalt,
and opaque white. Opaque white glass, commonly referred to as “milk” glass, was
popular for “containers, tablewares, and lighting devices” during the late-nineteenth and
early-to-mid-twentieth centuries (Jones and Sullivan 1985). Cobalt glass was introduced
circa 1840 (Lindsey 2008). The introduction of clear glass, like plain refined
earthenwares, was tied to the Purity Crusades following the Civil War, when consumers
began to value the ability to see the product they were purchasing (Wiebe 1967; Baugher-
97
Perlin 1982). The undiagnostic fragments recovered from the Charley site included one
melted clear body, one green body, five cobalt bodies, and two opaque white bodies.
Container Closures (n = 14)
While container closures may come in a variety of forms, since the earlynineteenth century, closures have generally fallen into one of three types: caps, stoppers,
and seals (Berge 1980). Only caps and seals were recovered from the Charley site. The
closure assemblage included one modern plastic external thread cap and 13 milk glass
canning jar lid liners (Figure 46). Although external thread caps were introduced in the
mid-nineteenth century, the modern plastic cap was not developed until the mid-1930s
(Jones and Sullivan 1985; Meikle 1995). Seal closures, which rely on vacuum suction to
close a container, were introduced as early as 1810. In 1858, John L. Mason patented a
fruit jar which used the now-famous Mason zinc cap (Berge 1980). Because of an
undesired reaction between the zinc cap and the contents of the Mason jars, glass liners
were introduced to protect the contents circa 1969. The Mason zinc cap with glass liner
was used extensively during the early-twentieth century before falling from favor during
the 1950s (Toulouse 1969, 1977; Jones and Sullivan 1985).
Glass Tablewares (n = 23)
Although press-molded glass was introduced in the late-seventeenth century, it
was not popularized as a method for manufacturing hollowware vessels until the late
1820s (Watkins 1930; Buckley 1934). Press-molded glass tableware is typically
characterized by an open-topped vessel with an interior that does not follow the pattern
on the exterior and with distinct mold seams (Jones and Sullivan 1985). Other types of
glass tablewares include cut glass and contact-molded glass. Cut glass is characterized by
98
a polished and glossy surface, sharp and distinct design edges, uneven designs, and no
perceivable mold seams. Unlike press-molded glass, the interior of contact-molded
glassware will parallel the patterning on the exterior, and the interior is typically more
diffuse near the base (Jones and Sullivan 1985).
A total of 23 fragments of glass tableware was recovered from the Charley site
(Figure 47). Press-molded glass included nine clear bodies dating from 1864 to 1960, one
green stem and base dating from 1865 to 1960, and one pink lid fragment dating from
1840 to 1960. 11 clear glass tableware fragments and one cobalt tumbler fragment were
indeterminate as to mold type but were assigned a general date range based on the color
of the glass. The clear glass dated from 1864 to 1960. The cobalt glass dated from 1840
to 1960.
Other Containers (n = 2)
One modern plastic fragment, with an “Anchor Hocking” logo was recovered and
assigned to the other containers class. This artifact was not assigned a specific date. One
piece of tin foil was also recovered and assigned to this class. While these artifacts were not
assigned specific dates, they likely date to the modern period.
Utensils (n = 1)
One glass stirring rod was recovered and assigned to the utensils class. This artifact
was not assigned a specific date.
Floral and Faunal Group (N = 575, 2.7 kg)
A total of 575 bones, teeth, and shell fragments weighing approximately
2.7 kg was recovered from the Charley site. Identified species included pig, cow, deer,
99
FIGURE 44. BIM container glass: A)embossed panel from W.B. Caldwell's
Pepsin Syrup bottle; B) clear medicine bottle shoulder; C) embossed aqua
fragments.
FIGURE 45. ABM Container glass: A)aqua jar base; B) clear bottle shoulder and
neck; C) amber, individual section 'Duraglass' beer bottle base; D) cobalt external
thread finish; E) green crown finish; F) yellow body' G) aqua embossed body.
100
FIGURE 46. Container closures: A)milk glass Ball canning jar lid liner; B) black
plastic screw cap.
FIGURE 47. Glass tableware recovered from the Charley site.
101
and mussel (Carver and Hogue 2010). The analysis of the faunal remains is discussed in
detail below and in the report prepared by Carver and Hogue (Appendix A).
Maintenance and Subsistence (N = 47)
Items in the maintenance and subsistence groups are related to activities
associated with the general maintenance of the farmstead. Artifacts from the farming and
gardening, general hardware, general tools, and fuel-related classes were recovered from
the Charley site.
General Hardware (n = 20)
General hardware items recovered from the Charley site included seven
unidentified bolt, nut, and washers, one unidentified screw, one unidentified bolt, one
piece of metal tubing, three pieces of wire, one spike, and six indeterminate iron/steel
hardware item/parts. None of these artifacts were assigned a specific date.
Farming and Gardening (n = 2)
Artifacts commonly associated with farming and gardening activities are included
in this class. Two common clay flower pot fragments were recovered. These fragments
were not assigned specific dates.
Fuels (n = 24)
Fuel-related items recovered from the Charley site included 11 charcoal
fragments, 10 pieces of cinder/slag, and 3 pieces of coal. These artifacts were not
assigned specific dates.
General Tools (n = 1)
A single bone handle was recovered from the Charley site (see Figure 34). It was
impossible to determine the precise function of the handle, and this artifact was not
102
assigned a specific date.
Unidentified (N = 176)
Some of the recovered materials could not be identified by more than the material
from which they were composed. Material classes represented in the unidentified
assemblage included metal (n = 128), stone (n = 9), plastic (n = 2), rubber (n = 5),
ceramic (n = 4), and indeterminate material (n = 28). None of these artifacts were
assigned specific dates.
Prehistorics (n = 47)
It should be noted that the Charley Farmstead is a multi-component site. A total of
47 prehistoric artifacts was recovered during this investigation. The entire prehistoric
assemblage was comprised of lithic debitage, and included a total of 45 flakes, 1
retouched flake, and 1 core fragment. This lithic material was subjected to a preliminary
analysis by Andrew V. Martin, RPA of Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. The results of
this lithic analysis are presented in Appendix C.
Interpretation
Based on the results of the functional analysis, it was possible to formulate some
general conclusions regarding the use of space at the Charley site. Considering the long
history of continuous occupation at the site, a low density scattering of historic materials
was anticipated across the entirety of the house lot. Of interest here were the areas with
the highest artifact concentrations, features, and the archaeologically negative spaces.
Architectural, faunal, and domestic materials were the most numerous of all the identified
artifacts. No personal or furnishings group items and only a small amount of clothing
items were recovered, suggesting that the features encountered during excavation were
103
primarily domestic in function, and more specifically related to the preparation, storage,
and consumption of food, and the disposal of domestic waste.
Feature 1
Feature 1 likely represents the remains of a pit cellar that had been excavated
beneath a now-demolished structure. Three distinct fill episodes were identified in this
feature. The bottom layer of fill was a darker silt loam with a very high concentration of
faunal remains, and some redware. Levels from this layer were assigned MADs ranging
from 1810 to 1895, with an average date of 1846. It seems likely that this layer represents
domestic refuse deposited in the cellar during the Joseph Charley family's occupation,
possibly prior to the demolition of the associated structure. The middle layer of fill was
slightly lighter, and contained a significant amount of limestone fragments and other
architectural debris. Levels from this layer were assigned MADs ranging from 1830 to
1863, with an average date of 1843. Although this is an earlier date than that assigned to
the lower levels, there was very little mixing of soils observed in the field, and it is likely
that this earlier date is merely the result of a larger and more diverse assemblage yielding
a more accurate date. It should be noted that the 1895 MAD from the bottom of Feature 1
is the result of very few temporally diagnostic artifacts recovered from this level. Hence,
the middle layer probably represents debris deposited during and shortly after the
demolition of the associated structure. This demolition episode may have been associated
with the transition from the Joseph Charley household to the David Charley and John J.
Mauck household. The upper layer of mixed backfill was likely the result of filling in and
grading the depression in the front lawn.
Based on the composition of the assemblage recovered from Feature 1, it seems
104
likely that the structure associated with this pit cellar was primarily domestic in function.
This structure may have been a detached kitchen, predating the summer kitchen that was
located between the two houses. It is also possible that this structure was a smoke house.
However, given that only a relatively thin cross-section of the pit cellar was excavated,
and the exact dimensions of the feature were not ascertained, further functional
determination is difficult. Had the time and resources been available, an attempt would
have been made to expose the feature in its entirety. Systematic subsurface probing was
employed as a modest attempt at delineating the feature boundaries. While not absolute,
the feature fill seems to extend no more than 20 feet north-south and no more than 30 feet
east-west. However, a 20 ft. by 30 ft. footprint seems rather large for a pit cellar and
detached kitchen, and much of the horizontal extent of the feature encountered during
probing likely represents debris deposited around the exterior of the structure during
demolition. No continuous foundations were encountered.
Feature 2
Feature 2 likely represents a stratified midden deposit associated with the summer
kitchen. Based on information from written and oral accounts, this Feature was located in
the exterior space between the summer kitchen and the wood shed. Feature fill appeared
to be well stratified, with MADs ranging from 1810 to 1889, and an average date of
1879. Materials recovered from Feature 2 were primarily domestic in function,
supporting the notion that this feature was associated with a summer kitchen. It is known
that this summer kitchen was in use during the early twentieth-century. It seems likely
that it was originally constructed by the David Charley and John J. Mauck household
sometime during the latter half of the nineteenth century. It seems likely that the date of
105
construction of this summer kitchen corresponded to the demolition date for the detached
kitchen that may have been associated with the pit cellar in the front house lot. However,
a more precise evaluation of the function of Feature 2 would require further excavation
that was beyond the scope of this study.
Feature 3
Feature 3 is a pit feature of unknown function and extent that has subsequently
been used as a refuse disposal and burning area. The feature exhibited good stratigraphy,
and MADs ranged from 1916 to 1924, suggesting a relatively short depositional episode
during the early twentieth century, possibly around the time that the apple house was
converted into a residence. Materials recovered from Feature 3 included wire nails, ABM
container glass, ceramics, glass tableware, and a substantial quantity of unidentified
iron/steel fragments. A layer of burnt material was noted near the top of the feature. Burnt
ceramics and melted glass were recovered from this layer, which was likely the result of
the deliberate burning of refuse. It is known that a “burn barrel” was located along the
fenceline to the south of the apple house during the mid-twentieth century (Head 2010).
Additionally, it is known that the drainage and the sunken road between the houses were
used as a refuse disposal area during the early twentieth-century (Heckelman 2010). It is
possible that Feature 3 is related to this twentieth-century refuse disposal activity.
However, the abundance of architectural materials recovered from this feature may
indicate that it was associated with a former structure. A more precise evaluation of the
function of Feature 3 would require further excavation that was beyond the scope of this
study.
106
Economic Analysis
Ceramics
Ceramics recovered from the Charley Farmstead included both utilitarian and
refined domestic wares. The ceramic assemblage was divided into eight major ware
types: pearlware, redware, yellowware, whiteware, ironstone, porcelain, stoneware, and
unidentified. Miller (1980) introduced a method for interpreting socioeconomic class
based on the relative prices of nineteenth century refined earthenwares within a historic
assemblage. Miller compared values from nineteenth century price lists, bills of sale, and
account books to generate index values for bowls, cups, and plates of different materials,
decorative types, and vessel form. It was determined that the ceramic assemblage from
the Charley site was not a good candidate for Miller economic scaling analysis due to the
paucity of diagnostic sherds, especially with regard to vessel form, and a lack of absolute
date ranges, which are required for the application of Miller index values (Klein 1991).
However, some general observations about the economic composition of the ceramic
assemblage may be made.
There was a general lack of printed wares, and of all decorated wares, painted and
edge-decorated wares were the most numerous. Painted and edge-decorated wares
generally fell from favor following the War of 1812, and were replaced in the market by
printed wares, which were subsequently replaced by plain wares following the Civil War
(Miller et al. 1989). The lack of printed wares from the Charley site could indicate that
the family was purchasing cheaper wares until after the Civil War. Alternatively, if
printed wares were valued, they may have been treated with greater care, and therefore
107
been less likely to break and thrown out with other wasted ceramics. It is also possible
that the Charley family had limited access to imported ceramic wares due to their rural
location. However, Corydon was the capital of Indiana and had ready access to distant
markets due to its vicinity to both the Ohio River and the overland route along the old
Buffalo Trace. Furthermore, research by Klein (1991) has shown that this accessibility
model for explaining discrepancies between a family's apparently high economic status
and an abundance of relatively cheap ceramics cannot explain the phenomena in and of
itself.
When one considers the prevalence of plain wares as well as additional contextual
information, such as the cycling of the household and changes to the architectural
landscape, an alternative explanation for the apparent lack of high quality wares is made
apparent. Research has shown that a major shift in household structure occurred in earlynineteenth-century America (Klein 1991). A part of this shift was the mainstream
adoption of more formal dining practices, including the use of high quality individual
place settings in a formal family dining space. This shift has been linked to the
prevalence of high quality printed wares at some early-nineteenth century sites with
relatively affluent occupants. Research has also shown that this transition often occurred
much later in rural settings (Klein 1991). It is possible that the “domestic revolution” was
not experienced at the Charley farm until the latter half of the nineteenth century. This
could be further supported by the relative abundance of plain wares in the assemblage
and the apparent changes to the architectural landscape (e.g. weatherboarding the house,
changing the location of the summer kitchen) that followed the transition to the David
Charley and John J. Mauck households during the 1860s. It is important to note that the
108
shifting household organization associated with the “domestic revolution,” primarily
involved a shift in the roles of women within the domestic sphere (Klein 1991). The dates
presented here that this shift could have been associated with the transition between
Christena and Sarah Charley in the 1840s, or between Sarah Charley and Rilda Charley,
David Charley‟s wife, in the 1860s.
Faunal Materials
A substantial quantity of faunal materials (N= 575) was recovered during
investigations at the Charley Farmstead. The faunal materials were analyzed by Amanda
D. Carver, a graduate student at Ball State University, under the supervision of S. Homes
Hogue. The bulk of this material (n = 568) was recovered from Locus A. The remaining
faunal materials were from Locus B (n = 2) and Locus C (n = 5). Species represented
include pig (n = 159), cow (n = 29), deer (n = 3), mussel (n = 1), unidentified large
mammal (n = 97), unidentified mammal (n = 270), and unidentified mollusk (n = 49).
Minimum number of individuals (MNI) was calculated for each species, indicating that at
least four pigs, two cattle, and one deer were represented in the faunal assemblage. Based
on the presence of a significant amount of cranial and extremity bone, it was determined
that the butchering of swine and cattle was occurring on site. Modifications observed on
the bones were few, including burning, gnawing, and cutting. The majority of faunal
remains were recovered from Levels 4 and 5 of Feature 1(Carver and Hogue 2010). The
entire report on the faunal remains from the Charley site is included as Appendix A.
From an economic standpoint, little can be inferred from the faunal assemblage.
Lower quality cuts of meat were represented, but this is likely the result of onsite
butchering, and does not necessarily reflect a lower socioeconomic status. The
109
predominance of pig over cattle does, however, suggest something of the frugality
associated with frontier farm life. Pigs require less care than cattle because they can run
free or be penned. Cattle on the other hand require spring/summer pastures and grain
during the colder seasons. If both pasture and grain are not of good quality meat
production will be reduced. (Tomhave 1925:275). Robert Beverly, an early eighteenth
century historian from Virginia, notes “hogs swarm like Vermine upon the Earth” and
“run where the list, and find their own Support in the Woods, without any Care of the
Owner” (Carson 1985:2). The free roaming pig can survive on various foods including
seeds, nuts, mushrooms, larvae, snakes, roots, fruits, worms, carrion, eggs, small
mammals, kitchen refuse, and feces (Towne and Wentworth 1950:7-8).
The majority of the faunal remains were recovered from a stratum with a mean
artifact date of 1846, which is associated with the Joseph Charley and possibly the
George Charley households. Hence, it was determined that a diachronic analysis of these
materials would be both inaccurate and very limited in scope, and therefore would not
generate useful information. If future research were to result in the recovery of additional
samples of faunal material from earlier and more recent, intact deposits, a diachronic
analysis of the faunal materials should be employed to assess continuity and change in
subsistence at the site.
Time Sequence Analysis
Based on the date ranges assigned to all temporally diagnostic artifacts during the
initial phase of analysis, MADs were generated for all STPs, surface collection cells, and
110
test unit levels (Table 3). For archaeological deposits from intact contexts, these MADs
allowed for a diachronic investigation of the site. The analytical method employed here is
based on the time sequence analysis developed by Groover (2003). It was anticipated that
changes in the functional distribution of artifacts over time would reflect changes in
household composition and behavior. To accomplish this, the historic artifact inventory
was broken down by functional group and provenience. The quantities of artifacts
recovered from each functional group and provenience were then plotted on a time line
using the previously generated MADs (Figure 48). The results were then compared to
existing data on household size and agricultural production at the site (Figures 48 and 49;
see Figures 18 and 19).
MADs from all three loci generally suggested intact, stratified deposits. At least
three different generations of occupation were represented in the assemblage: the Joseph
Charley household, the David Charley and John J. Mauck household, and the Addie and
James Lockhart household. It is possible that the George Charley household and the
George M. Miles household were also represented, however evidence for this is
inconclusive. It has been demonstrated that, for rural sites, households generally cycle
from one generation to the next (Groover 2003). The father dies and leaves the farm to
his son, who takes over with his wife and perhaps his mother residing with him. He may
pursue different economic strategies, or simply desire to update his property, resulting in
the construction of new buildings and the modification or demolition of old ones. His
wife, also, will affect change in the household, perhaps influencing changes to the
architectural landscape, and most definitely influencing changes in consumption patterns
111
TABLE 3. Mean Artifact Dates for all Test Units, STPs, and Surface Collection Cells.
Unit
Coordinates
Depth
Locus A, F1, L2 floor
N 1196 E 656
1.8 fbd
Locus A, STP 14-1
N 1165 E 665
0-1.5 fbs
Locus A, STP 14-2
N 1195 E 665
0-3.0 fbs
Locus A, STP 14-2-E
N 1195 E 680
0-1.8 fbs
Locus A, STP 14-2-S
N1180 E 665
0.4-0.9 fbs
Locus A, STP 14-3
N 1210 E 665
0-1.5 fbs
Locus A, T.1 U. 4 F. 1 Base of L. 2
N 1196 E 656
1.4 fbgs
Locus A, TU1, L1
N 1196 E 662
0.3-0.6 fbd
Locus A, TU1, L2
N 1196 E 662
0.6-0.9 fbd
Locus A, TU1, L3
N 1196 E 662
0.9-1.2 fbd
Locus A, TU1, L4
N 1196 E 662
1.2-1.5 fbd
Locus A, TU1, L5, F1, L1+L2
N 1196 E 662
1.5-1.8 fbd
Locus A, TU2, L1
N 1196 E 659
0.3-0.6 fbd
Locus A, TU2, L2
N 1196 E 659
0.6-1.4 fbd
Locus A, TU2, L3, F1, L1
N 1196 E 659
1.4-1.6 fbd
Locus A, TU2, L4, F1, L2
N 1196 E 659
1.6-1.8 fbd
Locus A, TU3, L1
N 1196 E 656
0.3-0.6 fbd
Locus A, TU3, L2
N 1196 E 656
0.6-0.9 fbd
Locus A, TU3, L3
N 1196 E 656
0.9-1.4 fbd
Locus A, TU3, L4, F1, L1
N 1196 E 656
1.4-1.6 fbd
Locus A, TU3, L5, F1, L2
N 1196 E 656
1.6-1.8 fbd
Locus A, TU4, L1
N 1196 E 665
0.3-0.6 fbd
Locus A, TU4, L2
N 1196 E 665
0.6-1.4 fbd
Locus A, TU4, L3, F1, L1
N 1196 E 665
1.4-1.6 fbd
1.6-1.8 fbd
Locus A, TU4, L4, F1, L2
N 1196 E 665
Locus A. T. 1 U. 1 S. Wall
N 1196 E662
Locus A. T. 1 U. 2 L. 5 F. 1 L. 3
N 1196 E 659
Locus A. T. 1 U. 2 South Wall
N 1196 E 659
Locus A. T. 1 U. 3 L. 6 F. 1 L. 3
N 1196 E 656
1.4-1.7 fbgs
Locus A. T. 1 u. 3 L. 7 F. 1 L. 4
N 1196 E 656
1.7-2.0 fbgs
Locus A. T. 1 U. 3 S. Wall
N 1196 E 656
Locus A. T. 1 U. 4 L. 7 Base F. 1
N 1196 E 665
1.4-1.7 fbgs
2.0-2.3 fbgs
Locus A. T. 1 U. 4 S. Wall
N 1196 E 665
Locus A. T. 1. U. 2 L. 6 F. 1 L. 4
N 1196 E 659
1.7-2.0 fbgs
Locus A. T. 1. U. 2 L. 7 F. 1 L. 5
N 1196 E 659
2.0-2.3 fbgs
Locus A. T. 1. U. 4 L. 6 F.1 L. 4
N 1196 E 665
1.7-2.0 fbgs
Locus A. T.1 U. 4 L. 5 F. 1 L. 3
N 1196 E 665
1.4-1.7 fbgs
Locus A. T.1 U.1 L. 6 F.1 L. 3
N 1196 E 662
1.4-1.7 fbgs
Mean Date
1850
1914
1837
1888
1840
1825
1830
1844
1850
1842
1859
1842
1859
1860
1842
1836
n/a
1843
1840
1863
1844
1855
1854
1846
1839
n/a
1836
n/a
1840
n/a
1810
n/a
1810
1829
1810
1857
1837
1856
112
Unit
Coordinates
Depth
Locus A. T.1 U.1 L. 7 F.1 L.4
Locus A.. T.1 U. 1 L. 8 F.1 L.
5
N 1196 E 662
1.7-2.0 fbgs
N 1196 E 662
2.0-2.3 fbgs
Locus B, STP 3-7
N1090 E560
0-1.5 fbs
Locus B, STP 3-7-E
N1090 E 575
0-1.5 fbs
Locus B, STP 3-7-N
N 1105 E560
0-1.1 fbs
Locus B, STP 4-7
N1090 E590
0-1.5 fbs
Locus B, STP 4-8
N1120 E590
0-1.5 fbs
Locus B, Surface
N1060 E590
Surface
Locus B, Surface
N1090 E560
Surface
Locus B, Surface
Surface
Locus B, Surface Collection
N1090 E560
Central
Drainage
Central
Drainage
Locus B, U 5, L 1
N 1095 E 578
0.3-0.6 fbd
Locus B, U 5, L 2
N 1095 E 578
0.6-0.9 fbd
Locus B, U 5, L 3
N 1095 E 578
0.9-1.2 fbd
Locus B, U 5, L 4
N 1095 E 578
1.2-1.5 fbd
Locus B, U 5, L 5
N 1095 E 578
1.5-1.8 fbd
Locus C, STP 2-6
N1060 E 530
0-1.5 fbs
Locus C, STP 2-6-E
N 1060 E 545
0-1.6fbs
Locus C, STP 3-5
N1030 E560
0-1.5 fbs
Locus C, STP 3-5-W
N 1030 E 545
0-1.5 fbs
Locus C, U.6 L. 2
N 1033 E 560
0.6-0.9 fbd
Locus C, U.6 L. 3
N 1033 E 560
0.9-1.2 fbd
Locus C, U.6 L. 4
N 1033 E 560
1.2-1.5 fbd
Locus C, U.6 L. 5
N 1033 E 560
1.5-1.8 fbd
Locus C, U.6 L. 6
N 1033 E 560
1.8-2.1 fbd
Locus C, U.6 L.1
N 1033 E 560
0.3-0.6 fbd
STP 10-7
N1080 E770
0-1.5 fbs
STP 11-9
N1180 E800
0-1.5 fbs
STP 1-5
N1030 E500
0-1.1 fbs
STP 2-2
N940 E530
0-1.5 fbs
STP 4-5
N1030 E590
0-1.5 fbs
STP 4-6
N1060 E590
0-1.6fbs
STP 5-3
N970 E620
0-1.2fbs
STP 5-6
N1060 E610
0-1.5 fbs
STP 8-4
N1000 E710
0-1.4fbs
STP 9-10
N1240 E740
0-1.5 fbs
STP 9-9
N1180 E740
0-1.5 fbs
Locus B, Surface Collection
Surface
Surface
Mean Date
1857
1895
1850
1855
1886
1895
n/a
1893
1904
1900
1903
1893
1914
1889
1873
1875
1810
1896
1885
1866
1845
1916
1914
1913
1924
n/a
1921
1848
n/a
1895
n/a
1929
1908
n/a
1932
1840
1895
1840
113
FIGURE 48. Diachronic functional analysis graph (household size adjusted for scale).
114
FIGURE 49. Total artifacts and household size, 1810-2010 (household size adjusted for scale).
hands are added to the household. This results in increased production and consumption
as the farmer expands his holdings to provide for his children's future. As the children
marry and leave home, the household size diminishes. Land holdings are passed to the
children, and production and consumption at the farm wanes. The father dies, and leaves
the farm to his son, who takes over with his wife and perhaps his mother residing with
him. This is a typical “household cycle” experienced by many nineteenth-century rural
families.
By comparing the household size and the quantity of architectural and domestic
artifacts over time, it is apparent that the Charley family generally conformed to the
above household cycle model. The household size was greatest during the anticipated
peaks of each generation, when most of the children were still residing at home. Small
household size indicates that the household was in transition. Based on MADs generated
for the materials recovered from the site, it is apparent that architectural materials
generally were associated with transitional households during the 1830s and 1840s
(George to Joseph transition), the 1880s and 1890s (John and Sarah Mauck to David
Charley transition), and the 1910s and 1920s (David Charley to Addie and James
Lockhart transition) (see Figures 48 and 49). A peak during the late 1850s could be
related to the success of Joseph Charley's household or to the household transition that
occurred following his death in 1861.
The evidence, while not absolute, does seem to support the typical household
cycle model for a nineteenth century rural family farm. The above figures clearly
illustrate a relationship between household size and the quantity of architectural
materials. However, artifacts from all functional groups were recovered in the highest
115
quantities from levels dating to these periods of household transition (see Figure 49).
Here, it is worth noting that the changes often associated with a household transition were
not limited to the architectural landscape. Consumption patterns, especially stylistic
preferences, would have changed from generation to generation. This may be reflected in
the domestic assemblage at the Charley farmstead, especially in regard to the David
Charley to Addie and James Lockhart transition during the early twentieth century (see
Figure 48).
116
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Seven research questions were formulated concerning continuity and change in
the economic activities at the Charley Farmstead. In developing most of these questions,
it was anticipated that substantial midden deposits would be sampled for each occupation
at the site. While the features identified and sampled did not conform to the broad,
shallow sheet midden that this project was ideally structured to accommodate, a
significant artifact sample was obtained from intact historic deposits representing much
of the occupational history at the site during the early-nineteenth through the midtwentieth century. In this section, each of the research questions formulated for this study
is addressed to the extent that the data would allow.
What were the economic and material conditions experienced by the George
Charley household?
The earliest archaeological deposits from the site were recovered from near the
base of Feature 1, the apparent pit cellar located in the front house lot. This early
assemblage was recovered from levels with MADs ranging from 1810-1895, with an
average date of 1846. While it is most likely, then, that this assemblage is associated with
the Joseph Charley household, it is possible that the earliest components were associated
with George Charley's occupation prior to 1833. Nevertheless, no materials could be
conclusively assigned to the earliest occupation at the Charley site. However, this early
117
assemblage does provide some insight into the economic strategy of the antebellum
Joseph Charley household. The prevalence of both lead-glazed redware (n = 68) and pig
bones (n = 159) suggests that, to some degree, the Charley family was possibly engaged
in the subsistence level corn and swine agriculture commonly associated with Appalachia
and the Upland South (Groover 2003).
However, George Charley was evidently able to secure farms for his sons,
suggesting that he was participating in the marketplace to the extent required to purchase
land in Harrison County. Furthermore, the record of the George Charley estate sale did
include items of value (e.g. feather beds, rifles, and a gold watch). While it is unfortunate
that archaeological investigations were unable to definitively identify the George Charley
household, there is still the possibility that further work at the site will locate intact
cultural deposits that may be accurately associated with the occupation prior to 1833. As
mentioned above, it is possible that the deposits from the base of the pit cellar may date
to this period. A more extensive excavation of this feature may yield more conclusive
results, and should be considered a significant goal of any future research.
How did these economic and material conditions change through the nineteenth
century and what elements persisted?
It is known that Joseph Charley was an active participant in market-dependent
surplus agriculture by 1850 (USBC 1850). Additionally, he operated a sawmill at the site
as early as the 1830s. By 1860, his farm was one of the largest and most productive in the
community. Archaeologically, this success may be reflected in an abundance of
architectural and domestic materials dating to this period. It is also possible that the
economic success of the Joseph Charley household manifested itself in the modification
118
of the main dwelling and the construction of new outbuildings, such as the summer
kitchen in Locus B. After Joseph's unexpected death in 1861, production declined slightly
at the farm, but much of the same agricultural activities (e.g. livestock breeding, corn,
wheat, and oat cultivation) persisted. Documentary evidence suggests that operations at
the farm had become highly mechanized by the early-twentieth century. Archaeologically,
little was recovered that could directly address this question. The identification and
excavation of more extensive intact midden deposits, as well as additional secondary
analysis of the existing assemblage may generate the relevant information required to
better address concerns over the economic conditions at the Charley farmstead.
What quantitative and qualitative changes in production and consumption were
experienced at the Charley farmstead during the nineteenth century?
Limited archaeological evidence was available for production at the site. No
artifacts or features could be definitively linked to agricultural activity. However, the
faunal remains recovered from the base of Feature 1 indicate that onsite butchering of
cattle and pig was occurring during the first half of the nineteenth century. The fact that
few faunal remains were recovered from other contexts simply indicates that the
occupants were not regularly depositing meat wastes in any of the sampled areas of the
site, or that these deposits have since been removed. Census records confirm that
livestock breeding continued at the site into the twentieth-century, and personal accounts
from former residents of the site confirm that cows and pigs were still butchered at the
site in the twentieth-century (Head 2010).
Much more archaeological evidence was available relating to consumption
behavior at the site. The domestic assemblage generally follows an apparent trend from
119
lower-cost refined wares, and locally manufactured redwares towards higher-cost
imported whitewares, ironstones, and stonewares, and the increase of container glass and
glass tablewares. This seems to follow the proposed trend of increased market interaction
and consumption beginning with the Joseph Charley household in the mid-nineteenth
century and continuing into the twentieth-century. Increased consumerism was a
widespread phenomenon throughout nineteenth century America, and although it may
have been somewhat delayed, this pattern is definitely apparent in the archaeology at the
Charley site.
What sorts of economic activity persisted through successive generations and to
what degree?
This question – or, rather, the inability of this study to address this question – was
largely addressed above. Only general observations concerning the most obvious of
persistent economic activity may be discerned from the archaeological research at the
Charley site, and only when the archaeological data is taken in context by considering
documentary evidence available for economic activity at the site. The raising and on site
butchering of pig and cattle most definitely continued at the site throughout the
nineteenth century and into the twentieth century. Market-dependent surplus agriculture
also continued into the twentieth century, becoming less and less central to the farm until
the outbuildings were either no longer in use or rented out to outside farmers by the end
of the twentieth century. Again, further archaeological research or a more specifically
directed approach to the data generated from this project may produce more conclusive
results toward this end.
120
What sorts of relationships, if any, exist between this continuity and change in
farmstead economic activity and household organization?
Archaeological evidence seems to confirm the obvious: there was a direct
correlation between household size and the quantity and diversity of materials at the site.
Furthermore, production is also loosely linked to household size. By applying a
somewhat abbreviated form of time sequence analysis, it was apparent that the nineteenth
century occupation of the Charley farmstead followed the typical household cycle model
proposed for a nineteenth century rural family farm. When new strategies were adopted
(e.g. market-dependent surplus production, mechanized agriculture), they were generally
adopted during periods of household transition. The “footprint” of these shifts was most
apparent in the architectural landscape, which manifested itself archaeologically as sharp
spikes in architectural materials recovered from levels dated to periods of household
transition. Furthermore, it seems plausible that a delayed adoption of the “domestic
revolution” resulted in an increased awareness of consumer trends and a realignment of
the domestic sphere both within the material culture and the architectural landscape at the
site.
How did economic activity influence the domestic landscape and material culture at
the farmstead?
The archaeological evidence from the site is perhaps best suited to address this
question. Simply by observing the functions of structures both extant and non-extant on
the landscape can provide a basic understanding of the economic situation at the site.
However, archaeological evidence confirms that alteration to the landscape was not only
occurring at the site throughout the nineteenth century, it was very likely linked to
121
changing economic circumstances. The pit cellar (Feature 1) and its associated structure
in the front house lot may have been constructed anytime between 1810 and the 1840s,
when the Charley family was still largely occupied with primarily subsistence-level corn
and swine agriculture. Sometime before the late-nineteenth century, following the
complete shift towards market-dependent surplus agriculture, this structure was
demolished as new structures were built to replace it and to fulfill the increasingly
diversified needs of a successful surplus agriculture operation.
This shift to market-dependent agriculture perhaps also signified an overall shift
in household organization at the site, affected by the transition to the Joseph Charley
household, and an increased awareness of changing trends elsewhere. An increase in
plain white bodied wares and container glass dating to the late-nineteenth and earlytwentieth centuries indicates how this changing awareness and increased marketdependence resulted in the increased consumption of store-bought goods, such as bottled
goods, medicines, glass tablewares, and imported ceramics. A significant collection of
glass tablewares and imported “tea leaf” ironstone is still displayed in a corner hutch in
the main house at the Charley farm (Figure 50). Significantly, these ceramics are located
in a room of the house that was also a result of the “domestic revolution” that so
thoroughly affected the Charley family by the end of the nineteenth century: the dining
room.
The above examples are merely some of the more obvious indicators for the
apparent connection between economic activity and the architectural landscape and
material culture at the site. And, though they serve as a general testament to the economic
conditions at the Charley farmstead during the nineteenth century, further research would
122
FIGURE 50. Corner hutch in the dining room of the main house with ceramics
and glass tableware on display.
123
doubtlessly yield a more vivid, and comprehensive depiction of the site. Again, a more
complete excavation of the features identified during the course of this work, as well as a
more complete survey of the front house, and the excavation of resistance Anomaly B,
would possibly generate a more expansive data set. Of course, these further endeavors
would be just as likely to generate additional questions, and should only be attempted
with the utmost of care, and preferably only if the archaeological integrity of the site is
threatened.
What relationships, if any, exist between the continuity and change in farmstead
economic activity and external political, social, and economic circumstances?
The Charley farmstead was not an isolated entity. Throughout the farms history,
its occupants were connected to different levels of community. Many of the surrounding
farmsteads were operated by family, be they blood related or in-laws. Through this
community interaction, the occupants of the farm were participants in the larger milieu of
nineteenth century America, which was in turn, coming to grips with its role as the
emerging breadbasket of the world. With unprecedented growth in world population
coupled with improved overseas transportation routes and the development of the
railroad, the demand for agricultural crops greatly increased during the nineteenth century
(Federico 2005). American farmers, including the Charley family, experienced both the
highs and lows of this agricultural boom. The Charley farmstead was a significant
operation, but although it generally produced more than the average farm in the
surrounding community, production and consumption at the site did generally follow the
trends for the community, the state, and the nation.
124
Conclusion
The Charley farmstead represents a significant archaeological and architectural
resource with excellent potential for further research. While it was initially disappointing
that fieldwork failed to yield the expansive midden deposits initially anticipated, a good
deal was accomplished during the course of this study. Archaeological evidence generally
supported the anticipated results. The Charley farmstead was a diverse and successful
agricultural operation that began as a subsistence-level corn and swine farm under
George Charley, adopted market-dependent surplus agriculture by the mid-nineteenth
century, and followed general trends towards increased market-dependence and
consumerism into the twentieth century. The adoption of the “domestic revolution” of the
early nineteenth century was delayed at the Charley farm, but beginning in the midnineteenth century, the material culture and architectural landscape at the site began to
experience a dramatic shift towards a more formal distinction of space, as exemplified in
the modification of the main house, the realignment of structures on the landscape, and
the increased consumption of imported ceramics and glass tableware.
While many of the conclusions generated in this report were both expected and
somewhat tentative, perhaps the most valuable aspect of this research are the new
questions that have been formulated for future research: Why were no midden
encountered during the systematic survey of the rear house lot? Are intact midden
deposits present elsewhere at the site or was the Charley family practicing an
unconventional refuse disposal pattern, such as throwing their waste into the sink holes
common to the karst topography of Harrison County? What are the dimensions of the pit
125
features encountered at Loci A and C, and would further excavation of these features alter
the present interpretation of the site? Does Anomaly B represent a privy, and if so, what
are its dimensions and age? These are merely a sample of the many questions that may be
extracted from the bulk of this investigation. It is interesting that, although initial
assumptions about how best to obtain an artifact sample from the site met with failure
(i.e. no sheet midden) and resulted in a sample with a more limited scope, the anticipated
results were, for the most part, confirmed.
And, though a lot has been said in this report, it is the strong opinion of the author
that the existing collection and the site itself could benefit from further research. I believe
this report has succeeding in generating a valuable data set for conducting further
comparative analyses, and I sincerely hope that someone will pursue the sort of
comprehensive comparative analysis of Midwestern farmstead sites that will be not only
possible, but essential to continuing a discussion of the possibilities and potential of
historical archaeology in the coming decades.
126
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, William Hampton
1990 Landscape Archaeology, Landscape History, and the American Farmstead.
Historical Archaeology 24:92-101.
Albert, Lillian Smith, and Kathryn Kent
1949 The Complete Button Book. Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden City, New
York.
Atack, Jeremy and Fred Bateman
1984 Farm Surpluses: Northeastern and Midwestern United States, 1859 and 1860.
Social Science History 8(4):371-393.
Ball, Donald B.
1984 Historic Artifact Patterning in the Ohio Valley. Proceedings of the Symposium on
Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archaeology II:24–36.
1997 An Introduction to Metallic Cartridge Case Terminology, Identification, and
Headstamps. Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology 12:112–129.
Baskin, Forster, and Co.
1876 Atlas of Indiana. Baskin, Forster, and Co. Chicago, Illinois.
Baugher-Perlin, Sherene
1982 Analyzing Glass Bottles for Chronology, Function, and Trade Networks. In
Archeology of Urban America, edited by Roy S. Dickens, pp. 250–291. Academic Press,
New York.
Bedell, John, Michael Petraglia, and Thomas Plummer
1994 Status, Technology, and Rural Tradition in Western Pennsylvania: Excavations at
the Shaeffer Farm Site. Northeast Historical Archeology 23:29-58.
Bemrose, Geoffrey
1952 Nineteenth Century English Pottery and Porcelain. Pitman Publishing
Corporation, New York.
Berge, Dale L.
1980 Simpson Springs Station Historical Archaeology in Western Utah 1974–1975.
Cultural Resource Series Number 6. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Blaszczyk, Regina Lee
2000 Imagining Consumers: Design and Innovation from Wedgwood to Corning. Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Boger, L. A.
1971 The Dictionary of World Pottery and Porcelain. Charles Scribner and Sons, New
York.
Buckley, Francis
1934 Old English Glass. The Birmingham Glass Pinchers. Glass 11(May):187–188.
127
Bulleit, F.A.
1906 Illustrated atlas and history of Harrison County. Bulleit.
Cameron, Elisabeth
1986 Encyclopedia of Pottery and Porcelain, 1800–1960. Facts on File Publications,
New York.
Carlisle, Ronald C.
1998 The Story of "Woodville": The History, Architecture, and Archaeology of a
Western Pennsylvania Farm. Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Commission, Pittsburgh.
Carver, Amanda K. and S. Homes Hogue
2010 Report on the Bones from the Charley Farm. Unpublished report. Ball State
University, Department of Anthropology, Muncie, IN.
Chance, David H., and Jennifer V. Chance
1976 Kanaka Village, Vancouver Barracks 1974. Reports in Highway Archaeology, No.
3. Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Collard, Elizabeth
1967 Nineteenth-Century Pottery and Porcelain in Canada. McGill University Press,
Montreal, Canada.
Cupka Head, Kevin
2009 Built For Growth: Agricultural Production and the Architectural Landscape at a
Nineteenth Century Southern Indiana Farmstead. Paper presented at the 9th Annual
Symposium for Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archaeology, Muncie, Indiana.
Deter, Geraldine L.
1974 The Charley Family History, beginning with George Charley a Revolutionary War
Soldier born 1763, died 1833. Aquarius Press, Ashland, Oregon.
Denker, Ellen, and Bert Denker
1982 The Warner Collector’s Guide to North American Pottery and Porcelain. Warner
Books, New York.
Dodd, Arthur Edward
1964 Dictionary of Ceramics. Philosophical Library Inc., New York.
Duffy, John
1978 Social Impact of Disease in the Late Nineteenth Century. In Sickness and Health
in America: Readings in the History of Medicine and Public Health, edited by Judith
Walzer Leavitt and Ronald L. Numbers, pp. 395–402. University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison.
Faulkner, Charles H.
2000 Historical Archaeology Laboratory Manual. Department of Anthropology,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Fay, Robert P.
1986 Archaeological Investigations at Liberty Hall, Frankfort, Kentucky. Kentucky
Heritage Council, Frankfort, Kentucky.
128
Finer, Ann, and George Savage (editors)
1965 The Selected Letters of Josiah Wedgewood. Adams and Mackay, London.
Ford, Ben
2008 The Presentation of Self in Rural Life: the Use of Space at a Connected
Farmstead. Historical Archaeology 42:59-73.
Funk, Arville L.
1974 Historical Almanac of Harrison County [Indiana]. Alfco Publications, Corydon,
Indiana.
Gater, John and Chris Gaffney
2004 Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Tempus Publishing,
Stroud, Gloucestshire.
Gates, William C., Jr., and Dana E. Ormerod
1982 The East Liverpool Pottery District: Identification of Manufacturers and Marks.
Historical Archaeology 16(1–2):1–358.
Godden, Geoffrey A.
1964 An Illustrated Encyclopedia of British Pottery and Porcelain. Bonanza Books,
New York.
Greaser, Arlene and Paul H. Greaser
1967 Homespun Ceramics: A Study of Spatter Ware. 3rd ed. A.B.E. Company,
Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Gregson, Mary Eschelbach
1993 Rural Response to Increased Demand: Crop Choice in the Midwest. 1860-1880.
The Journal of Economic History 53(2):332-345.
Greene, Lance K.
1992 The Penfield is Mightier than the Sword: Machine Made Bricks in Knoxville and
Knox Co. Tennessee. In Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and
Historic Archaeology, edited by Amy Young and Charles Faulkner, pp. 74–91. Tennessee
Anthropological Association Miscellaneous Paper No. 16.
Griffing, B.N.
1882 An Atlas of Harrison County, Indiana. D.J. Lake and Co. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Groover, Mark D.
2003 An Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism and Material Life: the Gibbs
Farmstead in Southern Appalachia. Springer, New York.
2007 Architectural Archaeology at the Huddleston Farmhouse. Paper presented at the
Midwest Archaeological Conference, South Bend, Indiana.
2008 The Archaeology of North American Farmsteads. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
129
Gums, Bonnie L., Lucretia S. Kelly, and Neal H. Lopinot
1999 Archaeology at the Whitley Site: An Early Historic Farmstead on the prairies of
Eastern Illinois. Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield, and Department of
Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Transportation
Archaeological Research, Reports 5.
Gurcke, Karl
1987 Bricks and Brickmaking, a Handbook for Historical Archeology. The University
of Idaho Press, Moscow, Idaho.
Head, Carla M.
2010 Personal communication to the author.
Head, Kevin M.
2007 From Virginia to the Indiana Frontier: Exploring the Architectural Landscape at
the Charley Farmstead. Paper presented at the 2007 Midwest Archaeological Conference,
South Bend, Indiana.
Head, Larry J. and George Carlton Miles.
[1970s] Memory map of the Charley Farm.
Heckelman, Mary Lee
2010 Personal communication to the author.
Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana
1987 Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory: Harrison County Interim Report.
Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana.
Hockensmith, Charles D.
1997 A Study of Frankfort Bricks and Brickmaking, Franklin County, Kentucky.
Tennessee Anthropologist 22(2):121–176.
Hughes, Bernard, and Therle Hughes
1968 The Collector’s Encyclopedia of English Ceramics. Abbey Library, London,
England.
Hunter, Robert R., and George L. Miller
1994 Shell-Edge Earthenware. Antiques 145(3):432–443.
IMACS User‟s Guide
2001 Intermountain Antiquities Computer System Users Guide. Revised. University of
Utah, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service. Originally published 1984.
Indiana County History Preservation Society
2010 Harrison County. Electronic document,
http://www.countyhistory.com/harrison/start.html, accessed September 12, 2010.
Jones, Olive, and Catherine Sullivan
1985 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware,
Flat Glass, and Closures. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History. National
Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada.
130
Ketchum, William C., Jr.
1983 Pottery and Porcelain. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Klein, Terry H.
1991 Nineteenth-Century Ceramics and Models of Consumer Behavior. Historical
Archaeology 25(2): 77–91.
Lange, Frederick W., and Shawn B. Carlson
1985 Distributions of European Earthenwares on Plantations on Barbados, West Indies.
In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, edited by Teresa A. Singleton, pp. 97–
120. Academic Press, New York.
Lindsey, Bill
2008 Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information. Electronic document,
http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm, accessed July 16, 2010.
Little, Wilfred L.
1969 Staffordshire Blue: Underglaze Blue Transfer Printed Earthenware. Crown
Publishers, Inc., New York.
Lofstrom, Edward U., Jeffrey P. Tordoff, and Douglas C. George
1982 A Seriation of Historic Earthenwares in the Midwest, 1780–1870. Minnesota
Archaeologist 41(1):3–29.
Majewski, Teresita, and Michael J. O‟Brien
1984 An Analysis of Historical Ceramics from the Central Salt River Valley of
Northeast Missouri. Publications in Archaeology, Number 3. American Archaeology
Division, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 11,
edited by Michael J. Schiffer, pp 97–209. Academic Press, New York.
Mauck, Sarah B. (Hayden Charley)
1882 Journal Entries.
McCorvie, Mary R.
1987 The Davis, Baldridge, and Huggins Sites: Three Nineteenth Century Upland
South Farmsteads in Perry County, Illinois. Preservation Series 4, American Resources
Group, Ltd., Carbondale Illinois.
McCorvie, Mary R., Mark J. Wagner, Jane K. Johnston, Terance J. Martin, and Kathryn
E. Parker
1989 Archaeological Investigations at the Fair View Farm Site: A Historic Farmstead
in the Shawnee Hills of Southern Illinois. Cultural Resource Management Report No.
135, American Resources Group, Ltd., Carbondale, Illinois.
Meikle, Jeffrey L.
1995 American Plastic: A Culture History. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
New Jersey.
131
Miles, Sarah B.
[1970s] Notes on the Charley Farm.
Miller, George L.
1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. Historical
Archaeology 14:1–4.
Moir, Randall W.
1977 Window Glass: A Statistical Perspective. Manuscript on file, Archaeology
Research Program, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
1987 Socioeconomic and Chronometric Patterning of Window Glass. In Historic
Buildings, Material Culture, and People of the Prairie Margin, edited by David H.
Jurney and Randall W. Moir, pp. 73–81. Richland Creek Technical Series, Vol. V.
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
Nation, Richard
2005 At Home in the Hoosier Hills: Agriculture, Politics, and Religion in Southern
Indiana, 1810-1870. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
Nelson, Lee H.
1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. American Association for
State and Local History, Technical Leaflet 15. American Association for State and Local
History, Madison, WI.
Neyhouse, Steven W., Sr., Byron G. Nagel, Gary R. Struben, and Steven Blandord
2009 Soil Survey of Harrison County, Indiana. United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resource Conservation Service in cooperation with Purdue University
Agricultural Experiment Station, Washington, D.C.
Noël Hume, Ivor
1970 A Guide To Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred Knopf, New York
1972
355.
The What, Who, When of English Creamware Plate Design. Antiques C1(2):350–
1978
397.
Pearlware: Forgotten Milestone of English Ceramic History. Antiques 95(3):390–
1985
A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred Knopf, New York.
Norman-Wilcox, Gregor
1978 Staffordshire in a Nutshell. In English Pottery and Porcelain, edited by P.
Atterbury, pp. 166–170. Universe Books, New York.
O‟Malley, Nancy
1997 The Early Redware Industry in Kentucky. Paper presented at “Kentucky Clay”: A
Symposium on Kentucky Potters and Potteries. Hopewell Museum, Paris, Kentucky.
Orser, Charles E.
1988 The Material Basis of the Postbellum Tenant Plantation. The University of
Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.
132
Perrin, William Henry
1977 1889 Biographical and Historical Souvenir, Harrison County, Indiana. The
Bookmark, Knightstown, Indiana.
Phillippe, Joseph S.
1990 The Drake Site: Subsistence and Status at a Rural Illinois Farmstead. Midwestern
Archaeological Research Center, Illinois State University, Normal.
Price, Cynthia R.
1979 Nineteenth-Century Ceramics in the Eastern Ozark Escarpment Region of
Southeast Missouri. Paper presented to the 35th Annual Meeting of the Southeast
Archaeological Conference, Knoxville, Tennessee.
1981 Early to Mid-Nineteenth Century Refined Earthenwares. In A Guide for
Historical Archaeology in Illinois, edited by Charles E. Orser, Jr., pp. 24–48. MidAmerican Research Center Research Paper Number 1. Loyola University, Chicago.
Ramsay, John
1939 American Potters and Pottery. Hale, Cushman, and Flint, Boston.
1947
American Potters and Pottery. Tudor, New York.
Raycraft, Don, and Carol Raycraft
1990 Collector’s Guide to Country Stoneware and Pottery, Second Series. Collector
Books, Paducah, Kentucky.
Roenke, Karl G.
1978 Flat Glass, Its Use as a Dating Tool for Nineteenth Century Archeological Sites in
the Pacific Northwest and Elsewhere. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes,
Memoir No.4. Moscow, Idaho.
Roos, William H.
1911 Indiana’s Birthplace: a History of Harrison County, Indiana. Adams Press,
Chicago.
Roy, Nora Leonard
1976 Maple Sugaring in Southern Indiana: A Descriptive Study of the Technology of
Four Maple Sugar Makers. Indiana Folklore 9(2):197-234
Rugh, Susan Sessions
2001 Our Common Country: Family Farming, Culture, and Community in the
Nineteenth-Century Midwest. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
Salamon, Sonya
1992 Prairie Patrimony: Family, Farming, and Community in the Midwest. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
Samford, Patricia M.
1997 Response to a Market: Dating English Underglaze Transfer-Printed Wares.
Historical Archaeology 31(2):1–30.
133
Sayers, Daniel O.
1999 Of Agrarian Landscapes and Capitalist Transitions: Historical Archaeology and
the Political Economy of a Nineteenth-Century Farmstead. Master‟s Thesis, Department
of Anthropology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
Sayers, Daniel O. and Michael Nassaney
1999 Antebellum Landscapes and Agrarian Political Economies: Modeling Progressive
Farmsteads in Southwest Michigan. The Michigan Archaeologist 45(3):74-117.
Schroeder, Erich Karl
1995 Historical archaeology in the Grand Prairie division of Illinois: Environmental,
social, demographic, and technological dimensions of frontier development. PhD
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University.
Sieber, Ellen and Cheryl Ann Munson
1992 Looking at History: Indiana‟s Hoosier National Forest Region, 1600 to 1950.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Sprague, Roderick
1981 A Functional Classification for Artifacts from 19th and 20th Century Historical
Sites. North American Archaeologist 2(3):251–261.
2002 China or Prosser Button Identification and Dating. Historical Archaeology
36(2):111–127.
Soil Survey Staff
2010 Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 11th ed. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Stewart-Abernathy, Leslie C.
1986 The Moser Farmstead, Independent But Not Isolated: The Archeology of a Late
Nineteenth Century Ozark Farmstead. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series
No. 26, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Stothers, David M. and Patrick M. Tucker
2002 The Dunlap Farmstead: A Market-dependent Farm in the Early History of the
Maumee Valley of Ohio. Archaeology of Eastern North America 30:150-188.
Stothers, David M., Patrick M. Tucker, and Jason M. Koralewski
1998 The Dunlap Farmstead: Historical Archaeology at 33Wo41, The 19th Century
Homestead of Revolutionary War Soldier Robert Dunlap and Family, Middleton
Township, Wood County, Ohio. Laboratory of Archaeology Publications, Occasional
Monographs No. 1, The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.
Sussman, Lynne
1977 Changes in Pearlware Dinnerware 1780–1830. Historical Archaeology 11:105–
111.
134
Swann, Brenda M.
2002 Material Culture at Presidio Santa Maria de Galve (1698–1722): Combining the
Historical and Archaeological Records. Southeastern Archaeology 21(1):64–78.
Tomhave, W. H.
1925 Meats and Meat Products. Lippincott, Philadelphia.
Towne, C. W. and E. N. Wentworth
1950 Pigs: From Cave to Cornbelt. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Toulouse, Julian H.
1969 Fruit Jars. Thomas Nelson and Sons, Camden, New Jersey, and Everybody‟s
Press, Hanover, Pennsylvania.
1977 Fruit Jars, A Collector’s Manual with Prices. Everybody‟s Press, Inc., Hanover,
Pennsylvania.
United States Bureau of the Census
1900 United States Population Census Schedules, 1900. Harrison County, Harrison
Township, Indiana.
1880a United States Population Census Schedules, 1880. Harrison County, Harrison
Township, Indiana.
1880b United States Census of Agriculture, 1880. Harrison County, Harrison Township,
Indiana.
1870a United States Population Census Schedules, 1870. Harrison County, Harrison
Township, Indiana.
1870b United States Census of Agriculture, 1870. Harrison County, Harrison Township,
Indiana.
1860a United States Population Census Schedules, 1860. Harrison County, Harrison
Township, Indiana.
1860b United States Census of Agriculture, 1860. Harrison County, Harrison Township,
Indiana.
1850a United States Population Census Schedules, 1850. Harrison County, Harrison
Township, Indiana.
1850b United States Census of Agriculture, 1850. Harrison County, Harrison Township,
Indiana.
1850c United States Census of Manufactures, 1850. Harrison County, Harrison
Township, Indiana.
1820 United States Population Census Schedules, 1820. Harrison County, Harrison
Township, Indiana.
135
Wagner, Mark, and Mary McCorvie
1992 The Archeology of the Old Landmark. Nineteenth Century Taverns Along the St.
Louis Vincennes Trace in Southern Illinois. Illinois Department of Transportation and the
Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.
Watkins, Lura Woodside
1930 Cambridge Glass 1818 to 1888: The Story of the New England Glass Company.
Bramhall House, New York.
Wesler, Kit W.
1984 A Spatial Perspective on Artifact Group Patterning Within the Houselot. In
Proceedings of the Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archeology, II:37–44.
Wetherbee, Jean
1980 A Look at White Ironstone. Wallace-Homestead Book Company, Des Moines,
Iowa.
Wiebe, Robert H.
1967 The Search for Order, 1877–1920. Hill and Wang, New York.
Wilson, John S.
1990 We‟ve Got Thousands of These! What Makes an Historic Period Farmstead
Significant? Historical Archaeology 24(2): 23-33.
Wolph, William Richard
1980 The Descendants of Peter Mauck 1708-1980. Willaim Richard Wolph, Arlington,
Virginia.
136
APPENDIX A: FAUNAL ANALYSIS
Report on the Charley Farm Animal Bones,12HR680
Amanda Carver and S. Homes Hogue
October 11, 2010
The animal bone from site 12HR680 was analyzed to answer several research
questions:
1. Is butchering of animals occurring on-site or elsewhere?
2. How are animal bones being modified?
3. What animals were present in the collection?
4. How are identified mammal bones vertically spaced within the site?
Analysis by the authors employed standard zooarchaeological procedures and
methods (Reitz and Wing 1999). The comparative collection at the department of
Anthropology, Ball State University, was used to aid in element identification. The
recovered faunal materials were sorted to class, suborder, or species, and individual bone
elements were identified. The side (right or left), specific bone section (diaphysis,
epiphysis, distal, proximal, etc.), and level of maturity (immature, adult, old adult), were
recorded where preservation permitted. Weathering and bone completeness were also
noted. Bones of all taxa and other analytical categories were weighed in grams and
counted. The Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) was computed for each animal
category using paired bone elements and age (mature/immature) as criteria (see Reitz and
Wing 1999).
137
1. Is butchering of animals occurring on-site or elsewhere?
To answer question 1 above pig and cattle bones were subdivided into five segment
groups-cranial, extremities (feet), vertebra, ribs, and long bones. The theory is that
with on site butchering less meaty parts such as the cranium and feet will be absent or
present in small frequencies when compared with meatier parts, vertebra, ribs, and
longbones(Reitz and Wing 1999; Reitz and Zierden 1991). Tables 1 and 2 below both
suggest on-site butchering occurred at the site as cranial/extremities are well
represented; over 30 percent of NISP for cattle 57 percent NISP for pig. Percentages
of total species weight also supports this conclusion with 30 percent of cattle and 30
percent for cattle.
Table 1. Cattle Bone Frequencies
Portion
Cranial
Extremities(feet )
Subt otal
NISP
4
5
9
Percent
13.79
17.24
31.03
Weight(g)
36
179.71
215.71
Percen t
5.02
25.06
30.08
Vertebra
Ribs
Long bones/other
Subt otal
10
5
5
20
34.48
17.24
17.24
68.97
173.95
48.62
278.75
501.32
24.26
6.78
38.88
69.92
TOTAL
29
100
717.03
100
Table 2. Pig Bone Frequencies
Portion
crani al
extremities(feet)
Subt otals
NISP
75
16
91
Percent
47.17
10.06
57.23
Vertebra
Ribs
Long bones/other
Subt otal
21
2
45
68
13.21
1.26
34.88
42.77
98.66
5.11
781.02
884.79
7.52
0.39
59.5
67.4
TOTAL
159
100
1312.65
100
138
Weight(g)
326.35
101.51
427.86
Percent
24.86
7.73
32.6
2.How are animal bones being modified?
Observations of bone modifications classified as sawed, burned, chopped/hacked,
gnawed and worked are included in the analysis. Sawing is distinguished where
parallel striations are observed on the outer layer of bone. Burned bone is
modified by exposure to fire during preparation or after discard. Bones can vary
in color from black, grey/blue to white depending on the temperature and
exposure length. Cuts are defined as shallow incisions on the bone surface
generally associated with cutting meat around the joint area. Chop/hack marks are
created using a cleaver or ax. Gnawed bone indicates bone was not buried
immediately following disposal and consequently was exposed to animals (Reitz
and Weinand 1995). Table 3 below shows that based on NISP more pig bones
were modified followed by unidentified mammal, probably pig. Most bones were
modified through burning, followed by cutting, and gnawing. Modifications were
few totaling 6.48 percent of the mammal NISP. 17.24 percent of the cattle bones
recovered showed modification, followed by 10.06 percent of the pig bones. No
sawing was observed on the elements.
Table 3. Bone Modifications for the Site
Gn awed
Cut
4
Species
Percent
2.52
Bos taurus-cattle
NISP=29
2
Unid entified Mammal
NISP=270
Large Mamm al
NISP=97
Su s scrofa-pig
NISP=159
SITE TOTAL
NISP=555
Burned
10
Species
Percent
6.29
2
Species
Percent
1.26
6.9
2
6.9
1
3.45
5
17.24%
0
0
1
0.37
13
4.81
14
5.18%
0
0
0
0
1
1.03
1
1.03%
36
6.48%
6
1.08%
13
2.30%
139
17
3.06%
Total
16
10.06%
3. What animals were present in the collection?
Table 4 provides a summary of the animal bone recovered from the Charley Farm
excavations. Pig was found in the greatest frequency followed by cattle and deer. MNI
for pig is based on three distal left adult humeri and one immature left distal humerus.
Table 4. NISP, MNI, Weight, and Weight Percentage for Faunal Materials at the Charley
Farm Site
Mammilia
Sus scrofa
Bos taurus
Odocoileus
Common Name
Pig
cattle
Deer
Unidentifiable Large
Unidentifiable Mammal
NISP
159
29
3
MNI
4
2
1
Weigh t
1312.65
717.03
86.27
Weight Percentage
49.45
27.01
3.25
---
148.46
274.32
2538.73
5.59
10.33
95.64
--
Su btotal
97
270
525
10
Unidentifiable shell
Muscle
Su btotal
49
1
50
1
1
72.29
43.54
115.83
2.72
1.64
4.36
TOTAL
575
11
2654.56
100
Mollusca
..
140
4.How are identified mammal bones vertically spaced within the site?
Most of the identified mammal elements were located in Levels 6 and 7. Several levels
contained no faunal remains. Of the 191 elements identified to mammal species, 83.24
percent were identified as pig.
Table 5. Provenience for Indentified Mammal Bone
Provenience or
Level
1
3
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
South Wall 1
South Wall 2
STP 14-2
STP (d el)
Central Drainage
TOTAL
Feature
Feature Level
2
3
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
4
5
Pig
Sus scrofa
Cattle
Bos taurus
D eer
Odocoileus
1
2
6
16
5
7
39
30
1
16
34
1
1
1
1
2
7
10
1
1
4
1
1
-
2
1
-
Total
3
3
6
18
5
9
46
40
2
17
38
1
1
1
1
159
29
3
191
References Cited
Reitz, E. J., and D. C. Weinand
1995 Vertebrate Fauna from the Nathaniel Russell House. In Initial
Archaeological Testing: The Nathaniel Russell House. Archaeological
Contributions 24, The Charleston Museum.
Reitz, E. J. and E. S. and Wing
1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press.
Reitz, E. J. and M. A. Zierden
1991 Cattle Bones and Status from Charleston, South Carolina. In Beamers,
Bobwhites, and Blue-points: Tributes to the Career of Paul Parmelee. edited
by J. R. Purdue, W.E. Klippel, and B. W. Styles, pp395-407. Illinois State
Museum.
141
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
1
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1060
E 590
Surface
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
1
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1060
E 590
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Molded
Rim
1860
1960
1910
1
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1060
E 590
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
2
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
1
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1060
E 590
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Plain
Footring
and Base
1830
1960
1895
1
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1060
E 590
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Green transfer print,
UID design
Rim
1830
1859
1844.5
1
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1060
E 590
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
2
Clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
1
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1060
E 590
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
Undiagnostic
1
Milk glass
Body
1830
1960
1895
1
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1060
E 590
Surface
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
5
UID fragment
2
1904
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Stoneware
1
Albany int.
Bristol/Albany exterior
Body
1880
1925
1902.5
2
1904
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
2
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
2
1904
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container
Closures
Mason zinc cap
liner
1
Opaque white glass
1869
1950
1909.5
2
1904
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Aqua
Base
1903
1960
1931.5
2
1904
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
Undiagnostic
1
Opaque white glass
Body
1830
1960
1895
2
1904
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Unknown mold
1
Cobalt, molded design
Body
1840
1960
1900
3
1895
STP 15
N 1030
E 500
0-1.1
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
STP 22
N 940 E
530
0-1.5
fbs
Unidentified
Ceramic
UID ceramic
3
Black
Rim
N
o
.
142
4
Feature,
Level
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Plate
Plate
Jug
Cup
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Additional
Comments
1 maker's
mark, green,
“THE”
Vulcanized
rubber
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Additional
Comments
5
1896
Locus
C, STP
2-6
N 1060
E 530
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Clear, embossed, mold
seam
Body
Polygo
n
bottle
1864
1920
1892
“CC”
5
1896
Locus
C, STP
2-6
N 1060
E 530
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
Undiagnostic
1
Cobalt
Body
1840
1960
1900
6
1866
Locus
C, STP
3-5
N 1030
E 560
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Machine made, vitrified
1876
1960
1918
6
1866
Locus
C, STP
3-5
N 1030
E 560
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
2
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
6
1866
Locus
C, STP
3-5
N 1030
E 560
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
1
Fragment
7
1850
Locus
B, STP
3-7
N 1090
E 560
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
7
1850
Locus
B, STP
3-7
N 1090
E 560
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Aqua
1800
1920
1860
7
1850
Locus
B, STP
3-7
N 1090
E 560
0-1.5
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
1
UID fragment
8
1929
STP 45
N 1030
E 590
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
1
Fragment
8
1929
STP 45
N 1030
E 590
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
1
Complete
1880
1960
1920
8
1929
STP 45
N 1030
E 590
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
1
Fragment
1880
1960
1920
8
1929
STP 45
N 1030
E 590
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Amber, individual
section mold, embossed
9
1908
STP 46
N 1060
E 590
0-1.6
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
3
Indeterminate fragment
9
1908
STP 46
N 1060
E 590
0-1.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
9
1908
STP 46
N 1060
E 590
0-1.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
0
1895
Locus
B, STP
4-7
N 1090
E 590
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
N
o
.
Feature,
Level
143
Body
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Base
Beer
bottle
1941
1955
1948
Overglaze borderline
Rim
Plate
1830
1940
1885
1
Aqua
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
4
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
“Dura[glass]”
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
Unit
Coordin
ates
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
1
1
Locus
B, STP
4-8
N 1120
E 590
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Mortar
2
Fragment
1
2
STP 53
N 970 E
620
0-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
2
Fragment
1
2
STP 53
N 970 E
620
0-1.2
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Wire
1
Fence wire fragment
1
2
STP 53
N 970 E
620
0-1.2
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
1
Wire/nail fragment –
indeterminate
N
o
.
MAD
Feature,
Level
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
144
1
3
1840
STP 84
N 1000
E 710
0-1.4
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
1
4
1848
STP
10-7
N 1080
E 770
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Complete, late machine
cut
1830
1880
1855
1
4
1848
STP
10-7
N 1080
E 770
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
1
5
1900
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Fittings and
Hardware
Metal hardware
1
Door latch hardware
1
5
1900
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
1780
1917
1848.5
1
5
1900
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Embossed
Body
1860
1960
1910
1
5
1900
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Molded
Rim
1860
1960
1910
1
5
1900
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Stoneware
1
Salt glazed exterior,
brown glaze int.
Rim
1780
1925
1852.5
1
5
1900
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container
Closures
Mason zinc cap
liner
1
Opaque white glass
1869
1950
1909.5
1
5
1900
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container
Closures
Mason zinc cap
liner
1
Opaque white glass
1869
1950
1909.5
1
5
1900
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Cobalt, ext. thread
Lip and
neck
1903
1960
1931.5
1
5
1900
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Aqua, embossed
Body
1800
1920
1860
2.39
Misc.
bottle
1914
Additional
Comments
“GENUINE
ZINC CAP
FOR BALL
MASON
JARS”
Probably a
'Vick's' bottle
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
1
5
1900
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
Undiagnostic
1
Clear, burnt/melted
Body
1
5
1900
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Press molded,
unleaded
1
Pink depression glass
1
6
1932
STP 56
N 1060
E 610
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
2
Clear
1
6
1932
STP 56
N 1060
E 610
0-1.5
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Fuels
Coal fragment
3
Fragment
1
7
1840
STP 99
N 1240
E 740
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
2
Fragment
1
8
1840
STP 910
N 1240
E 740
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Plain
2
0
1914
Locus
A, STP
14-1
N 1165
E 665
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
2
0
1914
Locus
A, STP
14-1
N 1165
E 665
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
2
0
1914
Locus
A, STP
14-1
N 1165
E 665
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
2
0
1914
Locus
A, STP
14-1
N 1165
E 665
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
2
1
1837
Locus
A, STP
14-2
N 1195
E 665
Feature 1
0-3.0
fbs
2
1
1837
Locus
A, STP
14-2
N 1195
E 665
Feature 1
2
1
1837
Locus
A, STP
14-2
N 1195
E 665
2
1
1837
Locus
A, STP
14-2
N 1195
E 665
2
1
1837
Locus
A, STP
14-2
N 1195
E 665
2
1
1837
Locus
A, STP
14-2
N 1195
E 665
N
o
.
Feature,
Level
145
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Lid
1840
1960
1900
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
1800
1880
1840
Body
1830
1960
1895
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
2
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
ABM
3
Clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
Container Glass
BIM
1
Aqua
Body
1800
1920
1860
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
2
Clear
1.23
1816.3
1780
1917
1848.5
0-3.0
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.25
1818
1780
1917
1848.5
Feature 1
0-3.0
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.44
1834
1780
1917
1848.5
Feature 1
0-3.0
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.12
1807
1780
1917
1848.5
0-3.0
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
11
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
0-3.0
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
2
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
Feature 1
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
2
1
1837
Locus
A, STP
14-2
N 1195
E 665
Feature 1
0-3.0
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Plain
Body
2
1
1837
Locus
A, STP
14-2
N 1195
E 665
Feature 1
0-3.0
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
1
See Carver and Hogue
2010
2
1
1837
Locus
A, STP
14-2
N 1195
E 665
Feature 1
0-3.0
fbs
Unidentified
Stone
Fossil
1
UID Fossil
2
2
1825
Locus
A, STP
14-3
N 1210
E 665
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Complete
2
2
1825
Locus
A, STP
14-3
N 1210
E 665
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
2
3
1844
N 1196
E 662
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
2
3
1844
N 1196
E 662
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
2
4
1850
N 1196
E 662
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
2
4
1850
N 1196
E 662
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
2
4
1850
N 1196
E 662
0.3-0.6
fbs
2
4
1850
N 1196
E 662
2
4
1850
2
5
1842
2
5
1842
2
5
1842
2
5
1842
N
o
.
146
Locus
A,
TU1,
L1
Locus
A,
TU1,
L1
Locus
A,
TU1,
L2
Locus
A,
TU1,
L2
Locus
A,
TU1,
L2
Locus
A,
TU1,
L2
Locus
A,
TU1,
L2
Locus
A,
TU1,
L3
Locus
A,
TU1,
L3
Locus
A,
TU1,
L3
Locus
A,
TU1,
L3
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
1830
1960
1895
1800
1880
1840
1780
1840
1810
Complete, late machine
cut
1830
1880
1855
3
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
Cut nail
4
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
Nails
UID nail
7
Fragment
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
N 1196
E 662
0.3-0.6
fbs
Unidentified
Unknown
material
UID fragments
3
UID fragment
N 1196
E 662
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Complete, late machine
cut
1830
1880
1855
N 1196
E 662
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
5
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
N 1196
E 662
0.6-0.9
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Fuels
Cinder/slag
1
Fragment
N 1196
E 662
0.6-0.9
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
1
Fragment
Body
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
N
o
.
MAD
147
2
6
1859
2
6
1859
2
6
1859
2
6
1859
2
6
1859
2
6
1859
2
6
1859
2
6
1859
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
Unit
Locus
A,
TU1,
L4
Locus
A,
TU1,
L4
Locus
A,
TU1,
L4
Locus
A,
TU1,
L4
Locus
A,
TU1,
L4
Locus
A,
TU1,
L4
Locus
A,
TU1,
L4
Locus
A,
TU1,
L4
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
N 1196
E 662
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
N 1196
E 662
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
N 1196
E 662
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
N 1196
E 662
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
N 1196
E 662
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
N 1196
E 662
0.9-1.2
fbs
N 1196
E 662
N 1196
E 662
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
1.24
1817.1
1780
1917
1848.5
Complete
1800
1880
1840
3
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
ABM
1
Green, crown finish
Neck
1903
1960
1931.5
Container Glass
ABM
1
Yellow
Body
1920
1960
1940
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
0.9-1.2
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Shell
Shell
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
0.9-1.2
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
2
Fragment
Misc.
bottle
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
7
Indeterminate fragment
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.21
1814.6
1780
1917
1848.5
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.33
1824.7
1780
1917
1848.5
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.74
1859.2
1780
1917
1848.5
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.07
1802.8
1780
1917
1848.5
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.05
1801.1
1780
1917
1848.5
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
38
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
12
Fragment
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
N
o
.
MAD
148
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
7
1842
2
8
1859
2
8
1859
2
8
1859
Unit
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU1,
L5
Locus
A,
TU2,
L1
Locus
A,
TU2,
L1
Locus
A,
TU2,
L1
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Clothing
Buttons
Sew-through
1
Indeterminate fragment
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
N 1196
E 662
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Base
1780
1840
1810
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
1
Hand-painted floral
polychrome
Body
1830
1870
1850
Whiteware
1
Hand-painted floral
polychrome
Rim
1830
1870
1850
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Painted, purple and blue
floral
Rim
1830
1870
1850
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
2
Plain
Rim
1830
1960
1895
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Container glass
BIM
1
Clear,mold seam
Body
1864
1920
1892
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Other Container
Tinfoil
1
Common
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Shell
Shell
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1,
L1+L2
1.2-1.5
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Fuels
Charcoal
3
Fragment
N 1196
E 659
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
6
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
N 1196
E 659
0-0.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
N 1196
E 659
0-0.3
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Clear
Neck
1903
1960
1931.5
Misc.
Bottle
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
2
8
1859
Locus
A,
TU2,
L1
2
8
1859
Locus
A,
TU2,
L1
2
8
1859
2
9
1860
2
9
1860
2
9
1860
2
9
1860
2
9
1860
2
9
1860
2
9
1860
2
9
1860
2
9
1860
2
9
1860
3
0
1842
3
0
1842
3
0
1842
N
o
.
149
Locus
A,
TU2,
L1
Locus
A,
TU2,
L2
Locus
A,
TU2,
L2
Locus
A,
TU2,
L2
Locus
A,
TU2,
L2
Locus
A,
TU2,
L2
Locus
A,
TU2,
L2
Locus
A,
TU2,
L2
Locus
A,
TU2,
L2
Locus
A,
TU2,
L2
Locus
A,
TU2,
L2
Locus
A,
TU2,
L3
Locus
A,
TU2,
L3
Locus
A,
TU2,
L3
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
N 1196
E 659
0-0.3
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
2
Aqua, 1 mold seam, 1
embossed
Body
N 1196
E 659
0-0.3
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
N 1196
E 659
0-0.3
fbs
Unidentified
Unknown
material
UID fragments
2
UID fragment
N 1196
E 659
0.3-1.1
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Plate Glass
1
Clear
N 1196
E 659
0.3-1.1
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
2
N 1196
E 659
0.3-1.1
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.01
N 1196
E 659
0.3-1.1
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
N 1196
E 659
0.3-1.1
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
N 1196
E 659
0.3-1.1
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
N 1196
E 659
0.3-1.1
fbs
Domestic
N 1196
E 659
0.3-1.1
fbs
N 1196
E 659
N 1196
E 659
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
1800
1920
1860
1917
1960
1938.5
1881.1
1780
1917
1848.5
1797.8
1780
1917
1848.5
Complete
1800
1880
1840
5
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
Ironstone
1
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Rim
1780
1840
1810
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
2
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
0.3-1.1
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Aqua
Body
1800
1920
1860
0.3-1.1
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Clear
Body
1864
1920
1892
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Complete, late machine
cut
1830
1880
1855
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
8
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Arms
Projectile
Bullet casing
1
0.22 caliber
Additional
Comments
One fragment
has UID
embossed
design
Probably deer,
recent,
recovered
during sod
removal
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
N
o
.
MAD
150
3
0
1842
3
0
1842
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
Unit
Locus
A,
TU2,
L3
Locus
A,
TU2,
L3
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Fuels
Cinder/slag
3
Fragment
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
indeterminate fragment
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
2
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
N 1196
E 659
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Clear
1.19
1812.9
1780
1917
1848.5
1
Lt. blue
1.02
1798.6
1780
1917
1848.5
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.2
1813.8
1780
1917
1848.5
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.67
1853.3
1780
1917
1848.5
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
2
Lt. blue
2.25
1902.2
1780
1917
1848.5
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
2.37
1912.3
1780
1917
1848.5
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
2
Lt. green
1.11
1806.2
1780
1917
1848.5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
24
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
10
Fragment
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Pearlware
2
Plain
Body
1780
1830
1805
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Pearlware
2
Plain
Rim
1780
1830
1805
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
3
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Rim
1780
1840
1810
Crock
Additional
Comments
1 with some
sort of
adhesive on
one side
Refit (2)
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
N
o
.
MAD
151
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
1
1836
3
2
3
3
1843
3
3
1843
3
3
1843
3
3
1843
3
3
1843
3
3
1843
3
4
1843
3
4
1843
Unit
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU2,
L4
Locus
A,
TU3,
L1
Locus
A,
TU3,
L2
Locus
A,
TU3,
L2
Locus
A,
TU3,
L2
Locus
A,
TU3,
L2
Locus
A,
TU3,
L2
Locus
A,
TU3,
L2
Locus
A,
TU3,
L3
Locus
A,
TU3,
L3
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Aqua
Body
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Shell
Shell
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Fuels
Charcoal
4
Fragment
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Fasteners
2
Bolt/nut hardware
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Unidentified
Ceramic
UID ceramic
1
Black
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Unidentified
Unknown
material
UID fragments
17
UID Fragment
N 1196
E 656
0-0.3
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
N 1196
E 656
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate, vitrified
N 1196
E 656
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
8
Fragment
N 1196
E 656
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
6
Fragment
N 1196
E 656
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Plain
N 1196
E 656
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
N 1196
E 656
0.3-0.6
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Farming and
Gardening
Clay flower pot
N 1196
E 656
0.6-1.1
fbs
Architecture
Nails
N 1196
E 656
0.6-1.1
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
1800
1920
1860
Additional
Comments
1 Threaded,
“Schrader
U.S.A.”
Recent,
recovered
during sod
removal
1800
1880
1840
Body
1830
1960
1895
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
1
Common
Body
Cut nail
1
Complete
1800
1880
1840
Cut nail
3
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
N
o
.
MAD
152
3
4
1843
3
5
1863
3
5
1863
3
5
1863
3
5
1863
3
5
1863
3
5
1863
3
5
1863
3
5
1863
3
5
1863
3
5
1863
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
Unit
Locus
A,
TU3,
L3
Locus
A,
TU3,
L4
Locus
A,
TU3,
L4
Locus
A,
TU3,
L4
Locus
A,
TU3,
L4
Locus
A,
TU3,
L4
Locus
A,
TU3,
L4
Locus
A,
TU3,
L4
Locus
A,
TU3,
L4
Locus
A,
TU3,
L4
Locus
A,
TU3,
L4
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
N 1196
E 656
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
0.6-1.1
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
2
Fragment
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
2
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Blue chromatic
Body
1930
1970
1950
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Blue shell edge
Rim
1830
1860
1845
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Yelloware
1
Plain
Body
1830
1925
1877.5
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Aqua
Body
1800
1920
1860
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Clear
Body
1800
1920
1860
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
2
Lt. blue
Body
1800
1920
1860
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Lt. blue, molded spiral
design
Base
1800
1920
1860
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
indeterminate fragment
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Complete, late machine
cut
1830
1880
1855
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
3
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
4
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Rim
1780
1840
1810
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
N
o
.
MAD
153
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
3
6
1844
3
7
1855
3
7
1855
3
7
1855
3
7
1855
3
7
1855
3
7
1855
3
7
1855
Unit
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU3,
L5
Locus
A,
TU4,
L1
Locus
A,
TU4,
L1
Locus
A,
TU4,
L1
Locus
A,
TU4,
L1
Locus
A,
TU4,
L1
Locus
A,
TU4,
L1
Locus
A,
TU4,
L1
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Blue shell edge
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
N 1196
E 656
N 1196
E 656
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Rim
1830
1860
1845
Gray chromatic (?)
Body
1830
1960
1895
1
Gray chromatic (?) floral
hand-painted (?)
Rim
1830
1960
1895
Whiteware
1
Overglaze body, black
band
Body
1830
1960
1895
Ceramics
Whiteware
2
Red shell edge
Rim
1830
1860
1845
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Aqua, embossed
Body
1800
1920
1860
1.3-1.5
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Shell
Shell
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Unidentified
Unknown
material
UID fragments
2
UID Fragment
N 1196
E 665
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Asphalt shingle
1
Indeterminate fragment
N 1196
E 665
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
indeterminate fragment
N 1196
E 665
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Clear
2.07
1887
1780
1917
1848.5
N 1196
E 665
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.95
1876.9
1780
1917
1848.5
N 1196
E 665
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
2
Lt. blue
1.23
1816.3
1780
1917
1848.5
N 1196
E 665
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
2
Complete, late machine
cut
1830
1880
1855
N 1196
E 665
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
Additional
Comments
Refit (2)
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
N
o
.
MAD
154
3
7
1855
3
7
1855
3
8
1854
3
8
1854
3
8
1854
3
8
1854
3
8
1854
3
9
1846
3
9
1846
3
9
1846
3
9
1846
3
9
1846
3
9
1846
3
9
1846
3
9
1846
3
9
1846
Unit
Locus
A,
TU4,
L1
Locus
A,
TU4,
L1
Locus
A,
TU4,
L2
Locus
A,
TU4,
L2
Locus
A,
TU4,
L2
Locus
A,
TU4,
L2
Locus
A,
TU4,
L2
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
N 1196
E 665
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
2
Fragment
N 1196
E 665
0-0.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
plain
N 1196
E 665
0.3-1.1
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
6
Fragment
N 1196
E 665
0.3-1.1
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
6
Fragment
N 1196
E 665
0.3-1.1
fbs
Clothing
Buckles
Metal buckle
1
Iron/steel
N 1196
E 665
0.3-1.1
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Yellow
N 1196
E 665
0.3-1.1
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Fuels
Cinder/slag
2
Fragment
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Body
Body
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
1830
1960
1895
1800
1880
1840
1920
1960
1940
1780
1917
1848.5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Complete, late machine
cut
1830
1880
1855
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
8
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
7
Fragment
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
1
Complete
1880
1960
1920
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
2
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Monochrome Blue
painted
Body
1830
1870
1850
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Aqua
Body
1800
1920
1860
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Clear
Lip and
neck
1864
1920
1892
1.3
1822.2
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
N
o
.
MAD
155
3
9
1846
3
9
1846
3
9
1846
4
0
1839
4
0
1839
4
0
1839
4
0
1839
4
0
1839
4
0
1839
4
0
1839
4
0
1839
4
0
1839
4
0
1839
4
1
1850
4
1
1850
4
1
1850
Unit
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Locus
A,
TU4,
L3
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Locus
A,
TU4,
L4
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Metal hardware
1
Tubing
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L1
1.1-1.3
fbs
Unidentified
Unknown
material
UID fragments
1
UID fragment
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L2
N 1196
E 665
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Lt. blue
1.05
1801.1
1780
1917
1848.5
1
Lt. green
1.27
1819.7
1780
1917
1848.5
Window glass
1
Lt. green
1.65
1851.7
1780
1917
1848.5
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
1.15
1809.6
1780
1917
1848.5
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
1.95
1876.9
1780
1917
1848.5
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
nails
Cut nail
12
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
2
Fragment
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L2
1.3-1.5
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.5 fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
4
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.5 fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Blue shell edge
Rim
1830
1860
1845
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.5 fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
4
2
1885
Locus
C, STP
2-6-E
N 1060
E 545
0-1.6
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Clear
2.29
1905.6
1780
1917
1848.5
4
2
1885
Locus
C, STP
2-6-E
N 1060
E 545
0-1.6
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
2
Lt. green
2.34
1909.8
1780
1917
1848.5
4
2
1885
Locus
C, STP
2-6-E
N 1060
E 545
0-1.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
4
2
1885
Locus
C, STP
2-6-E
N 1060
E 545
0-1.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
3
Complete
4
2
1885
Locus
C, STP
2-6-E
N 1060
E 545
0-1.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
3
Fragment
4
2
1885
Locus
C, STP
2-6-E
N 1060
E 545
0-1.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Plain
Rim
1830
1960
1895
4
2
1885
Locus
C, STP
2-6-E
N 1060
E 545
0-1.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Hand-painted floral
polychrome
Body
1830
1870
1850
4
2
1885
Locus
C, STP
2-6-E
N 1060
E 545
0-1.6
fbs
Domestic
Other Container
Plastic
1
Flat, clear fragment,
“Anchor Hocking” logo
4
2
1885
Locus
C, STP
2-6-E
N 1060
E 545
0-1.6
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
2
See Carver and Hogue
2010
4
3
1845
Locus
C, STP
3-5-W
N 1030
E 545
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Porcelain
1
Blue transfer print
1830
1859
1844.5
4
4
1886
Locus
B, STP
3-7-N
N 1105
E 560
0-1.1
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
4
4
1886
Locus
B, STP
3-7-N
N 1105
E 560
0-1.1
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
2
Plain
Base
1830
1960
1895
4
4
1886
Locus
B, STP
3-7-N
N 1105
E 560
0-1.1
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Plain
Rim
1830
1960
1895
4
4
1886
Locus
B, STP
3-7-N
N 1105
E 560
0-1.1
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Stoneware
1
Albany/Bristol
Rim
1880
1925
1902.5
4
4
1886
Locus
B, STP
3-7-N
N 1105
E 560
0-1.1
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Aqua
body
1800
1920
1860
4
4
1886
Locus
B, STP
3-7-N
N 1105
E 560
0-1.1
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
5
Clear, 1 embossed
Body
1864
1920
1892
N
o
.
Feature,
Level
Vessel
Part
156
Base
Vessel
Form
Bowl
Cup
Crock
Additional
Comments
1 with either a
'P' or a 'B'
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
4
5
1855
Locus
B, STP
3-7-E
N 1090
E 575
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
2
Indeterminate fragment
4
5
1855
Locus
B, STP
3-7-E
N 1090
E 575
0-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Complete
1800
1880
1840
4
5
1855
Locus
B, STP
3-7-E
N 1090
E 575
0-1.5
fbs
Clothing
Buttons
Sew-through
1
Prosser/porcelain
1840
1910
1875
4
5
1855
Locus
B, STP
3-7-E
N 1090
E 575
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
2
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
4
5
1855
Locus
B, STP
3-7-E
N 1090
E 575
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Rim
1780
1840
1810
4
5
1855
Locus
B, STP
3-7-E
N 1090
E 575
0-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Stoneware
1
Salt glazed
Base
1780
1925
1852.5
4
5
1855
Locus
B, STP
3-7-E
N 1090
E 575
0-1.5
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Farming and
Gardening
Clay flower pot
1
Common
Base
4
6
1914
Locus
B, U 5,
L1
N 1095
E 578
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
4
6
1914
Locus
B, U 5,
L1
N 1095
E 578
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Plate Glass
2
Clear
1917
1960
1938.5
4
6
1914
Locus
B, U 5,
L1
N 1095
E 578
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1780
1917
1848.5
4
6
1914
Locus
B, U 5,
L1
N 1095
E 578
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
2
Fragment
4
6
1914
Locus
B, U 5,
L1
N 1095
E 578
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
2
Complete
1880
1960
1920
4
6
1914
Locus
B, U 5,
L1
N 1095
E 578
0-0.3
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
4
6
1914
Locus
B, U 5,
L1
N 1095
E 578
0-0.3
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Lt. green
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
4
6
1914
Locus
B, U 5,
L1
N 1095
E 578
0-0.3
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Clear
Body
1864
1920
1892
4
6
1914
Locus
B, U 5,
L1
N 1095
E 578
0-0.3
fbs
Unidentified
Plastic
Plastic
1
Teal, cylindrical
fragment
N
o
.
Feature,
Level
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
157
1.53
Moir
Date
1841.6
Additional
Comments
Three possible
lantern/light
bulb shards
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Fittings and
Hardware
Door Hardware
1
Door hinge
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Plate Glass
1
Lt. green
1917
1960
1938.5
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Plate Glass
1
Lt. green
1917
1960
1938.5
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Clear
1.92
1874.4
1780
1917
1848.5
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
2.07
1887
1780
1917
1848.5
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.55
1843.2
1780
1917
1848.5
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
2.21
1898.8
1780
1917
1848.5
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
1.75
1860.1
1780
1917
1848.5
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
7
Complete
1800
1880
1840
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
5
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
8
Fragment
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
13
Complete
1880
1960
1920
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Blue shell edge
Rim
1830
1860
1845
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Hand-painted floral
polychrome
Body
1830
1870
1850
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
4
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
N
o
.
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
158
Platter
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Additional
Comments
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container
Closures
Plastic
1
Black, screw cap
fragment
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Amber, embossed
Base
1903
1960
1931.5
“5.75” and
“5.77”
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Aqua
Base
1903
1960
1931.5
1 base,
probably
ABM
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Aqua
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
1 base,
probably
ABM
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
6
Clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
5
Aqua
Body
1800
1920
1860
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
2
Clear
Body
1800
1920
1860
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Lt. blue with embossed
line
Body
1800
1920
1860
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Yellow, “D”
Body
1800
1920
1860
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Unknown mold
4
Clear with embossed
grid/waffle pattern
Body
1864
1960
1912
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Fasteners
1
Screw/bolt
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Unidentified
Ceramic
UID ceramic
1
Red paste, brown,
unglazed exterior
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
5
Fragment
4
7
1889
Locus
B, U 5,
L2
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Unidentified
Plastic
UID plastic
1
Red plastic item/part
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Mortar
1
Fragment
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1780
1917
1848.5
N
o
.
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
159
1.56
Moir
Date
1844.1
1 with
embossed
“TH” and “I?”
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
2.28
1904.7
1780
1917
1848.5
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
2.04
1884.5
1780
1917
1848.5
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
8
Complete
1800
1880
1840
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
8
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
1
Fragment
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
2
Complete
1880
1960
1920
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Blue shell edge molded
Rim
1830
1860
1845
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Blue shell edge,
unmolded
Rim
1830
1860
1845
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Green spatter
1830
1860
1845
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
24
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Aqua
Body
1800
1920
1860
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
2
Clear
Body
1864
1920
1892
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Tooth
1
See Carver and Hogue
2010
4
8
1873
Locus
B, U 5,
L3
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
2
Fragment
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Handmade vitrified
1800
1876
1838
N
o
.
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Additional
Comments
160
1 appears
burnt
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
1.53
1841.6
1780
1917
1848.5
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
1
Complete
1880
1960
1920
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Plain
Base
1830
1960
1895
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
11
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
3
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Stoneware
2
Brown slip
Rim
1800
1925
1862.5
Refit (2)
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
3
Blue shell edge rim,
molded
Rim
1830
1860
1845
2 refit
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Aqua
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Clear
Body
1864
1920
1892
4
9
1875
Locus
B, U 5,
L4
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
4
Fragment
5
0
1810
Locus
B, U 5,
L5
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L4
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
5
0
1810
Locus
B, U 5,
L5
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L4
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
1
Complete
5
0
1810
Locus
B, U 5,
L5
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L4
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
5
0
1810
Locus
B, U 5,
L5
N 1095
E 578
Feature 2, L4
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Rim
1780
1840
1810
N
o
.
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Additional
Comments
161
Refit (2)
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
5
1
1840
STP
14-2-S
N1 180
E 665
Feature 1
0.4-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
complete
1800
1880
1840
5
2
1888
STP
14-2-E
N 1195
E 680
Feature 1
0-1.8
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Complete, late machine
cut
1830
1880
1855
5
2
1888
STP
14-2-E
N 1195
E 680
Feature 1
0-1.8
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
3
Fragment
5
2
1888
STP
14-2-E
N 1195
E 680
Feature 1
0-1.8
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
1
Complete
1880
1960
1920
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Fittings and
Hardware
Ceramic
1
Ceramic drainage pipe
fragment
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Flat glass
Plate Glass
1
Lt. green
1917
1960
1938.5
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Clear
1780
1917
1848.5
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
2
Complete
1800
1880
1840
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
2
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
4
Fragment
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
6
Complete
1880
1960
1920
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Lt. blue chromatic
Rim
1930
1970
1950
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Molded, octagonal
Rim
1860
1960
1910
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
8
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
ironstone
1
Plain
Rim
1830
1960
1895
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container
Closures
Mason zinc cap
liner
2
Opaque white glass
1869
1950
1909.5
N
o
.
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
162
2.33
Moir
Date
1908.9
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Aqua
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Aqua
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
5
3
1903
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
2
Clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
5
4
1921
Locus
C, U.6
L.1
N 1033
E 560
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
5
4
1921
Locus
C, U.6
L.1
N 1033
E 560
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
2
Fragment
5
4
1921
Locus
C, U.6
L.1
N 1033
E 560
0-0.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
7
Complete
1880
1960
1920
5
4
1921
Locus
C, U.6
L.1
N 1033
E 560
0-0.3
fbs
Clothing
Buckles
Metal buckle
1
Iron/steel
5
4
1921
Locus
C, U.6
L.1
N 1033
E 560
0-0.3
fbs
Clothing
Buttons
Sew-through
1
Indeterminate fragment
5
4
1921
Locus
C, U.6
L.1
N 1033
E 560
0-0.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
2
Lt. blue chromatic,
banded
Rim
1930
1970
1950
5
4
1921
Locus
C, U.6
L.1
N 1033
E 560
0-0.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Plain
Base
1830
1960
1895
5
4
1921
Locus
C, U.6
L.1
N 1033
E 560
0-0.3
fbs
Domestic
Container glass
ABM
3
Clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
5
4
1921
Locus
C, U.6
L.1
N 1033
E 560
0-0.3
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Unknown mold
1
Clear, pressed
embellishment/knob
Body
1864
1960
1912
5
4
1921
Locus
C, U.6
L.1
N 1033
E 560
0-0.3
fbs
Unidentified
Ceramic
UID ceramic
1
Black
5
4
1921
Locus
C, U.6
L.1
N 1033
E 560
0-0.3
fbs
Unidentified
Stone
Rock sample
1
Fossiliferous limestone
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
3
Indeterminate fragment
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Amber
N
o
.
Feature,
Level
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
163
Bowl
Additional
Comments
Refit (2)
Incised line
1.23
1816.3
1780
1917
1848.5
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
2.34
1909.8
1780
1917
1848.5
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Complete, pulled
1800
1880
1840
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
11
Fragment
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
3
Complete
1880
1960
1920
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Embossed
1860
1960
1910
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Plain
Base
1851
1958
1904.5
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Plain
Rim
1830
1960
1895
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container
Closures
Mason zinc cap
liner
1
Opaque white glass
1869
1950
1909.5
“BO...D”
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
7
Clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
1 burnt
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
3
Frosted clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
1 Ext.
threaded
bottle top
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Press molded,
unleaded
1
Clear
Body
1864
1960
1912
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Press molded,
unleaded
1
Clear, beaded
Lid lip
1864
1960
1912
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Fasteners
1
Bolt, washer, and nut
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Unidentified
Ceramic
UID ceramic
1
Black
5
5
1916
Locus
C, U.6
L. 2
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L1
0.3-0.6
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
18
Fragment
N
o
.
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Saucer
Additional
Comments
Burnt, maker's
mark
“[SOC]IETE
CER[AMIQU
E]”
164
incised line
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
2
Complete
1800
1880
1840
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
89
Fragment and complete
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
11
Complete
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
3
Molded
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Porcelain
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
5
6
1914
5
6
1914
N
o
.
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Additional
Comments
13 pulled
165
1880
1960
1920
4 pulled
Rim
1860
1960
1910
Refit (2),
burnt
Plain
Rim
1830
1960
1895
burnt
1
Blue transfer print
Body
1900
1960
1930
Porcelain
2
Molded
Rim
1855
1950
1902.5
Ceramics
Porcelain
2
Plain
Body
1800
1960
1880
Domestic
Ceramics
Porcelain
2
Plain
Rim
1800
1960
1880
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Stoneware
1
Albany ext.
Body
1830
1925
1877.5
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container
Closures
Mason zinc cap
liner
5
Opaque white glass
1869
1950
1909.5
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
4
Aqua
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
3
Aqua, post bottom mold
Base
1903
1920
1911.5
Refit (2)
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
22
Clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
2 burnt
Cup/b
owl
1”Genuine
Por[celain]” 1
“IN...”
refit(2)
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Additional
Comments
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Clear
Neck and
body
Misc.
Bottle
1903
1960
1931.5
“1/2 OZ.”
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Clear, embossed
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
“[FL]UID...”
circular mark
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
3
Lt. blue
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Lt. blue
Embossed
panel
Misc.
Bottle
1903
1960
1931.5
“NOV...”
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Clear
Embossed
panel
Patent
medici
ne
1885
1920
1902.5
“Dr. YY [B.
Caldwell]...
Montic[ello,
Illinois]...”
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
Undiagnostic
3
Cobalt
Body
1840
1960
1900
1 burnt
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
Undiagnostic
1
Green
Body
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Press molded,
unleaded
1
Clear
Body
1864
1960
1912
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Press molded,
unleaded
4
Clear, frosted
Body
1864
1960
1912
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Press molded,
unleaded
2
Clear, frosted
Rim
1864
1960
1912
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Press molded,
unleaded
1
Green
Stem
1865
1960
1912.5
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
3
See Carver and Hogue
2010
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Fuels
Cinder/slag
3
Fragment
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Fasteners
2
Bolt, washer, and nut
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Indeterminate
6
UID hardware item/part
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Wire
1
Copper
N
o
.
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
166
Refit (2)
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
33
Fragment
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Unidentified
Rubber
UID Rubber
2
Black
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Unidentified
Stone
Fossil
1
UID Fossil
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Unidentified
Stone
Quartz
2
Unmodified
5
6
1914
Locus
C, U.6
L. 3
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L2
0.6-0.9
fbs
Unidentified
Unknown
material
UID cylinder
1
Black/green
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Clear
2.22
1899.7
1780
1917
1848.5
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Clear
2.42
1916.5
1780
1917
1848.5
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
1.06
1802
1780
1917
1848.5
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
37
Various, 3 pulled
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
5
Complete, 4 pulled
1880
1960
1920
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Plain
Rim
1830
1960
1895
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
6
Clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Unknown mold
1
Clear
Lid lip
1864
1960
1912
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Unknown mold
1
Clear
Rim
1864
1960
1912
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Unknown mold
3
Clear frosted
Body
1864
1960
1912
N
o
.
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Lid
Additional
Comments
incised line
167
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Domestic
Utensils
Glass stirring rod
1
Clear glass
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Fasteners
2
Bolt, washer, and nut
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
12
Fragment
5
7
1913
Locus
C, U.6
L. 4
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L3
0.9-1.2
fbs
Unidentified
Rubber
UID Rubber
1
Black embossed
5
8
1924
Locus
C, U.6
L. 5
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L4
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
13
Fragment
5
8
1924
Locus
C, U.6
L. 5
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L4
1.2-1.5
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
3
Complete
5
8
1924
Locus
C, U.6
L. 5
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L4
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
2
Clear
5
8
1924
Locus
C, U.6
L. 5
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L4
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
5
8
1924
Locus
C, U.6
L. 5
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L4
1.2-1.5
fbs
Domestic
Glass Tableware
Unknown mold
5
8
1924
Locus
C, U.6
L. 5
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L4
1.2-1.5
fbs
Unidentified
Ceramic
5
8
1924
Locus
C, U.6
L. 5
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L4
1.2-1.5
fbs
Unidentified
5
9
Locus
C, U.6
L. 6
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L5
1.5-1.8
fbs
5
9
Locus
C, U.6
L. 6
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L5
5
9
Locus
C, U.6
L. 6
N 1033
E 560
Feature 3, L5
N
o
.
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
“LL”
Lid
168
1880
1960
1920
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
Yellow
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
1
Clear frosted
Body
1864
1960
1912
Porcelain
1
Porcelain insulator
fragment??
Metal
Iron/steel
20
Fragment
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
2
Fragment
1.5-1.8
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
11
Fragments
1.5-1.8
fbs
Unidentified
Stone
Rock sample
1
Fossiliferous limestone
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Fittings and
Hardware
Door Hardware
1
Door hinge
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Flat glass
Plate Glass
1
Clear
Additional
Comments
Most from a
single sheet
1917
1960
1938.5
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
1
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
2
Fragment
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Lt. blue chromatic
Rim
1930
1970
1950
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
ceramics
Stoneware
1
Albany
Base
1800
1925
1862.5
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Stoneware
1
Albany
Rim
1800
1925
1862.5
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Ceramics
Stoneware
1
Salt glazed exterior
Body
1780
1925
1852.5
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container
Closures
Mason zinc cap
liner
2
Opaque white glass
1869
1950
1909.5
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Aqua
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
5
Clear
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
ABM
1
Lt. green
Body
1903
1960
1931.5
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Domestic
Container Glass
Undiagnostic
1
Cobalt
Body
1840
1960
1900
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Tooth
1
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Spike
1
Iron/steel
6
0
1893
Locus
B,
Surface
N 1090
E 560
Surface
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Wire/spike
1
Iron/steel
6
1
1830
Locus
A, U.
4 L. 4
N 1196
E 656
1.4 fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
1
Complete
N
o
.
Feature,
Level
169
Feature 1, L2
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
6
1
1830
Locus
A, U.
4 L. 4
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.4 fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
6
1
1830
Locus
A, U.
4 L. 4
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L2
1.4 fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Painted, purple and blue
floral
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
4
Indeterminate fragment
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Plate Glass
1
Lt. green
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
1.6
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
3
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Nails
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N
o
.
Vessel
Form
170
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Body
1780
1840
1810
Rim
1830
1870
1850
1917
1960
1938.5
1847.5
1780
1917
1848.5
1.32
1823.9
1780
1917
1848.5
Lt. green
1.29
1821.3
1780
1917
1848.5
1
Lt. green
1.41
1831.5
1780
1917
1848.5
Cut nail
10
Complete
1800
1880
1840
Nails
UID nail
18
Fragment
Clothing
Buttons
Added shank
1
Brass
1800
1860
1830
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Porcelain
1
Blue chromatic
1930
1970
1950
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
3
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
ceramics
Whiteware
1
Blue shell edge, molded
Rim
1830
1860
1845
Salt
shaker
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Additional
Comments
“TREBLE
GILT
COLOUR”
backstamp
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Painted, purple, blue and
green floral
Rim
Plate
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Shell
Shell
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Tools
Bone handle
1
Handle with iron/steel
cap at base
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
1
Lead? Capped cylinder
with bristles inside
6
2
1856
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 6
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Unidentified
Stone
Rock sample
2
UID rock
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
2
Indeterminate fragment
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
2
Fragment
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
3
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
N
o
.
Thickne
ss (mm)
171
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
1830
1870
1850
1780
1917
1848.5
Base
1780
1840
1810
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
1
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
Shell
Shell
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
1.26
Moir
Date
1818.8
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Fuels
Charcoal
2
Fragment
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
2
fragment
6
3
1857
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 7
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Unidentified
Unknown
material
UID fragments
2
unknown material
6
4
1895
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 8
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L5
2.0-2.3
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
1
Fragment
6
4
1895
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 8
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L5
2.0-2.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Plain
6
4
1895
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 8
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L5
2.0-2.3
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
4
1895
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 8
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L5
2.0-2.3
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
4
1895
Locus
A. U.
1 L. 8
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1, L5
2.0-2.3
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
1
fragment
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1.68
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
N
o
.
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
172
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Additional
Comments
1830
1960
1895
Burnt
1854.2
1780
1917
1848.5
2.25
1902.2
1780
1917
1848.5
Lt. blue
2.12
1891.2
1780
1917
1848.5
1
Lt. green
1.14
1808.7
1780
1917
1848.5
Window glass
1
Lt. green
0.98
1795.2
1780
1917
1848.5
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
1.31
1823
1780
1917
1848.5
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. green
1.21
1814.6
1780
1917
1848.5
Body
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
9
1 Complete, 8 Fragments
1800
1880
1840
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
4
Fragment
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
7
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Polychromatic handpainted
Rim
1830
1870
1850
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Container Glass
BIM
1
Olive
Body
1800
1920
1860
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Shell
Shell
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Fuels
Cinder/charcoal
1
Fragment
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
1
Fragment
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Unidentified
Stone
Stone
1
Fossiliferous limestone
6
5
1836
Locus
A. U.
2 L. 5
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Unidentified
Unknown
material
UID fragments
2
UID fragment
6
6
1829
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 6
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
Lt. blue
1780
1917
1848.5
6
6
1829
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 6
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
2
Fragment
6
6
1829
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 6
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Pearlware
1
Plain
1780
1830
1805
N
o
.
Vessel
Part
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
173
1.64
Base
Moir
Date
1850.8
Additional
Comments
burnt
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
6
6
1829
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 6
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
10
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
6
6
1829
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 6
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
6
6
1829
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 6
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
6
6
1829
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 6
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
6
6
1829
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 6
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
6
6
1829
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 6
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
6
6
1829
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 6
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L4
6
6
1829
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 6
N 1196
E 659
6
7
1810
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 7
6
7
1810
6
7
1810
N
o
.
174
6
8
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Body
1780
1840
1810
Blue and green
polychrome handpainted
Body
1830
1870
1850
1
Plain
Body
1830
1960
1895
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
1.7-2.0
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Fuels
Charcoal
1
Fragment
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
7
Iron/steel
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L5
2.0-2.3
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 7
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L5
2.0-2.3
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
Locus
A. . U.
2 L. 7
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1, L5
2.0-2.3
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
Locus
A. U. 2
S. Wall
N 1196
E 659
Feature 1
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
9
1840
Locus
A. U. 3
L. 6
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Ironstone
1
Molded
Body
1860
1960
1910
6
9
1840
Locus
A. U. 3
L. 6
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Pearlware
1
Plain
Body
1780
1830
1805
6
9
1840
Locus
A. U. 3
L. 6
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
3
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
6
9
1840
Locus
A. U. 3
L. 6
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
5
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Body
1780
1840
1810
Additional
Comments
burnt
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
6
9
1840
Locus
A. U. 3
L. 6
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
2
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
6
9
1840
Locus
A. U. 3
L. 6
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Mulberry edge
decorated, molded
6
9
1840
Locus
A. U. 3
L. 6
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
9
1840
Locus
A. U. 3
L. 6
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
9
1840
Locus
A. U. 3
L. 6
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
6
9
1840
Locus
A. U. 3
L. 6
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
Fuels
Cinder/slag
1
Fragment
Locus
A. U. 3
L. 7
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
N
o
.
175
7
0
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
Rim
1780
1840
1810
Rim
1830
1960
1895
Rim
1780
1840
1810
1800
1876
1838
7
1
1810
Locus
A. U. 3
S. Wall
N 1196
E 656
Feature 1
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Handmade non-vitrified
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
4
Indeterminate fragment
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
1.23
1816.3
1780
1917
1848.5
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
1.11
1806.2
1780
1917
1848.5
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
1.13
1807.9
1780
1917
1848.5
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
1.34
1825.6
1780
1917
1848.5
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
1.5
1839
1780
1917
1848.5
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
1.05
1801.1
1780
1917
1848.5
Additional
Comments
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
MAD
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
1.16
1810.4
1780
1917
1848.5
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Flat glass
Window glass
1
1.31
1823
1780
1917
1848.5
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Cut nail
8
Fragment
1800
1880
1840
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Nails
UID nail
6
Fragment
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Architecture
Nails
Wire nail
1
Fragment
1880
1960
1920
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Blue edge-decorated,
molded
1830
1960
1895
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Maintenance
and
Subsistence
General
Hardware
Fasteners
1
Bolt
7
2
1837
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 5
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L3
1.4-1.7
fbs
Unidentified
Metal
Iron/steel
1
flat thick fragment
7
3
1857
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 6
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
2
Handmade vitrified
1800
1876
1838
7
3
1857
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 6
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Architecture
Construction
Materials
Brick
1
Indeterminate fragment
7
3
1857
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 6
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
Rim
1780
1840
1810
7
3
1857
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 6
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Domestic
Ceramics
Whiteware
1
Undecorated
Body
1830
1960
1895
7
3
1857
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 6
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
7
3
1857
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 6
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L4
1.7-2.0
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
N
o
.
Combined Attributes
Vessel
Part
Rim
Vessel
Form
Additional
Comments
Refit (7)
176
APPENDIX B: HISTORIC ARTIFACT INVENTORY
F
S
Unit
Coordin
ates
Feature,
Level
Depth
Functional
Group
Class
Artifact Type
Quanti
ty
Combined Attributes
7
4
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 7
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L5
2.0-2.3
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
7
4
Locus
A. U. 4
L. 7
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1, L5
2.0-2.3
fbs
Floral and
Faunal
Bone/tooth/claw
Teeth
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
Locus
A. U. 4
S. Wall
N 1196
E 665
Feature 1
Domestic
Ceramics
Redware
1
Lead glazed and/or
unglazed
7
6
Locus
A. U. 1
S. Wall
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1
Floral and
Faunal
bone/tooth/claw
Bone
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
7
6
Locus
A. U. 1
S. Wall
N 1196
E 662
Feature 1
Floral and
Faunal
Shell
Shell
*
See Carver and Hogue
2010
N
o
.
7
5
MAD
1810
Vessel
Part
Body
Vessel
Form
Thickne
ss (mm)
Moir
Date
Min
Date
Max
Date
Mean
Date
1780
1840
1810
Additional
Comments
177
APPENDIX C: LITHIC ANALYSIS
By Andrew V. Martin, RPA
Lithic artifacts recovered from Site 12Hr680 consist of 45 (66.53 g) flakes, one
retouched flake (2.1 g), and one core fragment (4.3 g) (Table L-1). The analysis of flake
debris involved the recording of several attributes, including flake size, weight, raw
material type, presence of cortex, and probable stage of lithic reduction during which the
flake was produced. Reduction stage follows Magne‟s (1985) definitions and was
determined by the number of facets on the platform or the number of flake scars on the
dorsal surface. Early stage reduction is defined as core reduction, middle stage as the
first half of tool production, and late stage as the second half of tool production and
subsequent maintenance. For flakes that retain platforms, zero to one facet on the
platform indicates early stage, two facets indicate middle stage, and three or more facets
indicate late stage. Biface thinning is a specialized form of late stage reduction. A biface
thinning flake is defined as a flake with a lipped platform having three or more facets.
For non-platform bearing flakes, dorsal flake scars were counted instead of platform
facets; zero to one dorsal flake scars indicate early stage, two scars middle stage, and
three or more flake scars late stage. Stage of reduction was not determined for blocky
debris or flakes smaller than .25 inch.
Table L-1. Summary of lithic artifacts recovered from Site 12Hr680 (continued on next
page).
Bag
Unit#
05
STP 2-6
08
21
STP 4-5
STP 910
STP 119
STP 142
24
TU 1
26
TU 1
26
TU 1
26
TU 1
27
TU 1
28
TU 2
29
TU 2
18
19
Depth
0-18 in
bgs
0-18 in
bgs
0-18 in
bgs
0-18 in
bgs
Count
Weight
Size
Stage
Material
1
0.2
2
3
Wyandotte
1
0.01
1
-
000
1
0.5
2
2
Wyandotte
1
1.6
3
3
Wyandotte
0-3 ft bd
0.6-0.9 ft
bd
1.2-1.5 ft
bd
1.2-1.5 ft
bd
1.2-1.5 ft
bd
1.5-1.8 ft
bd
0.3-0.6 ft
bd
0.6-1.4 ft
bd
2
0.5
2
0
Wyandotte
1
0.4
2
2
Wyandotte
1
0.01
1
-
000
1
0.3
2
3
Wyandotte
2
0.5
2
0
Wyandotte
1
0.2
2
0
1
0.8
3
-
Wyandotte
Thermal
shatter
1
0.2
2
3
Wyandotte
178
Bag
Unit#
30
TU 2
30
TU 2
30
TU 2
31
TU 2
34
TU 3
37
TU 4
38
TU 4
38
TU 4
38
TU 4
38
TU 4
38
TU 4
38
TU 4
46
TU 5
48
TU 5
56
TU 6
63
TU 1
64
TU 1
66
TU 2
74
TU 4
Depth
1.4-1.6 ft
bd
1.4-1.6 ft
bd
1.4-1.6 ft
bd
1.6-1.8 ft
bd
0.9-1.4 ft
bd
0.3-0.6 ft
bd
0.6-1.4 ft
bd
0.6-1.4 ft
bd
0.6-1.4 ft
bd
0.6-1.4 ft
bd
0.6-1.4 ft
bd
0.6-1.4 ft
bd
0.3-0.6 ft
bd
0.9-1.2 ft
bd
0.9-1.2 ft
bd
1.7-2 ft
bd
2-2.3 ft
bd
1.7-2 ft
bd
2-2.3 ft
bd
Count
Weight
Size
Stage
Material
3
1.1
2
3
Wyandotte
1
0.8
3
2
Wyandotte
1
0.7
3
3
Wyandotte
1
1.5
3
3
Wyandotte
1
0.2
2
2
Wyandotte
1
0.1
1
-
000
1
0.1
1
-
000
8
5
2
3
Wyandotte
2
0.9
2
3
Unidentified
3
1.4
2
0
Wyandotte
1
0.2
2
0
Unidentified
1
37.6
5
1
1
0.4
2
-
Wyandotte
Thermal
shatter
1
8
4
1
Laurel
1
1
3
3
Allens Creek
1
1.5
3
4
Unidentified
1
0.2
1
-
000
1
0.6
2
2
Wyandotte
1
0.01
1
-
000
Of the 37 flakes larger than .25 inch in size recovered from site 12Hr680, the majority
were from late stages of lithic reduction (Table L-2). Material type was determined by
comparison with a sample collection housed at Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. A
majority of the materials from Site 12Hr680 were of locally available Wyandotte chert
(n=31, 84 percent, see Table L-1) (Cantin 1994). One flake of Allen‟s Creek chert and
one Laurel chert flake were also identified. Four flakes of unidentified chert type were
also recorded. These likely represent non-local chert. Two pieces of thermal shatter were
179
too badly burnt to be recognizable to original chert type(s).
Table L-2. Reduction stages for flakes from Site 12Hr680.
Reduction Stage
Blocky flakes
Early
Middle
Late
Biface thinning
Flake
Count
9
2
5
20
1
Percent
24.32%
5.41%
13.51%
54.05%
2.70%
One utilized flake and one core fragment were recovered from Site 12Hr680. Artifact
001 is a retouched Wyandotte chert flake that was recovered from 1.5-1.8 ft bd in TU 1.
This is a late stage flake that exhibits unifacial retouch along one edge. Artifact 002 is a
core fragment of Laurel chert that was recovered from 0.9-1.2 ft bd in TU 6. This is a
small portion of a core that exhibits flake scars on two faces. Not enough of the core
remains to tell what direction(s) (e.g., multidirectional, bifacial, unidirectional, etc.)
flakes were originating from the core.
Summary and Interpretations
A light density of lithic artifacts was recovered from 5 STPs and 6 test units at Site
12Hr680. The analysis of the flake debris suggests that late stages of tool production
were occurring at the site. Most notable was the preference for Wyandotte chert. This
preference is not surprising since it is a high quality tool stone that is available in close
proximity to the site. The abundance of Wyandotte chert along with the occurrence of a
core fragment of non-local Laurel chert provides at least one inference about prehistoric
occupant‟s behavior at the site. These differing material types and frequency suggest that
non-local materials brought to the site were being discarded and replaced with the higher
quality and more readily available Wyandotte chert. The retouched flake indicates that
activities not associated with stone tool production, such as wood cutting and hide
scrapping, were also occurring at the site with the local materials.
However, there is nothing in the small lithic assemblage to suggest when the prehistoric
occupation(s) took place. Ultimately the small sample of materials provides evidence of
several activities associated with the site but the lack of intact prehistoric deposits and
temporally diagnostic artifacts does not allow us to determine if these artifacts are the
result of the same occupation or repeated visits during the same time period. Alternatively
the assemblage may also be the result of repeated visits to the site over several time
periods. Little more can be said regarding this small sample of lithic artifacts.
180
References Cited
Cantin, Mark
1994 Provenience, Description, and Archaeological Use of Selected Chert Types of
Indiana. Indiana State University, Anthropology Laboratory, Terra Haute,
Indiana.
Magne, Martin P. R.
1985 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior
B.C. Archaeology Survey of Canada, Mercury Series No. 133, Ottawa.
181