QUAKERS ON THE HOOSIER FRONTIER: A DIACHRONIC
PERSPECTIVE ON THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HUDDLESTON
HOUSE, A NINETEENTH CENTURY INDIANA FARMSTEAD
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS
BY
MICHAEL KEITH LAUTZENHEISER
DR. MARK GROOVER, COMMITTEE CHAIR
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
NOVEMBER, 2010
ii
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
To begin, would like to thank my thesis committee chairperson, Dr. Mark
Groover. When I walked into my first anthropology class nearly ten years ago, I could
have never imagined the amount of influence the instructor would have on shaping my
future. Without Dr. Groover‘s constant encouragement, trust, and constructive criticism,
this research would not have been possible. He always had time to listen, and never
stopped believing in me. He motivated me to do my absolute best, and I for that, I am
forever in his debt.
I would also like thank my thesis committee members. Dr. Colleen Boyd is a
wonderful person. Her ideas and suggestions were invaluable. Also, she agreed to
continue to help with my thesis even while on sabbatical and not obligated to do so. This
gesture showed a tremendous amount of selflessness, and speaks to the high level of
character possessed by Dr. Boyd. This was highly motivating for me, because I so truly
appreciated the commitment taken by Dr. Boyd to help me. In addition, I would like to
thank Dr. Mark Hill for his kindness, patience, and expertise. Also, I am very
appreciative of Dr. S. Homes Hogue, who volunteered to analyze the faunal remains pro
bono during Spring Break. That act demonstrated extreme generosity. Thank you very
much, Dr Hogue, for everything.
Also, I must give a special thanks to the field crew of the 2007 field school:
Kevin Cupka Head, Sue Cupka Head, Sarah Hunnicutt, Julie Koogler, and Cleo Lyons.
ii
iii
Likewise, I would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Historic Landmarks
Foundation of Indiana. Specifically, I would like to thank Karen Trent, former assistant
administrative director at Huddleston House. In addition, I thank all of the people who
helped me gather various historical documents. The staff at the Wayne County
Courthouse was extremely helpful and deserves thanks. Also, the volunteers at the
Wayne County Genealogical Society library were extremely helpful, interesting, and
hospitable. They were always so nice.
However, I saved the best for last. My loving family remained patient, and never
stopped believing in me. My wonderful wife Melissa helped me in every possible way;
from offering ideas, to helping crunch numbers, to surrendering her computer for days at
a time. I love you and thank you very much for all the support. To my son, Hunter,
thank you for all your help and patience. He showed a tremendous amount of maturity in
dealing with a house constantly cluttered with ubiquitous stacks of paperwork that
resembled the leaning tower of Pisa. Throughout the entire process, they never lost faith
or their temper. Thank you, I love you both.
To my dad, Eric, who taught me to always do my best, I appreciate all of your
love and guidance. My father values education very highly, and has instilled this attitude
onto me. To my mother, Alice, thank you for providing a refuge, away from the troubles
of research and writing. Also, thank you for teaching me to always be myself, and for
always being yourself around me.
iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………..……….
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………….iii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………. viii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………….. xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………….………..…………….. 1
CHAPTER 2: THEORY AND METHODS…………………………….…………..Field
9
Methods……………………………………………………………………………….. 16
Laboratory Methods……………………………………………………….…………. 17
Documentary Analysis Methods……………………………...……….…………….. 18
CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL CULTURE HISTORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW….22
22
National Road……………………………………………………………….……...……22
22
Quakers ………………………………………………………………………………….25
25
Native American Groups……………………………………………………..…..….…..26
26
Industrial Transition ……………………………………………………….….……..….30
30
Quaker Archaeology……………………………………………………………....….….33
33
Farmstead Archaeology……………………………………………………………...…..35
35
CHAPTER 4: HUDDELSTON EXTENDED FAMILY HISTORY………….………..40
40
Frontier Period………………………………………………………….………….…….47
47
The Huddleston Period……………………………………………………………..……48
49
Early Phase: John Huddleston Occupation , 1839 to1877…………….……………..….51
51
Middle Phase: The Levi and Henry Huddleston occupation, 1877 -1905………………53
52
Late Phase: the Charles and Kenneth Huddleston occupation, 1906- 1934……..
56
Transition and Restoration Periods: 1935-Present…………………………………. 60
CHAPTER 5: HISTORICAL CONTEXT: NINETEENTH CENTURY
REGIONAL AND GLOBAL AGRICULTURALTREND…….……..67
67
Hoosier Farming………………………………………….…….…………………….. 68
Corn Laws………………………………………………………….…………..……… 70
Agricultural Geography…………………………………………………………………74
iv
v
CHAPTER 6: HISTORICAL CONTEXT: RECONSTRUCTING LOCAL
ECONMIC TRENDS ………………..……………....……………….. 91
Methods…………………………………………………..………………….…………. 91
Wealth ………………………………………….……………………….…………….. 93
Results…………………………………………………………….……………………. 93
Discussion…………………………………………..………………….….…………… 103
Landholdings………………………………………………………….………..…………
104
Commodities ……………………………………………………………………..……112
112
CHAPTER 7: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS………………………………….. 119
Landscape Reconstruction………………………………………..…………………… 119
Objectives of 2007 Field School Excavation…………………..……….…………….. 138
Field Methods……………………………….…………………..……………….…….138
138
Laboratory Methods…………………………………………….…………….….…… 145
Ceramic Analysis…………………………………………………….…………..…….150
150
Materials………………………………………………………………………....……..150
150
Methods……………………………………………………………………..…….……151
151
Utilitarian Ceramics……………………………………………………….……………152
152
Redware…………………………………………………………………………….…..151
151
Stoneware……………………………………………………………………..….........151
151
Refined Ceramics……………………………………………………..……….......…..152
152
White Bodied Ware/ Ironstone…………………….………………………………….. 152
Whiteware………………….……………………………………………………….…..152
152
Yellowware……………………………………………………………………….…….153
153
Porcelain………………………………………………………………………………..153
153
Semi-Porcelain………………………………………………………………………....153
153
Pearlware……………………………………………………………………………….. 154
Decorated/ Undecorated (Surface Treatment)…………..………………………………154
Results………………………………………………………….………………….……155
155
Time Sequence Analysis………………………………………………………….……160
160
Flat Glass…………………………………………………………………………….…162
162
Nails…………………………………………………………………………………….170
170
CHAPTER 8: SECONDARY ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIO……...…….…..176
176
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION……………………………………….………………...193
193
Contributions…………………………………………………………………............. 194
Recommendations……………………………………..…………………….……..….195
195
REFERENCE CITED……………………………………………………………………197
APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL REPORT……………………………………....………212
212
APPENDIX B: ARTIFACT INVENTORY…………………………….……………..239
239
v
vi
APPENDIX C: DATES AND SOURCES USED TO CALCULATE MEAN
ARTIFACT DATES…………………………………………………..… 286
APPENDIX D: WINDOW GLASS DATES………………………………….……..…. 292
APPENDIX E: MEAN DATES FOR ARTIFACT GROUPS………………….…..….. 294
APPENDIX F: TIME SEQUENCE DATA………………………………….……...….. 289
APPENDIX G: JOHN HUDDLESTON‘S WILL…………………………………..….. 299
vi
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Location and image of Huddleston House…………………………………...
Figure 1.2. Huddleston map showing locations of archaeological investigations………..
Figure 3.1. Path of the National Road………………………………………………….....
Figure 3.2. Existing and Extinct Quaker Communities……………………………………
Figure 3.3. Quaker residence in U.S. counties……………………………………….....
Figure 3.4. USGS 7.5‘ Topographic Map, Cambridge City Quadrangle…………………
Figure 4.1. Huddleston genealogy chart……………………………………………….....
Figure 4.2. United States Census Bureau enumeration sheet, 1820………….…………..
Figure 4.3. Original land patent, Wayne County, Jackson Township, IN...………………
Figure 4.4. Timeline of Huddleston House property owners……………………..............
Figure 4.5. Huddleston family Bible………………………………………………………
Figure 4.7. 1856 Wayne County atlas………………………………………………...…..
Figure 4.8. Wayne County transfer book 1875-1880:H……………………………...…..
Figure 4.9. Undated surveyor‘s sketch map of Mt. Auburn, IN…………………..……..
Figure 4.10. Wayne County Atlas, 1874…………………………………………...……..
Figure 4.11. Wayne County Atlas, 1879…………………………………………..……..
Figure 4.12. Wayne County Atlas, 1884……………………………………………..…..
Figure 4.13. Wayne County Atlas, Mt Auburn plat map, 1884………………………......
Figure 4.14. United States Census Bureau enumeration sheet, 1910………………...…..
Figure 5.1. Kondratieff wave……………………………………………………………..
Figure 5.2. Top corn producing states, 1840……………………………………………..
Figure 5.3. Top corn producing states, 1850……………………………………………..
Figure 5.4. Top corn producing states, 1860……………………………………………..
Figure 5.5. Top corn producing states, 1870……………………………………………..
Figure 5.6. Top corn producing states, 1880……………………………………………..
Figure 5.7. Top corn producing counties,1870……………………………………………
Figure 5.8. Top swine producing counties, 1870………………………………………...
Figure 5.9. Top corn producing counties, 1850…….……………………………….…….
Figure 5.10. Top swine producing counties, 1850……………………………………......
Figure 5.11. Price of corn exports, 1866-1840……………………………………………
Figure 5.12. Corn prices, yield, and acreage, 1866-1840…………………………………
Figure 5.13. Total harvested acreage, 1866-1940…………………………….…………..
Figure 5.14. Corn; yield, 1866-1940……………………………………………………….
vii
4
6
24
28
29
32
42
46
49
50
52
55
57
58
62
63
64
65
66
75
78
78
79
79
80
85
86
87
88
89
90
90
90
viii
Figure 6.1. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1850……………….…... 95
Figure 6.2. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1860………………...…. 97
Figure 6.3. Wealth group distribution of Jackson Township sample, 1850 and 1860….. 98
Figure 6.4. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1870…………………… 100
Figure 6.5. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1880…………………… 101
Figure 6.6. Wealth group distribution of Jackson Township sample, 1870 and 1880…. 102
Figure 6.7. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1850-1880………...…… 105
Figure 6.8. Jackson Township landholdings: average acreage…………………….…… 107
Figure 6.9. Diachronic comparison of average farm size……………………………...... 109
Figure 6.10. Livestock commodities produced by Jackson Township sample………...... 113
Figure 6.11. Crop commodities produced by Jackson Township sample……………….. 116
Figure 6.12. Huddleston family wealth through time……………………………………. 118
Figure 7.1. Map of Huddleston farmstead……………………………………………….. 120
Figure 7.2. Modern eastern view of Huddleston House…………………………………. 121
Figure 7.3. Modern western view of Huddleston House………………………………… 121
Figure 7.4. Huddleston family kitchen………………………………………………....... 124
Figure 7.5. Huddleston family dining room……………………………………………… 124
Figure 7.6. Historic photograph of Huddleston House, 1894……………………………. 125
Figure 7.7. Western wall of I house……………………………………………………… 126
Figure 7.8. Eastern wall of I house………………………………………………………. 126
Figure 7.9. Bank barn……………………………………………………………………. 128
Figure 7.10. Southern Portion of Barn involved in 1977 excavation……………………. 129
Figure 7.11. Carriage House………………………………………………………..…… 129
Figure 7.12. Reconstructed Smokehouse………………………………………………… 131
Figure 7.13. Springhouse…………………………………………………………………. 132
Figure 7.14. Reconstructed Well Pump………………………………………………….. 133
Figure 7.15. Springhouse at Mendenhall Plantation…………………………………….. 133
Figure 7.16. View of Herb Garden Facing East…………………………………………. 134
Figure 7.17. Plat map of Mt. Auburn, Wayne County Atlas, 1874…………………....... 136
Figure 7.18. Map of 2002 artifact density distribution………………………………....... 137
Figure 7.19. Map showing location of STP grid and units………………………………. 139
Figure 7.20. 2007 site excavation…………………………………………………..……. 140
Figure 7.21. Extent of structure 1foundation………………………………………...…… 141
Figure 7.22. Scale…………………………………………………………………………. 142
Figure 7.23. Southeast corner of structure 1, unit 8……………………………………… 143
Figure 7.24. Northeast corner of structure 1, unit 5………………………………………. 144
Figure 7.25. Quantity of artifact assemblage by functional classification group….………146
Figure 7.26. Percentages of artifact assemblages by functional group, combined…….. 147
Figure 7.27. 2002, STP………………………………………………………………........ 147
Figure 7.28. 2007, units……………………………………………………………..…… 147
Figure 7.29. Percentage of artifact assemblages, Moore-Youse House……………........ 149
Figure 7.30. Percentage of artifact assemblages, Gibbs farmstead……………………… 149
Figure 7.31. Percentage of ceramics by ware type………………………………………. 156
Figure 7.32. Percentage of refined to utilitarian ceramics……………………………….. 157
Figure 7.33. Percentage of utilitarian ceramics by ware type…………………………….. 157
viii
ix
Figure 7.34.
Figure 7.35.
Figure 7.36.
Figure 7.37.
Percentage of refined ceramics by ware type………………………….…… 158
Percentage of refined ceramics by decoration……………………………… 159
Quantity of decorated ceramics…………………………………………….. 159
Time sequence analysis of Huddleston House archaeological
assemblage, 2007…..………...….……………………………...…………. 163
Figure 7.38. Time sequence analysis of ceramics…………………………..……………. 164
Figure 7.39. Time sequence analysis of curved glass…………………………………….. 164
Figure 7.40. Time sequence analysis of kitchen artifacts group………………………….. 165
Figure 7.41. Time sequence analysis of architectural group………………………………166
Figure 7.42. Flat glass…………………………………………………………………….. 166
Figure 7.43. Nails………………………………………………………………..…………166
Figure 7.44. Household succession and size through time………………………..……… 167
Figure 7.45. Time sequence distribution compared to household size…………….…….. 168
Figure 7.46. Window glass quantity per year of manufacture date…………….…..……. 171
Figure 7.47. Quantity of window glass…………………………………………………… 171
Figure 7.48. Quantity of wire and cut nails………………………………………………. 173
Figure 7.49. Comparison of time sequence data to mean date, nails………………………173
Figure 7.50. Percentage of machine cut nail production……………………………......... 175
Figure 8.1. All Faunal Categories. Based on weight percent…………..………………… 181
Figure8.2. Categories with Identified Fauna. Based on Weight percent……………........ 181
Figure 8.3. Quantity of flat ware to hollow ware sherds…………………………………. 183
Figure 8.4. Time sequence analysis of ceramics………………………………………….. 188
Figure 8.5. Time sequence analysis of whiteware to ironstone……………………………189
Figure 8.6. Photograph taken in the late 1890s………………………………………........ 191
Figure A.1. Spatial Distribution Map of 2002 STP data…………………………….……. 220
Figure A.2. Photo of Ball State University students excavating around structure ………. 221
Figure A.3. Unit 4, 2007……………………………………………………..……..…….. 222
Figure A.4. Unit 3, 2007………………………………………………………..…..…….. 223
Figure A.5. Unit 1, feature 1, posthole, 2007…………………………….…….............. 224
Figure A.6. Artifacts recovered from Huddleston House…………………...…….……… 225
Figure A.7.. : Unit 1, Feature 1-North wall………………………………..…….….......... 226
Figure A.8. Unit 1-South wall…………………………………………………..…..……...227
Figure A.9. Unit 4, west wall…………………………………………………….………...228
Figure A. 10. Unit 6, south wall…………………………………………………....………229
Figure A. 11. Unit 7, north wall………………………………………………..…..………230
Figure A. 12. Unit 8, north wall………………………………………………………........ 231
Figure A. 13. Unit 9, south wall…………………………………………..………………..232
Figure A. 14. Unit 5, south wall……………………………………………….……………233
Figure A. 15. 2007 unit locations…………………………………………………...…….. 234
Figure A. 16. Unit 5………………………………………………………….…......…….. 235
Figure A. 17. Unit 8…………………………………………………….………...………..236
Figure A. 18. Unit10………………………………………….……………………………237
Figure A. 19. Units 6 and 9…………………………………………………..…………… 238
Figure B. 1. Bottle glass recovered at Huddleston House,2007…………………………. 272
Figure B. 2. Decorated ceramics recovered at Huddleston House,2007………….…….. 273
ix
x
Figure B.3. Undecorated Ironstone and Whiteware ceramics…………………….…….. 274
Figure B.4.. Machine cut nails and wire nails …………………………………………. 275
Figure B.5. Architectural group artifacts………………………………….…………….. 276
Figure B.5. Energy group artifacts recovered at Huddleston House, 2007……………… 277
Figure B.5. Arms group artifacts recovered at Huddleston House, 2007………….……. 278
x
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1.
Table 4.2.
Table 5.1.
Table 5.2.
Table 6.1.
Table 6.2.
Table 6.3.
Table 6.4.
Table 6.5.
Table 7.1.
Table 7.2.
Table 7.3.
Table 7.4.
Table 7.5.
Table 7.6.
Table 8.1.
Table 8.2.
Table 8.3.
Table 8.4.
Table 8.5.
Table 8.6.
Table 8.7.
Index to Huddleston Genealogy Chart…………………………………...…… 43
Transition Period Property Owners………………………………..……..…… 61
Top Corn Producing States with Percentage of Total U.S. Crop…................... 72
Top Corn and Swine Producing Counties in Indiana, 1850-1870…….…...... 82
Jackson Township Landholdings…………………………………..………….. 107
Average Farm Size Comparison……………………………………...……….. 109
Total Land Surface Devoted to Farming........................................................... 111
Livestock Commodities Produced by Jackson Township Sample…………… 113
Crop Commodities of Jackson Township Sample Compared to
Huddleston……………………………………………………………………..116
Quantity of Huddleston House Artifacts per Functional Group……….……. 146
Functional Categories of Moore-Youse House………………………..…….. 149
Refined to Utilitarian Ceramics……………………………………………….. 157
Surface Treatment of Utilitarian Ceramics…………………………………… 157
Decoration Type………………………………………………………………. 159
Quantity of Nails………………………………………………………..………173
Faunal Remains by Provenience……………………………..……………….. 179
Number and Weight for Each Decade using Faunal Categories…….…........ 180
Percentage of Bone Weight for all Faunal Categories………………….......... 180
Percentage of Bone Weight for Identified Fauna……………….……...…….. 180
Hollow to Flat Ware………………………………….…………….......……… 183
Economic Scaling…………………………………………….......................... 184
Time Sequence Analysis of Whiteware to Ironstone……………….……….. 189
xi
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Farming in Indiana has always been difficult. The fortunes of Indiana farmers are
perhaps best characterized by an anonymous quote from a frontier Wayne County,
Indiana resident:
When the plower, who, sometimes was in his teens, endeavored to guide the
plow around a stump by pressing his unequal weight down, it would sometimes
strike a root before the horses could be stopped, and the young plow-boy found
himself tossed some distance off (Wayne County Genealogical Society).
In many ways this tale is a microcosm of Indiana farming throughout the past 200 years.
Fluctuating markets were responsible for unpredictable commodities prices from year to
year. Farm families such as the Huddleston household benefited from favorable
economic conditions some years, but also suffered during economic hardships in others.
Not unlike the young farm boy who was abruptly thrown from his plow, Hoosier farmers
were often the victims of unforeseen troubles.
The Huddleston House farmstead is located in Wayne County, Indiana in the
town of Mt. Auburn. Wayne County lies on the eastern border of the state adjacent to
Ohio. A farming tradition was established early in the history of Wayne County, and the
Huddleston family conformed to this trend. The Huddleston House farmstead was
xii
2
occupied and owned by four generations of the Huddleston family members between
1839 and 1934. Like most Hoosier farm families, some early Huddleston households
benefited from favorable economic conditions while other later households suffered from
weaker ones. Presently, the Huddleston House functions as a museum and regional
office of the Historical Landmarks Foundation of Indiana. This means that the family no
longer owns the property and was unsuccessful in retaining the family farm. Several
factors were involved in the loss of the Huddleston farmstead by the family. Fluctuating
global markets, results of westward expansion, variable household size, and individual
entrepreneurial ambition were among these factors. The property abuts US 40,
historically known as the Cumberland Road and/or the National Road. The completion
of the National Road and subsequent migration westward was a significant catalyst to
frontier settlement in the middle 19th century. Moreover, shifts in the frontier and
breadbasket regions within the United States resulted in changes at the global and local
level. Hoosier farm families like the Huddlestons had to adapt to changing times and
conditions or risk failure.
Interestingly, on January 4, 1930, at the onset of one of the worst global economic
catastrophes, the Great Depression, a Wayne County newspaper headline boasted:
―Agricultural Outlook Is Brightest Since 1920: Marketing Act and Granting of High
Tariff Protection Are Seen As Two Chief Factors Favoring Farmers During Ensuing
Year‖ (Richmond Palladium Item 1930:1). Ironically, in many ways this date marked the
beginning of the end for the Huddleston family farm. On this same date, in the same
newspaper, a short, five line obituary for Mrs. Charles Huddleston appeared. Nine days
later, Charles Huddleston‘s own obituary appeared after he took his own life due to
3
despondency over his wife‘s death. Less than five years later the house and farmstead
were sold out of the family. Although the headline bragged of a bright outlook, this was
not the case for the Huddleston family farmstead. Therefore, much like the young farm
boy who was thrown from the plow, a series of interrelated factors culminated in the
disconnection of the Huddleston family from their ancestral farmstead.
Examining the myriad of changes that occurred during the near century long
Huddleston occupation at the farmstead guided initial inquiry. Changing regional
relationships resulted from the settling of the frontier. Moreover, production of surplus
agricultural commodities for sale to market demonstrated a clear articulation to larger
international financial markets. Therefore, the Huddleston family‘s fortune was largely
dependent on the amount they could produce, and the price at which they could sell that
product. Similarly, fluctuations in commodities prices, such as grains, were
unpredictable from year to year. The price of grains fluctuated greatly throughout the 94
year Huddleston occupation. Therefore, investigating each Huddleston household
through the line of succession was important in this research. Every story has a
beginning, middle, and end. Consequently, a diachronic perspective was taken to study
the Huddleston farmstead and their community.
Three archaeological investigations have been conducted on the Huddleston
property (Sasser 1977; Zoll 2002; Groover 2007b). Trenching and unit excavation in
1977 resulted in the discovery of several features. Phase I investigations consisting of
shovel test pits defined the archaeological recovery of the 2002 study. In the 2007
survey, ten test units were excavated following surface collection sampling. The
4
WAYNE
COUNTY
FIGURE 1.1. Location and image of
Huddleston House (photo courtesy of
Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana).
5
excavation resulted in the discovery of a foundation in the rear (south) house lot.
Likewise, material culture was recovered through archaeological excavation. Ceramics,
building materials, and faunal remains constitute the bulk of the artifact assemblage.
Due to the unique nature of the Huddleston House, several different significant
research topics are explored in this thesis. Research questions addressed in this study are:
1. How and to what extent was the Huddleston household articulated to the
world economy?
2. What were the past agricultural activities engaged in by the Huddleston
household?
3. Did the Huddleston household comply with or deviate from local, regional,
and national trends regarding wealth, production, and material conditions?
4. How did the house lot change over time?
5. Does archaeological evidence at Huddleston House reflect documented
household succession events?
To better understand the people we study, historical archaeologists rely on the use
of both archaeologically excavated material culture and the documentary record to
reconstruct the past (Deagan 1982; Leone and Potter 1988; Little 1992; Orser 1996).
Primary historical documents can be used build historical context and identify recorded
events. This information provides the basic timeline from which archaeological
investigation and interpretation can ensue. An extensive reliance on both primary
historical documents and archaeological evidence provides rich contextual understanding
to the site. Because of the protracted duration of the Huddleston family‘s occupation on
the property, a diachronic approach was taken to interpret the conditions of the past
6
NATIONAL ROAD (US 40)
N
PROBABLE LOCATION BROOM SHOP
FEDERAL STYLE I-HOUSE
BANK BARN
(YELLOW BARN)
SPRING HOUSE
LOCATION OF 2007
EXCAVATION
LOCATION OF 1977 EXCAVATION
SMOKE HOUSE
CARRIAGE HOUSE (RED BARN)
LOCATION OF 1977 EXCAVATION
STRUCTURE 1
0
50
FEET
LOCATION OF 2002 S.T.P. SURVEY
Figure 1.2. Map of Huddleston property showing locations of archaeological excavations.
6
7
inhabitants. This approach, which combines multiple scales of temporal and spatial
analysis allows for examination of the entire sequence of household succession. The
specifics of this research design are presented in Chapter 2. Furthermore, the analytical
methods which link interpretive theory to specific sites are addressed in Chapter 2. The
methods used here are particularly well suited for farmstead sites, and provide evidence
which directly addresses specific research questions. In addition, this research design is
extremely replicable, making the comparative potential advantageous and beneficial.
A brief regional culture history of the local area and a review of relevant
literature are presented in Chapter 3. The culture history provided in Chapter 3 is
temporally biased. Indigenous culture prehistory is not considered. Chapter 4
summarizes the known patralineal genealogy of the Huddleston family. Also discussed
in Chapter 4 are the property history and the succession of household ownership.
In Chapter 5 the interpretive context shifts from household level analysis to focus
on regional and national trends. Farm households, such as the Huddlestons, were
significantly affected by fluctuations in local and global commodities markets.
Moreover, participation in aggressive surplus agriculture production links the Huddleston
family to the global economic system. This reveals a great deal about the economic and
subsistence strategy in which the household was engaged. In addition, it provides context
to help predict the types of activities household members were engaged in on a daily
basis. Census figures are then used to locate major areas of surplus agricultural
production and identify core/periphery relationships.
In Chapter 6 focus shifts to the community level. Data contained in United States
Agricultural Census enumeration forms are used to construct a comparative database of
8
proximally located contemporaneous property owners. Quantities of production
commodities and wealth values are tabulated and compared to the Huddleston household
through time.
Chapter 7 provides detailed description, classification, analysis, comparison, and
commentary about the archaeological investigations at the Huddleston House. Topics
pertaining to landscape and architectural change through time are discussed. In addition,
time sequence analysis of the artifacts is presented.
In Chapter 8, all of the evidence is considered, and a holistic interpretation is
presented. Patterns in the archaeological record which can be linked to documented
household succession events may reflect and even predict changes on the landscape and
in archaeological assemblages.
Chapter 9 readdresses research questions presented in this thesis and provides
future recommendations and perceived contributions of this research. The role of the
Huddleston House as a museum allows for protection of cultural resources, meaning
extensive excavation in the near future is neither urgent nor warranted. However, the
research model used in this analysis could be used in the future on other Midwest
farmstead sites.
In conclusion, this thesis examines material conditions at the Huddleston farm.
Documentary and archaeological evidence are combined to gain optimal context. A
diachronic perspective is taken in order to recognize trends. Changes in households,
landscapes, production quantities, and regional relationships are of extreme interest.
Therefore, reconstructing the events of the Huddleston occupation is the goal of this
thesis.
9
CHAPTER 2
THEORY AND METHODS
In his important study, An Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism and Material
Life: The Gibbs Farmstead in Southern Appalachia, 1790-1920, Mark Groover
(2003:20-21) argues that diachronically based analysis provides optimal insight into
multigenerationally occupied farmsteads. The Huddleston farmstead, occupied by four
successive generations, provided the perfect opportunity to implement a similar research
design. This research design, adapted from Groover, reconstructs temporal process and
links households to local, regional, national and global phenomenon. In addition, artifact
assemblages are linked to specific households within the line of succession (Groover
2003:17,19,21). This theory involves interpretation based upon multiple scales of
analysis. Charles Orser (1996:186-187) is a major advocate of this type of analysis. He
states that, ―research shows that the best analyses are multiscalar…The dialectical
approach is mutualist in that it acknowledges the significance of netlike connections
across space and time.‖ In doing this, optimal context into the life of the people at the
site can be gained. By using multiple temporal and spatial scales to interpret the
evidence, greater understanding and insight is obtained. As previously stated, another
basic characteristic of these methods, which is true of historical archaeology in general, is
the use of the archaeological and documentary record.
10
Therefore, specific analytical methods demonstrating how the Huddleston family
interacted with the external world, landscape, and financial markets are necessary. To
accomplish this objective, a hybrid theory adapted from the Annales school of French
social history and inspired by world systems theory was created (Groover 2001, 2003,
2008). This approach has many advantages. First, the researcher is able to analyze the
site from a diachronic level, or through time perspective. Also, analyzing the site from
multiple time intervals is possible. This can allow for recognition of patterns which can
be undetectable if analyzed through a singular (or incorrect) time interval. In addition,
the extent to which the site‘s inhabitants articulate to larger global events and how this
interaction resulted in the deposition of the archaeological remains is the main focus of
this research design. By understanding this interaction greater contextual interpretations
of relative wealth and standard of living is accomplished.
The Annales school was developed by French social historians, most notably,
Ferdinand Braudel (1971, 1974, 1980, 1981). Several archaeologists have found value in
using this system of analysis (Stoianovich 1976; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1985; Bintliff 1991;
Knapp 1992: 9-16; Groover 2001, 2003, 2008). The Annales school views time in
several different realms, all working simultaneously. Time can be divided into three
main scales. The first temporal scale is the evenements, or short-term events. Time
periods included within this evenements level include small particular events, such as a
battle. Short-term level time periods usually consist of a decade or less. The second
analytical level of temporal division is the conuoncture , or medium level time. Medium
level time intervals generally range from periods of one generation, to a few centuries. It
is within the realm of medium-scale time that economic trends and regional cultural
11
history periods can be analyzed. The final temporal scale is referred to as the longue
duree. The longue duree is concerned with large amounts of time. Time periods ranging
from several centuries to those best described in geologic time can be addressed at this
scale. Issues suited for ―long-term history‖ include human migration and human
evolution (Bintliff 1991; Dark 1995; Groover, 2004). Therefore, this thesis considers the
Huddleston family through both evenements, short range, and conuoncture, medium
range time scales. The Huddleston family lacks adequate time depth for a longue duree
analysis.
The Huddleston site enables the fusion of theory in an attempt to provide the most
complete description of the family. Charles Orser and Brian Fagan (1995:18) place
historical archaeology‘s goal of seeking to ―understand the global nature of modern life‖
as the primary objective of archaeology. Attempting to understand that global nature,
Mark Leone and Parker Potter (1988:19) state that:
Whether or not historical archaeology is to be an archaeology of the emergence
and development of capitalism has been settled in the affirmative. There has
never been a choice, even those who were indifferent or hostile to the issue… In
other words we can either know our social context, which is the context of
advanced industrial capitalism, or be prisoners of it (Leone and Potter in Little
1994:52).
However, interpreting the 19th century through an entirely capitalist perspective
can be problematic. Orser (1996:72) notes, ―the abundant complexities of advocating a
strictly capitalist interpretation.‖ Among which, he cautions against the ideologically
12
charged nature of the subject (1996:72). However, one consensus opinion can be reached
regarding capitalism and the modern world. Most all agree that capitalism had two major
forms throughout the last five centuries. The first was the merchant phase, and the
second, the industrial phase. During merchant capitalism, European powers colonized
the known world in effort to gain new resources and capital. Industrial capitalism, which
came later, resulted in the formation of large factories and industry. One major theme
that is pervasive in capitalist theory is a division of labor between proletariat workers and
the bourgeoisie entrepreneurs (So 1990:178). However, Wallerstein (1987:318) has
argued that this model of capitalism has actually been a minority situation in the modern
world. For example, a forced labor situation has been a more common situation when
considering the entire world over the past 500 years (So 1990:178). Wallerstein claimed
that understanding the development of global capitalism could not be fully accomplished
by concentrating exclusively with Europe (Gosden 2004:11-12). Wallerstein argued that
the proletariat/ bourgeoisie relationship should not be reflected onto the whole world
throughout the entire 500 years. To reconcile this observation, Wallerstein chooses to
look beyond the capitalist model to introduce the notion of the historical system. This
term is used to describe the totality of social, economic, and political trajectory in the
formation of the modern world. (Wallerstein 1979:320; So 1990:179). According to
Wallerstein, core/periphery relationships developed during the formation of this modern
world system.
Therefore, using the concept of the historical system to explain the overall global
conditions of the past five centuries is the goal of Wallerstein and world systems theory.
The formation and condition of the modern world, viewed through the lens of the
13
historical system, defines world systems analysis. One of the major tenants of this
analysis is a three-tiered system consisting of the core, semi-periphery, and the periphery
(Wallerstein 1979:70). Within this historical system, core areas change, although the
characteristics of core areas persist through time. Domination of global commerce,
channeling of extracted commodities, and regulating economies and commodity values
defined core areas. Periphery areas are generally synonymous with frontier areas and
extractive activities (So 1990; Gosden 2004:12-17). For example, in the 19th century in
the Midwestern United States, extractive activities included the fur trade, followed by
logging industries, followed by aggressive surplus agricultural production (Groover
2004:12). The semi-periphery includes those areas that mediate commerce between the
core and periphery. These areas typically developed networks of transportation,
information, and political importance (Wallerstein 1979; So 1990; Groover 2004). In the
19th century United States, eastern port cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Boston,
and Baltimore are major semi-periphery areas.
Despite the label, world system theory is more a description than a theory
(Gosden 2004:17). This description argues that historical particulars specific to
individual sites cannot be completely understood except when viewed through the lens of
the larger world system. Although differentiated by Wallerstein, the capitalist and world
systems operated on roughly the same model which stresses ―ceaseless accumulation‖,
surplus production, and reinvestment of capital in a cyclical fashion (Gosden 2004:13).
World systems theory can be used to show the link between surplus agricultural
production practiced by the Huddleston family and the massive exportation of those
agricultural products. Transporting the agricultural surplus along networks of
14
infrastructure developed links between production and consumption. The Huddleston
house articulated with the regional, local, and global economy in many ways. First, the
farm complex profited from the frontier transportation system by catering to the wagon
trade. John Huddleston ran a general store, livery, blacksmith shop, road construction
company, campground, and inn which all served the needs of frontier travelers. Also,
surplus agricultural production sold for profit linked the Huddleston family to the
international economy. Therefore, world systems theory is an excellent interpretive
framework through which to view the Huddlestons‘ daily activities. In this case,
transporting large quantities of agricultural commodities to European markets shows the
connection between the Huddleston family and the larger global system. The result of this
exchange is evident in both the archaeological and documentary record. Surplus
production by the Huddlestons and exportation of agricultural commodities by the United
States demonstrates the core/ periphery relationship between Western Europe and the
Western United States during the 19th century. World systems theory, therefore, can be
used to link commercial farmers like the Huddleston family to the larger global system.
Therefore this thesis combined several methods in order to understand the
relationship between the Huddleston family and the larger world system. As previously
mentioned this research design used both archaeological and documentary evidence to
interpret the site. This is one of the hallmarks of historical archaeology. Archaeological
evidence was used to address numerous topics in this thesis: chronology, the affects of
household succession on the landscape, and matching assemblages to specific
households. Archaeological evidence has many advantages. Although it is interpreted,
not unlike primary documents, the archaeological record is the actual preserved remnants
15
of human activity. They are often undisturbed and can be viewed directly. However,
although the archaeological record is preserved, it is often fragmentary and broken. Very
seldom are entire sites able to be excavated. In most cases, information is obtained
through sampling a small portion of the total. In addition, taphonomy results in broken
and disassembled evidence. Also, the archaeological record is ineffective in providing
information on ephemeral events. Archaeology is a particularly poor method for
analyzing on the evenements, or short range temporal scale. Even when an events and
locations are well known, archaeological evidence is often very sparce. Archaeological
evidence is best suited for showing general conditions and processes rather than specific
events (Barber and Berdan 1998:261). However, archaeological evidence remains the
principal source of information.
The use of documentary evidence has several advantages but some limitations as
well. Exchange of agricultural commodities as enumerated on sheets might seem
mundane. American production during this time usually has focused on manufacturing
and technology (Rosenburg 1976; Hounshell 1984). However, farming was the major
influence on the rural economy and landscape of 19th century Indiana. Leone et al. state,
―commodified relations are not the same as artifacts…but our task as archaeologist is to
tie the two together so that the archaeological circumstances can be better
understood‖(Leone et al 2006:17,18). Therefore, this data source should be used
extensively to gain context. Two main goals are accomplished through the use of
documentary sources in this thesis. To begin, rich contextual data pertaining to
individual members of the household was obtained. Much of this information is simply
not present in the archaeological record. Names, birth dates, occupations, and household
16
size are typically gained through documentary research. At the very least, this
information can be used to ―impart an aesthetic appreciation of and an empathy with the
human conditions of the past‖ (Deagan 1982:22). In addition to humanistic particulars,
primary historical documents can be used to create databases from which the sites
occupants can be compared. Census information, property tax records, and probate
inventories are examples of common documentary sources historical archaeologists have
used.(Horn 1986; Friedlander 1991; Groover 2003, 2004, 2008; Blanch 2007; Laswell
2008)
Field Methods.
Therefore, the analytical methods applied in this thesis , both to archaeological
and documentary evidence, interpreted the site through multiple scales of analysis. By
considering multiple temporal scales, consistent with the Annales school, and attempting
to link this site to the larger global system via commodities exchange consistent with
world systems theory, the articulation of the household to larger networks is possible.
Several different methods emphasizing multiple scales of analysis have been
developed by Groover (2001, 2003, 2004, 2008). These methods involve analyzing both
documentary and archaeological evidence. Regarding archaeological evidence, the
process begins during excavation. In order to allow for a diachronic analysis of the
artifacts, units must be excavated in thin section levels. The field methods used to help
locate the structure and recover artifacts began with a spatial analysis of the 2002 shovel
test pit (STP) survey (Zoll 2002). The location and artifact density of each STP was
17
quantified and used to produce the spatial artifact density distribution map. This spatial
information was then used to determine the probable location of a structure. Then, test
units were strategically placed above the areas of highest artifact concentration. Ten (10)
test units were systematically excavated. The size of the test units were 3 feet-x-3 feet
(with the exception of unit 5 which measured 3 x 4 feet) and were excavated using thin
levels of 0.20 feet in English engineer‘s scale. The units were excavated with trowels
and the soil was screened through ¼ inch wire mesh. All cultural materials were
segregated and bagged by provenience. Level depth was maintained throughout. These
field methods are addressed more thoroughly in Chapter 7. By excavating in this way, a
time sequence analysis can later be performed. Time sequence analysis is a diachronic
analytical method with the ability to more precisely date deposits in order to more
accurately link household succession to landscape transition and material culture change.
Laboratory Methods
The artifacts recovered from the 2007 excavation were analyzed using time
sequence analysis. First, the units were excavated in thin section levels. As previously
stated, the preferred level depth interval at historic site is 0.20 feet, which is
approximately 2 3/8 inches. This was the depth interval used at the 2007 Huddleston
House excavation. Next, a mean artifact date (MAD) was calculated for each level. This
step was accomplished by assigning a date, based on the mean date of manufacture, to
each temporally diagnostic artifact. Mean dates used in this analysis are presented in
Appendix E. A total mean date was derived by combining the values of all the mean
18
artifact dates within a level, multiplying by the total count for each type, and then
dividing by the overall total of combined temporally diagnostic artifacts.
After the mean artifact date (MAD) was calculated for each level, the third step
was to chronologically sort each level regardless of the unit from which it came. Fourth,
the MAD of each level was assigned to the specific decade, for example, the 1860s,
1870s, 1880s, and so forth. Fifth, the numbers of artifacts per type within each decade
level were totaled. Sixth, these decade interval results were plotted on a timeline to show
artifact distribution over time.
The results of a time sequence analysis of the Huddleston House artifact
assemblage are presented in Chapter 7. The main purpose of excavating the Huddleston
House site in thin sections, and analyzing the artifacts through time sequence analysis,
was to match diachronic interpretive theory to an analytical method which uses time
depth.
Documentary Analysis Methods
In addition to the methods developed to interpret the archaeological record at
Huddleston house, specific methods were designed to analyze the documentary record.
Several different primary historical sources were consulted. Specific to linking
interpretive theory to analytical methods, federal agricultural census schedules were
utilized. The results of this analysis are presented in Chapter 6. The first step in the
diachronic agricultural census analysis was to locate the Huddleston household on the
enumeration sheet for each census year. These records are located on microfilm at the
19
Indiana State Archives. The results were transcribed onto a data table. Next, 30
individuals were selected (15 listed immediately before and after) for the comparative
data set (Groover 2003:86; Blanch 2007). Neighbors were often next to one another on
the enumeration sheets, due to the order in which they were enumerated. Local and
small-scale level trends were examined by using this sampling method. Therefore, all
comparative data was transcribed as well. The average land holdings, production
amounts, and associated values were then determined. The average amounts as
determined by arithmetic mean and standard deviation were calculated and then used for
comparison. In doing so, the Huddleston household was compared to the local sample.
In turn, the local sample was compared to state and national trends. Average production
quantities were also used to identify primary commodities, or the farm products in which
the majority of the sample was most aggressively engaged.
Several different categories from the census sheets were combined to determine
wealth value. In 1850, the amounts for these categories were added to determine total
wealth value: cash value of farm, value of farming implements, value of livestock, and
value of animals slaughtered. In the 1860 census, the same categories were used,
however, additional categories included: value of orchard products, value of home
manufacturers, and value of market gardens. These additional categories were not
present on the 1850 census. Likewise, the category, value of forest products, appears in
1870 and after, but not before. At any rate, these categories were added to determine the
total wealth value of each member of the sample. Once a wealth value was determined
for each individual, a local average was figured.
20
In addition to analyzing wealth data in relationship to that arithmetic mean and
standard deviation, the sample was divided into wealth groups. Determining these groups
consisted of plotting the wealth value totals on a scatter plot and then spatially identifying
reasonable clusters. Likewise, the sample was examined to determine average
landholdings and production quantities. Disproportionately large amounts of certain
products identified primary commodities. Average production values of primary
commodities were also used to compare the sample through time. In addition, changes in
average farm acreage among the sample were compared to county, state, and national
averages to evaluate compliance.
The agricultural census analysis had several objectives. First, the results were
used to identify the primary commodities being produced by local farmers. Second,
county, state, and national amounts were identified to which the Huddleston family was
compared. Also, by doing this type of statistical research for several different decades, a
diachronic picture of national and household trends was able to be reconstructed. After
compiling the data, changes in land ownership, centers of commodity production, and
levels of exported goods were detected. This is a very straightforward way of linking the
Huddleston household to worldwide economic trends that occurred through time. This
was also an excellent way of linking analytical method to interpretive theory.
In conclusion, the methods and theories used in this thesis examined the site from
multiple scales, both spatially and temporally. This research design was adapted from the
methods repeatedly utilized by Mark Groover (2003, 2004, 2008). Central to this theory
is a combination of the Annales school of French social history, and world systems
theory. Similarly, the methods rely on numerous different lines of evidence.
21
Specifically, archaeological evidence was analyzed in such a way as to identify
diachronic trends. In addition, documentary evidence was considered on both a
diachronic level and for its comparative potential. In addition to the use of documentary
and archaeological data, this research design uses a multi-scalar approach in the temporal
and spatial realm.
22
CHAPTER 3
REGIONAL CULTURE HISTORY AND LITERATURE REVIEW
In an effort to develop optimal interpretive context for the Huddleston House, a
reconstruction of the significant historical events and trends of the time period was
necessary. Several different factors influenced the Huddleston family through time.
Geographic location, religious ideology, and occupation were some of the most
significant issues influencing the Huddleston family. Therefore, factors such as the
National Road, Quaker migration, Native American removal, and industrial transition are
discussed. Each one of these topics played an important role in shaping the character of
Indiana and the farm families who settled there. Relevant literature with similar topics
was also reviewed.
The National Road
As previously mentioned, the Huddleston farmstead lies along the National Road.
The completion of the National Road and subsequent migration westward was a
significant catalyst to frontier settlement in the middle 19th century. The National Road
was first commissioned by Thomas Jefferson in 1806 in the hopes of connecting eastern
commerce to western markets. When complete in 1839, the road stretched from
Cumberland, Maryland in the east to Vandalia, Illinois. The path of the National Road is
shown on Figure 3.1. Although the road played an extremely significant role in shaping
23
the western frontier, it never fully developed into what Jefferson had envisioned.
Because of the railroad and due to the fact that automobiles would not traverse the road
until a century later, the National Road was ―both obsolete and premature‖ (Raitz 1996).
However, the influence the National Road had on shaping Indiana history was significant.
In Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois one stipulation to statehood was contingent upon allotting
federal land sale proceeds to finance the road (Crumrin 1994). Furthermore, local
merchants and politicians lobbied and bribed to ensure the road passed through their
towns. Hundreds of thousands of wagons filled with migrant pioneer settlers and
supplies negotiated the National Road in the 19th century (Burns 1919; Crumrin 1994;
Raitz 1996)
The necessity for a western route was recognized as early as the Revolutionary
War. Strategic military motives notwithstanding, the National Road also hoped to bring
products to settlers in the west as an alternative to the trade network of the Spanish
national road, the Mississippi River (Crumrin 1994). However, the National Road was
also utilized by settlers seeking passage to cheap farmland. Cities and towns began to
emerge along the National Road (Burns 1919; Crumrin 1994; Raitz 1996; Groover 2007;
Hunnicutt 2007). The impact of the road was evident in Indiana. Indeed, the population
quadrupled during the period from 1820 to1840. Wayne County grew in population due
to the heavy traffic and fertile land, and during these early decades of the 19th century, it
had the highest population in the state (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1820, 1840, 1850).
Undoubtedly, the National Road had a significant impact on Wayne County. However,
equally important were the contributions of Quakers in the founding and settling of the
county.
24
FIGURE 3.1. Path of the National Road (red arrow equals location of Huddleston House, image courtesy of
http://www.explorepahistory.com/images).
24
25
Quakers
Wayne County was first settled at the end of the 18th century, primarily by
Quakers from North Carolina like the Huddleston family. (Russell 1942:274; Rudolph
1995; Laswell 2008:30). Today Wayne County is among the most densely populated
Quaker counties in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, see Figure 3.3).
Moreover, a greater number of Quakers live in Indiana than any other state (Samuel
1999). The 1795 Treaty of Greenville first recognized Wayne County, and the Twelve
Mile Purchase of 1811 expanded it to the current boundaries (Young 1872). The Quakers
founded cities and towns, created a Quaker college (Earlham), and were very
instrumental in electing Indiana‘s first governor, Jonathan Jennings (Young 1872;
Bigham 2001).
At the end of the 18th century, Quakers from the south began to migrate north to
escape the institution of slavery. Jonathan and Phoebe, moved from Guilford County,
North Carolina along with hundreds of other Quakers during this migration (Weeks
1896:v-viii ; Hunnicutt 2007:4). Their son, John Huddleston, later built the house and
established the farmstead on the Wayne County property adjacent to the National Road.
Quaker beliefs were inspired by the philosophy of George Fox in 17th century England
(Richmond 1995). Traditional Quaker beliefs include: direct dialogue with God, virtues
of modesty and simplicity, a commitment to pacifism, racial and gender equality and
educational advocacy; and abstinence from tobacco and alcohol (Saunders 2004;
Hunnicutt 2007:3). Therefore, Quakers were motivated to flee the immoral and
inhumane institution of slavery. Also, Quakers sought to help relocate slaves (Laswell
2008:29-31). The issue of slavery not only drove Quakers from their southern
26
homelands, but was also the catalyst in the separation of the Indiana Meeting of Friends
(Rudolph 1995, minutes of Indiana Meeting of Friends). Wayne County was a known
stop on the Underground Railroad. Famous Railroad ‗conductor‘ Levi Coffin, also born
in Guilford County, reportedly helped thousands of slaves escape to freedom from his
Wayne County home in Newport [presently Fountain City](Hunnicutt 2007:3,
WayNet.org). There was no evidence of the Underground Railroad at Huddleston House.
A map which accompanies the book Southern Quakers and Slavery was consulted
to demonstrate the magnitude and depth of the Quaker migration from the South (Weeks
1896, Figure 3.2). This map shows extant and extinct Quaker communities and
meetinghouses. Quakers were in great number and broadly dispersed on the landscape of
the south. However, as a result of migration due mainly to slavery, many of these Quaker
moved north. From the map one can also see that in spite of the migration, Guilford
County, North Carolina was able to maintain a large population of Quakers. Today
Guilford County, like Wayne County is populated with one of the highest percentages of
Quakers (U.S. Census 2000, Figure 3.3). Many of the Quakers that left the south did so
for a cause, not because they were aimless wanders or destitute. They left because of
slavery, not to seek great opportunity in the vast expanses of the new frontier.
Native American Groups
Near the end of the 18th century, the Miami were the largest group of native
people occupying the Indiana Territory. At this time the Miami included the Wea and
Piankeshaw tribes (Rafert 1996). The Treaty of Greenville, signed August 3, 1795,
27
essentially established a boundary between the native and European civilizations (Young
1872). Near the turn of the 19th century the Delaware, displaced from the Chesapeake
Bay, settled between the White and Ohio Rivers in present day Wayne County (Hoxie
1996:157-159). The Kickapoo also moved into the area around this time period. The
Nanticoke and the Mohegan came to Indiana during this time too, but had left by 1818
(Wilson 1966:21). The Potawatomi, originally from the Michigan Territory and against
the protests of the Miami, moved down the Wabash River into Indiana in 1795
(Vanderstel 1985). By the late 18th century, the Shawnee began using Indiana as a
hunting ground. Some Shawnee moved to east central Indiana in 1798 at the invitation of
the Delaware. These Shawnee lived between the White and Mississinewa Rivers. Most
of the Delaware left Indiana between 1818 and 1821 after ceding their lands in the Treaty
of St. Mary‘s, Ohio. It was estimated that the White River Delaware numbered less than
one thousand people at the time of their removal to present day Kansas and Oklahoma
(Hoxie 1996:157-159)..
From the time of the Treaty of Greenville, the Shawnees led the fighting against
European encroachment. At the White River settlement, a Shawnee medicine man,
Tenskwatawa, also known as the Prophet, emerged as a powerful influence among the
tribes. He encouraged his people to return to the ways of their ancestors and to shed the
white ways (Bigham 2001). This led to suspicion on the part of the United States
government. Around 1808, the Prophet and his brother Tecumseh founded a village at
Tippecanoe which became the site of their defeat at the hands of General William Henry
Harrison (Trigger 1978). Very little is known regarding the interaction between the
Huddleston family and native groups.
28
FIGURE 3.2. Existing and Extinct Quaker Communities (Weeks 1896)
29
FIGURE 3.3. Quaker residence in U.S. counties (image courtesy of http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/quaker).
29
30
Industrial Transition
National and regional trends during the 19th century include the processes of
modernization and industrialization (Carter 1946; McGregor and Cline 2001). The
decades of the mid 19th century brought with them vast changes to the Indiana landscape
and to social patterns of Hoosiers. Indiana was transformed from wilderness frontier to
tamed farmland and later, after the Civil War, from merchant dominated manufacture to
industrial specialization (McGregor and Cline 2001:2). As forests were cleared and
farmlands planted, many farmers were able to raise crops and make a meager profit. In
the 1850s and 1860s land ownership rather than industrial profits provided the primary
source of income for Hoosiers (Carter 1946:107). This situation left author Harvey
Carter to comment: ―The Jeffersonian ideal of a predominantly agrarian democracy was
realized by the Hoosiers during the pre-Civil War decade‖ (Carter 1946: 108). However,
after 1860 a shift in regional and national economics occurred. Regional resources and
assembly were replaced with industrial products from the east. These products could be
produced cheaply and transported quickly due to the influence of improving roads,
canals, and especially railroads (McGregor and Cline 2001:2,4-5).
Previous archaeological excavations have been reported concerning the National
Road. One such article documents the construction techniques and materials, and
original location of a section of the National Road (Michael 1975). Although much of
the old road bed currently underlies U.S. 40, several sections deviate from the present
course (Michael 1975:1). John Huddleston was said to have contributed to the
construction of the National Road as it passed through western Wayne County (Evolution
31
of the Huddleston Farmhouse [EHF] n.d.; Groover 2008: pers. comm.). Crumrin (1994)
provides a description of the road from an account by J. Gould, who traveled the entire
length of the road in 1839. He noted:
The National Road was for the most part Macadamized and finished in the most
desirable manner as far as Columbus in Ohio. In Indiana, about four miles at
Richmond, a short piece at Centerville, about six miles at Indianapolis, and
three miles at Terre Haute, together with a few bridges, are completed in the same
substantial manner. However in some areas of the Hoosier state the road bed had
been formed with earth and in wet weather holes wash out and logs must be
thrown in, often by travelers themselves.
This sentiment is echoed in a rhyme that travelers would chant when traveling the
National Road:
The roads are impassable-Hardly jackassable;
I think those that travel 'em
Should turn out and gravel 'em.(Huddleston 2008)
Similarly, the undesirable conditions of the National Road were exacerbated in eastern
Indiana where swamps abound. A swampy area just west of Huddleston House made it
difficult for wagons to pass. It was not uncommon for a settler to spend an entire day
crossing this swamp (Hunnicutt 2007). The modern USGS 7.5‘ map on Figure 3.4 shows
several ponds and reservoirs in this area suggesting prior drainage difficulties.
Investigation into the extent of John Huddleston‘s involvement in the construction,
maintenance, and improvement of the National Road would be significant in interpreting
the past.
32
0
0
0.5 Mi
2000 Ft
Huddleston
Property
Figure 3.4. USGS 7.5’ Topographic Map, Cambridge City Quadrangle, 1:24000, T 16.0N,
R12.0E, Sec 28, 1984, Image courtesy of Mapcard, http://www.mapcard.com/maps/
33
Quaker Archaeology
Archaeological excavations of North American Quaker homes and meeting
houses have been conducted in Massachusetts, Virginia, and Rhode Island. (Brown 1987;
Samford 1990; O‘Donnell 2002; Bailey 2003). However, few have taken place within
the culture history period or culture region as the Huddleston House (one such report will
be discussed later, Rotman et al. 1998). Patricia Samford (1990) used historical
documentary evidence as well as archaeological methods at the Bates site. Samford
compared the artifact assemblage and store inventory of a wealthy Quaker planter and
merchant to that of other contemporary merchants. The excavation took place in Virginia
and the site was an early 18th century residence The Bates family, although among the
wealthiest people in the county, were using the same types of ceramics and glass that
middle-class households commonly purchased from their store (Samford 1990:27) Tolles
(1963) noted that despite Quaker beliefs which commanded plainness in all aspects of
daily life, archaeological and documentary evidence show that many New England
Quakers owned finery similar to non-Quaker neighbors. Brown (1987) also studied
colonial period Quakers. Brown‘s research at the Mott site in Rhode Island concluded it
was continually occupied by Quakers from 1640 to1800. Similar to the Huddleston
House, a diachronic dimension was applied to the Mott site. Likewise, Brown (1987)
discussed the same difficulty of recognizing Quaker occupations in archaeological
assemblages noticed by Tolles (1963) and Samford (1990).
The notion of ―Quaker Plainness‖ was refuted by the investigation at Hoopes
House. Daniel Bailey began field work at the Hoopes House in London Grove
34
Township, Pennsylvania in 2003 (Rahn 2004). The house, which was a built by a
Quaker in 1786, was found to contain historical artifacts from decades prior to
construction of the extant house. Through further research and excavation, the location
of an older log cabin was discovered. Furthermore, the Hoopes House excavations
recovered numerous artifacts. The artifacts suggest that the Quakers at Hoopes House
live in a life style similar to their non-Quaker neighbors (Bailey 2003). Wine bottles,
smoking pipes, and decorated dinner ware were recovered (Rahn 2004). Likewise,
economic status of the Quakers at Hoopes House was seen on the landscape. Because it
was one of only two brick houses in the area, the Hoopes wealth was on display (Rahn
2004).
Deborah Rotman et al. (1998) examined African-American and Quaker farmers in
Randolph County, Indiana. This study consisted of a historical records review,
interviews with pioneer descendents, and a reconnaissance level survey of 985 acres.
The purpose of the research study was to confirm locations of farmsteads, understand the
agricultural practices, determine whether ethnicity can be discerned from archaeology,
and identify the catalysts for farmstead abandonment (Rotman et al 1998:5,6). The
historical context offered by Rotman et al. provided information regarding Quaker
migration from North Carolina to the Wayne and Randolph County area of Indiana. In
addition, probate inventories of Randolph County farmers involved in the study are
summarized and analyzed. This report indicated no significant differences in material
culture attributed to ethnicity. Rotman et al. concluded that the information obtained in
the study expanded the knowledge of lifeways of 19th century Quaker farmers in east
35
central Indiana. However, it is noted that farmsteads and rural life in frontier Indiana are
poorly understood and require additional research.
Farmstead Archaeology
In the early 1980‘s farmsteads began to be recognized as historically and
culturally significant resources (Groover 2008:7). Several different topics have been the
focus of farmstead archaeology, including: artifact patterning, landscape reconstruction,
architecture, food ways, economics, and status (Groover 2008:10,16). Groover presents
numerous frameworks from which to study farmsteads. Using the culture history and
culture regional approach to define location and period, Groover provides case studies of
several different North American farmsteads over space and through time. National and
regional trends are often reflected in individual case studies. This information has been
used to reinforce and refute popular notions (Groover 2008:25). Landscape studies often
employ a diachronic approach to define changes on the landscape over time (Groover
2008:16).
Landscape archaeology of the American farmstead has proved a fruitful topic of
research. Topics such as boundary maintenance, farm layout, farmhouse architecture and
function, and reconstructing landscape history are discussed by William Adams (1990).
He argues that these topics provide a basis from which to study historic farmsteads.
Indeed, one main focus of this research is to reconstruct the changing landscape through
time at the Huddleston House. Adams provides references to several mid 19th century
books that became rather popular for farm building placement, and design. Famous
36
abolitionist author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe shares authorship of
one such book on farm building placement and design (Adams 1990:98). In addition,
journals such as American Agriculturalist, American Farmer, and Prairie Farmer
circulated 250,000 copies by 1860 (Adams 1990:96). This type of planned landscape
design is present at the Huddleston farmstead. This information demonstrates a certain
level of conformity to a shared ideal. Adams concludes that farmsteads should be studied
as a whole system. Because the farm system had to respond to a number of outside
forces and ideas, the changes on the landscape of the farm often mirror the changes in
broader societal context. Therefore, the degree of change may reflect the level of
conservatism of the farmer (Wilson 1990:100-101).
Recently, Ben Ford addressed the issue of land use and the extent of commercial
production at a farmstead in Londonderry, New Hampshire (2008). Ford provided a
diachronic comparison through time at the Pettengill farmstead. As demand for activity
space increased, the farm grew as outbuildings were constructed. The sprawling
Londonderry farmstead included several buildings which were all connected around 1855
(Ford 2008:66). The connected nature of the buildings caused this type of farms to be
called a connected farm. This ―connected ell‖ shape served several purposes. First, from
a functional perspective, this was a physical block from nor‘easter winds for workers in
the yard (Ford 2008:61). Secondly, this arrangement was more energy efficient, both in
terms of proximity and heating efficiency in the winter (Ford 2008:62). Also, less space
taken by buildings meant the more space for cultivation. However, Ford also offers
another motive for constructing a connected farm. The façade and the front yard was
virtually the only portion of the farm which was visible to passersby on the street (Ford
37
2008:70). This meant that a very small portion of the farm needed to be maintained and
painted in a way to provide the desired public presentation of self to neighbors and the
community (Ford 2008:70-71).
With some notable exceptions, few historic farmsteads have been thoroughly
studied in Indiana. Christopher Koeppel (2002) investigated a Davies County farmstead
and concluded that farmsteads of the early French-Canadian settlement period were
situated in long, narrow lots along rivers rather than divided by the British township
arrangement. This type of landscape formation is still prevalent in the southwestern part
of the state along the Wabash River including areas near Vincennes. Also, Deborah
Rotman et.al (1998) has investigated several farmsteads in Indiana. One conclusion of
Rotman‘s research was related to the change in farm dynamics prior to 1850 and up to the
turn of the 19th century. The overall settlement and economic trend that Rotman
observed involved the changing status of the self-sufficient, early rural towns in Indiana,
which were devoted to simple agricultural economy. With increased competition from
large scale farming industries, many small farm families chose not to compete. By the
turn of the century many former farm families had migrated from rural areas into growing
cities in search of wage labor (Rotman et al.1998, Koepple n.d.). In addition, Rotman et
al. attempted to reveal ―ethnic signatures‖ contained within artifact assemblages of
certain groups, for example Quakers and African Americans.
Recent archaeological investigations by students from Indiana University-Purdue
University at Ft Wayne (IPFW) were conducted at a 19th century Swiss farmstead in
Switzerland County (Strezewski 2004). One notable result from this excavation was the
revelation that many Swiss farmers in the region grew grapes for producing wine rather
38
than growing grain (Koepple n.d.). This lifestyle was obviously developed in Europe and
later transplanted by the people who settled in this area of Indiana along the Ohio River.
Mark Groover has previously addressed diachronic trends of farm households in
the South (Groover ,1998,2003,2008). A quintessential implementation of this research
design is exemplified in the 2003 book, An Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism:
The Gibbs Farmstead in Southern Appalachia 1790-1920. Groover explored several
different interrelated topics which examine the relationship between temporal process,
material life and household succession (2003:4-5). Using agricultural geography and
comparative census data, Groover (2003) establishes core/periphery relationships
consistent with world systems theory. Groover argues that family-operated farms are
―historically typical, yet archaeologically atypical‖ (2003:7). Therefore, although small
farms were a majority condition for rural residents during the 19th century, they are
underrepresented in the archaeological literature (Friedlander 1990:104 in Groover 2003).
For this reason, the Huddleston farmstead represents an equally relevant research topic.
In addition, the near century long occupation by the Huddleston family at the farm
provides adequate time depth with which to examine these topics in a similar way.
In conclusion, although few archaeological investigations have been conducted in
Indiana on historic farmsteads, a modest amount of preliminary information has been
obtained. In addition, historical context was gained by reconstructing local historical
events and themes. These events were significant in influencing farm families such as
the Huddlestons. In addition, the research design and interpretive methods and theory
which were used by Groover in the past to study eastern and southern farmsteads can be
implemented in the Midwest. Interestingly, the goals and research questions which are
39
addressed through Groover‘s research design are able to answer the same questions
advocated in the Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology mission
statement (Groover 1998, 2004, 2008; Koepple n.d.).
40
CHAPTER 4
EXTENDED FAMILY AND PROPERTY HISTORY
The genealogy presented in this chapter was obtained by consulting the
Manuscripts and Visual Collections Department at the Indiana Historical Society‘s
William Henry Smith Memorial Library (Wilmont 2005). In addition, information was
obtained from the Wayne County Genealogical Society Library, in Richmond, Indiana.
This genealogy focused primarily on the patrilineal line of descent to John Huddleston,
the man who built Huddleston House. From there, the genealogy focused on the people
descended from John Huddleston that would later own the property. United States Bureau
of the Census (USBC) enumeration forms and Wayne County property transfer books
were also consulted. Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 present the Huddleston genealogy chart
and corresponding names. The shaded individuals on the chart in Figure 4.1 and Table
4.1 represent the ancestors from who John Huddleston was descended. From that point,
at number 77 on the chart, the shaded individuals represent Huddleston House farmstead
property owners.
The Huddleston family history begins in North America in 1660 when Catherine
Chatham, a Quaker, immigrated to Boston. (Wilmont 2005; Wayne County Genealogical
Society [WCGS] 2009; Don Cordell, pers. comm.). In about 1663 Catherine Chatham
41
married widower John Chamberlain and they had three children. However, John
Chamberlain died in 1666. Meanwhile, Valentin Huddleston had immigrated to Calvert
County, Maryland in 1663. Valentine and Catherine Chatham-Chamberlain were
subsequently married although the date is unclear. Land transactions recorded in
Newport, Rhode Island indicate that Valentin and Catherine were married and living
there at this time. Valentine and Catherine had four children, one of whom was Henry.
Henry was born in Rhode Island in 1673 and married Sara Case, of Dartmouth
Massachusetts. Henry Huddleston and Sarah case Huddleston had seven children, one of
whom was Seth, who was born and 1715 in Dartmouth Massachusetts. Seth married
Elizabeth Fish and they had four children all of whom were female with the exception of
Seth Jr., the baby, born in 1746. Ironically, Seth Jr. and his wife Lydia Gifford, also had
several daughters and only one son. His name was Jonathan, born in 1778. Jonathan had
six sisters. Although Jonathan was born in Bristol, Massachusetts, the family moved to
Guilford County, North Carolina sometime after 1787. Jonathan Huddleston married
Phoebe Gardner in Guilford County North Carolina sometime before the turn of the 19th
century. They had thirteen children, eight boys and five girls. The second of their eight
sons was John, born 1807, who would later build the Huddleston House site in Wayne
County, Indiana. Jonathan‘s first entry in Quaker records was for a list of application for
membership in 1817 at the Deep River, North Carolina meeting Listed in the same
volume are also several ―high jinks‖ committed by Jonathan. (Heiss 1962:259; Wilmont
2005:9). Similar transgressions would later result in Jonathan being excommunicated
from the Quaker faith. Motivated by a number of reasons including anti-slavery,
42
1
3
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
4
5
=
2
=
6
7
=
33 34
35 36
37
41 42
38
21 22
43 44
9
10
=
25 26 27 28
19 20
8
29 30
=
31 32
23 24
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53
54
55 56
57
58
39, 40
59
70 71
72 73
95 96
97 98
60
74
61
75 76
99 100
62
77 78
101 102
103,104
63
64 65
79 80
81 82
105,106
107,108
66
67
83 84
109,110
68
69
85 86
87 88
89 90
111
112,113
154
155,156 157,158 159
91 92 93 94
114,115
116
137,138 139,140 ..1,..2 ..3 ..4,145 ..6,..7 ..8,..9 150,..1 ..2,153
180
181
123 124 125,126
117 118 119 120 121 122
164
161 162
133 134 135 136
127,128 129,130 131,132
176
174
163
160
165
166,167 168,169 170,171
=
=
178 172
FIGURE 4.1. Huddleston genealogy
chart (see Table 4.1 for names that
correspond with numbers)
179
Figure 4.1. Huddleston Genealogy Chart
175
(See Table 4.1 for names that correspond with
numbers)
=
173
177
42
43
TABLE 4.1. Index to Huddleston Genealogy Chart
1 Katherine Chatham
61 Laviniah (b. 1777)
2 Valentine Huddleston
62 Jonathan (b.1778(1628-1727)
d.1866)
3 Henry (b.Sept. 21, 1673)
63 Phoebe Gardner
4 Sara Case
64 Mary (b. 1780)
5 George
65 James Brown
6 Mercy Case
66 Hanna (b. 1784)
7 Katherine
67 Jesse Lane
8 Joseph Collins
68 Rachel (b. 1788)
9 Jes (b. May 1, 1702)
69 John Eccle
10 Samuel King
70 Sarah (b.1800)
11 Pelig (b. 1702)
71 Pleasant Johnson
12 Mary Quithill
72 David (b. 1801)
13 Elizabeth (b. 1704)
73 Eliza Powell
14 Rich Price
74 William (b. 1804)
15 William
75 Lydia (b. 1806-d.
1885)
16 Eliza Wilcox
76 William Gardner
17 Mary
77 John (b.1807-d.
1877)
18 Luke Hart
78 Susannah Moyer
(Myer)
19 Anna
79 Anna (b. 1810-d.
1875)
20 Job Merrihew
80 Peter Connitta
21 Seth (b. 1715)
81 Jesse (b. 1812)
22 Elizabeth Fish
82 Edith Brown
23 ?
83 Eli (b. 1814)
24 James (b. 1719)
84 Mary reynolds
25 Lydia
85 Stephen (b.1816)
26 Thomas Lake
86 Anna Reynolds
27 Isaac
87 Nathan (b.1816-d.
1871)
28 Elenor Mortimer
88 Sarah Curtis
29 Richard
89 Mary (b. 1821-d.
1885)
30 Sarah Tullman
90 Solomon Cripe
31 Mercy Jr.
91 Lucinda (b. 1823-d.
1909)
32 Samuel Clerk
92 Levi Burkett
33 Catherine (b. 1728)
93 Solomon(1826-1894)
121
122
John C. (b. 1862)
Lydia Jenkins
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
William E. (b.1864)
Ella Halstead
Ocia (b. 1866)
Josie Patock
Eldora (b.1868)
James Thomas
Elmer (b. 1871-d.1936)
Mary Keiser
Charles H. (b.1873-d.1930)
Wilmina Price
Otto H. (b.1876-d. 1958)
Cathi Van Ausdall
Walter (b.1878- d.1935)
136
137
Ona Hines
Olive M.
138
Jacob Rummel Jr.
139
Viola Ann
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
Oliver Sebring
Elbert
Viola Lawson
Luther P.
Homer B
Eliza Goar
Ada D.
Charles Mercer
148
149
Horace M.
Ruby Weed
150
151
Nellie
Albert Smith
152
153
Laura M.
Chas. Morgan Hunt
44
TABLE 4.1, continued. Index to Huddleston Genealogy Chart
34 Francis Brayton
94 Christina Moyer
(Myer)
35 Sybil (b. 1730)
95 Mary Ann (b. 1835d.1895)
36 John Sisson
96 Samuel Doran
37 Valentine (b.1732)
97 Levy (b. 1832d.1881)
38 Benjamin (b.1734)
98 Sarah M. Payne
39 Pelig (b. 1741)
99 Henry (b. 1833-d.
1914)
40 Tabitha Crowell
100 Sarah Jane Jones
41 Patience (b. 1738)
101 Isaac (b.1835-d.1911)
42 James Fisher
102 Martha Conway
43 Alice (b. 1741)
103 Anna Mariah (b.
1837)
44 David Babbit
104 Rev. Edwin Shuey
45 Sarah (b.1744)
105 Amos (b.1839d.1928)
46 Levi Chase
106 Sophia Pemberton
47 Seth (b. 1746-d.1794)
107 Jonathan (b. 1842-d.
1909)
48 Lydia Gifford
108 Lydia Ogburn
49 Mercy (b. 1729)
109 Pheobe E. (b.1844)
50 William Gaige Jr.
110 David Gronendyke
51 Chloe (b. 1731)
111 Daniel (b.1846d.1846)
52 Thomas Gaige
112 Sarah V. (b. 1847d.1925)
53 George (b. 1733)
113 C. Howren
54 Joseph
114 Lydia C. (b.1849d.1931)
55 Mary Jane (b. 1738-d.
115 Moses Jay
1794)
56 Joseph Gaige
116 Alpheus (b.1851)
57 Jean (b. 1741)
117 Mary Alice (b. 1857)
58 Eliz
118 John Ware
59 Sarah (b. 1775)
119 Ann M. (b.1859)
60 Zacheus Macy
120 John Lawrence
154
Eva (died in infancy)
155
Flora L.
156
157
Charles Gilmore
Lillie (b.1869)
158
159
F.C. Warrick
Lena (b.1872-d. 1888)
160
161
162
163
Blanche (b. 1881-d.1883)
Pearl (b. 1884)
Daniel Van Du Skirk
Eva Lena Ware(b.1876)
164
165
Ada Maude Ware (b. 1879)
Della May Ware (b. 1881)
166
167
Lambert (b. 1885)
Audrey Farrington
168
169
170
171
Ernest E. (d.1951)
Pansy Divergliss
Ethel L. (b.1891)
Curtis Grooms
172
Kenneth
173
174
Name Unknown
Henry
175
Callie
176
177
178
179
180
181
Emma Van Du Skirk
Charlie
Hazel Eller
Betty
Clarence
Valaris
45
opportunity, and adventure, Jonathan and Phoebe left North Carolina.
The federal census of 1810 indicates Jonathan and Phoebe were living in
Greensboro Township, Guilford County, North Carolina with their six children and a
female over the age of 45, presumably Jonathan and/or Phoebe‘s mother. A person
named Jonathan Huddleston appears on the 1820 Federal census enumeration sheet of
Springfield Township, Robertson County Tennessee, probably the same Jonathan
Huddleston that left Guilford County, North Carolina and settled in Wayne County
Indiana.
Census data are excellent sources for contextualizing historical archaeological
sites. Specifically, in this example, the path of migration can successfully be
reconstructed. However, careful analysis of the 1820 census leads to some minor
speculation. Figure 4.2 shows the original document with transcribed tables. Although
the census sheet signifies one male and one female between the ages of 25 and 45
(presumably Jonathan and Phoebe), the number of children were recorded incorrectly.
The 1810 enumeration from Guilford County, North Carolina, correlates perfectly to the
number of children in the confirmed genealogy. As indicated in Figure 4.2 the 1820
census shows Jonathan Huddleston having only two males and two females under the age
of 10. However, Jonathan Huddleston had ten children by 1820, six of whom would still
be living at home. However, the 1820 census also shows a female over the age of 45.
The presence of this middle age female with a in the household strongly suggests this
Jonathan Huddleston is the same Jonathan Huddleston that left North Carolina sometime
after 1817. Assuming that this is the same Jonathan Huddleston, he did not stay in
46
Figure 4.2. United States Census Bureau enumeration sheet, 1820, Springfield Township, Robertson County Tennessee.
46
47
Tennessee long. The 1830s census clearly documented both Jonathan and John settled and
farming in Union County, Indiana. Jonathan and his family moved one more time in the
ensuing decade of the 1830s, and by 1839, they would be settled in Wayne County, Indiana.
From this point, the bulk of genealogical research focuses on those members of the
Huddleston family that occupied or owned the Huddleston House site in Wayne County,
Indiana. Also, it is necessary to divide the occupation of the property into chronological
periods based on ownership. The entire European occupation of this site can be divided into
four periods: the Frontier period, the Huddleston period, the Transition period, and the
Restoration period.
The Frontier Period
The frontier period includes the period from first European contact (approximately
1500 A.D.) until the property was acquired by John Huddleston. The frontier period was so
labeled because of the forested nature of the landscape. The land was not being used as a
means of production by conventional standards. The land was first purchased in 1821
(Wayne County Land Patent Book [WCLPB] 1821:28). The land in section 28 was divided
into six different 80 acre plots and one 160 acre plot. Figure 4.3 shows the names of the first
owners of Township 12 Range 16 Section 28. Notice that the land the Huddleston farmstead
would later occupy was both in the east half of the southeast quarter, but also extends north
48
Scale: In Feet
0 250 500
Paul
Custer,
80 Acres
Aug. 27,
1821
1000
Property Owner,
Number of Acres
Date of Patent
N
John
Burket,
160 Acres
Aug. 18,
1821
Eli
Loffsinger,
80 Acres
Aug. 18,
1821
28
William
Butler,
80 Acres
Aug. 18,
1821
Samuel
Charles,
80 Acres
Sept. 11,
1821
National Road
Nathan
Pearson,
80 Acres
Feb. 8,
1823
James
Starbrough,
80 Acres
Aug. 31,
1821
FIGURE 4.3. Original land patent, Wayne County, Jackson Township, IN (T16.0, R12.0,
Sec. 28), courtesy of the Office of Wayne County Recorder, (WCLPB 1821 :28).
49
into the southern portion of the northeast quarter. Therefore, Nathan Pearson and John Burket
were the first landowners of European descent. Later, a man by the name of Samuel
Cochran was reported to have been an early resident of the land (Young 1872:519).
Jonathan Pleagor, the man from whom John Huddleston purchased the property was the final
frontier period property owner. The frontier period ended in 1839.
The Huddleston Period
The Huddleston period began when John Huddleston purchased the property until the
time the farm was sold out of the family. This period began in 1839 and ended in 1934. As
previously discussed, the Huddleston house site was passed from one generation to the next
for a 95 year. To better contextualize and examine the Huddleston period this 95 year
interval should be divided into an early, middle, and late occupation phase, each of which
consisting of approximately 30 years. Therefore the early phase began in 1839 and ended in
1877 with the death of John. The middle phase began in 1877 and included the decades in
which Levi and Henry occupied and owned the property and ended in 1906. Last, the late
phase began in 1906 when Charles purchased the farm from Henry, and ended when Hazel
Eller Huddleston sold the farmhouse out of the family in 1934. The following sections
explain the nature, significance, and trends associated with each phase.
50
TIMELINE OF HUDDLESTON HOUSE PROPERTY HISTORY
Middle Phase:
Levi & Henry Huddleston
Early Phase:
John Huddleston
Late Phase:
Chas.&
Chas
&Kenneth
KennethHuddleston
Huddleston
FRONTIER PERIOD
1820
1840
HUDDLESTON PERIOD
1860
1880
1900
TRANSITION PERIOD
1920
1940
1960
RESTORATION PERIOD
1980
2000
FIGURE 4.4. Timeline of Huddleston House property owners.
50
51
Early phase: John Huddleston occupation, 1839 to 1877
John Huddleston first acquired the 77 acre parcel of land, the vast majority of
which lies in the southeast quarter of Section 28 on August 13, 1839 from Jonathan
Plerager. (Wayne County Transfer Book [WCTB] No. 1 1840-1845:158). He began
construction on his home and farmstead shortly thereafter. The buildings and their
position on the landscape were established during this time. Undoubtedly several factors
were involved in this decision making process. The circumstances motivating these
decisions will be discussed later in Chapter 8. John and his wife Suzanne Myer (or
Moyer) were married in 1830 and had 11 children, one of whom, Daniel, died in infancy.
Figure 4.6 shows the Huddleston family Bible with the members of the family written on
the first page. As previously stated, John and Susan Huddleston had 11 children, 10
surviving to adulthood. As shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.5 all of their children were
married. When John died in 1877 from a kick to the head from his horse, ownership of
the farm passed to his heirs (WCTB 1875-1880:H). The particulars of the succession of
ownership and inheritance will be discussed later in this section. Information regarding
the offspring of four of John and a Susana Huddleston‘s children was obtained. A line
that descended from Levi, Henry, Amos, and Jonathan was discovered. Relevant to this
discussion are the descendants of Levi and Sarah M. Payne Huddleston, and Henry and
Sara Jane Jones Huddleston.
John and Suzanne‘s first son was Levi Huddleston, born 1832. Levi married
Sarah Payne in 1859 and they had two children James Valaris and Clarence. Levi‘s
52
FIGURE 4.5. Huddleston family Bible.
53
younger brother, Henry Huddleston was born in 1833. Henry and his wife, Sarah Jones,
had 10 children. In 1880 or 1881, Henry and Sarah moved from Henry County, Indiana
back home to the Huddleston House (WCTB1875-1880:H). Of their 10 children seven
were believed to have joined them. Of the seven Huddleston boys born to Henry and
Sarah, Charles, born fifth, bought the farmstead in 1906. Interestingly, the farmstead was
not inherited, but rather purchased by Charles a years before his father‘s death. The
details surrounding this transaction are currently not well understood, however this fact
will later be used as a way to interpret the documentary and archaeological evidence.
Middle Phase: The Levi and Henry Huddleston occupation, 1877 through 1906
Conflicting reports concerning the ownership status of the property following John‘s
death are examined here. According to extensive corroborative evidence, Levi, the eldest
son of John and Suzanne inherited the property in 1877 (see Appendix G; Wayne County
Will Book [WCWB] 1881:389; USBC 1880). The particulars of the transaction are not
completely clear. Although Levi never appeared in the Wayne County Transfer Books as
the official property owner, the probate and will record indicated:
…in the deeds above referred to which has been conveyed by a quit claim deed
dated November 23, 1877 made by the heirs of John Huddleston to Levi
Huddleston during his life time and at his death to his two children Valaris and
Clarence Huddleston is hereby excepted and reserved… (WCWB 1877:389)
Levi had two sons, as the will indicated. According to the will book entry, Levi
was to inherit the property, and upon his passing his two sons would be given the
54
opportunity to occupy the house and farm. However, this did not happen. Neither son
would carry out the wishes of their grandfather and operate the family farm.
This was a time of extreme transition within the Huddleston household. The
Huddleston farmstead did not appear on the 1880 agricultural census. The only two
people with the last name of Huddleston who were enumerated in the 1880 agricultural
census in Jackson Township, Wayne County were David, and Nathan, neither of whom
were immediate relatives. Also, neither David nor Nathan Huddleston operated a farm
the same size as the Huddleston House farmstead (USBC 1880). The 1880 population
census indicates that Susannah Huddleston was living with Phoebe, presumably in the
farmhouse. Also, the census states that Levi suffered from sciatica and that his
occupation was ―broom maker‖(USBC 1880). Because, Levi was disabled, Susannah
was approximately 80 years old, and the farmstead was not present in the 1880
agricultural census, it is reasonable to assume the farmstead was in a state of stagnation.
Likely, members of the Huddleston family were not farming the land. Perhaps they
rented out the land to other farmers.
At this same time, while the Huddleston farmstead was struggling, Henry
Huddleston was living in Dudley Township, Henry County, Indiana with his wife, Sarah,
and their eight children (USBC 1880). His occupation was listed as ―farmer‖. Shortly
after this, in 1881, Levi Huddleston passed away and Henry returned home to Wayne
County to operate the farm. Several transactions occurred within the family that
55
FIGURE 4.6. 1856 Wayne County atlas.
55
56
culminated in Henry claiming ownership of the farmstead. Henry received 70 acres in
the SE quarter and 6.90 acres in the NE quarter on which the farmhouse was located.
Reconstructing the Household particulars during this time period is difficult. However,
additional internal family transactions help to provide clues. These include compensation
of both cash and property to members descended from John and Suzanne, for example,
Solomon Cripe (WCTB 1875-1880:H) These transactions were significant and they
illustrate the size and structure of the farmstead. As a result, during Henry‘s occupation,
in the middle phase, the size of the farmstead peaks at 83.25 acres (WCTB 1880-1885:H;
Wayne County Atlas 1884).
As mentioned, the Huddleston farmstead does not appear on the 1880 agricultural
census. Also, a fire in the federal building destroyed nearly the entire 1890 census. In
addition, the 1900 census indicates that the head of household, Henry, was a ―landlord‖
by occupation (USBC 1900). Only four people are listed as household members: Henry,
Charley H., Elmer E., and Walter S. (USBC 1900). Among the four, only Charley is
farming. Machinist and railroad laborer are the listed occupations of Elmer and Walter,
respectively.
Late Phase: the Charles and Kenneth Huddleston occupation, 1906 through 1934
In 1906 Charles Huddleston purchased the farmstead from his father, Henry
(WCTB 1905-1910:H). Charles claimed ownership of the land on May16, 1906.
57
FIGURE 4.7. Wayne County transfer book 1875-1880:H (note the property is not officially transferred to Levi, but rather
Susannah is simply marked over John‘s name).
57
58
FIGURE 4.8. Undated surveyor‘s sketch map of Mt. Auburn, Indiana, image courtesy of the Office of Wayne County Surveyor.
58
59
The farm included the 13.23 acres of land in the northeast quarter of the township and
also the 70 acres of farmland south of the railroad in southeast quarter of the township.
What was a bit curious about this transaction is that the property was purchased outright
and not inherited. The circumstances surrounding this transition in ownership are not
well understood. A record of Henry on an enumeration sheet for the 1910 census was
unable to be located. His whereabouts during this period are unknown. Henry did not die
for another seven years after the farm was sold, in 1913. Nevertheless, the transition in
ownership in 1906 between Henry and Charles provides a benchmark on the timeline of
the Huddleston occupation period. This transition from the middle to late occupation
phase can be used as a reference point to better explain landscape events and interpret the
archaeological record. Indeed, several changes to the property occur during the late
phase of Huddleston occupation.
Charles H. Huddleston, born 1873, grew up at Huddleston House. As a young
man he married Wilmina Price, and fathered two sons; Kenneth and Henry, In 1906,
Charles bought the farmstead on which he was raised from his father, Henry. Charles
lived the remainder of his days on the property. Both Charles and Wilmina died in
January of 1930(Richmond Palladium-Item 1930). Wilmina died from illness (Richmond
Palladium-Item 1930:). Charles committed suicide due to despondency (Richmond
Palladium-Item 1930: January 13). The property was then inherited by their two sons,
Kenneth and Henry. They divided the property. Kenneth inherited 13.2 acres of land
north of the railroad including the house. Henry was given the 70 acres of farmland
south of the railroad (Wayne County Transfer Book1932-1936:33-34). Kenneth married
and had one daughter, named Betty. He later divorced and married Hazel Eller. (Wayne
60
County Genealogical Society; Don Cordell, pers. comm.). However, only two short
years after inheriting the farmstead, Kenneth died and the house was left to his wife
Hazel in May of 1932. In 1934, only two years after the death of her husband, Hazel
Eller Huddleston sold the house and farmstead, and ended 95 years of Huddleston
ownership and occupation (Wayne County Transfer Book 1932-1936:33-34)
Transition and Restoration Periods: 1935-Present
Several property transactions occur during the transition period. Table 4.2 lists the
property owners during this time. Small, moderately successful business ventures define
the transition period. Several of the owners during the transition phase sought to
capitalize on the ‗historic‘ nature of the property. For example, period dress of the
middle 19th century was customary for workers during one restaurant venture in the
1960‘s (Richmond Palladium-Item 1962:4).
However, the transition period is most accurately described by acknowledging
the advanced state of deterioration of the property. Therefore, the restoration period
began in the late 1960s when the Historical Landmarks Foundation of Indiana purchased
the property. The property remains in a state of constant restoration. Small restoration
projects are intermittently undertaken. Currently, the museum is closed to the public for
extensive restoration (Historic Landmarks of Indiana).
61
TABLE 4.2. Transition Period Property Owners (Wayne County Transfer Book).
Property Owner
Acquisition Date
Paul L. & Joanna I. Cochran
November 23, 1966
Jerome & Edith Dorflein
September 16, 1961
Edna E. Muster
January 11, 1960
Albert E. Curtis
March 29, 1955
62
FIGURE 4.9. Wayne County Atlas, 1874 (note J. Huddleston listed on map).
62
63
FIGURE 4.10. Wayne County Atlas, 1879 (note J Huddleston listed on map two
years after death).
64
FIGURE 4.11. Wayne County Atlas, 1884 (note Henry. Huddleston listed on map).
65
FIGURE 4.12. Wayne County Atlas, Mt Auburn plat map,1884 (note Henry.
Huddleston listed on map).
66
FIGURE 4.13. United States Census Bureau enumeration sheet, 1910, Jackson Township, Wayne County,
Indiana (note Charles, wife ‗Mina, and sons, Kenneth and Henry).
67
CHAPTER 5
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: NINETEENTH CENTURY REGIONAL
AND GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL TRENDS
As previously mentioned, one of the objectives of this research design is to
develop historical context of an area in order to interpret regional trends. A major part of
this goal can be accomplished through agricultural geography (Groover 2008:18,128).
Agricultural geography is concerned with identifying the agricultural production history
of a particular region. This approach has two advantages. First, by understanding the
major production and economic activities throughout a region, core/periphery status can
be established. Secondly, because daily activities were structured around agriculture,
contextual insight into behavior and motivation can be gained (Groover 2003). In
addition, this information can be used to demonstrate how the members of the household
are linked to the world system, and their relative socioeconomic class in their community.
Therefore, this section has several objectives. First, a brief overview of the early
settlement period of Indiana is presented which focuses specifically on the establishment
of farmsteads. This demonstrates the farming tradition that has persisted in Indiana since
early statehood. Collaborative data is used to identify the corn/pork commercial
agricultural tradition that developed early in the state. A brief discussion about rising
labor costs, westward American expansion, farm technology, and their effects on global
corn prices in the last half of the 19th and early 20th century follows. Chapter 5
68
concludes by identifying main areas of surplus agricultural commodities production
throughout the United States in the 19th century. This enables the identification of
core/periphery regions through time. Changes in the locality of core/periphery areas
through time mirror the passing of the frontier to the west as the 19th century progressed.
Census figures are used to establish this relationship and demonstrate this point.
Hoosier Farming
Purchasing land in Indiana before 1820 could be done with relative ease.
However 160 acres of land outside of unincorporated areas, was the minimum required
purchase. The cost of land at this time was $2.00 per acre (Nation 2005:18). After the
panic of 1819, which saw widespread delinquency, Congress lowered the minimum
purchase to 80 acres at $1.25 per acre. The minimum purchase was again reduced to 40
acres in 1832, which resulted in boom years between 1834 and 1836. Prices continued to
decline and land was purchased quickly (Nation 2005:19-20).
During this early settlement, migrations of people came from multiple places
(Nation 2005:14). Following the French colonial period, European settlement of Indiana
generally occurred from the migration of people from two places: the Mid-Atlantic and
the upper South. Both migrations can actually be traced back to the Pennsylvania and
Mid-Atlantic area. One of these Migrations into Indiana was along the Ohio River by
people coming directly east of the Appalachian ridge. The other was from the upper
South and came through the Cumberland Gap. This migration also began in the
Pennsylvania/Mid-Atlantic area and headed down the Shenandoah Valley into Virginia
69
and North Carolina. The large majority of people, who came to Indiana along this
southern route, can actually be traced to the Mid-Atlantic region. The early Indiana
settlers that came from the upland South should not be associated with the plantation
culture of the lowland South (Clifton 1977:158-61). In southeastern and east central
Indiana, several different ethnic enclaves developed. Most notably, German Catholics
and Quakers came to the area in sizable numbers. (Nation 2005:14-17).
Almost all these early settlers came to farm. Census statistics from 1820 to 1850
indicate that in some counties over 97 percent of the workforce engaged in agricultural
activities (USBC 1820-1850). This did not come easy. To early settlers like John
Huddleston, the initial cost of land would have been only a portion of the expense for the
first year. The land would need cleared, structures built, sod busted and mouths fed.
Often times early frontier farmers would not see a profit for several years (Nation 2005).
Atack and Bateman (1987) perform a cost analysis to determine the advantage of
investing in a frontier Midwestern farm in the early 19th century verses buying an
established farm further east. They conclude that the cost to maintain a farm increased in
areas of higher population density at a greater rate than production outputs. Simply put,
no advantage exists in maintaining a large farm in densely populated areas in the eastern
states. Land was much more expensive in the eastern, more densely populated states
compared to the sparsely populated western frontier. Consequently, a farm of equal
acreage would increase in value the further east it was located. Because of this, eastern
farms were more prone to specialize in commodities other than grains which could be
produced on a larger scale and at a cheaper price further west (Danhof 1941:319, Ankli
1969). Recently, Gibbs et al.(2009) have examined the transformation of the dairy
70
industry from primarily a household production model to a mass produced factory system
in the 1860s. A noticeable change from sheep and grain agriculture to dairy
specialization in Chenango County, New York impacted the 19th century farmsteads.
This evidence reiterates the advantages of operating a grain and livestock farm, such as
the corn/swine production prevalent to Indiana, in larger farms located further west
geographically.
However, establishing the farmstead was just the tip of the iceberg. Success was
difficult, and by deciding to engage in surplus agricultural production, several risks were
at stake. The Huddleston family and their farming neighbors were beholden to not only
mother nature but also world markets. A tradition of surplus corn production became the
way of life for many Hoosiers, and the Huddlestons were no different. Although most
Hoosier farmers were engaged in surplus production of agricultural commodities, they
did not want to run the risk of having to buy back from a merchant at an inflated price
(Nation 2005:105). Therefore, one major advantage to hog and corn farming was a steady
source of food for the farmer‘s family (Nation 2005:78).
Corn Laws
When the Importation Act of 1846 repealed the Corn Laws, grain tariffs were
lifted leaving markets wide open to American products (Pickering and Tyrell 2000).
Imports of corn to Britain and other European countries steadily increased from 1850
through 1880 (USBC 1850-1880). Cereal prices continued to increase until they begin to
stabilize in the 1870s. Corn prices began to fall as increased productivity and westward
expansion increased output capability. Farm mechanization and infrastructure
71
improvements allowed for increased productivity. However, they did not increase the
average yield per acre (Aldridge et al 1986; Jurgenheimer 1985). Because of this many
farmers with small amounts of land had no advantage to invest in machinery. Neither
machinery nor intense labor was required in corn production (Nation2005:105).
However, when prices began to fall, increased acreage and productivity was required to
maintain an equal economic status relative to the previous decade.
The second half of the 19th shows a more rapid increase in labor wage than in the
cost of land (Van Zanden 1991:215-16). This created a situation in which productivity
and efficiency was of primary concern. Early in the 19th century, even when surplus
agricultural production was the goal, no great advantage was attached to efficiency.
Unlike southern cash crops, and even wheat, corn could be harvested at any time without
intense labor. Many farmers did not need to hire much additional labor than what their
family could provide (Nation 2005:96-109). However, improved infrastructure and farm
implements placed a premium on efficiency and spurred the movement of farmland
westward. William Parker states:
With or without new agricultural technology the westward movement of
agriculture would have taken place. That it occurred at the speed it did in the
presence of commercialization and with the release of labor that allowed
industrialization to proceed in mid-America was due to the technical
environment (1988:125).
Due in part to rising labor costs, increasingly large, and efficiently operated
farms in the west, cereal prices peaked at the mid-century mark and began to steadily
72
decline after 1870. Severe economic crisis in the early 1890s created a volatile
commodities market. The economic Panic of 1890 and Depression of 1893, caused by
high unemployment, excessive railroad and mining speculation, stagnate and flooded
world commodities markets, and widespread farm mortgage indebtedness resulted in
falling grain prices (Whitten 2001). In 1896, for example the price of most cereals was
less than half of what it had been in 1870 (Van Zanden 1991: 227). The price of corn fell
to $0.10 a bushel in Kansas in 1889, about half the cost of production (Whitten 2001).
Many farmers tried to combat this by producing more crops; however, this only
depressed the flooded markets further (Hoffman 1970; Whitten 2001).
A favorable British market near the turn of the 20th century increased demand
for imports but did not match the increase in production due to expanded infrastructure
and mechanization. (Fishlow 1985:396). Corn could simply be more cheaply and
efficiently produced, and in larger quantities than it had a half century before. To make
matters worse for farmers like the Huddleston family, the cost of farming tripled between
the years 1867 in 1914, although output increased six fold. (Parker 1988:126). Because
land was cheaper than labor, many of these lands were worked ―extensively rather than
intensively‖ (Atack and Bateman 1987:217). Fluctuating yields per acre, with a larger
total production at a lower cost was the result (Atack and Bateman 1987:217). However,
the final decades of the 19th century also witnessed an increased demand for livestock
products. Therefore, Hoosier farmers that were engaged in corn and swine farming could
meet the challenges of falling grain prices by supplementing their income with hogs (Van
Zanden 1991:228). Figures 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, and 5.13 present the price, production, and
yield of corn from 1866-1940 in the United States.
73
J.R. Elliott‘s, American Farms, published in 1890, contextualizes this perspective.
This first-hand account of the dire situation among American farmers near the turn of the
20th century suggests numerous difficulties and hardships for owner operated farmsteads.
Elliot compares the wages of a farm laborer to the earnings of a farm owner. He comes
to the bleak conclusion that in 1890 it was far less worrisome and more worthwhile to
work on a farm rather than own a farm. Elliott then states: ―the value of farm land has
seldom been lower in the last 30 years than now‖ (1890:3). Census data reveals that 60%
of the nation's wealth was possessed by farmers in 1850. This total fell to 53% in 1860,
and by 1890 had fallen to 35% (Elliot 1890:37). Between 1909 and 1914 known as the
―parity years‖ farm prices rose slightly compared to other segments of the economy
(Young 2000:91). However, as the Great Depression worsened, farmers began to suffer
badly. Congress enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933, which formed the
modern foundation of United States farm policy (Council for Agricultural Science and
Technology 1992). However, this act came only a year before the Huddleston farmstead
was sold and was therefore ineffective in helping the family retain their ancestral home.
Therefore, the overall relative trend of farming in Indiana has followed: a period
of establishment (statehood-1840), followed by a steady increase in production and value
(1841 through 1875), followed by a three decade decrease in relative value (1876-1908),
punctuated by a rise and a leveling-off (1909-1914), and concluding in a downward
direction into the 1930‘s.
This trend of fluctuating economic markets was very prevalent in the 19th
century. Global and local economies exhibited cyclicity over time. These were seen in
boom and bust cycles. (Kondratieff 1979). Economic expansion and contraction
74
generally operated on about a 50 year cycle in 19th century, called Kondratieff waves, or
K-waves (Pruden 1978:63-70; Kondratieff 1979; Groover 2003:11) Solomou (1986:165169) debated the precision of the Kondratieff wave model. He agreed that the world
economies of the 19th century were quite volatile and fluctuated in a cyclical fashion.
However, he stated that evidence suggests that differential growth rates in world
economies were base on waves of less irregularity and greater amplitude than the K-wave
(Solomou 1986:169). Nevertheless, the K-wave model provides a general representation
of the trajectory of 19th century macroeconomic fluctuation (see Figure 5.1). These
macroeconomic cycles definitely influenced the Huddleston families on the farm. Some
early households benefited from favorable while others suffered from weak economic
conditions
Census statistics from the 19th century were consulted in the hopes of identifying
farming trends and locating main areas of surplus agricultural commodities production
throughout the United States in the 19th century. This information established
core/periphery regions and relationships throughout the United States during this time
period. Changes in the locality of core/periphery areas through time are particularly
interesting, anthropologically speaking because it helps to indicate the likelihood of
culture change. Therefore, the follow section uses census figures to establish this
relationship and demonstrate this point.
Agricultural Geography
Identifying national and regional trends provides a barometer from which to
75
FIGURE 5.1. Kondratieff wave (Pruden 1978:65).
75
76
measure local or community level adherence or deviation. Moreover, the Huddleston
household was then compared to the local sample in order to gauge their level of
compliance to the community trend. The following section identifies major areas of
surplus agricultural commodities. Using agricultural geography to identify the
production history of a region enables the reconstruction of land use. Diachronic land
use trends can be identified on the regional level. Therefore, local or community level of
compliance or deviation can be determined. Therefore, a world systems approach is an
ideal perspective. As previously mentioned, this is useful when establishing
core/periphery relationships. Sampling of census data reveals regions throughout the
country which are most heavily engaged in farming.
Census mapping is a useful method for quickly identifying major areas of
production. First, the states ranking in the top ten (10) for a category were segregated. In
this case, the top corn producing states were considered. Then, these ten were divided in
half: 1) top tier and 2) second tier states. Table 5.1 presents this data. Next, these results
were plotted on a map of the United States. Top tier states and second tier states were
then shaded with different colors. This process was repeated for each decade. Regions of
the country which specialize in specific commodities can be easily identified this way.
From a world systems perspective, core/periphery regions emerge. Not only does this
enable identification of core/periphery areas, but it also is able to track changing
core/periphery/semi-periphery relationships though time.
Census mapping revealed that Indiana was a major producer of corn in the United
States during the 19th century. However, as indicated by Figures 5.2-5.6, this method is
77
TABLE 5.1. Top Corn Producing States with Percentage of Total U.S. Crop
1840
State
Rank
1850
% of Total
State
% of Total
1
Tennessee
12
Ohio
10
2
Kentucky
11
Kentucky
10
3
Virginia
9
Illinois
10
4
Ohio
9
Indiana
9
5
Indiana
7
Tennessee
9
6
North Carolina
6
Missouri
6
7
Illinois
6
Virginia
6
8
Alabama
6
Georgia
5
9
Georgia
6
Alabama
5
10
Missouri
5
North Carolina
5
1860
State
1870
% of Total
State
14
% of Total
1
Illinois
Illinois
17
2
Ohio
9
Iowa
9
3
Missouri
9
Ohio
9
4
Indiana
9
Missouri
9
5
Kentucky
8
Indiana
7
6
Tennessee
6
Kentucky
7
7
Iowa
5
Tennessee
5
8
Virginia
5
Pennsylvania
5
9
Alabama
4
Texas
3
10
Georgia
4
North Carolina
2
1880
State
Rank
% of Total
1
Illinois
18.5
2
Iowa
15.7
3
Missouri
11.5
4
Indiana
6.6
5
Ohio
6.4
6
Kansas
7
Kentucky
4.2
8
Nebraska
3.7
9
Tennessee
3.6
Pennsylvania
2.6
10
USBC, 1880 Table L-LI (p. 470-71)
6
78
= Top Tier States
= Second Tier States
FIGURE 5.2. Top corn producing states, 1840.
= Top Tier States
= Second Tier States
FIGURE 5.3. Top corn producing states, 1850.
79
= Top Tier States
= Second Tier States
FIGURE 5.4. Top corn producing states, 1860.
= Top Tier States
= Second Tier States
FIGURE 5.5. Top corn producing states, 1870.
80
= Top Tier States
= Second Tier States
FIGURE 5.6. Top corn producing states, 1880.
81
also effective in tracking the movement of top corn producing regions from the South and
southeast to the Midwest and western portion of the country.
At this point, terms should be defined to eliminate confusion. In world systems
theory, as previously mentioned, one of the major tenants is a three tiered system
consisting of the core, semi-periphery, and the periphery (Wallerstein 1979:70). Within
this historical system, core areas change, although the characteristics of core areas persist
through time. Domination of global commerce, channeling of extracted commodities,
and regulation of economy‘s and commodity values define core areas. Periphery areas
are it generally synonymous with frontier areas and extractive activities (So 1990;
Gosden 2003:12-17). For example in the 19th century in the Midwestern United States,
extractive activities included the fur trade, followed by logging industries, followed by
aggressive surplus agricultural production (Groover 2003:12). Therefore, referring to
these areas of intense surplus agricultural as ―core‖ regions of production should be
avoided. Although these regions may be the nucleus of production, by definition they are
not ―core‖ areas, but rather periphery areas because they aggressively engage in
extractive activities and industries.
The same census mapping analysis was performed with data at the county level
for the state of Indiana. Table 5.2 presents the leading Indiana counties for corn
and swine production during two decades of the mid 19th Century. Because Indiana
contains over 90 counties, the counties ranking in the top twenty were used in the
analysis. Top tier and second tier counties are presented in Table 5.2 alphabetically.
82
Swine 1870
Bartholomew
Bartholomew
1
Marion
Lawrence
Henry
Hamilton
1
Montgomery
Madison
Jackson
1
Morgan
1
Parke
1
Putnam
1
Rush
1
Shelby
1
Wayne
2
Dearborn
2
Fayette
2
Fountain
2
Gibson
2
Harrison
2
Henry
2
Lawrence
2
Owen
2
Posey
2
Warren
Morgan
Parke
Putnam
Rush
Marion
Montgomery
Morgan
Rush
Knox
Montgomery
Morgan
Parke
Wayne
Bartholemew
Clinton
Clinton
Decatur
Decatur
Decatur
Franklin
Hendricks
Henry
Johnson
Madison
Posey
Shelby
Vigo
Hamilton
Jackson
Knox
Parke
Posey
Putnam
Tippecanoe
Vigo
Under 1,000,000 over 832,000
Shelby
Wayne
Between 44,869-35,294 Head
Shelby
Rush
Wayne
Hamilton
Harrison
Hendricks
Johnson
Madison
Randolph
Shelby
Between 32,030-28,255 Head
Montgomery
Over 1,000,000 Bushels
Corn 1870
Gibson
64,294-47,389 Head
Swine 1850
Bartholomew
Between 1,685,000-1,050,386
Between 1,024,386-838,238 Bushels Bushels
Corn 1850
1
40,525-33,101 Head
TABLE 5.2. Corn and Swine Production for Leading Indiana Counties, 1850 and 1870
Sullivan
82
83
Figures 5.7 and 5.8 reveal that corn production is particularly concentrated in the central
portion of the state. The areas including Wayne and adjacent counties, as well as those of
equal latitude appear to produce to highest amount of corn during this time throughout
the state. In addition, this method was successful in identifying Wayne County as a
major producer of pork during the 19th Century. However, Figures 5.9 and 5.10 illustrate
that the counties with the greatest number of swine were less concentrated than the top
corn producing counties. This may be attributed to environmental factors such as
topography and soil type. Regardless, this area of central Indiana was among the most
productive corn and pork regions of the country.
In addition to agricultural census information, the USDA Economic Research
Database files were consulted to understand the changing agricultural commodities
market in the 19th century. In particular, corn prices were specifically considered. As
previously stated, corn prices fluctuated from year to year throughout the second half of
the 19th century. Some years the price was up, some years it was down, but the overall
trend is in a downward direction until just before the turn of the century. Figure 5.11
presents the average price of corn for each year starting in 1866. Figure 5.12 presents
this same price data compared to total quantity produced (Bushels of Corn), and average
yield (Bushels per Acre). The inverse relationship between supply (Bushels of Corn) and
price is clear between approximately1875-1900. This trend happens to coincide with the
middle phase of site occupation, when Henry owned the farm.
In conclusion, macroeconomic cycles were identified by reconstructing the 19
century economy. Census mapping was used to identify core/periphery areas, and also
84
tracked changing core/periphery/semi-periphery relationships though time. These
macroeconomic cycles definitely influenced the Huddleston families on the farm. Some
early households benefited from favorable while others suffered from weak economic
conditions.
85
Top Corn Producing Counties (1870)
= Over 1,000,000 Bushels
= Under 1,000,000-832,000 Bushels
FIGURE 5.7. Top corn producing counties (USCB 1870).
86
Counties with Greatest Number of Swine
(1870)
FIGURE 5.8. Top swine producing counties (USCB 1870).
=
40,525-33,101 Head
=
32,030-28,555 Head
87
Top Corn Producing Counties (1850)
= Between 1,685,000-1,050,386 Bushels
= Between 1,024,386-838,238 Bushels
FIGURE 5.9. Top corn producing counties
(USCB1850).
88
Counties with the Greatest Number
of Swine (1850)
= 64,294-47,389 Head
= 44,869-35294 Head
FIGURE 5.10. Top swine producing counties (USCB1850).
1866
1868
1870
1872
1874
1876
1878
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
Dollars per Bushel
89
1.6
Corn Prices over Time
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Price
YEAR
Figure 5.11. Price of corn exports, 1866-1840.
88
90
Prices received
by farmers
Yield per
harvested acre
Harvested
Acrage
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
Year
1920
1930
1940
1950
Millions of Acres
FIGURE 5.12. Corn prices, yield, and acrage 1866-1940.
50
40
30
20
10
Bushels of Corn
0
1860
1880
1900
Year
1920
1940
1960
150
100
50
0
Bushels per acre
1866
1870
1874
1878
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
Bushels per Acre
FIGURE 5.13. Total harvest acreage, 1866-1950.
FIGURE 5.14. Corn; yield, 1866-1974.
91
CHAPTER 6
HISTORICAL CONTEXT: RECONSTRUCTING LOCAL
ECONOMIC TRENDS
Details of a diachronic economic analysis involving John Huddleston and his
neighbors are presented in the following section. This analysis used longitudinal data
involving 40 years of statistics compiled from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (USBC)
Agricultural schedules. Diachronic trends were examined by quantifying the results of
the census analysis. To establish relative wealth, the Huddleston family was compared to
the local community average. Average landholding and production values were also
considered. Not only are these factors commonly accessible in the documentary record,
but they also are an excellent indicator of relative socioeconomic class in the study
community (Groover 2003:85).
Methods
The first step in the agricultural census analysis was to locate the household on
the enumeration sheet for each census year. These are located on microfilm at the
Indiana State Archives. The results were transcribed onto a data table. Next, 30
individuals were selected (15 listed immediately before and after) for the comparative
data set (Groover 2003:86; Blanch 2007). Neighbors are often next to one another on the
enumeration sheets, due to the order in which they were enumerated. Therefore, local and
small-scale level trends were examined by using this type of sampling method.
92
Consequently, all comparative data was transcribed as well. The average land holdings,
production amounts, and associated values were then determined. The average amounts
as determined by arithmetic mean and standard deviation were calculated and then used
for comparison. In doing so, the Huddleston household was compared to the local
sample. In turn, the local sample was compared to state and national trends. Average
production quantities were also used to identify primary commodities, or the farm
products in which the majority of the sample was most aggressively engaged.
Several different categories from the census sheets were combined to determine
wealth value. In 1850, the amounts for these categories were added to determine total
wealth value: cash value of farm, value of farming implements, value of livestock, and
value of animals slaughtered. In the 1860 census, the same categories were used,
however, additional categories included: value of orchard products, value of home
manufacturers, and value of market gardens. These additional categories were not
present on the 1850 census. Likewise, the category, value of forest products, appears in
1870 and after, but not before. At any rate, these categories were added to determine the
total wealth value of each member of the sample. Once a wealth value was determined
for each individual, a local average was figured.
In addition to analyzing wealth data in relationship to that arithmetic mean and
standard deviation, the sample was divided into wealth groups. Determining these groups
consisted of plotting the wealth value totals on a scatter plot and then spatially identifying
reasonable clusters. Likewise, the sample was examined to determine average
landholdings and production quantities. Disproportionately large amounts of certain
products identify primary commodities. Average production values of primary
93
commodities are also used to compare the sample through time. In addition, changes in
average farm acreage among the sample can be compared to county, state, and national
averages to evaluate compliance.
Wealth
To establish relative wealth status, the Huddleston family was compared to the
local community average. Average landholding and production values of Wayne County,
the state of Indiana, and the nation were also considered. These factors are commonly
accessible in the documentary record and serve as an excellent indicator of relative
socioeconomic class (Groover 2003). As previously mentioned, secondary source
information states that Indiana farmers were heavily engaged in corn and swine
production at surplus levels. The analysis of farmers from Jackson Township, Wayne
County, Indiana determines these farmers level of concurrence to this stated local trend.
The relative wealth status of the Huddleston household was evaluated in two
ways: averaging and grouping. After determining total wealth value, the sample was
divided into Upper, Middle, and Lower wealth groups. The Upper wealth group contains
those households that are the wealthiest. The Lower group represents the least wealthy
farms.
Results
In the 1850 census, the Upper Group contained those farmers who reported values
between $ 3,000 and $8,000. Next, the Middle Group consisted of farmer who reported
values between $1,000 and $ 3,000 . Lastly, farmers reporting values of less than $ 1,000
were placed in the Lower Group. The Upper Group has 6 members, or 20% of the
sample, and comprises 66% of the total wealth. 8 members of the sample are placed in
94
the Middle Group, or 27% of the sample. The Middle Group accounts for 26% of the
total wealth. The Lower Group contains 16 members, 53% of the total sample. The
Lower Group comprises 8% of the total wealth. According to the previously mentioned
criteria, the Huddleston household would be placed in the Upper Group, with a total
wealth value of $4,500.
In the 1850 census, the sample of Jackson Township farmers had a mean wealth
value of $1,589 with a standard deviation of $2,154. Farms with a wealth value between
$1,588 and $0 are in first standard deviation below the mean. Those households with a
wealth value between $1,590 and $3,742 are in the first standard deviation above the
mean. Wealth value amounts between $3,743 and $5,867 represent the households that
are two standard deviations above the mean. Therefore, with a wealth value of $4,500 in
the 1850 census, the Huddleston household is in the second standard deviation above the
mean in 1850. This distribution is presented in Figures 6.1 and 6.3.
In the 1860 census, the Upper Group contained those farmers who reported values
between $13,000 and $6,000. Next, the Middle Group consisted of farmer who reported
values between $6,000 and $2,000. Lastly, farmers reporting values of less than $2,000
were placed in the Lower Group. The Upper Group had 9 members, or 30% of the
sample, and comprises 60% of the total wealth. 12 members or 40% of the sample are
placed in the Middle Group. The Middle Group accounted for 33 % of the total wealth.
The Lower Group contains 9 members or 30% of the total sample and had only 7% of the
total wealth. According to the previously mentioned criteria, the Huddleston household
would be placed in the Upper Group, with a total wealth value of $6,812.
95
9000
8000
7000
3rd Standard Deviation
above Mean
6000
$5897
5000
2nd Standard Deviation
above Mean
John Hudddleston $
4000
$3743
3000
1st Standard Deviation
above Mean
2000
Mean,$1589
1000
1st Standard Deviation
below Mean
0
FIGURE 6.1. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1850.
96
In the 1860 census, the sample of Jackson Township farmers had a mean wealth
value of $4,652 with a standard deviation of $3,538. Farms with a wealth value between
$4,651 and $1,113 are in first standard deviation below the mean. Those households with
a wealth value between $8,190 and $4,653are in the first standard deviation above the
mean. Wealth value amounts between $1,112 and $0 represent the households that are
two standard deviations below the mean. Wealth value amounts between $11,729 and
$8,191are households two standard deviations above the mean. Therefore, with a wealth
value of $6,812 in the 1860 census, the Huddleston household is in the first standard
deviation above the mean. This distribution is presented in Figures 6.2 and 6.3.
In the 1870 census, the Upper Group contained those farmers who reported values
between $25,000 and $10,000. Next, the Middle Group consists of farmers who report
values between $9,999 and $5,000. Lastly, farmers reporting values of less than $5,000
were placed in the Lower Group. The Upper Group has 9 members, or 30% of the
sample, and comprises 61% of the total wealth. 6 members or 20% of the sample are
placed in the Middle Group. The Middle Group accounts for 19% of the total wealth.
The Lower Group contains 15 members, 50% of the total sample. The Lower Group
comprises 20% of the total wealth. According to the previously mentioned criteria, the
Huddleston household would be placed in the Middle Group, with a total wealth value of
$5,995.
In the 1870 census, the sample of Jackson Township farmers had a mean wealth
value of $7,725 with a standard deviation of $6,060. Farms with a wealth value between
97
14000
12000
$11729
10000
$8190
8000
2nd Standard Deviation
above Mean
1st Standard Deviation
above Mean
John Huddleston, $ 6700
6000
Mean, $4652
4000
1st Standard Deviation
below Mean
2000
$1113
2nd Standard Deviation below Mean
0
FIGURE 6.2. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1860.
98
9000
1850
1860
14000
8000
12000
7000
6000
UPPER
10000
UPPER
5000
John Huddleston, $ 4,500
8000
4000
John Huddleston, $ 6,812
6000
3000
MIDDLE
4000
MIDDLE
2000
2000
1000
LOWER
0
LOWER
0
FIGURE 6.3. Wealth group distribution of Jackson Township sample, 1850 and 1860.
99
7,724 and $1,664 were in first standard deviation below the mean. Those households
with a wealth value between $13,785 and $7,726 were placed in the first standard
deviation above the mean. Wealth value amounts between $1,663 and $0 represent the
households that were two standard deviations below the mean. Wealth value amounts
between $19,847 and $13,787 were two standard deviations above the mean. Therefore,
with a wealth value of $5,995 in the 1870 census, the Huddleston household is in the first
standard deviation below the mean. This distribution is presented in Figures 6.4 and 6.6.
In the 1880 census, the Upper Group contained those farmers who reported values
between $18,000 and $8,000. Next, the Middle Group consisted of farmers who report
values between $7,999 and $4,000. Lastly, farmers reporting values of less than $3,999
were placed in the Lower Group. The Upper Group had six members, or 20% of the total
sample, and comprises 44% of the total wealth. 11 members, or 40% of the sample were
placed in the Middle Group which accounts for 37.5% of the total wealth. The Lower
Group contained 13 members, 43% of the total sample and only18.5% of the total wealth.
In the 1880 census, the sample of Jackson Township farmers had a mean wealth
value of $ 6,065with a standard deviation of $4,319. Farms with a wealth value between
$6,064 and $1,746 are in first standard deviation below the mean. Those households
with a wealth value between $6,066 and $10,384 are in the first standard deviation above
the mean. Wealth value amounts between $14,704 and $10,885 represent households
two standard deviations above the mean. Wealth value less than $1,785 represent
households two standard deviations below the mean. This distribution is presented in
Figures 6.5 and 6.6.
100
25000
3rd Standard Deviation
above Mean
20000
$19847
2nd Standard Deviation
above Mean
15000
$13786
1st Standard Deviation
above Mean
10000
Mean, $7725
5000
John Huddleston, $ 5995
1st Standard Deviation
below Mean
$1664
2nd Standard Deviation below Mean
0
FIGURE 6.4. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1870.
101
20000
18000
$16450
16000
14000
2nd Standard Deviation
above Mean
12000
$10384
10000
8000
1st Standard Deviation
above Mean
Mean, $6065.38
6000
4000
1st Standard Deviation
below Mean
2000
$1746
2nd Standard Deviation below Mean
0
FIGURE 6.5. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1880.
102
21000
1870
1880
25000
18000
20000
15000
UPPER
UPPER
15000
12000
John Huddleston, $10,000*
9000
10000
MIDDLE
John Huddleston, $ 5,995
6000
MIDDLE
5000
3000
LOWER
0
LOWER
0
*= According to John Huddleston’s probate
FIGURE 6.6. Wealth group distribution of Jackson Township sample, 1870 and 1880.
103
Discussion
The Jackson Township sample exhibited a noticeable trend regarding total wealth
value. The average reported dollar amount of the farms in the sample continually
increased from 1850 to 1870. The average total wealth value then decreased from 1870
to 1880. This reduction did not decrease the value to a level below that of 1860,
however. Examining the trend of the total wealth value of the sample from the
perspective of the least profitable farms revealed an optimistic trend. The amount which
represented the first standard deviation below the mean continued to increase from 1850
to 1880. This amount increased from $0 in 1850, to $ 1,113 in 1860, to $1,664 in 1870,
to $1,746 in 1880. In addition, the amount of the total wealth controlled by the Upper
Group remained disproportionate throughout the four decades. However, the level of this
disparity fluctuated through time. In the first three decades of the study, the Upper
wealth group accounted for 60% or more of the total wealth. However, according to the
1880 census that upper wealth group was responsible for only 44% of the total
accumulated wealth value (see Figure 6.6).
Compared to this trend, the Huddleston family farmstead both deviates from and
conforms to. Specifically, the Huddleston family‘s relative wealth value declined
between 1850 and 1870 when compared to the sample mean. From 1850 to 1870 the
average wealth value of the Jackson Township sample steadily increased. Because these
are the only three decades on which the Huddleston farmstead was listed in the
agricultural census, a direct comparison was made. The Huddleston wealth value
increased from $4,500 in 1850 to $6,700 in 1860. The wealth value of the Huddleston
farm then declined $5,995 in 1870. This decline in wealth value from 1860 to 1870 was
104
not reflected in the Jackson Township sample, quite the contrary. Evaluating the
Huddleston family against either the mean and standard deviation or wealth group
placement reveals the farmstead continually declined with regard to relative wealth value.
Although the Huddleston farmstead did not appear on the 1880 census and cannot
be compared directly, by adding this year to this sample, a more clear interpretation of
local economic and agricultural conditions was made. For example, the trend of
prolonged average wealth value increase was reversed. The average wealth value
decreased as determined by the mean. Wealth group ranges were reduced to lower
amounts compared to 1870 as well. For example, the Middle wealth group, which in
1870 included wealth group totals between $5,000 and $10,000, was reduced to $4,000 to
$8,000. Therefore, the overall trend in the Jackson Township sample consists of
prolonged increase in average wealth value for the first three decades, followed by a
moderate decrease in 1880 (see Figure 6.7).
Landholdings
In the following section, landholdings and production commodity amounts of the
Jackson Township sample, through time are presented. A local average to which the
Huddleston household can be compared was established. In addition, the level to which
this local average conforms to county, state, and national trends was examined. This
analysis considered both improved and total landholdings. In the census, property was
generally divided into ―Improved Acers‖ and ―Unimproved Acers‖ (USBC 1850-1880).
Therefore, both are considered and compared in this analysis. The average improved
acreage consistently increased through time. For example, in 1850 the mean value of
105
KEY:
Mean Wealth, In Dollars
First Standard Deviation
Second Standard Deviation
John Huddleston
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
1850
1860
1870
FIGURE 6.7. Wealth value range of Jackson Township sample, 1850-1880.
1880
106
improved acreage was 29.6 acres. By 1880, the average improved acres among the
Jackson Township sample increased to 62.4 acres, and had steadily increased each of the
previous decades. The average among the Jackson Township sample for total acreage
followed a different path of trajectory. Between the first two decades of 1850 and 1860,
the average total acres increase quite substantially from 92.2 acres to 159.5 acres. The
average then dropped by over 100 acres in 1870. However, this value increased in 1880
to 77.5 acres. Because the total acreage is less of a representative of farm size, the values
for improved acreage should be considered as a more accurate reflection of the actual
farming condition. Notice that, when based on improved acreage, a clear trend of
increasing average farm size over time was recognized in the Jackson Township sample
(see Figure 6.8 and Table 6.1).
The Huddleston farm size remains above the average based on improved acreage
compared to the local sample. However, the number of average total acreage by the
Jackson Township sample was greater than the Huddleston landholdings in the first two
decades of the analysis. The Huddleston farm acreage remained nearly equal, at 77 and
78 acres throughout the four decades of the analysis. In the 1870, the average total
acreage of the Jackson Township sample dropped below the level of the Huddleston
family. In the final decade, 1880, the average total acreage of the sample was almost
identical to the Huddleston‘s at 77.5 acres. The Huddleston farmstead maintains a near
equal number of acres throughout the four decade analysis. The number of improved
acreage the Huddleston farmstead operated increased from 57 to 77 between 1850 and
1860, and then declined back to 57 acres in 1870. Therefore, the Huddleston farmstead
maintained greater than average improved acreage compared to the Jackson Township
107
180
160
Average Improved
Acreage
140
Acreage
120
Improved
Huddleston IIMP
100
80
Average Total Acreage
60
40
20
Huddleston TOTAL
0
1850
1860
1870
1880
FIGURE 6.8. Jackson Township landholdings: average acreage.
TABLE 6.1. Jackson Township Landholdings (USBC 1850-1880).
Average
Improved
Acreage
Huddleston
Improved
Average
Total
Acreage
Huddleston
Total
1850
29.6
55
92.2
77
1860
44.3
78
159.5
78
1870
47.4
57
59.2
77
1880
62.4
77.5
77
108
sample throughout the four decades. The number of average total acreage of the Jackson
Township sample remained greater than the Huddleston farmstead in first two decades,
and then dropped below the Huddleston acreage total in the final two decades.
Perhaps the most interesting insight provided by the local Jackson Township
sample, regarding average farm size, involves its divergence from the national, state, and
even county averages. Figure 6.8 and Table 6.1 present the average farm size of the
Jackson Township sample compared to the Huddleston House farm. Figure 6.9 and
Table 6.2 present average farm size data for the United States, Indiana, Wayne County,
and the Jackson Township sample compared to the Huddleston in the mid 19th century.
Although the national and state average farm size consistently declined throughout the
four decades, the Jackson Township sample actually reflected the opposite trend. The
Jackson Township sample continually increased farm size from 1850 to 1880. In Wayne
County, based on acres of improved land in farms, the average size also increased from
1850-1870, then dropped slightly in 1880 (USBC 1850-1870,). This trend deviated from
the Gibbs farmstead in East Tennessee, in which the Knox County, the District sample,
and the Gibbs family land holding showed a sustained decrease in landholding
throughout this time period (Groover 2003:88-90).
The noticeable deviation of the Jackson Township sample from the comparative
data requires further investigation. The number of total farms continually increased
throughout the 19th century, as did the total number of acres involved in farming, both
109
250
Improved Acres per Farm
200
150
United States
Indiana
100
Wayne Co.
Jackson Twnsp. Sample
Huddleston
50
0
1845
1850
1855
1860
1865
1870
1875
1880
1885
Year
FIGURE 6.9. Diachronic comparison of average farm size.
TABLE 6.2. Average Farm Size Comparison, USBC 1850-1880.
1850
1860
1870
1880
United
States
Indiana
203
199
124
153
112
134
105
Jackson
Wayne
Township
County Sample
Huddleston
69.9
29.6
55
76.5
44.3
78
79.7
47.4
57
73.1
62.4
110
throughout the nation and in the state of Indiana (USBC 1840-1880; Groover 2003;
Nation 2005). However, the number of farms increased at a greater rate throughout the
century than the number of total acres, thereby decreasing the overall average farm size
(on a national level, and within the vast majority of the states). The fact that the Jackson
Township sample and Wayne County, in general, did not correlate to this trend was
especially curious. Two factors contribute quite significantly to this trend. First, the total
number of farms was considered. Second, the total land surface devoted to farming was
examined.
The local number of farms remained nearly constant from 1850 to 1870.
Remarkably, in Wayne County, the number of farms consisted of 1,934 in 1850; 1,987 in
1860; and 1,989 in 1870. In a three decade period the total number of farms increased by
only 55 farms. This was less than a 3% increase over a 30 year period. However, in
1880, the total number of Wayne County farms jumps to 2,572. This represents a 30%
increase in only one decade. The average farm size in Wayne County only decreased 8%
over the same decade (a 6.6 acre decrease from a 79.7 acre average). The fact that such a
large increase in the number of total farms caused only a slight decrease in the average
acreage per farm is significant. The 1880 Agricultural Census provides statistics which
compare the total acres contained within a state to the total acres farmed. Indiana ranked
second to Ohio in the highest proportion of land in farms to total land surface. Of
Indiana‘s approximately 22,982,000 acres, 88.9% were being farmed in 1880 according
to the census. The significant increase in the number of farms between 1870 and 1880 in
Wayne County, coupled with the lack of vast amounts of available land contributed to the
decrease in average farm size on the county level.
111
TABLE 6.3. Total Land Surface Devoted to Farming.
Selected States
State
Connecticut
Acres in Farmland
Total Land Surface (in Acres)
% of Farmland to
Total Land
2,453,541
3,100,800
79%
Illinois
31,673,645
35,840,000
88%
Kentucky
21,495,240
25,600,000
84%
Louisiana
8,273,506
29,068,800
26%
Maryland
5,119,831
6,310,400
81%
Mississippi
15,855,462
29,657,600
54%
Missouri
27,879,276
43,990,400
63%
New York
23,780,754
30,476,800
78%
Ohio
24,549,226
26,086,400
94%
Tennessee
20,666,915
26,720,000
77%
Indiana
20,420,983
22,982,400
89%
536,081,835
1,856,108,800
29%
Total U.S.
(USCB 1880: x-xi)
112
Commodities
Figure 6.10, Figure 6.11, Table 6.4, and Table 6.5 present the diachronic
distribution of commodities produced by the Huddleston family and the Jackson
Township sample. Both livestock and crop commodities were considered. Figure 6.10
compares the average (mean) livestock commodities of the Jackson Township sample to
the Huddleston farmstead (J. Hudd.). Each decade is represented by a bar graph which is
chromatically divided to represent individual commodities. The solid red trend line
represents the mean. The dotted black line represents the Huddleston household. Figure
6.11 is structured identically only the values represent crop commodities.
Several interesting trends are noticeable when considering livestock ownership by
the Jackson Township sample of the mid 19th century. First, swine was the most heavily
engaged in livestock venture throughout. Second, relatively no change occurred in the
decade between 1850 and 1860 regarding the sample mean. Third, a noticeable decrease
in swine and especially sheep was apparent in the 1870 sample. Fourth, the number of
sheep dramatically increased in the 1880 sample mean. This issue is discussed in more
detail shortly. Fifth, there was little fluctuation in the number of cows throughout the
entire survey. This pertained both to the Jackson Township sample mean and the
Huddleston household as well. In the 19th century, before modern refrigeration, each
household usually kept a couple of cows to provide dairy products to the family (Gibb
2009:84). The fact that both the sample and the Huddleston household remained nearly
constant throughout the survey (at about 2 head) confirms this notion on the local level
and would suggest these were not surplus commodities.
113
45
40
35
Swine
30
Sheep
25
Horses
20
Milch
Cows
15
MEAN
trend line
10
Huddleston
trend line
5
0
MEAN
J. Hudd.
1850
MEAN
J. Hudd.
1860
MEAN
J. Hudd.
1870
MEAN
1880
FIGURE 6.10. Livestock commodities produced by Jackson Township sample
compared to Huddleston household.
TABLE 6.4. Livestock Commodities Produced by Jackson Township
Sample.
Cows
Horses
Sheep
Swine
1850
1860
1870
1880
MEAN
J. Hudd.
MEAN
J. Hudd.
MEAN
J. Hudd.
MEAN
1.7
2
1.9
1
2.1
2
1.9
2
5
3.5
3
2.8
2
3.4
3.8
0
3.3
0
0.3
0
10.6
17.6
35
16.2
7
9.9
5
18.4
114
The Huddleston farm began the decade well above mean in livestock ownership (with the
exception of sheep, which the Huddlestons never owned). In the first year of the sample,
1850, the Huddleston farm owned 35 swine, double the Jackson Township sample mean.
However, by the second decade, the Huddleston farm fell below the mean, both in swine
and in overall ownership. By 1870, although livestock ownership by the mean decreased,
the Huddleston farmstead remained below the average, owning a very modest number of
farm animals. Owning only 2 cows, 2 horses, and 5 swine, the Huddleston household was
not engaged in livestock production as a major source of income, but rather kept only
what the family needed for sustenance.
As mentioned earlier, the average number of sheep owned by the Jackson
Township sample dramatically increased from virtually non-existent in 1870, 0.3 head, to
10.6 head in 1880. The Huddleston family did not own sheep. Beyond the scope of this
thesis, investigation into this would make for the basis of an interesting study. Both Sally
McMurry (1995) and James Gibb et al. (2009) were able to link archaeological evidence
to changes in agricultural traditions. A similar research design used in this thesis would
be well suited for such a project. Using the concept of medium-range time to track the
overall regional trend over perhaps a century long interval, and short-range time to isolate
the transition, historical context could be gained. Then sites of former farmsteads that
participated in the shift to sheep raising could be archaeologically sampled. This would
possibly allow for links to be made from the archaeological evidence to specific
households. This would be especially effective if sites with adequate time depth before
and after the transition could be located.
115
Figure 6.11 and Table 6.5 present the data totals for crop production by the
Jackson Township sample and the Huddleston farm. Corn was the major crop
commodity throughout the survey. The sample mean was the least productive in the first
decade of the survey, 1850. Total production nearly doubled in 1860, and then remained
relatively constant in 1870, before almost doubling again in 1880. Percentages of each
crop to the whole remained fairly constant; meaning no great shift from one crop
preference to another was noticeable. As was the case with livestock, crop production
totals increase dramatically from 1850-1880. By the 1870 census, the Huddleston farm
was producing at such a low rate, it is speculated that the Huddleston household were
subsistence level producers, with nearly equal amounts of wheat, corn, oats, butter, and
potatoes. The trend is fairly self-evident. The average commodities produced by the
Jackson Township sample continues to increased progressively through time, both in crop
and livestock commodities while the Huddleston household continually produced less
with each successive decade.
In addition to Agricultural Census statistics, probate and tax receipts were
obtained and transcribed. Unfortunately, Wayne County does not possess individual
inventories for 19th Century residents. However, the value of the estate is totaled and
that figure is reported. John Huddleston‘s probate record was filed in the sum of
$10,000.00 on Monday September 17, 1877 (Wayne County Will Book 1877). In
addition, the Inventory of the Real and Personal Property of Susannah Huddleston,
Insane Person, dated and notarized April 13, 1889, was obtained courtesy of the Indiana
Historical Society. The record indicates that Susannah was owed from several
116
1600
1400
1200
Potatoes
Butter
Oats
Corn
Wheat
1000
800
600
400
200
0
MEAN
MEAN
trend line
J. Hudd.
1850
MEAN
J. Hudd.
MEAN
J. Hudd.
1860
MEAN
1870
Huddleston
trend line
1880
FIGURE 6.11. Crop commodities produced by Jackson Township sample (MEAN)
compared to Huddleston household (J Hudd).
TABLE 6.5. Crop Commodities Of Jackson Township Sample Compared to Huddlestons.
Wheat
Corn
Oats
Butter
Potatoes
1850
MEAN
40.9
200
49.2
63
15.2
J. Hudd.
0
800
500
200
80
1860
MEAN
104.8
460
62.2
151.7
20.9
J. Hudd.
40
500
400
100
4
1870
MEAN
164.2
326
75.2
163.3
33.7
J.Hudd.
40
50
40
50
30
1880
MEAN
267
862
72.4
223.9
88.8
117
promissory notes, three of which are to her son, Henry. The total of all promissory notes,
credits, stocks, and cash on hand equal $2,530.86.
In addition to probate records, tax receipts were obtained courtesy of the Indiana
Historical Society‘s William H. Smith Memorial Library. Tax receipts belonging to the
Huddleston family are curated in the Manuscripts and Visual Collections Department
(Huddleston Family Records: 2005). The values of both personal property and real estate
were recorded. This allowed for a very accurate assessment of Huddleston wealth value
through time. Figure 6.12 presents a diachronic analysis of Huddleston family wealth
value. As indicated in Figure 6.12, several different forms of evidence were used which
include agricultural census data, tax receipts, and probate records. All sources confirm
that the wealth value of the household steadily declined throughout the second half of the
19th century.
In conclusion, a diachronic analysis of the Huddleston family wealth through time
was presented. This information was obtained from primary historic documents and was
used to gain insight into the relative wealth of the family. This information is used for
both qualitative and quantitative purposes. When transcribed on a large enough scale,
statistically valid datasets can be constructed, as was accomplished in this survey. Also,
richly detailed contextual information can be obtained from these same primary
documents which can be use to gain insight into household philosophy, strategy, and
ideals. The results of this analysis will prove an invaluable tool from which the
archaeologically recovered material culture can be interpreted. By gaining historical
context pertaining to the decline in relative wealth of the Huddleston family, this
information can be used better interpret the archaeological evidence.
118
12000
10000
Ag. Census Value
Probate
Real Estate Value
8000
Value (Dollars)
Personal Propery
Combined RealEstate&PP
6000
4000
2000
0
1840
1845
1850
1855
1860
1865
1870
1875
1880
1885
1890
1895
Year
FIGURE 6.12. Huddleston family wealth through time.
118
119
CHAPTER 7
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
The archaeological evidence from Huddleston House is described and discussed
in this chapter. First, the archaeological evidence is used to reconstruct the landscape.
Architectural changes to the extant structures are also considered. Next, the field and
laboratory methods are discussed. A comparative functional analysis, a ceramic
description, and a time sequence analysis of the recovered artifacts are included.
Landscape Reconstruction
As previously mentioned, the Huddleston property was first purchased by John
Huddleston in 1839. It contained 77 acres of forested acres and had no structures
(Evolution of Huddleston Farmstead [EHF] n.d.). John Huddleston immediately began to
alter landscape. A reconstruction of the historic landscape is presented in this section.
Archaeological and documentary evidence were used to describe the changes that took
place during the Huddleston occupation. The map on Figure 7.1 illustrates the landscape
at the Huddleston farmstead.
John Huddleston first built a small log house on the property in 1839. This log
house was quickly disassembled, and the front hill graded. It was at this time that the first
extant structure on the Huddleston farmstead was constructed, the bank barn, or yellow
barn. In 1840, He began construction on the house and the several of the outbuildings
120
NATIONAL ROAD (US 40)
LIMESTONE RETAINING WALL
FENCE
SPRING HOUSE
PROBABLE LOCATION OF BROOM SHOP
GARDEN FENCE
GRAVEL DRIVE
Structure 1
SMOKE HOUSE
LOCATION OF 2007 EXCAVATION
ASPHALT DRIVE
BANK BARN (YELLOW BARN)
FEDERAL STYLE I-HOUSE
CARRIAGE HOUSE (RED BARN)
PARKING AREA
N
GRAVEL DRIVE
FEDERAL STYLE I-HOUSE
0
50
FEET
FIGURE 7.1. Map of Huddleston farmstead.
120
121
Figure 7.2. Modern eastern view of Huddleston House.
Figure 7.3. Modern western view of Huddleston House.
122
that would accommodate the needs of a farmstead and the National Road travelers (EHF
n.d.). Approximately 100 wagons passed the Huddleston property daily and John sought
to milk that proverbial cash cow.
John Huddleston used his property to invest in numerous and diverse business
ventures. As previously stated, according to the 1850 agricultural census John
Huddleston had one of the most profitable farms in the Township. He also operated a
store and rented travels rooms and kitchen space (EHF n.d.; Groover 2007, 2009). A
campground and wagon yard was also available to the National Road travelers that
passed by. Presently, several of the buildings associated with the original farmstead
remain. The property contains the original federal style I house, the bank barn (or yellow
barn), carriage shed (red barn), spring house and smoke house. In addition, a broom shop
and recently discovered structure have been located on the landscape. Each of these
buildings will be discussed.
Construction on the federal style I house was completed in 1841 (Reed 1972;
Wayne County Interim Report [WCIR] 2001:203). The bricks were fired in a kiln on the
property. The house is built into the artificially graded north slope facing the National
Road. The house contains three stories, each of which serves a different purpose. The
front, ground story served a public economic function. The center room of the ground
floor contained the store. Flanked on both sides to the east and west were travelers‘
kitchens and quarters. These travelers‘ kitchens did not connect to the rest of the house.
The main floor above the shop consisted of four rooms. A formal parlor was situated to
the extreme east side of the ground floor, a large family dining room in the center (Figure
7.4), an informal sitting room to the west, and a kitchen in the ell to the south of the
123
sitting room along the west wall of the house (see Figure 7.5). The third floor consisted
of the family‘s bedrooms.
Originally a bell tower was on the kitchen ell. Also, a trap door led to stairs which
entered the shop on the ground floor from the south. A center door on the north façade
allowed travelers to enter the shop. This door was later removed and a window was
installed in 1880 as part of a remodeling by Henry Huddleston (EHF n.d.). This is also
thought to be time that the east and west kitchens were connected to the shop on the
ground floor. The photograph in Figure 7.6 shows that the property was much further
from the road. A two-tiered front lawn is noticeable, as well as an iron fence, sidewalk,
small curb, trees, and functional shutters. Further renovation occurred to the house in
1930, when windows were added to the east and west wall of the former guest kitchens.
This was shortly after Charles died and Kenneth inherited the house (notice Figures 7.7
and 7.8).
Archaeological excavation in 1977 provided several clues which led to the ability
to reconstruct the historic landscape. The excavation documented several features. South
of the main house a small lean-to shelter was identified through stratigraphy and the
discovery of a corner post. This structure was later reconstructed as it remains today.
The excavation in the yard south of the house also identified the remnants of a barrellined, buried refuse pit, an unused well, and evidence of small post holes which were
used for a grape arbor in the yard south of the house. A photo from the 1890s confirms
the location of the grape arbor. In addition, the 1977 excavation identified a former
structure south of the yellow bank barn (Sasser 1977).
124
FIGURE 7.4. Huddleston family kitchen.
FIGURE 7.5. Huddleston family dining room.
125
FIGURE 7.6. Historic photograph of Huddleston House, courtesy of Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana.
125
126
FIGURE 7.7. Western wall of I house.
FIGURE 7.8. Eastern wall of I house (note added windows on bottom floor).
127
Construction of the bank barn was complete in 1839 and predates the house. The
barn is approximately 50 x 30 feet. Today the original hand-hewn timbers which frame
the barn remain. These beams are spectacular examples of early 19th century
construction materials, many of which exceed 15 inches in width. During the 1977
excavation, a wagon and tool shed was discovered to have been attached to the south wall
of the barn. However, stratigraphic evidence suggests that this structure was added to the
barn after the original construction. This wagon and tool shed was 20 x 14 feet in size
and accessed the 28 horse stall below through a steep staircase (see Figures 7.9 and 7.10)
After John Huddleston‘s death in 1877, Henry added the cupola to the barn and installed
side vents. Sometime between the years of 1894 and 1904, dirt ramps and concrete
retaining walls replaced the original log and plank ramps leading into the western
entrance. In 1910 the stalls are removed while during the ownership period of Charles
Huddleston. A photograph from 1940 shows a building with a north facing gable in the
area just south of the barn in the current parking area. A round metal corncrib stands next
to this structure as well. This is the only known evidence of these buildings. The 1940
photo does not show the wagon and tool shed, suggesting prior removal.
West of the barn and southeast of the house is the location of the carriage house or
red barn. The original structure measured 22 x 31 feet in size and contained a woodshed
on the western end. In 1909 Charles Huddleston remodeled the carriage house adding 14
feet to the east. The eastern façade was reconstructed but some of the original materials
were removed and replaced (EHF n.d.). In other words, the east side was taken off, then
extended eastward and put back on.
128
FIGURE 7.9. Bank barn.
128
129
FIGURE 7.10. Southern Portion of barn involved in 1977 excavation (a small shed
once attached to the barn in this area).
FIGURE 7.11. Carriage house, or red barn.
130
Directly west of the carriage house is a reconstructed smokehouse. Years of
neglect and deterioration made the structure unsafe in its original state. In 1978 with the
help of funds obtained through a National Parks Service grant, the smokehouse was
reconstructed. All salvageable materials were used in reconstruction. Detailed notes
were taken during the deconstruction and a high level of attention was paid to ensure
accurate reconstruction. The building measure approximately 10 x 20 feet in size. The
family garden was located in the yard just south of the smokehouse.
To the northwest of the smokehouse and directly west of the kitchen ell of the
main house is the springhouse, often called the milk house or dairy house. This structure
is directly adjacent to the kitchen and was easily accessed by the residents. Also the
runoff from the well would run downhill by way of a gutter system and collected in a
trough along the National Road (EHF n.d.). The purpose was to provide water for the
horses of the weary travelers. Hopefully, while they were stopped to rest, the travelers
would purchase something from the store or stay for dinner or overnight. The wooden
pump is not original, but is a historically accurate reproduction.
The springhouse contains a large eve on the gable side overhanging the pump.
The north and south walls of the porch are covered in lattice. The land west of the spring
house was used as an herb garden. This is typical of a Quaker springhouse and the
architectural style is similar to the spring house at Mendenhall Plantation in Guilford
County, North Carolina. Mendenhall Plantation was a non-slave operated farmstead
owned by early 19th century Quakers. Currently Mendenhall Plantation functions as a
museum similar to Huddleston House. The architecture at Mendenhall Plantation has
been used a comparative analog to Huddleston House (Groover 2009).
131
FIGURE 7.12. Reconstructed smokehouse.
132
FIGURE 7.13. Springhouse.
133
FIGURE 7.14. Reconstructed well pump.
FIGURE 7.15. Springhouse at Mendenhall Plantation, Guilford
County, North Carolina (image courtesy of
http://www.mendenhallplantation.org/Spring%20House.htm).
134
Lean-to shelter;
reconstruction based on
archaeological evidence
from 1977 (Sasser)
FIGURE 7.16. View of Herb Garden Facing East (Image courtesy of WayNet.org
http://www.flickr.com/photos/99196028@N00/202845027/).
134
135
Two additional structures which were present on the historic landscape, but which
no longer exist will now be discussed. The first to be discussed is the broom shop,
probably run by Levi Huddleston. This building is identified on the 1874 Mt. Auburn
town map (Figure 7.17). This shop was located west of the house and herb garden. The
second building was recently discovered through archaeological excavation. Fieldwork in
2002 (Zoll) and 2007(Groover) identified the probable location of the broom shop but
failed to define the dimensions or construction date, method, or materials.
The final structure present on the historic landscape was discovered as a result of
the 2007 Historical Archaeology field school at Ball State University, under the direction
of Dr. Mark Groover. This building was located west of the smokehouse and south of the
broom shop.
The results of the previous 2002 shovel probe survey were used as a basis
to begin the 2007 excavation. Although nearly1600 artifacts were recovered during the
2002 survey, no features were discovered. However, the artifact density distribution
pattern strongly suggested the presence of a structure as indicated by the 2002 artifact
density map created by Groover (Figure 7.18).
136
FIGURE 7.17. Plat map of Mt. Auburn, Wayne County Atlas,1874. (note the building
labeled shop).
137
1
2
3
4
N
5
6
7
8
STRUCTURE 1
G
F
E
Broom shop
D
C
FIGURE 7.18. Map of
2002 artifact density
distribution (image
courtesy of Mark Groover,
additional notation by the
author).
B
Artifact Density
A
138
Objectives of 2007 Field School Excavation
The 2007 National Road Historical Archaeological Field School at Huddleston
House was helped made possible through an emersion grant from Ball State University.
It had several objectives. The primary goal of the excavation was to determine the
location, dimension, and function of a former building referred to as structure 1 (Groover,
P.C.). In addition, the recovery of material culture encountered during the excavation of
structure 1was of equal priority. Also, a secondary objective of the 2007 excavation was
to assess the nature of the culture deposits in order to make future recommendations. All
these goals were accomplished through archaeological sampling.
Field Methods
The field methods used to help locate the structure and recover artifacts began
with a spatial analysis of the 2002 shovel test pit (STP) survey (Zoll 2002). The location
and artifact density of each STP was quantified and used to produce the spatial artifact
density distribution map. This information is presented in Figure 7.18. This spatial
information was then used to determine the probable location of a structure. Then, test
units were strategically placed above the areas of highest artifact concentration. Ten (10)
test units were systematically excavated. The size of the test units were 3 x 3 feet (with
the exception of unit 5 which measured 3 x 4 feet) and were excavated using thin levels
of 0.20 feet in English engineer‘s scale. The units were excavated with trowels and the
soil was screened through ¼ inch wire mesh. All cultural materials were segregated and
bagged by provenience. Level depth was maintained throughout. A more detailed
explanation of the excavation particulars is found in Appendix A (Technical Report).
139
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
A
B
C
N432
W89
Datum
D
N400
E180
E
F
KEY
= Shovel Test Pit, 2002
= Excavated Unit, 2007
G
N
N380
E160
Z100.04
SCALE: IN Feet
0
50
100
150
FIGURE 7.19. Map showing location of STP grid and units.
139
140
W72
Feature 2: Structure 1
Foundation stones
Feature2: Structure 1
In tact foundation base
UNIT 3
UNIT 4
N449
UNIT 5
N447
W89
N447
W80
66
261
130
N444.5/ W67
173
Tree
UNIT 6
UNIT 9
106
UNIT 10
N435/W68
Feature 2: Structure 1
Foundation stones
490
UNIT 7
Feature 1: Post & Posthole
N432
W89
N429
W68
316
302
UNIT 8
N426
W86
UNIT 2
N426
W80
Feature 2: Structure 1
In tact brick course
remnant resting atop of
limestone foundation
516
425
UNIT 1
N
KEY:
= Brick
00=Artifact Density
= Stone
= Structure 1
Limits
SCALE: in Feet
0
FIGURE 7.20. 2007 site excavation.
4
8
16
141
N
0
SCALE: In Feet
0
3
6
1
’
2
’
H
H
u
d
d
l
e
s
t
o
n
3
’
141
H
u
d
d
l
e
s
t
Figure 7.21. Extent
of structure 1foundation.
o
n
142
Thin level excavation allows for time sequence analysis to be done on the artifacts
contained within the unit. Time sequence analysis is a precise stratification method used
in several different contexts throughout historical archaeology (Groover 1998, 2003,
2004, 2008; Blanch 2006). The particulars of time sequence analysis are discussed later
in this chapter when laboratory methods are explained. However, this detailed level of
analysis begins at the excavation/recovery phase. Although excavation (removal of
stratigraphic layers) remains based on an arbitrary unit, the 0.2 foot interval is preferred.
This is approximately 2 3/8 inches which is about half of 10 centimeters.
inches
0.1 feet
Centimeters
5
10
15
Figure 7.22. Scale.
Subsequent excavation discovered a fence post and foundation. The foundation
measured 24 x 16 feet in size. Intact courses of brick set on the limestone foundation
were encountered in the excavation. The construction materials and methods used in the
structure seem to be identical to the main house suggesting a contemporaneous
construction. As previously stated, more detailed excavation particulars are present in the
Technical Report in Appendix A.
143
FIGURE 7.23. Southeast corner of structure 1, unit 8 (photo courtesy of Mark Groover).
144
FIGURE 7.24 . Northeast corner of structure 1, unit 5 (photo courtesy of Mark
Groover).
145
Laboratory Methods
The first step in the laboratory analysis of the artifacts was to classify each artifact
according to Stanley South‘s (1977) functional typology. The second step involved
further classification of items within specific artifact groups. The final step was to
perform a time sequence analysis on the artifacts. Therefore, initial artifact description
and analysis are presented in the following section.
The artifacts recovered from both the 2002 and 2007 fieldwork were classified
according to South‘s (1977) functional classification typology. One exception to the
classification was made. To better understand the function of all artifacts at the
Huddleston House, an energy group was created to sort artifacts used in heating such as
wood, wood ash, coal, slag, as well as gas and electrical hardware and components. The
results of the functional classification for the Huddleston House assemblage are presented
in Table 7.1 and Figures 7.25-7.28
Despite the difference in recovery context between 2002 (shovel test pits) and
2007 (excavated units), a fairly similar functional distribution occurs. A much greater
percent of energy group artifacts was recovered in 2002. Likewise, more Kitchen group
artifacts were present in the 2007 sample. This may be attributed to the nature of the
survey and deposits.
A much larger horizontal spatial area was assessed during the shovel test pit
survey. However, a much smaller percentage of the entire area within the survey
boundary was sampled compared to the excavation units in 2007. Because excavation
units were placed in a small, well defined area, and measure 3 x3 feet, a much larger
percent of area within the survey boundary was sampled in 2007.
146
TABLE 7.1 Quantity of Huddleston House Artifacts per Functional Group
Group
Year
Recovery Context
Shovel Test
Excavated Unit
2002
2009
Architecture Group
912
1312
Kitchen Artifact Group
345
920
Energy Group
228
58
Activities Group
12
3
Arms Group
0
10
Clothing Group
2
15
Bone Group
33
70
1532
2388
TOTAL
Total
2224
1265
286
15
10
17
103
3920
1400
1200
1000
800
2002
Series1
600
400
200
0
FIGURE 7.25. Quantity of artifact assemblage by functional classification group.
2007
Series2
147
Bone
Arms group
group
0%
Clothing group 3%
1%
Activities group
0%
Energy
group
7%
Kitchen artifact group
32%
Architecture group
57%
FIGURE 7.26. Percentages of artifact assemblages by functional group, total combined.
0%
0%
1%
0%
Architecture
group
2%
0%
1%
3%
2%
Kitchen
Artifact group
15%
22%
Energy group
60%
Activities
group
39%
55%
Arms Group
Clothing group
FIGURE7.27. 2002, STP .
Bone Group
FIGURE 7.28. 2007, units.
148
Therefore, this larger percent of energy group artifacts present in the shovel test
survey of 2002 is perfectly normal. It is very possible that items such as coal, slag, and
wood ash were more indiscriminately discarded and strewn more widely across the house
lot. This would result in the recovery of greater numbers of energy group artifacts in
shovel test surveys, which encompass larger horizontal areas. In addition, the excavated
units sampled areas directly adjacent to structure 1. Undoubtedly, this location would
have a higher potential for the presence of more concentrated archaeological deposits due
to its proximity to activity areas around the structure. Therefore, slight differences in the
percentages of artifacts by functional groups can be explained simply by the nature and
location of the recovery context.
Regardless of the recovery context, the 2002 and 2007 functional classification
pie graphs presented in Figures 7.26, 7.27, and 7.28 demonstrate an overall similar
pattern. A distribution in which approximately 60% of the artifacts belong to the
Architecture group, and 30% belong to the Kitchen artifact group, with the remaining
10% disproportionately divided between the energy group, 7 %, and the Bone group, 3%.
The distribution and percentage of artifacts within functional classification
categories can also be used to compare the Huddleston House to other sites throughout
the region and nation. A comparison can be made between the Huddleston House, the
Moore-Youse house, and the Gibbs farmstead. The results of this comparative functional
analysis are presented in Figures 7.29- 7.30. The Moore-Youse house was located in
Muncie, Indiana, less than 50 miles from Huddleston House. Although the property was
within the city of Muncie, evidence suggests much of the yard functioned as an urban
149
TABLE 7.2. Functional Categories of Moore-Youse House (Blanch 2006:177)
Group
Quantity
Architecture
8140
Bone
961
Energy
1697
Kitchen
947
Kichen
8%
Energy
15%
Bone
8%
Arch
69%
FIGURE7.29. Percentages of artifact
assemblages, Moore-Youse House.
Clothing
8% Activities
6%
Furniture
3%
Kitchen
47%
Arch.
36%
FIGURE7.30. Percentages of artifact
assemblages, Gibbs farmstead.
TABLE 7.3. Functional Artifact Quantities of Gibbs Farm (Groover 2003:199, Table 19)
Group
Quantity
Kitchen
3,772
Architecture
2,905
Furniture
243
Clothing
710
Activities
491
150
farm lot (Blanch 2006:177). The Gibbs farmstead was located in Knox County, in East
Tennessee. Several generations operated the Gibbs farmstead for well over 100 years.
As previously stated, several archaeological investigations have taken place at the Gibbs
farmstead (Groover 2003). Compared to the Moore-Youse house, the Huddleston House
contained a much greater percentage of Kitchen group artifacts, in spite of recovery
context. Also, much more bone was present at the Moore-Youse house, a fact used to
demonstrate the point made earlier regarding the function of the yard as farm lot. This
large percentage of bone is evidence of onsite butchering (Blanch 2006). Compared to
the Gibbs farmstead, the Huddleston House has much fewer personal items. The Gibbs
assemblage contains a fair number of items in the Clothing and Activities group. Notice
in Figure 7.26, these items are virtually non-existent in the Huddleston House
assemblage.
Ceramic Analysis
Ceramics are one of the most frequently analyzed archaeologically recovered
materials (Yensh 1991:142). Both Old World and New, the study of prehistoric and
historic peoples and cultures commonly use recovered ceramic assemblages to interpret
behaviors. The analysis of the Huddleston House ceramic assemblage is presented in the
following sections.
Materials
The materials examined for this analysis consist of the ceramic artifacts recovered
at the Huddleston House site during the 2007 Ball State University historical archaeology
field school excavation. A total of 2,388 artifacts were recovered, processed, and
cataloged by Ball State University students as the result of an emersion grant. The bulk of
151
the assemblage consists of architectural artifacts (n=1,312). Artifacts belong to the
Kitchen group in South‘s functional classification system (1977:95). The purpose of this
analysis was to segregate the kitchen artifacts recovered in the 2007 excavation and sort
the ceramics (n=488) into meaningful categories of ware type, form, and decoration to
reconstruct foodways.
Methods
The methods used in this analysis consist of sorting ceramics by ware type and
function.. A brief explanation of the composition and definition of the individual ware
types follows. These criteria were used to identify and classify the ceramics.
Utilitarian Ceramics
Redware
Redware is so named because of the red color of the body. It is composed of mainly clay
which turns red upon firing (Sutton and Arkush 2009:209). Redware was among the
earliest American wares (Stelle 2001; Blanch 2006:116). Redware was commonly used
as a storage vessel. It is one of the most abundant and inexpensive wares and was
typically produced locally (Stelle 2001; Blanch 2006:116; Groover 2008:41). Redware is
often treated on the interior surface to aid in sealing the vessel due to its porous and
unvitrified nature (Groover 2008:41). The surface treatment applied to the redware
recovered at the Huddleston House site are lead glazed and salt glazed finishes. Often
times crazing or cracking of the glaze is observed on redware vessels.
Stoneware
Stoneware is an extremely durable ceramic which often came in the form of jugs, crocks
and other utilitarian and storage related vessels (Worthy 1982; Stelle 2001; Blanch
152
2006:126). Stoneware is characterized by a thick, heavy body. It is fired at a higher
temperature compared to redware (Sutton and Arkush 2009:214, Stelle 2001). Surface
treatments encountered in the Huddleston House assemblage include brown Albany slip,
whitish Bristol glaze, and salt glazed.
Refined Ceramics
White Bodied Ware/ Ironstone
Ironstone was a very popular ceramic tableware during the second half of the 19th
century. It dominated the middle-class market and was very sturdy, hence the name
(Sutton and Arkush 2009:214, Stelle 2001). A date range of 1840 to 1885 is given to
heavy-bodied ironstone (Henry and Garrow 1982:466). Improved ironstone throughout
the 19th century was often advertised as being ready for ―country trade‖ and became
ever-present at frontier homes (Fontana and Greenleaf 1962; Collard 1967). Heavier,
undecorated ironstone began to be replaced by relatively lighter-weight and more
delicately decorated ironstone between 1870 and 1880 (Majewski and O‘Brien 1987:124)
Molded relief patterns were a very popular decoration among ironstone vessels.
Ironstone was often undecorated, however, transfer printing, decal, and painted
decoration types did occur especially after 1870 (Majewski and O‘Brien 1982:123).
Whiteware
Whiteware and white ironstone are very similar (Stelle 2001). The popularity of
whiteware began in approximately 1820 two decades before ironstone was developed
(Sutton and Arkush 2009:213-214). Whiteware is more porous than ironstone and can be
distinguished through a ―tongue test‖. The whiteware is more ―sticky‖ compared to the
ironstone (Stelle 2001). Whiteware was developed early in the 19th century as potters
153
began to add cobalt oxide to pastes and glazes (Lofstrom et al. 1982). Whiteware was
almost always decorated (Majewski and O‘Brien 1987:120). The decoration associated
with the whiteware at the Huddleston House was underglaze transfer print, overglaze
decal, and painted ceramics.
Yellow ware
Yellow ware is earthenware consisting of a cream paste. It is often treated with a clear
lead or alkaline glaze (Blanch 2006:119). Yellow ware vessels often take the form of
serving containers, large bowls, and tankards (Sutton and Arkush 2009:214). The yellow
ware ceramic sherds recovered at Huddleston House are all undecorated.
Porcelain
Porcelain is the most valuable of all the Huddleston House ceramics. It is defined by its
translucent characteristic and its vitrified nature (Stelle 2001; Sutton and Arkush
2009:218). Porcelain occurs over a large temporal expanse and therefore is not an ideal
time indicator. However, it can be used as an economic indicator (Miller 1980; Blanch
2006:129). Only one, undecorated porcelain sherd was recovered at Huddleston House.
Semi-Porcelain
Semi-Porcelain is the name given to a white bodied earthernware which is similar to
porcelain but is not completely translucent or vitrified. They are semivitreous, light
bodied, and high quality ceramics produced in the second half of the 19th century. After
the Civil War these lightweight refined semivitrious and vitreous ceramics were produced
by American manufacturers and competed with British imports (Cheek et al. 1983:103;
Majewski and O‘Brien 1987:115). Molded and transfer printed, specimens were among
the decorated semi-porcelain sherds recovered from Huddleston House.
154
Pealware
Pearlware is a porous, off-white earthenware which contains a chalky paste (Sutton and
Arkush 2009:231). A clear glaze was often applied. Pearlware is thinner and less durable
than later whiteware or ironstone. Pearlware will often contain a bluish cast. This is due
to the cobalt which was added to mimic the look of Chinese porcelain (Mankowitz
1953:4; Blanch 2006:123; Sutton and Arkush 2009:231). Pearlware is a good temporal
indicator due to its relatively early introduction (1780s) and peak popularity (1820s1830s). Pearlware was often given to later 19th century semivitreous wares that contain a
bluish tint to the bodies but not the glaze (Miller 1980:3). All of the pearlware sherds
recovered at the Huddleston House site are molded, shell-edged, and contain blue transfer
printing. This was a very common style of pearlware in the early 19th century (Miller
1980:18; Stelle 2001; Blanch 2006:123; Sutton and Arkush 2009:231). Porcelain, semiporcelain, and pearlware are the most expensive ceramics in the Huddleston House
assemblage and most likely represent the finest tableware.
Decorated/ Undecorated (Surface Treatment)
After sorting the ceramics according to ware type, the decoration technique used
on the sherds was tabulated. The following categories were use to define the type of
decoration of the refined ceramics: transfer print, decal, painted, molded/scalloped, and
shell edge. In addition, the various surface treatments used to glaze the utilitarian
ceramics were noted. The following surface treatments were observed: salt glaze, lead
glaze, Bristol glaze, and Albany slip.
155
Results
The results of the sherd count are presented in Table 7.2. The associated pie
graph (Figure 7.31) shows the percentage of each ceramic type. White bodied ironstone
sherds constitute the highest percentage of the assemblage, followed by whiteware. Very
few extravagant ceramic types are represented. As Figure 7.32 and Table 7.3 indicate,
refined ceramics outnumber utilitarian vessel nearly 3:1, 354 and 134 respectively.
Oddly, among the utilitarian ceramics, this same 3:1 ratio also exist between the number
of stoneware to redware sherds (Figure 7.33). Among the refined ceramics, Ironstone
white bodied ware comprises nearly 60% (Figure 7.34). After segregating the ceramics
into type, the refined ceramics were described according to decorative style. The
utilitarian ceramics were likewise tabulated according to surface treatment. The bulk of
the refined ceramics were undecorated. A ratio greater than 6:1 of undecorated (n=307)
to decorated (n=46) sherds was noticed. Data pertaining to decoration is presented in
Figures 7.35 and 7.36 as well as Table 7.5.
More information was ascertained from the sorting of the utilitarian ceramics with
regard to surface treatment. As Table 7.4 shows the most prevalent surface treatment
applied to the Huddleston House assemblage was Albany slip and salt glazed. In
addition, nearly 3/4 of the vessel sherds are treated. This was less significant than the
large number of undecorated refined ceramics compared to the undecorated ones.
Surface treatment on utilitarian ceramics serves a functional purpose, to seal the vessel.
Decoration on a refined ware on the other hand was merely for that, decoration.
156
TABLE 7.2. Distribution of Ceramics by Ware Type.
WARE TYPE
Whiteware
Ironstone/WBW
Yellowware
Pearlware
Porcelain
Semi-Porcelain
Stoneware
Redware
TOTAL
SHERD COUNT
113
206
8
5
2
20
98
36
488
Redware
7%
Whiteware
23%
Stoneware
20%
Semi-Porcelain
4%
Porcelain
1%
Pearlware
1%
Yellowware
2%
FIGURE 7.31. Percentage of ceramics by ware type.
Ironstone/WBW
42%
157
Utilitarian
Ceramics
27%
Refined
Ceramics
73%
FIGURE 7.32. Percentage of refined to
utilitarian ceramics.
TABLE 7.3: Refined to Utilitarian
Ceramics.
TABLE 7.4: Surface Treatment of
SHERD
Ceramics.
SURFACEUtilitarian
TREATMENT
COUNT
Albany slip
Bristol Glaze
Lead Glaze
Salt Glazed
TOTAL
42
5
10
40
97
134-97=37*
(*untreated)
CERAMIC TYPE
Refined Ceramics
Utilitarian Ceramics
TOTAL
COUNT
354
134
488
Redware
(n=38)
27%
Stoneware
(n=98)
73%
FIGURE 7.33. Percentage of utilitarian
ceramics by ware type.
158
Pearlware
1%
Yellowware
2%
Porcelain
1%
SemiPorcelain
6%
Whiteware
32%
WBW/ Ironstone
58%
FIGURE 7.34. Percentages of refined ceramics by ware type.
159
Undecorated
Transfer Print
Decal
1%
3%
Painted
Molded/Scalloped
Shell Edge
1%
2%
6%
87%
FiGURE 7.35. Percentage of refined ceramic by decoration.
TABLE 7.5. Decoration Type.
25
SHERD COUNT
20
20
10
2
9
5
46
15
Count
DECORATION
Transfer Print
Decal
Painted
Molded/Scalloped
Shell Edge
TOTAL
10
5
0
354-46=307*
*Undecorated Sherds
Decoration Type
FIGURE 7.36. Quantity of decorated ceramics.
160
In addition, a hollow ware/flat ware analysis and an examination of vessel form
and function are presented in the following section. Analysis of the ceramic artifacts
yielded a total of 145 indeterminate pieces that could have been either hollow or flat. Of
the ceramics that could be determined, flat tableware outnumbers hollow ware 50 to 11.
Stoneware was not included in this count because all of the stoneware is believed to be
hollow storage vessels of varying types. Most of the ceramics recovered in the 2007
excavation were tableware sherds. Very few pieces of redware were recovered. The
recovered redware sherds were from storage rather than serving vessels.
Time Sequence Analysis
Using time sequence analysis to date archaeological sites and deposits has several
advantages. To begin, it allows for a diachronic perspective. This allows for recognition
of trends and patterns in the archaeological record which are simply not visible with other
methods of analysis. Whereas reliance on a singular mean date essentially compresses all
data, time sequence analysis allows for an artifact distribution to be calculated on a time
line. Also, because of this time-depth quality, archaeological deposits can be directly
linked to a particular household within the line of succession. Therefore, changes in
architecture and the landscape can be matched to individual households. Different
archaeological assemblages, associated with different time periods throughout the
occupation can be compared (Groover 2003:202-5).
The artifacts recovered from the 2007 excavation were analyzed using time
sequence analysis. First, the units were excavated in thin section levels. As previously
stated, the preferred level depth interval at historic site is 0.2 feet which is approximately
161
2 3/8 inches. This was the depth interval used at the 2007 Huddleston House excavation.
Next, a mean artifact date (MAD) was calculated for each level. This step was
accomplished by assigning a date, based on the mean date of manufacture, to each
temporally diagnostic artifact. Mean dates used in this analysis are presented in
Appendix E. A total mean date was derived by combining the values of all the mean
artifact dates within a level, multiplying by the total count for each type, and then
dividing by the overall total of combined temporally diagnostic artifacts.
After the mean artifact date (MAD) was calculated for each level, the third step
was to chronologically sort each level regardless of the unit from which it came. Fourth,
the MAD of each level was assigned to the specific decade, for example, the 1860s,
1870s, 1880s, and so forth. Fifth, the numbers of artifacts per type within each decade
level were totaled. Sixth, these decade interval results were plotted on a timeline to show
artifact distribution over time.
The results of a time sequence analysis of the Huddleston House artifact
assemblage are presented in the following section. Figure 7.37 presents the results of the
time sequence analysis. The greatest artifact densities were deposited in the 1880s and
1890s. A large spike in the distribution curve occurred during this time period. Very low
artifact densities were deposited before or after this time. Time sequence analysis
distribution data for different artifact groups and items are presented in Figures 7.38 7.43. Therefore, the archaeological remains sampled in 2007 surrounding structure 1,
appear to have been most densely deposited in the 1880s and 1890s during the occupation
of Henry Huddleston.
162
Once the artifact distribution data curve is plotted, fluctuations of different artifact
patterns through time can often be identified (Groover 2003). As previously mentioned,
the changes along the distribution curve often correlate to documented household
succession events (Groover 2003). Specifically regarding the Huddleston House
assemblage, it is quite clear that the majority of the sample was deposited following
1880. This would strongly suggest that these deposits post-date the occupation of the
John Huddleston household. Because of the relatively short time interval associated with
these deposits (only a couple of decades) compared to the known time depth of the
Huddleston family occupation (nearly 100 years), the deposits likely are the major result
of a singular household. Figures 7.44 and 7.45 review household succession and
compare the time sequence data to the household size, respectively
As shown in Figure 7.45 the early and later occupation periods are not well
represented on the artifact density timeline. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the time
sequence method, flat window glass and nails are considered.
Flat Glass
Randall Moir (1987) examined the importance of window glass as a temporally
diagnostic artifact at 19th century sites. The overall trend of increasing window glass
thickness through time occurred during the 19th century (Roenke 1978; Moir 1987:75).
Window glass thickness corresponds with specific manufacture dates. The manufacture
dates corresponding to thickness measurements are presented in Appendix D. Therefore,
.
163
1000
Stoneware
Redware
900
Yellowware
Porcelain
800
Pearlware
Semi-Porcelain
700
Whiteware
WBW
Quantity
600
Total Ceramic
Curved Glass
500
TOTAL KITCHEN GROUP
Flat Glass
400
Cut
Wire
300
Total Nails
TOTAL ARCH.GROUP
200
GRAND TOTAL
100
0
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
YEAR
FIGURE 7.37. Time sequence analysis of Huddleston House archaeological assemblage, 2007.
163
164
300
250
Stoneware
200
Redware
Yellowware
Porcelain
150
Pearlware
Semi-Porcelain
100
Whiteware
WBW
50
TOTAL CERAMICS
0
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
FIGURE 7.38. Time sequence analysis of ceramics.
250
200
150
Curved Glass
100
50
0
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
FIGURE 7.39. Time sequence analysis of curved glass.
1910
1920
165
500
Stoneware
450
Redware
400
Yellowware
350
Porcelain
300
Pearlware
Semi-Porcelain
Quantity
250
Whiteware
200
WBW
150
TOTAL
CERAMICS
100
Curved Glass
50
0
1840
TOTAL KITCHEN
GROUP
1850
1860
1870
Year
1880
1890
1900
FIGURE 7.40. Time sequence analysis of kitchen artifacts group.
1910
1920
166
800
700
600
Quantity
500
Flat Glass
Cut
400
Wire
300
TOTAL NAILS
TOTAL
200
100
0
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
Year
1900
1910
1920
FIGURE 7.41. Time sequence analysis of architectural group.
250
300
250
200
150
200
Cut
150
Wire
TOTAL
Flat Glass
100
100
50
50
0
1840
1860
1880
FIGURE 7.42. Flat glass.
1900
1920
0
1840
1860
FIGURE 7.43. Nails.
1880
1900
1920
167
14
12
Kenneth dies, Hazel Eller
Huddleston inherits then
sells farm, 1932-1934
John Huddleston dies,
Levi Inherits farm,1877
10
8
Charles H. Huddleston
purchases farm,1906
6
Household Size
4
Levi Huddleston dies,
Henry acquires farm, 1881
2
Chas. H. Huddleston dies, Kenneth
& Henry Inherit farm, 1930
0
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
FIGURE 7.44. Household succession and size through time.
167
168
300
Household
Sizex10
250
Nails
200
Flat Glass
150
Ceramic
100
Curved Glass
Quantity
50
0
YEAR
1820
1830
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
Relative
Household Size
1920
FIGURE 7.45. Time sequence distribution compared to household size.
168
169
all pieces of flat glass were measured using digital calipers to determine the thickness and
manufacture date.
Figure 7.46 shows the distribution of window glass based on only the quantity per
manufacture year. A peak in the curve appeared from 1860-1910. All decades in a 140
year time interval were well represented, as well. No decade was extremely over
represented; however several peaks along the distribution curve were noted. The first
increase occurred near 1840 when the building was constructed by John Huddleston. The
next increase occurred in the 1870s. This peak represents a renovation of structure 1 and
coincides with the beginning of the Henry Huddleston ownership period. The final
increase in window glass occurred in the late 19th to early 20th century, during the
Charles Huddleston occupation. Using time sequence analysis on window glass provided
a more refined chronology and was useful in identifying the razing of structure 1
(Groover 2003). Figure 7.47 presents the time sequence analysis of window glass. The
large increase in glass during the final decades of the 19th century was noted. By using
the mean dates of all temporally diagnostic artifacts associated within the thin section,
much more sensitive and accurate dating was possible. Recovered window glass quantity
dropped dramatically after this period. Therefore, during the Charles Huddleston
occupation, near the turn of the century, structure 1 was most likely razed. In conclusion,
window glass was used to link household succession to construction episodes. Moreover,
time sequence analysis was used to identify the likely razing of structure 1
170
60
50
40
30
Window
Glass
20
10
0
YEAR
1760 1780
1800
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
FIGURE 7.46. Window glass quantity per year of manufacture date.
300
250
Mean Date of
Manufacture
Quantity
200
150
Time Sequence
Analysis
100
50
0
1780
1800
1820
1840
1860
Year
FIGURE 7.47. Quantity of window glass.
1880
1900
1920
1940
171
Nails
Another example of a more refined chronology provided by time sequence
analysis from the Huddleston artifacts was with nails. The 2007 excavation at
Huddleston House recovered 417 temporally identifiable nails. This analysis sorted the
nails into two categories: machine cut nails and wire nails. The mean date of machine
cut nails is 1860, and wire nails is 1935 (Nelson 1968: Edward and Wells 1993:17-18;
IMACS 1984; Groover 2003). Table 7.6 and Figure 7.48 present the quantity of nails per
type. Wire nails outnumbered machine cut nails 264 to 153, respectively. The mean
manufacture date of all combined nails equaled 1907.5. Time sequence analysis of the
nails predicted construction and razing events. Time sequence analysis showed the
majority of the nails were deposited between 1880 and 1900 (see Figure 7.49).
Wire nails represent 63% of the total nail assemblage and machine cut nails, 37%.
William H. Adams (2002) developed a probability curve to determine construction dates
at 19th and 20th century sites based on the percentage of machine cut nails. Buildings
constructed in the early decades of the 19th century used machine cut nails exclusively.
However, often times wire nails make up a significant percentage of the nail assemblage
at these sites. This is the result of ―extensive repairs made to it [the building]
later‖(Adams 2002:75). Adams states that reliable dates for construction and renovation
are usually 15 to 20 years earlier than the dates suggested by the manufacturing curve.
This results from manufacturing dates being much earlier than the date they were
deposited at a site (Adams 2002:75). According to the manufacturing curve, structure 1
172
TABLE 7.6. Quantity of Nails.
Nail Type
Count
Percent
Wire Nails
264
Cut Nails
153
TOTAL
417
63%
37%
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Wire Nails
Cut Nails
FIGURE 7. 48. Quantity of wire and cut nails.
300
250
Manufacture Date
Mean Date of Manufacture
Time Sequence
Analysis
Quantity
200
150
100
50
0
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
Year
FIGURE 7.49. Comparison of time sequence data to mean date, nails.
1940
173
on the Huddleston property, with approximately 37% machine cut nails,
underwent a major construction event in approximately 1893. However, as mentioned,
15 to 20 years should be subtracted, according to Adams, for a more accurate date. This
dated the renovation to between 1873 and 1878 (see Figure 7.50). This was around the
time of John Huddleston‘s death, in 1877, and during a transition in the ownership of the
farmstead.
Time sequence analysis of the nails provided an even more accurate prediction of
the renovation and razing of structure 1. As Figure 7.49 illustrates, time sequence
analysis shows the majority of the deposition occurred between 1880 and 1900. Due to
the dramatic decrease in nail density within the deposits after this period, structure 1 was
likely destroyed shortly after 1900.
Architectural group artifacts provided several clues to the construction,
renovation, and destruction events of structure 1. Fluctuations in window glass quantities
over time were used to identify construction episodes near 1840, 1870, and 1900. Adams
(2002) probability curve of cut nail percentages was used to identify a major construction
event on structure 1 between 1873 and 1878. Time sequence analysis of window glass
and nails strongly suggest structure 1 was razed in the first decade of the 20th century.
Charles Huddleston purchased the farmstead in 1906. Charles was likely responsible for
razing structure 1.
174
37%
FIGURE 7.50.
Courtesy of Adams 2002:72,
the circle on the left side of redline indicates time period when
renovation occurred to structure 1.
175
Window glass and nails demonstrate the usefulness of time sequence analysis.
Time sequence analysis was especially useful in linking specific landscape events and
archaeological assemblages to particular households throughout family succession. At
Huddleston House, time sequence analysis was used to address this research topic.
Therefore, the time sequence analysis of the artifacts proved to be an excellent tool for
linking household succession to changing landscapes and material conditions.
In conclusion, functional analysis of the artifacts recovered in the 2007 excavation
showed that they are mainly architectural items and kitchen artifacts. Nails and window
glass constitute the bulk of the architectural items. Ceramics can be generally defined as
undecorated white bodied ware and stoneware. Personal items were rarely encountered.
Based on time sequence results, maintenance decline occurred in the rear yard during the
Levi and Henry Huddleston period of site occupation. Based on the context and
materials deposited around structure 1, its eventual destruction occurred in the early 20th
century.
176
CHAPTER 8
SECONDARY ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter exams secondary levels of archaeological analysis and interpretation.
First, the results of faunal analysis are discussed. Next, flatware and hollow ware ratios
are re-examined in greater detail. Comparative ceramic economic scaling, and changes in
ceramic preferences through time are also discussed. Further examination into the
function of structure 1 is also presented. Finally, the concept of maintenance decline is
examined. The results of this further inquiry allow for optimal contextual insight.
Specific answers to the research question are confidently answered through this analysis
and interpretation. In addition this secondary analysis provides rich qualitative
information. This information provides ―an aesthetic appreciation of and an empathy
with the human condition‖ (Deagan 1982:155). A perspective sometimes lost in ―a view
stressing economic production or belief systems painted with a broad brush‖(Brandon
and Barile 2004:6) rather than one focusing on ―the practical actions of daily life‖(Prader
1993:114).
The faunal remains recovered from the Huddleston House excavation of 2007
were analyzed by Dr. S. Homes Hogue, biological anthropologist at Ball State University
in May, 2009. The faunal remains were first identified and then weighed. The remains
177
were then grouped by decade level according to the dates resulting from the time
sequence analysis.
The results were tabulated by number and weight, and then graphed according to
the percentage of that weight to the total. Each decade was considered. Table 8.1
presents the inventory of the faunal remains by provenience. The results of the
identification are displayed on Table 8.2-Table 8.4, as well as Figures 8.1 and 8.2.
Domesticated mammals were classified as mostly pork, but also cattle. Wild mammals
were either deer, or other identifiable wild mammal species. Chickens and domesticated
turkey represent the Domesticated Aves category. Wild aves species include either wild
turkey, pheasant, or quail.
The most significant trend of the faunal analysis was a noticeable shift from both
wild and domesticated faunal resources in the first two decades (1870 and 1880) to the
complete absence of wild faunal remains in the 1890s. This would strongly suggest an
exclusive reliance on domesticated species in the last decade of the century.
Interestingly, no transition in property ownership occurred during this time. However,
this was the final decade of the Henry Huddleston occupation. Household size was
relatively low. In addition, only two of nine Arms group artifacts were deposited in
levels dating 1890s or later. This suggests that more hunting occurred prior to 1890. By
the 1890s, Henry was becoming elderly and many of his sons had grown and moved
away from the farmstead. Perhaps the residents of the Huddleston farmstead were
hunting much less than had occurred in the previous decades. This would help to explain
the dearth of Arms group artifacts and absence of wild faunal remains in the 1890s
deposits.
178
This shift from a mixed subsistence strategy to one totally dependent on
domesticated animal resources is particularly interesting considering the decade in which
this shift occurred. In Chapter 6 when production commodities were discussed, it was
noted that the Huddleston farm experienced a shift in production performance during the
three decade survey. In the beginning of the 19th century, the Huddleston farm
outperformed the average in crop production and livestock ownership. However, by the
last year of the study, the Huddlesons produced an agricultural suite that was diverse, but
not abundant (Figures 6.10 and 6.11). With such a small level of production, it is not
likely that a surplus existed for sale to markets. The products of the farm, therefore, were
most likely used solely by the household. This was a major shift in food production for
the Huddleston farm. The shift from mixed, to exclusively domesticated faunal resource
exploitation, was a similar trend. The agricultural census data correlates to the faunal
assemblage due to the similar shift in food production and dietary preference in the final
decade of the 19th century. These similar trends reinforced the validity of both data sets.
In addition, this information is extremely useful in the reconstruction of past
foodways at the Huddleston House. Four independent lines of evidence are used to
reconstruct the diet and dinning of the Huddleston household: agricultural census data,
ceramic analysis, faunal remains, and also the landscape. The Huddleston household had
a diet more diverse in meat dishes in the first half of the century. Both wild and domestic
mammal species, as well as chicken and turkey were prevalent. Likewise, agricultural
179
TABLE 8.1. Faunal Remains by Provenience.
Unit
Level
Surface Coll.
Surface Coll.
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
6
6
8
8
9
9
10
10
Count
1
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
3
4
2
3
1
3
2
3
3
4
1
1
1
9
5
2
8
5
1
4
7
4
1
5
2
1
1
1
3
7
1
70
Comments
tooth
1 tooth
2 teeth
1 tooth
F.1 Fill, 2 Teeth
2 teeth
tooth
burnt
fossilized tooth
2 teeth
TOTAL
180
TABLE 8.2. Number and Weight for Each Decade Using Faunal Categories (courtesy of S. Homes Hogue).
Shell only
1860
1870
1880
1890
#
1
Weight
1.13
Domestic
Mammal
Wild
Mammal
Unid
Mammal
Domestic
Aves
Unid
Aves
Unid
Total
#
12
4
8
4
1
2
31
Weight
31.52
11.89
4.07
1.58
0.28
0.52
49.86
Domestic
Mammal
Wild
Mammal
Unid
Mammal
Domestic
Aves
Unid
Aves
Unid
Total
#
3
2
10
7
0
2
24
Weight
5.42
2.97
7.37
2.32
0
0.62
18.7
Domestic
Mammal
Wild
Mammal
Unid
Mammal
Domestic
Aves
Unid
Aves
Unid
Total
#
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
Weight
0.29
0
0.78
0
0
0
1.07
TABLE 8.3. Percentage of Bone Weight for all Faunal Categories (courtesy of S. Homes Hogue).
1870
1880
1890
Domestic
Mammal
63.21
28.98
27.1
Wild
Mammal
23.84
15.88
0
Unid
Mammal
8.16
39.41
72.9
Domestic Aves
3.17
12.41
0
TABLE 8.4. Percentage of Bone Weight for Identified Fauna (courtesy
of S.Homes Hogue).
Domestic
Mammal
Wild Mammal
Domestic Aves
1870
70.06
26.42
3.51
1880
50.61
27.73
21.66
1890
100
0
0
Unid Aves
0.57
0
0
Unid
1.05
3.32
0
181
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1870
1880
1890
Domestic Mammal Wild Mammal
UnidMammal
Domestic Aves
Unid
Unid Aves
FIGURE 8.1. All faunal categories, based on weight %(courtesy of S.Homes Hogue ).
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1870
1880
Domestic Mammal
Wild Mammal
1890
Domestic Aves
FIGURE 8.2. Categories with identified fauna, based on weight % (courtesy of S.Homes
Hogue).
182
products such as milk, butter, potatoes, corn, and oats were prevalent in the Huddleston
diet. Because the farm was producing above average values, surplus for both the family
and markets would have existed.
In the later decades, less farm surpluses and less diverse meat resources became
the new trend. However, a diet with a heavy reliance on pork remained constant
throughout. Wild resources supplemented the Huddleston diet in the early decades, but
not in the later. Because such low agricultural surplus production occurred in the later
decades of the Huddleston occupation, and overall wealth decreased through time, it is
speculated that the overall diet of the Huddleston household became less diverse.
The dining habits of the Huddleston household are presented in the following
section. In addition to determining the types of meals eaten by the Huddleston family,
the manner in which they were prepared and served is of interest. As previously stated in
Chapter 7, a flat ware to hollow ware ratio was calculated using the ceramic sherds.
Table 8.5 and Figure 8.3 present this data. Nearly a 5:1 ratio of flatware to hollowware
defines the collection.
Otto (1984) used this technique with the ceramics at Cannon‘s Point Plantation,
Georgia to study ethnicity, economic position, and status. Vessel form was used to
interpret foodways. Ratios of flatware to bowl were recognized by Otto to be strongly
influenced by ones social and economic status. The author found that the more affluent,
the higher percentage of flat tableware (such as plates and serving platters) appeared in
183
the archaeological assemblage (Otto 1984). The reverse was also true. A
disproportionate number of bowls reflected low economic status individuals. This pattern
60
50
40
30
Hollow Ware
20
Flat ware
10
0
Hollow Ware
Flat ware
FIGURE 8.3. Quantity of flat ware to hollow ware sherds.
TABLE 8.5. Hollow: Flatware.
Distinguishable Sherd Count
Hollow Ware
11
Flat Ware
50
was recognized and reflected at many other sites (Deetz 1977; Baker 1980; Smith 1983,
Groover 2003). This phenomenon has been used to correlate vessel form to economics,
diet and foodways. Consumption of meals from primarily bowls suggest a diet
dominated by soups and stews, while an assemblage favoring flatware vessels suggests
meals were served on plates, likely consisting of portioned meals rich in meat .
Therefore, the Huddleston family probably had a diet rich in pork, corn, potatoes,
milk, and bread made from wheat. Meals were likely served and consumed on flatware
vessels with milk and butter from the cow to spread on the bread. The meals would have
been well seasoned with the fresh herbs that were grown just outside the kitchen door in
184
the herb garden. The smell of smoked pork would fill the air coming from the
smokehouse.
Ceramics have also been used to interpret wealth and expenditure as well. George
Miller (1980, 1991) introduced an economic scaling system to discern relative wealth and
also intra-site expenditure rates, for example between cups, plates, and bowls. He also
created a set of values for ceramics based directly from potters‘ wholesale prices of the
17th, 18th, and 19th century (1980, 1991). Yentsch (1991:143) has argued that
dependence on ceramic scaling ―de-emphasizes the role of women in colonial society‖.
However, the author does admit that these analytical methods can be used to elicit
information about lifestyle, consumer choice, and resource allocation (Yentsch 1991).
Amy Earl et al. (1993) modified the system created by Miller into a four tiered
system. This was used by Blanch (2006:166-8) in the analysis of Moore-Youse ceramics.
Table 8.6 compares the Huddleston House to the Moore-Youse ceramics
TABLE 8.6. Economic
Scaling (Earl et al. 1993).
Tier 1 (lowest value
ceramics/undecorated)
Tier 2 (molded/ edge
decorated)
Tier 3 (painted ceramics)
Tier 4 (transfer-printed)
Huddleston
House, 2002
(# / %)
65 / 70%
Huddleston
House, 2007
( # / %)
307 / 87%
Huddleston
House, Total
(# / %)
372 / 84%
MooreYouse, 2006
(# / %)
238 / 71%
21 / 23%
14 / 4%
35 / 8%
25 / 8%
3 / 3%
12 / 3.5%
15 / 3%
18 / 5%
4 / 4%
20 / 5.5%
24 / 5%
58 / 18%
Directly comparing the 2007 ceramic assemblage to the Moore-Youse was
somewhat problematic. To begin, the midden sampled in the 2007 Huddleston
excavation associated with structure 1 dated to the final decades of the 19th century. The
185
absence of transfer-printed ceramics may be the result of the midden date. Transfer
prints were most commonly used from the 1820s to the 1860s (Majewski and O‘Brien
1987:141-6). After that, transfer-prints became less prevalent and were replaced by decal
decorated ceramics by the early 20th century (Wegars and Carley 1982:7). The midden
associated with structure 1 at the Huddleston farmstead was dated to the second half of
the 19th century, after transfer-printed ceramics lost popularity. Time sequence analysis
of the Moore-Youse ceramic assemblage revealed that the deposits sampled there were
most densely deposited in the 1850s to the 1870s (Blanch 2006:175). In addition, both
shovel test pit and unit excavation data were considered in the Moore-Youse analysis
(Blanch 2006:106-111). Therefore, the 2002 shovel test pit data was re-examined in
order to provide a more complete ceramic sample and more information regarding earlier
ceramics not recovered from the structure 1 midden. The ceramics from the shovel test
pits had more edge decorated and molded ceramics. However, very few tier three or tier
four sherds were recovered (Zoll 2002). When combined, the 2002 and 2007 ceramics
showed a very different distribution than the Moore-Youse assemblage.
When comparing the combined Huddleston ceramic assemblage to the MooreYouse, the Huddleston ceramics were not nearly as valuable as those recovered from the
Moore-Youse excavation. By separating the Huddleston House ceramics into categories
based on decoration, much information was inferred. Clear patterns such as the distinct
preference for undecorated vessels emerged. This was significant because it not only
begged questions related to consumer choice and resource allocation, but was also used to
examine compliance and conformity to religious ideals. The Huddlestons were Quakers.
The dearth of lavishly decorated or expensive ceramics suggests that the outward
186
expression of plainness was important to maintaining their identity as Quakers.
Likewise, the frequency of ironstone, with its durable qualities, suggests that ceramics
were selected and preferred according to practicality, not luxury.
Another factor to bear in mind when considering the value of the Huddleston
ceramic assemblage is economics. Perhaps ideology had an important role in
determining the choices the Huddleston family made concerning ceramic preference and
purchase. However, practicality and frugality should not be overlooked. Market access
would have made for a variety of choices. The Huddleston House is in the small town of
Mt. Auburn, but plenty of ceramics would have been available for purchase. Perceived
geographic isolation is not the same as commercial isolation, (Adams 1927:3; Boorstin
1958:107; Baugher and Venables 1985:33) and therefore, it should be assumed that the
Huddleston household had a variety of ceramics from which to choose. Market access
had more to do with economics and social factors than location (McCusker and Menard
1986:303). Although the ceramic assemblage shows a strong preference toward
undecorated and least expensive items, it should not be directly assumed that this was due
exclusively to Quaker plainness. In addition to ideology, economics should also be
considered a determining factor regarding ceramic choice. Recall that the decades from
which the majority of the artifacts were deposited were summarized by increased
economic hardships. This was true both at the household and global scale. The
Huddleston family suffered economic decline during the final decades of the 19th century
as demonstrated by agricultural census and tax records. The 1890s witnessed global
economic depression with the Panic of 1890 and 1893. This brought about widespread
business failure, high unemployment, strikes, and extreme financial disorder (Hoffman
187
1970; Whitten 2001). For farm families like the Huddlestons, conditions were especially
difficult (Whitten 2001). Examination of the refined ceramic assemblage reflects these
economic hardships.
The large frequency of ironstone in the 1870‘s and 1880‘s deposits reflects a clear
preference. Ironstone was an expensive ceramic with many indexes ranking it near or
equal to some transfer printed whiteware in value (Freeman 1954; Miller 1980; Cook
1982; Spencer-Wood 1984; McBride and McBride 1987). Despite having few
expensively decorated items, the Huddleston family owned many high-quality items that
were plain in appearance. Moreover, careful observation of the time sequence data
reveals an interesting pattern with regard to the ironstone distribution. As Figure 8.4,
Figure 8.5, and Table 8.7 indicate, ironstone is the most prevalent ceramic in 1880.
However, from 1880 to 1890 the number of ironstone sherds dramatically drops.
Ironstone is replaced with whiteware as the refined ceramic tableware of choice. The
decrease in ironstone deposits coincides with the decrease in Huddleston wealth in the
last decades of the 19th century. This high level of congruence between the
archaeological and documentary record demonstrate the importance and necessity of
both. Also, the evidence strongly suggests a link between specific archaeological
assemblages and household succession.
Therefore, the ability to identify the specific household most responsible for the
deposition of artifacts was successful. Most successful, however, was the ability to rule
out the early household as the main contributor to the archaeological deposits. The
archaeological assemblage from the 2007 excavation was most likely associated with the
middle phase of the Huddleston period. As previously mentioned, it was during this time
188
that the family experienced economic decline both in wealth and commodities
production. A mixed subsistence strategy, in which both wild and domestic faunal
resources were exploited, shifted to exclusive reliance on domestic animals. A change in
ceramic preference occurred between 1880 and 1890 as well.
300
Stoneware
250
Redware
Yellowware
Porcelain
200
Pearlware
Semi-Porcelain
Whiteware
150
WBW
TOTAL CERAMICS
100
50
0
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
FIGURE 8.4. Time sequence analysis of ceramics.
1890
1900
1910
1920
189
TABLE 8.7. TSA
of Whiteware to
Ironstone.
Whiteware
Ironstone(WBW)
1850
0
0
1860
2
0
1870
1
1
1880
18
135
1890
73
70
1900
19
0
1910
0
0
1885
1890
1895
1900
140
120
Whiteware
100
Ironstone
80
60
40
20
0
1860
1865
1870
1875
1880
FIGURE 8.5. Time sequence comparison of whiteware to ironstone.
190
Decline was also visible on the landscape. In addition to the deteriorated
condition of the smokehouse which was reconstructed in 1977, structure 1 fell into
disrepair and eventually was razed. Increased density of architectural group artifacts
according to time sequence analysis suggests structure 1 was razed in the late 1890s to
the early 1900s. In addition, time sequence dating of the other archaeological deposits
confirms that they were deposited in the later occupation periods. As previously
mentioned, John Huddleston operated a store and inn for National Road travelers. In an
attempt to generate business, John Huddleston would have presumably sought to keep
things tidy around the farm. With frequent people in and out, and a household numbering
as many as 11, it would have been more necessary to segregate waste. This is a likely
reason for the absence of early phase deposits in the sample area around structure 1. As
previously mentioned, the artifacts suggest that Structure 1 was probably an outdoor
kitchen or was used to quarter guests. Leslie Stewart-Abernathy has written about the
dual function of many outdoor kitchen s in the South. African-American slaves were
often forced to use kitchens as dwellings (Stuart-Abernathy in Barlie and Brandon
2004:61) If this dual function were true of the Huddleston House structure 1, then it
would help to explain the dearth of items recovered from the early phase. It is probable
that travelers made a light footprint on the landscape, leaving behind little evidence of
their presence. Couple this with the notion that refuse and waste was segregated to keep
the area clean for guests, and the lack of dense early phase deposits becomes very
reasonable.
Structure 1began to serve the needs of the household directly and exclusively as
time progressed. After John died and Henry began operating the farm, he made several
191
renovations in an effort to imprint his own personality on his surroundings. In addition,
travelers and guests did not frequent the farmstead as they had done in the past.
As a result, less attention was paid to upkeep and repairs. Refuse was more
liberally strewn about, the accumulation of which resulted in the archaeological record.
In addition, Figure 8.6 is a photograph taken near the turn of the century. Notice the ivy
growing up the side of the house. The white paint has chipped away from the brick
exterior and the shutters are no long attached.
This photograph typifies the state of the farmstead during the middle and late
phases. The farm was no longer extremely profitable. Wealth, agricultural production,
and general property maintenance were declining during this time. At this same time
FIGURE 8.6. Photograph taken in the late 1890s (courtesy of Wayne County Assessor).
192
ceramic and dietary changes also occurred, according to archaeological evidences.
Therefore, Chapter 8 has combined the bulk of the research into meaningful
statements about the Huddleston House throughout the nearly century long family
occupation. The evidence suggests the Huddleston family experienced decline in wealth
throughout the 19th century that carried over into other facets of their lives. In
conclusion, this interpretation is used in Chapter 9 to readdress research questions, make
recommendations, and comment on perceived contributions of this research.
193
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION
The research presented here attempted to answer questions pertaining to
articulation of households to the larger global system, and how visible this articulation is
in the archaeological record at the household level. Simply stated, John Huddleston and
his heirs were indeed heavily engaged in the world economy. This level of aggressive
involvement in the global economy (at least in the agricultural commodities sector) began
to steadily decrease. The later generations did not sell surplus crops, and were almost
completely reliant on domesticated animals for food, much of which had to be purchased.
This trend is opposite of the local sample which continued to increase in wealth and
commodities production.
The Huddleston family was engaged in the production of numerous agricultural
activities including corn, oats, wheat, and potatoes. Likewise, this level of production
fluctuated through time, as did the design of the house lot and landscape. Furthermore,
careful analysis of the artifacts provides archaeological evidence that directly links
assemblages to specific households.
Using multiple spatial and temporal scales to analyze the evidence, optimal
insight was gained. From a world systems perspective, core/ periphery relationships were
established with Indiana operating as member of the periphery at this time, in which
194
extractive industries defined land use practices. The Huddleston family paralleled this
trend. However, the level of congruence fluctuated over time. In the early phase of the
Huddleston site occupation (1840‘s-1860s), the farmstead is producing mass quantities of
surplus agricultural products while ―The Jeffersonian ideal of a predominantly agrarian
democracy was realized by the Hoosiers during the pre-Civil War decade‖(Carter 1946:
108). The other members of the community were producing only small quantities at this
point. Curiously, when the local trend reflects greater surplus production, the Huddleston
family was engaged in subsistence level agriculture. This illustrated an opposite trend
than the local community. Therefore, the Huddleston family deviates significantly from
the local trend.
Contributions
This thesis provides a number of positive contributions to farmstead archaeology.
Foremost, the thesis adds to the current state of knowledge pertaining to several academic
subjects such as: the local economic history, agricultural trends, and artifact patterning.
In addition to academic contributions, the thesis can be used as a tool to better inform the
public.
The research design outlined in this thesis lends itself to comparative analysis
between other historic sites. Because of the diachronic dimension of the Huddleston
farmstead, comparisons of numerous temporal associations can also be made.
Furthermore, information obtained through agricultural census, tax records, and probate
information presented in this thesis can easily be used as a comparative database for
further research.
195
In addition to the comparative potential, the thesis also contributes to the current
state of knowledge for farmstead archaeology in the Indiana and the Midwest. Very few
east-central Indiana historic farmsteads have been investigated archaeologically.
Therefore, this thesis contributes greatly to the understanding of 19th century Indiana
economic trends, foodways, and life. Because the property is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, and is maintained and managed as a museum, the thesis will
contribute to public education. Thesis results and conclusions will also be forwarded to
administrative officials and curators at the Huddleston farmstead. This data can then be
used to more accurately inform the public.
Recommendations
Due to the sensitive nature of the cultural deposits still unexamined at Huddleston
House, future construction and landscaping should only be done after consultation with a
qualified professional archaeologist. Archaeological sampling suggests more undisturbed
deposits exist on the property. The role of the Huddleston House as a museum allows for
protection of those cultural resources, meaning extensive excavation in the near future is
neither urgent nor desired.
Due to the minimally invasive nature of pedestrian transect reconnaissance; the
cultivated field directly south of the house lot should be sampled. This is the area known
to be used as a wagon yard and campground for guests. Moreover, with only a modicum
of ground surface visibility, the area could be relatively quickly and easily surveyed to
196
assess the presence or absence of cultural materials. In addition, the area along the
railroad could be closely examined to locate foundations of former buildings.
197
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, James T.
1927 Provincial Society, 1690-1763, MacMillan, New York.
Adams, William Hampton
1990 Landscape Archaeology, Landscape History, and the American Farmstead.
Historical Archaeology. Vol. 24 No. 4 pp. 92-101.
2002 Machine Cut Nails and Wire Nails: American Production and Use for Dating
19th Century and Early 20th Century Sites. Historical Archaeology. Vol. 36,
No. 4 pp.66-88.
Aldrich, S.R., W.O. Scott, and RG. Hoeft.
1986. Modern Corn Production,3rd edition. A & L Publications, Champaign, Illinois.
Ankli, Robert Eugene
1969 Gross Farm Revenue in Pre-Civil War Illinois. Doctoral Dissertation. University
of Illinois. Champaign.
Atack, Jeremy and Fred Bateman.
1987 To Their Own Soil: American Agriculture in the Antebellum North. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa.
Bailey, Daniel N.
2003 Material Culture of the Quakers of Rural Southeastern Pennsylvania during the
Eighteenth Century: An Archival and Archaeological Study, M.A. Thesis. Penn State
University. State College, Pennsylvania.
Bailey, Daniel N.
2004
Plain People or Fancy Friends?: Interpreting a Quaker Farmstead Site in
Chester. Paper presented at The 75th Annual Society for Pennsylvania
Archaeology.
198
Baker, Vernon G.
1980 Archaeological Visibility of Afro-American Culture: An example from Black
Lucy‘s Garden, Andover, Massachusetts. In Archaeological Perspectives on
Ethnicy in America. R.L Shchuyler, editor. Baywood Publishing, New York, Pp.
29-38.
Barile, Kerri and Jamie Brandon
2004 Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in
Historical Archaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Barber, Russell J. and Frances F. Berdan
1998 The Emperor’s Mirror: Understanding Culture through Primary Sources.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
Baugher, Sherene and Robert W. Venables
1987 Ceramics as Indicators of Status and Class in Eighteenth Century New York., in
Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne Spencer-Wood
pp. 31-51.
Bigham, Darrel E.
2001 Indiana Territory: A Bicentenial Perspective. Indiana Historical Society,
Indianapolis.
Bintliff, John
1991 The Annales School and Archaeology. New York University Press, Washington
Square, New York.
Blanch, Christina L.
2006 Because of Her Victorian Upbringing: Gender Archaeology at the Moore-Youse
House. Master‘s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Ball State University,
Muncie, Indiana.
Boorstin, Daniel
1958 The Americas: The Colonial Experience, Random House, New York.
Braudel, Fernand
1971 The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II.
Collins, London, England.
1974 Capitalism and Material Life, 1400-1800. Harper and Row, New York.
1977 Afterthoughts on Material Civilization and Capitalism. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
1981 The Structure of Everyday Life: The Limits of the Possible. Harper and Row, New
York.
199
Brown, Marley
1987 Archaeology and Social History of the Jacob Mott Family, Portsmouth, Rhode
Island, 1640–1800. Doctoral dissertation, Brown University, Providence, Rhode
Island.
Burns, Lee
1919 The National Road in Indiana. Indiana Historical Society Publications,
VII(1919),
209-37
Cabak, Melanie, Mark D. Groover, Scott J. Wagers
1995 Health Care and the Wayman A.M.E. Church. Historical Archaeology. Vol.29
No. 2 pp. 55-76.
Carter, Harvey L.
1946 Rural Indiana in Transition, 1850-1860. Agricultural History, Vol. 20, No. 2 pp.
107-121.
Collard, E.
1967 Nineteenth Century Pottery and Porcelain in Canada. McGill University Press,
Montréal.
Crumrin, Timothy
1994 Road through the Wilderness: The Making of the National Road. Previously
published in The Magazine of the Midwest Open-Air Museum Coordinating
Council. http://www.connerprairie.org/historyonline/ntlroad.html
Danhof, Clarence H.
1941 Change in Agriculture: The Northern United States, 1820-1870. Oxford
University Press, London.
Dark, Keith R.
1995 Theoretical Archaeology. Duckworth Publishing, London.
Deagan, Kathleen
1982 Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, Vol.5 Michael B. Shiffer, editor, pp. 151:177. Academic
Press, New York.
Deetz, James
1977 In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life, Double
Day, New York.
200
Earl, Amy C., Patrick L. O‘Neill, Dennis Williams, Christopher Lintz, W.Nicholas
Trierweiler, J. Michael Qigg, Gus Hamblet, Abby C. Treece, and Dan Scurlock
1993 Cultural Resource Investigations in O.H. Ivie Reservoir. Concho, Coleman, and
Runnel Counties, Texas. Volume V: Historical Resources. Report to Colorado
River Municipal Water District, from Marian Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.
Edwards, Jay D. and Tom Wells
1993 Historic Louisiana Nails: Aids to the Dating of Old Buildings. The Fred B.
Kniffen Cultural Resource Laboratory Monograph Series, No.2. Geoscience
Publications, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisianna State
University, Baton Rouge.
Elliot, J. R.
1890 American Farms: Their Condition and Future. G. P. Putnam‘s Son‘s, New York.
Evolution of the Huddleston Farm. (EHF)
n. d.
Unpublished Huddleston House archives pamphlet
Fishlow, Albert
1985 Lessons from the Past: Capital Markets During the Nineteenth Century and the
Interwar Period. International Organization, 39 (30: 383-439).
Fontana, B. L. and J. C. Greenleaf
1962 Johnny Ward‘s Ranch. Kiva 28 (1-2).
Ford, Ben
2008 The Presentation of Self in Rural Life: The Use of Space at a Connected Farm.
Historical Archaeology 42 (4):59-74.
Freeman, L.
1954 Ironstone China. Century House, Watkins Glen, New York.
Gibb, James and David J. Bernstein and Stephen Zipp
2009 Farm and Factory: Agricultural Production Strategies and the Cheese and Butter
Industry. Historical Archaeology 43(2): 84-108.
Gosdon, Chris
2004 Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
201
Groover, Mark D.
2001 Linking Artifact Assemblages to Household Cycles: An Example from the Gibbs
Site. Historical Archaeology 35(4): 38-57.
2003 An Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism: The Gibbs Farmstead in Southern
Appalachia, 1790-1920. Plenum Publishers, New York.
2004 House Succession as a Catalyst of Landscape Change. Historical Archaeology.
38(4): 25-42.
2007a Architectural Archaeology at Huddleston Farmstead. Paper presented at 2007
Midwest Archaeological Conference, Notre Dame, IN.
2007b Excavation of Huddleston Farmhouse. May-June 2007
2008 The Archaeology of North American Farmsteads. University of Florida Press,
Gainesville.
2009 Exploring Hoosier Material Culture: Landscape and Architectural Archaeology at
the Moore-Youse House and Huddleston Farmstead. 4(1,2): 162-179.
Heiss, Willard C,
1962 Abstracts of the Records of the Society of Friends in Indiana, Indiana
Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Henry, S.L. and P.H. Garrow
1982 Ceramic Type Description. In City of Phoenix: Archaeological Investigation of
the Original Townsite. Soil System Publications in Archaeology No. 1 pp. 181382.
Hoffman, Charles
1970 The Depression of the Nineties, An Economic History. Greenwood Publishing,
Westport, Connecticut.
Hoxie, Frederick E.
1996 Encyclopedia of North American Indians. Houghton Mifflin Company, New
York.
Horn, James P.
1988 The Bare Necessities: Standards of Living in England ant the Chesapeake.
Historical Archaeology 22(2):74-91.
Hounshell, David A. (1984), From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932:
The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States, Baltimore,
Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press
202
Huddleston Family Records 1829-1930
2005. Processed by Kathryn Wilmont. Manuscript and Visual Collections Department.
William Henry Smith Memorial Library. Collection #M 0854, BV 3527, OM
0424 Indiana Historical Society.
Huddleston, B. J.
n.d.
Huddleston Farmhouse. http://www.huddleston.ourfamily.com/farmhouse.html
Huddleston, John
1837 Monsters of Iniquity. Indiana State Library.
Hunnicutt, Sara
2007 North Carolina Quakers in Indiana: Historical Context of the Huddleston
Farmstead. Paper presented at 2007 Midwest Archaeological Conference, Notre
Dame, IN.
Jugenheimer, R. W.
1985 Corn Improvement, Seed Production, and Uses. Robert E. Krieger Publishing
Company. Malabar, Florida.
Knapp, A. Bernard
1992 Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Koepple, Christopher
n.d.
Farmstead Archaeology. Pamplet distributed by Indiana Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology.
Kondratieff, N. D.
1979 The Long Waves in Economic Lives, Review 2:519-562.
Lamberg-Karlovshy, C.C.
1985 Archaeology: The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: Essays on the Prehistory of
Southwestern Asia. American Anthropologist 87 (30): 727-728.
Lofstrom, E., J. P. Tordoff, and D. C. George
1982 A Seriation of Historic Earthenwares of the Midwest, 1780-1870. The Minnesota
Archaeologist 41(1): 3-29.
Laswell, Jeff
2008. Functional Analysis of Probate Inventories and Archaeological Inventories and
Archaeological Material of the Lick Creek Community An Antebellum Midwest
203
Biracial Community. Master‘s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Ball State
University, Muncie, IN.
Leone, Mark P. and Parker B. Potter, Jr.
1988 The Recovery of Meaning in Historical Archaeology in the Easter United States.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington , D.C.
1999 Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,
New York.
Leone, Mark P., James M. Harmon, Stephen D. Prince, and Marcia Snyder
2006 LiDAR for Archaeological Landscape Analysis: A Case Study of Two
Eighteenth Century Maryland Plantation Sites,. American Antiquity, 71:4:649670.
Lofstrom, E., J. P. Tordoff, and D. C. George
1982 A Seriation of Historic Earthenwares of the Midwest, 1780-1870. The Minnesota
Archaeologist 41(1): 3-29.
Little, Barbara J.
1992 Text-Aided Archaeology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O‘Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth Century English and American Ceramicsin
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory,
Volume 11, edited by Michael B. Shiffer, pp. 97-209. Academic Press. New
York.
McCusker, John J. and Menard, Randall R..
1986 The Economy of British America, 1607-1789. University of North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
McGregor, John R and Richard Eric Cline
2001 Western Indiana Examples of Small Community Impacts of the Mid-Nineteenth
Century Industrial Transition. The Great Lakes Geographer 8(1):1-15.
McMurry, S.
1995 Transforming Rural Life: Dairying Families and Agricultural
Change, 1820-1885. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore.
Michael, Ronald L.
1975 Construction of National Road Bed: Historical and Archaeological Evidence.
Bulletin of the Associaltion for Preservation Technology 7 (4 ):50-55.
204
Miller, George
1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. Historical
Archaeology, 14: 1-41
1991 A Revised Sett of CC index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of
English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25 (1):1-25.
Moir, Randall W.
1987 Socioeconomic and Chronometric Patterning of Window Glass. In: Historic
Buildings , Material Culture, and the People of the Prairie Margin, David H.
Jurney and Randall Moir, editors, pp 83-96. Richland Creek Technical Series.
Vol. V. Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Archaeological Research
Program, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
Nation, Richard F.
2005 At Home in the Hoosier Hills: Agriculture, Politics, and Religion in Southern
Indiana, 1810-1870. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
O‘Donnell, Darby
2002. For Profit and Function : Consumption Patterns and Outward Expression of
Quakers as Seen Through Historical Documentation and 18th Century York
County, Virginia Probate Inventories, Master‘s. Thesis College of William and
Mary.
Orser, Charles E. Jr.
1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. Plenum Press, New York.
Orser, C. E. and Brian M. Fagan
1995 Historical Archaeology. Harper Collins, New York.
Otto, James S.
1984 Cannon‘s Point Plantation 1794-1860: Living Conditions and Status Patterns in
the Old South. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Pader, Ellen J.
1993 Spatiality and Social Change: Domestic Space in Mexico and the United State.
America Ethnologist. 20(1):114-137.
Parker William N.
1988 Quantification in American Agricultural History, 1850-1910: A Re-Examination .
Agricultural History, 62(3) Quantitative Studies in Agrarian History: 113-132.
Pickering, Paul A. and Alex Tyrrell
2000 The Peoples Bread: A History of the Anti-Corn Law League. Leicester
University Press, London.
Pruden, Henry O.
1978 The Kondratieff Wave. The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 2 No.2 pp. 62-70.
205
Reed, Thomas J.
1972 National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form. United States
Department of the Interior, National Parks Service.
Rafert, Stewart,
1996 The Miami Indians of Indiana, Indianan University Press, Bloomington.
Rahn, Kristen
2004 Home Excavation Opens Window on Quaker Past.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13181675&BRD=2243&PAG=4
61&dept_id=451163&rfi=6
Raitz, Karl
1996 The National Road: Creating the North American Landscape, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
The Richmond Palladium-Item
1930 January 4, 1930. Microfilm on file, Bracken Library, Ball State University,
Muncie, Indiana.
1930b January 13, 1930. Microfilm on file, Bracken Library, Ball State University,
Muncie, Indiana.
Richmond, Jerry
1995 Quaker Customs and Beliefs. Fidonet Genealogy Conference, 1995.
Russell, Elbert
1942 The History of Quakerism. MacMillan, New York.
Rosenburg, Nathan
1976. On technological expectations. Economic Journal 86 (September):
523—535.
Rotman, Deborah, Rachel Mancini, Aaron Smith, and Elizabeth Campbell
1998 African-American and Quaker Farmers in East Central Indiana: Social, Political,
and Economic Aspects of Life in Nineteenth-Century Rural Communities. Report
to Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, INDOT, from
Archaeological Resources Management Services, Ball State University, Muncie.
Rudolf, L.C.
1995 Hoosier Faiths: A History of Indiana’s Churches and Religious Groups. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
Samford, Patricia M.
1990 The Bates Site: Investigation of a Quaker Merchant. Colonial Williamsburg
Research Division.
206
Samuel, Bill
1999 Distribution of Quakers in the U.S.- http://www.quakerinfo.com/quak_us.shtml
Sasser, Ray
1977 Huddleston Farmhouse Inn Museum Archeology Interim Report. Report to
Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, Wayne County, from Society of
Professional Archeologist, Ball State University, Muncie.
Smith, Samuel D.
1983 Excavation of a Mid-Nineteenth Century Trash Pit, Wynewood State Historic
Site, Sumner County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 8(2): 133-181.
So, Alvin
1990 Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency, and World
Systems Theories. Sage Publications, London.
Solomou, Solomos
1986 Non-Balanced Growth and Kondretieff Waves in the World Economy. The
Journal of Economic History. Vol. 46, No. 1 pp. 165-169.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Stelle, Leland J.
2001 An Archaeological Guide to Historic Artifacts of the Upper Sangamon Basin,
Central Illinois, Parkland College, Champaign, Illinois.
Sutton, Mark Q. and Brooke S. Arkush
2009 Archaeology: Laboratory Methods, 5th Addition. Kendall Hunt Publishing,
Dubuque, Iowa.
Stoianovich, T.
1976 French Historical Method: The Annales paradigm. Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, New York.
Strezewski, M.
2004 An Archaeological Survey of the Thiebud Property in Switzerland County.,
Indiana University/ Purdue University at Ft.Wayne.
207
Stuart-Abernathy, Leslie
2004 Separate Kitchens and Intimate Archaeology: Constructing Urban Slavery on the
Antebellum Cotton Frontier in Washington, Arkansas In Household Chores and
Household Choices: Theorizing on the Domestic Sphere in Historical
Archaeology, edited by Kerri S. Barile and Jamie C. Brandon, University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 51-74.
Tolles, Frederick B.
1963 Meeting House and CountingHouse; The Quaker Merchants of
Colonial Philadelphia 1682-1763.. W. W.Norton, New York.
Trigger, Bruce
1978 Handbook Of North American Indians. Northeast. Vol.15. Smithsonian,
Washington.
United States Bureau of the Census (USBC)
1820 The Third Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson
Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State Archives,
Indianapolis.
1840 The Sixth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson
Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library,
Richmond
1850 The Seventh Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson
Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State Archives,
Indianapolis.
1850b The Seventh Census of the United States. Schedule 4. Production of Agriculture,
Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State
Archives, Indianapolis.
1860 The Eighth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson
Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library,
Richmond
1860b The Eighth Census of the United States. Schedule 3. Production of Agriculture,
Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State
Archives, Indianapolis.
208
1870
The Ninth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson
Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library,
Richmond
1870b The Ninth Census of the United States. Schedule 2. Production of Agriculture,
Jackson Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State
Archives, Indianapolis.
1880 The Tenth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson
Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library,
Richmond.
1880b The Tenth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson
Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Indiana State Archives,
Indianapolis.
1900 The Twelfth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson
Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library,
Richmond
1910 The Thirteenth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson
Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library,
Richmond
1920 The Fourteenth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson
Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library,
Richmond
1930 The Fifteenth Census of the United States. Schedule 1. Population, Jackson
Township, Wayne County, Indiana. Microfilm on file, Morrison-Reeves Library,
Richmond
Vanderstel, David
1985 Native Americans in Indiana: Resistance and Removal, Conner Prairie
Interpretive Resource Manual.
Wallerstein, Immanuel
1974 The Modern World System, Vol. I. Academic Press, New York.
1980 The Modern World System, Vol. II. Academic Press, New York
1984 Long Waves as Capitalist Process. Review 7:559:575
1989 The Modern World System, Vol. III. Academic Press, New York.
Wayne County Archives (WCA)
Wayne County Land Patent Book
1820-1821
on file, Office of Wayne County Recorder, Richmond.
209
Wayne County Transfer Books (WCTB)
1840-1845
WCTB, Wayne County: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond.
1846-1850
WCTB, Jackson Township: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond.
1841-1855
WCTB, Jackson Township: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond.
1856-1860
WCTB, Jackson Township: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond.
1861-1865
WCTB, Jackson Township: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond.
1866-1870
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond.
1871-1875
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond.
1876-1880
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
1881-1885
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
1886-1890
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
1881-1895
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
1896-1900
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
1901-1905
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
1906-1910
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
1911-1915
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
1916-1920
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
1921-1925
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
1926-1930
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
1931-1935
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H. on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Richmond
210
1936-1940
1941-1945
1946-1950
1951-1955
1956-1960
1961-1965
1966-1970
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H.
Richmond
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H.
Richmond
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H.
Richmond
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H.
Richmond
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H.
Richmond
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H.
Richmond
WCTB, Mt. Auburn: H.
Richmond
on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
on file , Office of Wayne County Auditor,
Wayne County Will and Probate Books (WCWPB)
1877 Will of John Huddleston, WCWPB, Vol: H, on file Office of Wayne County
Clerk, Richmond.
1892 Will of Susannah Huddleston, Manuscript and Visual Collections Department.
William Henry Smith Memorial Library. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
1913 Will of Henry Huddleston, WCWPB, Vol: H, on file Office of Wayne County
Clerk, Richmond.
Wayne County Genealogical Society
2009 Family History Library, located Educational Building, St. John Lutheran
Church.. anonymous primary documents, Richmond.
Wayne County Interim Report
2001 Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. Historic Landmarks of Indiana.
Wilson, Samuel
1990 Hispaniola: The Chiefdom of the Caribbean in the Early Years of European
Contact, University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa.
Wood, Suzanne M.
1984 Status, Occupation, and Ceramic Indices: A Nineteenth Century Comparative
Analysis, Man in the Northeast 28:87-110.
1987 Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, Plenum Press, New York.
211
Vanderstel, David
1985 Native Americans in Indiana: Resistance and Removal, Conner Prairie
Interpretive Resource Manual.
Weeks
1896 Southern Quakers and Slavery: A Study in Institutional History. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Wegars, P., and C. D. Carley
1982 The Very Latest Date Range: Design Trends in Twentieth Century Ceramics.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology,
Philadelphia.
Whitten, David
2001 Depression of 1893. EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaple, August 14,
2001, URL http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whitten.panic.1893.
Wilmot, Kathryn M.
2005 Huddleston Family Records, ca 1829-1930. Processed by Kathryn M. Wilmot on
file at Indiana Historical Society William Henry Smith Memorial Library,
Manuscript and Visual Collection Department, collection number M 0854, BV
3527, 0M 0424 File 1-10.
Wilson, John S.
1990 We’ve Got Thousands of These Things! What Makes an Historic Farmstead
Significant? Historical Archaeology. Vol. 24 No.2 pp. 23-33.
Wilson, William E.
1966 Indiana, A History. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Worthy, L.
1982 Classificaton and Interpretation of Late Nineteenth Century and Early Twentieth
Century Ceramics. In Archaeology of Urban America: The Search for Pattern and
Process, edithed by R.S. Dickens, Jr. Academic Press, New York
Yentsch, Ann
1991 Engendering Visible and Invisible Ceramics Artifact, Especially Dairy Vessels.
Historical Archaeology 25(4): 132-155
Van Zanden, J.L.
212
1991
The First Green Revolution: The Growth of Production and Productivity in
European Agriculture, 1870-1914. Economic History Review, XLIV 2 (1991) pp.
215-239.
Young, L. J.
2000 Production Agriculture Verses the Environment. Great Plains Research, 10
(1):85-101.
Young, Andrew
1872 History of Wayne County, Indiana, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Zoll, Mitch
2002 Huddleston Farmhouse Inn Archaeological Field Reconnaissance. Report to
Historic Landmarks Foundation, Wayne County, from Archaeological Resources
Management Services, Ball State University, Muncie.
213
APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL REPORT
The 2007 National Road historical archaeology field school was conducted at Huddleston House
(12-Wy-10) in May and June of 2007 under the supervision of Dr. Mark Groover. The objectives
of the excavation included investigating the dense midden identified in the 2002 shovel probe
survey (Zoll 2002), identify the location, size, form, and function of a former outbuilding, and
recover and identify related material culture encountered during excavation.
Investigating the midden feature identified during the 2002 survey was the initial step in the 2007
excavation. The location and density of each shovel probe tests was plotted on an artifact density
diagram. Figure A.1 indicates a large area of high density probes. Although several shovel
probes contained artifacts, the majority of high density probes were concentrated in one area.
Armed with this information, the field crew strategically placed ten (10) test units.
A large dressed limestone foundation with intact bricks was discovered. The structure was
referred to as Structure 1. In addition, a fence post was discovered during excavation. Therefore,
the excavation results are discussed in this section.
UNIT 1: N426/W80 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)
Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association
(LbB2). In the northwest quadrant of the unit a wood ash deposit and soil disturbance were
present. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, brick, mortar, and bone were all recovered from Level
1. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Level 1 is 1880.
Level 2- Level 2 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association
(LbB2). Slight gray soil modeling was noted. The brown clay loam is lighter in color relative to
Level 1. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, nail, brick, and mortar were all recovered from Level
1. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Level 2 is 1888.
Level 3-The soil in Level 3 begins to change from dark brown loam to light tan clayey loam.
Large architectural items such as brick fragments were especially present throughout the north
half of the unit. Ceramics, curved glass, nails, flat glass, metal, mortar, and bone were also
214
recovered in level three. One sherd of blues shell edged embossed pearlware was recovered from
Level 3. Limestone fragments were found at the base of level 3. The mean artifact date of the
artifacts contained within Level 3 is 1888.
Feature 1: Feature 1 was located in Unit 1 and consisted of a posthole containing a wooden locust
post from a former fence line. Feature 1 was located in the northwest quadrant of Unit 1, the
center point of which lying approximately 1‘ south of the north wall and 0.7‘ east of the west
wall. The post measured approximately .3‘ (3.5 in) in diameter. The top of the post was less than
0.1‘ below the ground surface and extended 2.3‘ into the posthole. The southern half of the
posthole fill from Feature 1was excavated to a depth of 2 feet below the base of level 3. The fill
excavated from the southern half of the posthole of Feature 1 was approximately 1.2‘ in diameter
east to west. Among the fill in the posthole were several rocks and brick fragments. Dark brown
clay loam describes the soil fill throughout the feature.
UNIT 2: N 426/ W 86 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)
Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association
(LbB2). Pieces of mortar, a feather, coal slag, and a percussion cap were among artifacts
contained within Level 1. However, an insufficient amount of time sensitive artifacts were
recovered from level 1, therefore a mean artifact date was not calculated.
Level2- The dark brown clay loam described in level1continued throughout level 2. Ceramics,
curved glass, flat glass, break, mortar, nails, and bone were recovered from level 2. The mean
artifact date of the artifacts contained within a level 2 is 1888.
Level 3- A similar dark brown clay loam described in levels 1 and 2 was encountered in level, as
well. In addition, a light tan colored clay loam subsoil was encountered in Level 3.Ceramics, flat
glass, curved glass, nails, brick, mortar, and bone were all recovered from Level 3. Observed
disturbances within Level 3 consist of several tree roots. The mean artifact date of the artifacts
contained within a level 3 is 1889.
UNIT 3: N447/ W 89 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)
Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association
(LbB2). The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground surface to 0.2 feet below ground
surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, brick, mortar, and several pieces of limestone
foundation rubble were all recovered from Level 1. In addition, the several pieces of limestone
215
predicted the presence of probable feature. Tree roots were noted throughout, but most severe in
the southeast quadrant. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Level 1 is 1895.
Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The
beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground
surface, respectively. Several large limestone foundation stones were discovered in Unit 3 Level
2, this feature was labeled, Feature 2, Structure 1. Ceramics, curved glass, flat glass, break,
mortar and limestone foundation rubble were recovered from level 2. The mean artifact date of
the artifacts contained within a level 2 is 1909.
Level 3- Feature 2 Structure 1 which was identified in Level 2 became more clearly defined
following the removal of the soil from Level 3. The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4
feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface, respectively. A light tan colored clay
loam subsoil was encountered in Level 3. Flat glass, brick, mortar, and nails were recovered from
Level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Level 3 is 1862.
Level 4: Feature 2 Structure 1 which was identified in Level 2 became very clearly defined
following the removal of Levels 3 and Level 4. The beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6
feet below ground surface to 0.8 feet below ground surface, respectively. A similar dark brown
clayey loam soil was contained throughout Level 3 which was described earlier. Brick, mortar,
limestone, coal, and burnt wood were contained within Level 4. Level 4 lacked time sensitive
artifacts; therefore a mean artifact date was not determined.
Feature 2, Structure 1-Several large limestone foundation stones were discovered in Unit 3.
Feature 2, Structure 1 consists of three (3) large limestone foundation blocks measuring: 1) 1.0‘x
0.7‘, 2) 1.1‘ x 0.6‘, and 3) 1.0‘ x 0.9‘. Several smaller pieces of limestone rubble are also present.
In addition, stones of various varieties associated with the foundation are present throughout. The
three (3) large foundation stones contained within Unit 3 are primarily located in the southeast
quadrant of the Unit 3, but extend at least slightly into all four quadrants of the unit.
UNIT 4: N447/ W 80 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)
Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association
(LbB2) similar to that previously described. Humus was also found in Level 1. The beginning
and end depth of Level 1 were ground surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively.
Ceramics, flat glass, bricks, mortar, and nails were recovered from Level 1. The possible
continuation of Feature 2, Structure 1 was noted in the southern half of Unit 4 due to large
amounts of construction rubble. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 4
Level 1 was 1886.
Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. In
addition, Level 2 consisted of destruction/rubble zone associated with Feature 2, Structure 1. The
216
fill contained brick and limestone rubble with mortar, nails, and window glass. The beginning
and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground surface,
respectively. The suspected continuation of Feature 2, Structure 1 noted in Level 1 was
confirmed by large limestone foundation stones encountered at a depth of 0.3 feet below ground
surface in Level 2. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, and nails
were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 4
Level 2 was 1881
Level 3- The dark brown clay loam integrated with a destruction/rubble zone associated with
Feature 2, Structure 1, described in Unit 4, Level 1 and Level 2 continued throughout Level 3. A
light tan colored clay loam subsoil was encountered at the base of Level 3. The beginning and end
depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface,
respectively. Two large roots were observed running in a perpendicular direction (N-S) to the
foundation stones (E-W). Flat glass, bricks, mortar, and nails were recovered from Level 2. The
mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 4 Level 3 was 1873.
Feature 2, Structure 1 – Several large limestone foundation stones associated with Feature 2,
Structure 1. The foundation stones trend in an east-to-west direction within Unit 4 and consist of
3 large stones and several smaller fragments. The largest of the 3 limestone foundation stones
measures 1.1‘x 0.85‘. It is located in the southeast quadrant of Unit 4, 0.2‘ west of the east wall
and 0.85‘ north of the south wall. The remaining 2 large foundation stones appear in the
southwest quadrant of Unit 4. The centerline of the foundation within the unit trends
approximately 1.3‘ north of the south wall. The remaining limestone and brick fragments lie in
the south half of Unit 4. A more dense concentration of artifacts from the architectural group
were recovered from the southern half of Unit 4. The portion of the limestone foundation
associated with Structure 1 lies at a depth of 0.3‘ below the ground surface and continues
approximately 0.25‘ near the base of Level 3. This portion of foundation is a center segment of
the northern wall of Structure 1.
UNIT 5: N444.5/ W 67 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)
Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association
(LbB2) similar to that previously described, humus and sod were also noted. . The beginning and
end depth of Level 1 were ground surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively.
Ceramics, curved glass, and bricks were recovered from Level 1. The mean artifact date of the
artifacts contained within a Unit 5 Level 1 was 1876.
Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The
beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground
surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved
217
glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 2. The mean
artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 5Level 2 was 1882.
Level 3- The soil in Level 3 begins to change from dark brown loam to light tan clayey loam.
The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below
ground surface, respectively. The light tan colored clay loam subsoil was encountered throughout
Level 3. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were
recovered from Level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 5 Level 3
was 1884.
Level 4- A light tan color clay loam subsoil continued in Level 4. The lighter colored clay loam
throughout mixed with small amounts of the dark brown clay loam described in Level 1,2, and 3.
The beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6 feet below ground surface to 0.8 feet below
ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics, flat glass,
curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 4. The
mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 5 Level 4 was 1880.
Level 5-The light tan color clay loam subsoil encountered in Level 4 continued into Level 5.
The beginning and end depth of Level 5 were 0.8 feet below ground surface to 1.0 foot below
ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics and
curved glass were recovered from Level 5. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained
within a Unit 5 Level 5 was 1862.
UNIT6: N435/ W 71 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)
Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association
(LbB2) similar to that previously described. The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground
surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks,
mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 1. The mean artifact date of
the artifacts contained within a Unit 6 Level 1 was 1870.
Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The
beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground
surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails,
and bone were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a
Unit 6 Level 2 was 1885.
Level 3- A lighter colored clay loam was encountered throughout Level 3. The beginning and end
depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface,
respectively. Feature 2 Structure 1 continued in Unit 6 Level 3 on the west portion of the unit.
Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, and nails, were recovered
from Level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 6 Level 3 was 1886.
218
UNIT 7: N 429/ W 71 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)
Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association
(LbB2) similar to that previously described. The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground
surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. The mean artifact date of the artifacts
contained within a Unit 7 Level 1 was 1879.
Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The
beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground
surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails,
and bone were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a
Unit 7 Level 2 was 1892.
Level 3- The soil in Level 3 begins to change from dark brown loam to light tan clayey loam.
The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet below
ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments,
nails, and bone were recovered from Level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained
within a Unit 7 Level 3 was 1893.
- Level 4- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1ended and light tan colored clay loam
subsoil was encountered in Level 4. The beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6 feet below
ground surface to 0.8 feet below ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble
were noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone
were recovered from Level 4. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 7
Level 4 was 1890
Level 5-The light tan clay loam described in Level 4continued throughout Level 5. The beginning
and end depth of Level 5 were 0.8 feet below ground surface to 1.0 feet below ground surface,
respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass,
and nails, were recovered from Level 5. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a
Unit 7 Level 5 was 1890.
UNIT8: N429/ W 68 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)
Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association
(LbB2) similar to that previously described. The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground
surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks,
mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level. The mean artifact date of
the artifacts contained within a Unit 8 Level 1 was 1902.
219
Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The
beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground
surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails,
and bone were recovered from Level The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a
Unit 8 Level 2 was 1899.
Level 3- Feature 2 Structure 1 was encountered in Level 3. This portion of Structure 1 was the
southeast corner. The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to
0.6 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar,
metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level. The mean artifact date of the
artifacts contained within a Unit 8 Level 3 was 1895.
Level 4- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1ended and a light tan colored clay loam
subsoil was encountered in Level 4. An intact course of bricks remained in situ atop dressed
limestone foundation stones. The beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6 feet below ground
surface to 0.8 feet below ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were
noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were
recovered from Level 4. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 8 Level 4
was 1895.
Level 5-The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 5. The
beginning and end depth of Level 5 were 0.8 feet below ground surface to 1.0 feet below ground
surface, respectively.. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, and nails, were recovered from Level 5.
The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 8 Level 5 was 1893.
UNIT9: N 435/ W 68 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)
Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association
(LbB2) similar to that previously described. The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground
surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks,
mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level. The mean artifact date of
the artifacts contained within a Unit 9 Level 1 was 1892.
Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The
beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground
surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails,
and bone were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a
Unit 9 Level 2 was 1904.
Level 3- The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below ground surface to 0.6 feet
below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal
220
fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 3. The mean artifact date of the artifacts
contained within a Unit 8 Level 3 was 1895.
Level 4- The dark brown clay loam described in Level 1 ceased and light tan color clay loam
subsoil was encountered in Level 4. The beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6 feet below
ground surface to 0.8 feet below ground surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble
were noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone
were recovered from Level 4. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 9
Level 4 was 1873.
UNIT 10: N426/ W 89 (SW Grid Corner Coordinate)
Level 1- Level 1 consisted of a dark brown clay loam soil of the Losantville silt loam association
(LbB2) similar to that previously described. The beginning and end depth of Level 1 were ground
surface to 0.2 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks,
mortar, metal fragments, and nails were recovered from Level 1. The mean artifact date of the
artifacts contained within a Unit 10 Level 1 was 1883
Level 2- The dark brown clay loam described in Level1continued throughout Level 2. The
beginning and end depth of Level 2 were 0.2 feet below ground surface to 0.4 feet below ground
surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails,
and bone were recovered from Level 2. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a
Unit 10 Level 2 was 1896.
Level 3- Large dressed limestone foundation stones were discovered in Unit 10 Level 3. These
stones represent the southwest corner Structure 1. The soil in Level 3 begins to change from dark
brown loam to light tan clayey loam. The beginning and end depth of Level 3 were 0.4 feet below
ground surface to 0.6 feet below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass,
bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 3. The mean artifact
date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 10 Level 3 was 1887.
Level 4- A light tan color clay loam subsoil was encountered in Level 4 and also Level 5. The
beginning and end depth of Level 4 were 0.6 feet below ground surface to 0.8 feet below ground
surface, respectively. Root disturbances and large rubble were noted. Ceramics, flat glass, curved
glass, bricks, mortar, metal fragments, nails, and bone were recovered from Level 4. The mean
artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 10 Level 4 was 1890.
Level 5-. The beginning and end depth of Level 5 were 0.8 feet below ground surface to 1.0 feet
below ground surface, respectively. Ceramics, flat glass, curved glass, and nails, were recovered
from Level 5. The mean artifact date of the artifacts contained within a Unit 10 Level 5 was
1887.
221
221
FIGURE A.1. Spatial Distribution of 2002 STP artifacts, red circle indicates location of structure 1.
222
222
FIGURE A.2. Ball State University students excavating around structure 1, 2007, photograph courtesy of Mark Groover.
223
FIGURE A.3. Unit 4, 2007, photograph courtesy of Mark Groover.
223
224
FIGURE A.4. Units 3, 2007, photograph courtesy of Mark Groover.
224
225
FIGURE A.5. Unit 1, feature 1, posthole, 2007,
photograph courtesy of Mark Groover.
226
FIGURE A.6. Artifacts recovered from Huddleston House, photograph courtesy of
Mark Groover.
227
1’
2’
3’
LINE LEVEL
Unit Base
.5
1
1.5
2
FIGURE A.7. : Unit 1, Feature 1-North wall.
F
e
e
t
B
e
l
o
w
L
i
n
e
228
1’
2’
3’
LINE LEVEL
Ground Surface
.5
1
1.5
= Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil
=Light Tan Clay Subsoil
2
Huddleston House (12-wy-429)
FIGURE A.8. Unit 1-South wall.
Profile
Unit 1 South wall
F
e
e
t
B
e
l
o
w
L
i
n
e
229
1’
2’
3’
LINE LEVEL
Ground surface
.5
1
=Brick
= Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil
=Light Tan Clay Subsoil
1.5
=Limestone
=Mortar
2
Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)
Profile
Unit 6 South Wall
Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)
Profile
FIGURE A.9. Unit 4, west wall.
Unit 4 West Wall
F
e
e
t
B
e
l
o
w
L
i
n
e
230
1’
2’
3’
LINE LEVEL
Ground Surface
.5
1
1.5
= Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil
=Light Tan Clay Subsoil
=Limestone (Feature 2)
Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)
Profile
Unit 6 South Wall
FIGURE A. 10. Unit 6, south wall.
2
F
e
e
t
B
e
l
o
w
L
i
n
e
231
1’
2’
3’
LINE LEVEL
Ground Surface
.5
1
West into Unit 8
= Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil
=Light Tan Clay Subsoil
= Brick
=Limestone
= Concrete
= Compacted Soil Pedestal
2
Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)
Profile
Unit 7 North Wall
FIGURE A.11. Unit 7, north wall.
1.5
F
e
e
t
B
e
l
o
w
L
i
n
e
232
1’
2’
3’
LINE LEVEL
Groundsurface
Surface
Ground
.5
1
= Molded Clay Disturbance
= Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil
=Light Tan Clay Subsoil
=Brick
=Brick
1.5
=Limestone
=Mortar
2
Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)
Profile
Unit 8 North Wall
Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)
FIGURE A. 12. Unit 8, north wall.
Profile
4 North
West Wall
Unit 8
Wall
F
e
e
t
B
e
l
o
w
L
i
n
e
233
1’
2’
3’
LINE LEVEL
Ground Surface
.5
1
1.5
= Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil
=Light Tan Clay Subsoil
= Brick
= Limestone
Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)
Profile
Unit 9 South Wall
FIGURE A. 13. Unit 9, south wall.
2
F
e
e
t
B
e
l
o
w
L
i
n
e
234
1’
-1’
2’
234
3’
LINE LEVEL
Ground Surface
.5
1
Feature 2
1.5
=Limestone Foundation
= Cobble
= Mortar
= Dark Brown Clay Loam Topsoil
=Light Tan Clay Subsoil
Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)
Profile
Unit 5 South Wall
FIGURE A. 14. Unit 5, south wall.
2
F
e
e
t
B
e
l
o
w
L
i
n
e
235
W72
Feature 2: Structure 1
Foundation stones
Feature2: Structure 1
In tact foundation base
UNIT 3
UNIT 4
N449
UNIT 5
N447
W89
N447
W80
66
261
130
N444.5/ W67
173
Tree
UNIT 6
UNIT 9
106
UNIT 10
N435/W68
Feature 2: Structure 1
Foundation stones
490
UNIT 7
Feature 1: Post & Posthole
N432
W89
N429
W68
316
302
UNIT 8
N426
W86
UNIT 2
N426
W80
Feature 2: Structure 1
In tact brick course
remnant resting atop of
limestone foundation
516
425
UNIT 1
N
KEY:
00=Artifact Density
= Brick
= Stone
SCALE: in Feet
0
FIGURE A.15. 2007 unit locations.
4
8
16
235
236
236
N
0
1’
2’
3’
1’
2’
3’
Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)
Unit 5 Level 5
SCALE: In Feet
0
.5
FIGURE A.16. Unit 5.
1
Feature 2
237
N
Huddleston House
(12-Wy-429)
Unit 8 Level 4
SCALE: In Feet
0
.5
FIGURE A.17. Unit 8.
1
237
238
N
Huddleston House
(12-Wy-429)
Unit 10 Level 4
SCALE: In Feet
0
.5
FIGURE A.18. Unit 10.
1
238
239
N
Cobble
Scale: In Feet
0
.5
1
Brick
Limestone
Brick
Cobbles
Tree Roots
Huddleston House (12-Wy-429)
Unit 6 and Unit 9 Level 4
FIGURE A.19. Units 6 and 9.
239
240
APPENDIX B. Artifact Inventory, 2007.
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
2
Ceramics
2
Ceramics
2
Ceramics
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
1
Misc
3
1
1
1
Misc
Ceramics
Bone
Nail
2
1
3
Misc
Misc
Misc
2
Misc
Screw/Bolt
Brick Sample
Large
Flagstone
Mortar Samples
Smal Brick
Samples
3
Ceramics
WBW
2
1
4
Surface Collection
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Description
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
2.78
1.99
1.17
1.69
1.89
2.05
Comments
Mean Date
Albany slip int/ext
Bristol salt glazed
slip int
salt glazed Albany
slip int
stoneware Albany
slip
Whiteware
clear
green
1888
Amethyst
1898
Aqua
1855
dark green
1839
UID
tooth
Brick sample
Cement Sample
Mortar Samples
Coal Sample
Metal frag large w/
lettering (.sep
Metal frag. 1 w/
hook possible go
together
Whiteware
1900
Whiteware
Yellowware
clear
clear
clear
clear
1915
1880
1888
1900
1880
1875
Blue Transfer
Print
1848
1880
1811
1855
1872
1885
241
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
6
1
44
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Misc
2.07
2.27
2.32
2.37
2.54
Description
Comments
Mean Date
clear
clear
clear
clear
blue
1887
1904
1908
1912
aqua
1855
1920
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Lt. green
1 tooth
Brick sample
Feature One
Fragments
Mortar Sample
Coal Sample
Walnut Shell
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Albany slip int/ext
Pearlware molded
Redware
Refined Redware
Semi-Porcelain
WBW
WBW
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
1.38
1.41
1.44
1.45
1.51
1.56
1.57
1.62
1.63
1.83
1.84
1.85
1.96
1.97
2.04
2.08
2.19
2.20
2.20
2.23
2.37
2.36
2.38
Blue Shell Edge
Tan Paste
Floral Decal
1888
1810
1860
1860
1915
1875
1875
1829
1832
1834
1835
1840
1844
1845
1849
1850
1867
1868
1869
1878
1879
1885
1888
1897
1898
1898
1901
1912
1912
1913
242
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
2.38
2.40
Description
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
4
1
2
8
1
2
21
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
9
7
5
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
Misc
Misc
Misc
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
1
2
1
Misc
1
1
1
3
3
3
8
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
2
28
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Albany slip int/ext
Pearlware molded
Redware
Salt glazed
stoneware
WBW
WBW
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Whiteware
green
green
green
blue
clear
Mean Date
clear
clear
1913
1915
Amber
1920
Amethyst
1898
Aqua
1855
Clear
1928
Lt. green
1920
Lt. green
2 teeth
Wire
cut
Nail frag.
Brick sample
Limestone Sample
Mortar Samples
12 ga. "Winchester
repeater" shot gun
shell cap
Shoe Grommet
Coal Sample
Bone Possible
burnt
Pull tab metal
Threaded knob?
Metal Frag UID
Wire 130mm long
.83mm dia.
1.20
1.39
1.40
1.47
1.44
Comments
Floral decal
1920
1935
1860
Blue Shell Edge
1888
1810
1860
Floral Decal
1880
1925
1900
Blue Transfer
Print
1848
1813
1830
1831
1832
1834
243
Unit
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Level
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Count Artifact Type Thickness
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.55
1.58
1.67
1.68
1.72
1.76
1.79
1.81
1.80
1.81
1.84
1.84
1.86
1.85
1.92
1.93
1.93
2.00
2.03
2.05
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.12
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.16
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.21
2.26
2.32
2.36
2.40
2.42
2.57
2.60
2.71
2.80
Description
clear
blue
clear
clear
clear
green
clear
green
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
blue
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
clear
blue
clear
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
clear
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
clear
green
Amber
Comments
Mean Date
1836
1836
1836
1843
1846
1853
1854
1858
1861
1864
1865
1865
1865
1868
1868
1869
1869
1874
1875
1875
1881
1884
1885
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1893
1894
1895
1895
1897
1897
1897
1899
1903
1908
1912
1915
1917
1929
1932
1941
1949
1920
244
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
1
3
3
1
3
12
1
3
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
5
2
6
4
1
8
10
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
Misc
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
3
Misc
Misc
Ceramics
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
1
3
1
Misc
1
3
1
Misc
1
3
1
Misc
1
3
1
Misc
1
1
3
3
8
1
Misc
Misc
1.98
2.10
3.08
Description
Comments
Mean Date
Amethyst
1898
Aqua
1855
Clear
1928
Lt. green
1 tooth
F.1 Fill, 2 Teeth
Wire
Cut
Screw/Bolt
UID
Nail frag.
Shoe Grommet
Coal Sample
Slag sample
Chert flake
Metal Tube/Frag.
Copper?
Stone bi-faced heat
treated tip
Metal Frag UID
Albany slip int/ext
1920
Whiteware
clear
clear
clear
1935
1860
1888
unscalloped rim,
painted lines
1875
1880
1890
Amethyst
1898
Clear
1928
Lt. green
cut
Brick Sample, F.1
Fill
Limestone sample,
F. 1 Fill
Mortar Sample, F.1
Fill
Coal Sample, F.1
Fill
Brick Sample, F.1
Fill
Limestone sample,
1920
1860
245
Unit
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
Count
Description
Description
1
3
4
Misc
F.1 Fill
Wedge stones, F.1
Fill
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Brick sample
Coal Sample
Slag sample
Feather
2
2
2
2
4
17
Ceramics
Ceramics
Refined Redware
WBW
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Whiteware
green
clear
blue
blue
amethyst
clear
clear
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
blue
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
blue
clear
green
blue
blue
clear
green
clear
clear
clear
1.17
1.53
1.53
1.54
1.55
1.61
1.63
1.67
1.68
1.69
1.74
1.74
1.77
1.79
1.85
1.88
1.88
1.89
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.92
1.95
2.01
2.01
2.03
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.12
2.19
2.24
Comments
Comments
White int, Red
ext
Blue Transfer
Print
Mean
MeanDate
Date
1860
1875
1848
1810
1841
1841
1842
1843
1848
1850
1853
1854
1855
1859
1859
1862
1864
1869
1871
1871
1872
1873
1873
1873
1874
1877
1882
1882
1884
1885
1885
1886
1891
1897
1901
246
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
8
15
19
3
10
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Misc
Misc
Misc
2
2
1
Misc
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
5
1
12
1
86
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
2.27
2.28
2.31
2.32
2.33
2.40
2.41
2.48
2.52
2.54
2.56
2.61
3.06
3.07
3.00
2.84
3.07
3.07
Description
Comments
Mean Date
blue
green
clear
clear
blue
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
blue
green
blue
clear
blue
green
clear
clear
1904
1905
1907
1908
1909
1915
1916
1921
1925
1927
1928
1933
Amber
1920
Amethyst
1898
Aqua
1855
Clear
1928
Lt. green
2 teeth
Wire
cut
UID
Nail frag.
Brick sample
Burned brick
sample
Cement Sample
Mortar Sample
.50 cal. Shell
casing
Button or snap
"Corona"
Metal Button?
Coal Sample
Slag sample
Chert debitage
Foil Metal
Metal fragments
1920
1935
1860
247
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
2
2
2
2
1
2
Misc
Misc
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
5
4
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Misc
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
Description
Comments
Mean Date
White plastic frag.
"L 1"
Wire fragments
1.07
1.42
1.41
1.47
1.71
1.92
1.94
2.01
1.99
2.01
2.14
2.28
2.29
2.36
2.73
2.92
3.00
0.59
Albany slip int/ext
Bisque porcelain
Semi-Porcelain
clear
clear
blue
blue
clear
blue
clear
clear
clear
blue
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
molded
1888
1880
1865
1807
1832
1832
1836
1857
1874
1876
1880
1880
1882
1893
1905
1906
1912
1943
Amber
1920
Aqua
1855
Clear
1928
1935
1860
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
wire
cut
Brick sample
Deteriorating
Limestone Sample
Coal Sample
S-Hook
UID wood artifact
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Semi-Porcelain
Whiteware
green
green
green
clear
1915
1900
1900
1912
1902
1945
2.22
2.36
2.25
2.76
248
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Misc
2.24
1.06
1.04
Description
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
3
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
UID
wire
cut
Brick sample
Limestone Sample
Limestone with
Morter attached
Mortar Samples
Coal Sample
Slag sample
Foil Aluminum
Hook metal
Metal peg
Sandstone sample
Metal Frag UID
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
2
1
2
1
1
Ceramics
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Flat Glass
Nail
Misc
Misc
Whiteware
Brick sample
Limestone Sample
Mortar Samples
Coal Sample
clear
cut
Brick sample
Limestone Sample
1.98
2.21
2.28
2.00
Comments
Mean Date
clear
green
green
1901
1801
1800
Clear
1928
Clear
1928
lt. aqua
tooth
Brick sample
1855
Whiteware
green
clear
clear
1900
1880
1899
1905
amethyst
1898
Clear
1928
1935
1860
Blue Transfer
Print
1848
1881
1860
249
Unit
Level Count
Count Artifact
Artifact Type
Type Thickness
Thickness
Level
Description
Description
3
3
1
Misc
Metal Frag UID
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
3
4
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Brick sample
Decomp. limestone
Limestone Sample
Mortar Sample
Coal Sample
Burnt Wood
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
2.32
1.11
1.21
2.74
1.09
1.15
2.21
1.30
2.63
1.65
1.29
1.19
2.06
1.20
2.43
2.71
2.92
1.78
2.59
1.93
1.80
1.83
1.15
Comments
Comments
Mean Date
Mean
WBW
clear
blue
blue
clear
1875
1908
1805
1813
1943
Amethyst
1898
Clear
wire
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
Coal Sample
Screwdriver
1928
1935
Albany slip int/ext
WBW
Yellowware
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
blue
clear
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
blue
clear
clear
blue
blue
clear
1888
1875
1880
1804
1810
1899
1822
1934
1852
1821
1813
1886
1813
1917
1941
1863
1931
1875
1864
1867
1810
250
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
3
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.51
2.45
1.36
2.53
1.12
2.87
1.11
1.78
2.23
1.94
1.33
2.46
2
4
2
5
4
2
1
1
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
1.15
2.62
3.02
2.42
1.14
1.84
2.39
2.41
1.70
1.77
1.16
2.77
1.16
2.31
1.15
3.01
1.28
2.98
2.41
1.84
1.11
Description
Comments
Mean Date
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
blue
clear
green
1924
1919
1827
1926
1807
Amethyst
1898
Aqua
1855
Clear
1928
wire roof
wire
UID
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
Foil Metal
1935
1935
clear
green
green
green
clear
green
green
blue
blue
clear
blue
green
green
green
blue
green
clear
green
green
blue
blue
1810
1933
1805
1863
1901
1876
1825
1920
1917
1809
1868
1914
1916
1856
1862
1810
1810
1907
1810
1814
1916
1868
1805
251
Unit
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Level
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Count
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
Artifact Type Thickness
Description
Flat Glass
1.21 blue
Flat Glass
2.91 clear
Flat Glass
2.68 clear
Flat Glass
1.33 blue
Flat Glass
2.28 clear
Flat Glass
1.13 clear
Flat Glass
2.37 clear
Flat Glass
1.18 clear
Flat Glass
1.22 clear
Flat Glass
1.82 clear
Flat Glass
1.74 clear
Flat Glass
2.31 clear
Flat Glass
1.76 clear
Flat Glass
2.10 clear
Flat Glass
2.75 clear
Flat Glass
2.24 clear
Curved
Glass
Amethyst
Curved
Glass
Lt. green
Nail
cut
Nail
wire
Nail
Screw/Bolt
Misc
Brick sample
Misc
Mortar Sample
Misc
Safty Pin Frag.
5
1
2
Ceramics
5
5
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Misc
Misc
Misc
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
11
1
2
1
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Comments
1938
1825
1905
1807
1912
1812
1813
1866
1859
1907
1861
1890
1944
1901
1898
1920
1860
1935
WBW
2.08
Whiteware
clear
1875
blue/green
transfer print
Lt. green
Aqua
Brick sample
Coal Sample
Slag sample
1.16
1.47
1.80
Redware
WBW
Whiteware
Yellowware
blue
clear
clear
Mean Date
1813
1848
1888
1920
Drip points at
base
yellow glaze ext.
1855
1860
1875
1875
1880
1810
1836
1864
252
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
1
5
2
4
5
2
7
5
2
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
7
5
5
4
7
1
1
1
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
5
5
2
2
1
1
Misc
Misc
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
4
1
1
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Ceramics
Ceramics
5
5
3
3
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
2.53
2.71
2.74
2.57
2.27
1.86
1.12
1.17
1.12
1.13
1.39
Description
Comments
Mean Date
blue
clear
clear
clear
green
green
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
1926
1941
1943
1929
1904
1869
1807
1810
1807
1807
1830
Amber
1920
Aqua
2 w/ drip points
1855
Clear
1928
dark green
1839
Lt. green
1920
wire
cut
Nail frag.
UID
Brick sample
Cement Sample
Cobble Sample
Flat stone
(limestone?)
Mortar Sample
.22 shell casings (1
Winchester Super
X)
Coal Sample
Slag sample
Foil Metal
Hook
Paper
Plastic cup frag.
Metal Frag UID
Plastic
Albany slip int/ext
Redware
salt glazed albany
slip int
Salt glazed
1935
1860
1888
1860
1880
1880
253
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
21
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
9
4
9
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
5
5
5
3
3
3
11
8
3
Misc
Misc
Misc
5
4
2
Ceramics
5
4
1
Ceramics
5
4
1
Ceramics
1.71
1.75
2.35
1.28
1.41
2.32
1.94
2.34
2.33
2.58
2.17
1.44
2.01
1.72
2.61
2.65
1.45
1.37
1.44
2.50
Description
Comments
Mean Date
stoneware
WBW
blue
blue
blue
blue
blue
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
green
green
green
1875
1857
1858
1911
1820
1832
1908
1876
1910
1909
1930
1896
1834
1882
1858
1933
1936
1835
1828
1834
1923
aqua
1855
Clear
1928
wire
cut
UID
Brick sample
Cement Sample
Electrical
connector
Mortar Sample
Slag sample
Foil Metal
Lithic UID
(rubble?)
Metal Frag UID
Wire fragments
1935
1860
Redware
refined
earthenware
salt glazed albany
slip int
1860
1880
254
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
3
5
4
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
3
8
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Nail
Misc
6
6
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
6
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Misc
Misc
6
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
6
6
6
2
2
1
1
2.43
1.56
1.70
2.51
1.72
1.10
Description
WBW
Whiteware
Yellowware
blue
blue
blue
clear
Comments
Floral Decal
Mean Date
1875
1925
1880
1917
1844
1856
1923
aqua
1855
Clear
1928
Lt. green
1920
wire
cut
UID
Nail frag.
Granite sample
Mortar Sample
.22 shell casing
Coal Sample
Metal Frag UID
Complete brick
1935
1860
Whiteware
blue
green
UID
Mortar Sample
Floral Decal
1925
1858
1805
Yellowware
clear
1880
1817
aqua
1855
Clear
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
1928
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Albany slip int/ext
Albany slip int/ext
Redware
WBW
1888
1888
1860
1875
Ceramics
Ceramics
Whiteware
Whiteware
1.24
Blue Transfer
Print
Green (floral?)
1848
1925
255
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
Description
Comments
Mean Date
decal
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
2
6
2
5
6
2
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
5
2
5
6
2
1
1
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
wire roof
cut
wire
Nail frag.
Brick sample
Cement Sample
Doorknob frag.
ceramic (redware)
Mortar Sample
.22 shell casing
Metal Button
Plastic cup frag.
UID lead? Weight
Lithics UID
Metal Frag UID
6
3
1
Ceramics
Albany slip int/ext
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
2.21
1.34
2.00
1.53
1.49
2.35
2.36
1.27
2.18
1.16
2.01
1.34
2.30
clear
blue
clear
green
green
blue
green
green
clear
green
blue
blue
clear
1899
1826
1881
1841
1838
1911
1912
1813
1896
1810
1882
1826
1906
Amber
1920
aqua
1855
Clear
1928
Dark red
3.01
1.37
1.85
2.38
0.95
Whiteware
clear
blue
blue
blue
green
1935
1860
1935
1888
Blue/white/black
decal
1925
1828
1869
1913
1793
256
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
6
3
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
4
4
4
1
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
6
6
3
3
1
1
Misc
Misc
6
3
1
Misc
6
3
3
Misc
7
1
5
Ceramics
7
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
7
1
2
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
2
3
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
7
7
1
1
1
1
Misc
Misc
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
7
7
2
2
1
1
1.27
Description
Comments
Mean Date
green
1813
Clear
1928
cut
wire
UID
Brick sample
Lead fitting
(probable gas
hardware)
Mortar Sample
.22 short shell
casing
Styrofoam cup
pieces
1860
1935
Redware
Salt glazed
stoneware
WBW
blue
clear
green
1860
Amethyst
1898
aqua
1855
1928
1860
1935
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Clear
cut
wire
UID
Asphalt Shingle
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
12 ga. "Winchester
repeater" shot gun
shell cap
Coal Sample
Plastic Clear with
'UGS'
Plastic Pink frag.
Shoe Grommet
Metal Frag UID
Ceramics
Ceramics
Albany slip int/ext
Porcelain
1888
1880
2.75
2.28
1.52
1880
1875
1944
1905
1841
257
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
7
2
1
Ceramics
7
2
1
Ceramics
7
2
4
Ceramics
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
2
2
7
2
4
7
2
2
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
12
8
3
1
1
2
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
7
7
2
2
2
1
Misc
Misc
7
3
2
Ceramics
7
3
7
Ceramics
2.84
1.92
2.38
2.00
2.40
2.83
Description
Comments
Mean Date
Redware
salt glazed albany
slip int
Salt glazed
stoneware
terra cotta tile or
pot
WBW
green
clear
blue
blue
blue
green
1860
Amber
1920
Amethyst
1898
Aqua
1855
Clear
wire roof
cut
wire
Nail frag.
Asphalt Shingle
Brick sample
Cement Sample
1928
1935
1860
1935
1880
1880
1875
ND
1874
1913
1881
1915
ND
Ceramic electrical
hardware 250V
660W MADE IN
USA
Mortar Sample
Wallpaper frag.
Coal Sample
Slag sample
Metal plate, 3-hole
Plastic frag.
Lithics UID
Metal Frag UID
Metal frag. UID
(refit) toy??
Zipper
Bristol salt glazed
Salt glazed
stoneware
1915
dark brown int.
1880
258
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
7
3
3
7
3
3
7
3
2
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
11
7
2
3
5
1
1
1
1
7
3
1
Curved
Glass
7
4
1
Ceramics
7
7
4
4
2
10
7
4
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Description
Comments
Mean Date
Stoneware
WBW
green
clear
green
green
blue
blue
blue
1860
1875
1820
1943
1872
1886
1916
1921
1894
Amber
1920
Amethyst
1898
aqua
1855
Clear
cut
wire
wire roof
UID
Nail frag.
Asphalt Shingle
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
Metal Frag UID
1928
1860
1935
1935
Clear
1928
1860
Ceramics
Ceramics
Redware
Salt glazed
stoneware
WBW
2
Ceramics
Whiteware
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
1.28
2.74
1.89
2.06
2.41
2.47
2.15
2.50
2.41
1.48
3.53
3.62
1.83
2.05
2.45
2.44
Whiteware
blue
blue
green
blue
blue
green
green
clear
blue
dark brown int.
Blue Transfer
Print
brown floral
decal
1880
1875
1848
1925
1923
1916
1837
ND
ND
1867
1885
1919
1919
259
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
7
7
4
4
1
1
7
4
3
7
4
9
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
12
5
8
2
12
1
1
1
7
4
4
7
7
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
1.79
4.34
Description
Comments
Mean Date
clear
green
1864
ND
Amber
1920
aqua
1855
1928
1935
1860
Misc
Clear
wire
cut
UID
Nail frag.
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
Percussion Cap
Metal object
UID…. ASK DR.
GROOVER
6
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Albany slip int/ext
WBW
1888
1875
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Whiteware
green
green
green
green
clear
blue
blue
blue
blue
7
5
3
7
5
9
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
7
7
7
5
5
5
2
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1.24
1.28
1.25
1.71
2.38
2.07
2.14
3.64
1.98
brown line
painted
1875
1817
1820
1818
1857
1913
1887
1893
ND
1880
aqua
1855
Clear
1928
Curved
Glass
Nail
Misc
Lt. green
UID
Slag sample
1920
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Salt glazed
stoneware
Whiteware
blue
blue
clear
1.86
1.73
2.44
1880
1900
1870
1858
1918
260
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
8
1
1
8
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
1
1
1
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
8
1
1
Misc
8
1
1
Misc
8
8
1
1
1
1
Misc
Misc
8
2
4
Ceramics
8
2
1
Ceramics
8
2
1
Ceramics
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
2
4
8
8
2
2
5
8
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
1.87
2.17
2.21
2.49
2.42
2.42
2.50
2.16
1.83
2.87
2.81
3.04
2.23
1.01
3.31
1.93
Description
Comments
Mean Date
green
1870
aqua
1855
Clear
burnt
wire
cut
Brick sample
Mortar Samples
Metal frag.
Possible buckle
Quartz possible
pre. Historic
scraper
Plastic hard
Reddish pinkish
Metal Frag UID
1928
Albany slip int/ext
Bristol Glazed
stoneware
Lead Glazed
Redware
salt glazed albany
slip int
Semi-Porcelain
Whiteware
clear
clear
clear
green
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
green
clear
green
clear
clear
1888
Amber
1920
Aqua
Clear
1855
1928
1935
1860
1915
1800
1880
1915
1900
1896
1899
1922
1917
1917
1923
1895
1867
1901
1798
1875
261
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
Description
Glass
Curved
1 Glass
Lt. green
11 Nail
Wire
5 Nail
Cut
5 Nail
UID
3 Nail
Nail frag.
1 Misc
Asphalt Shingle
Brick sample w/
1 Misc
mortar
1 Misc
Limestone Sample
1 Misc
Mortar Sample
1 Misc
Button
1 Misc
Coal Sample
1 Misc
Coal Slag Sample
1 Misc
Burnt Wood
Metal Frag.
1 Misc
Possible caltrop
8
8
8
8
8
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
2
8
8
3
3
1
93
Ceramics
Ceramics
8
3
5
Ceramics
8
3
6
Ceramics
Comments
1920
1935
1860
Albany slip int/ext
flower pot
Lead Glazed
Redware
salt glazed Albany
slip int
8
8
8
3
3
3
1
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Whiteware
Whiteware
Whiteware
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Whiteware
Whiteware
clear
clear
clear
blue
clear
blue
oily
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
green
green
green
3.26
2.73
2.59
2.67
2.40
3.45
1.66
1.95
2.70
1.84
2.15
1.37
1.24
1.29
1.28
Mean Date
1888
1800
1880
Blue Transfer
Print
light blue
molded
yellow glaze
ext./int.
1848
1848
1870
1875
1900
1943
1931
1938
1915
1853
1877
1940
1868
1894
1828
1817
1821
1814
262
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
8
8
8
3
3
3
1
1
1
8
3
1
8
3
2
8
3
1
8
3
6
8
3
11
8
3
5
8
3
5
8
3
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
36
9
37
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
3
3
3
3
3
1
11
2
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Nail
2.02
2.24
2.67
Description
Comments
Mean Date
clear
clear
blue
1883
1902
1938
Amber
1920
amber
1920
Amethyst
1898
aqua
1855
aqua
1855
Clear
1928
Clear
1928
UID
very lt. green
2.25
1.36
Spike
Bolt
Wire
Cut
Frag
Asphault Shingle
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
Button
Coal Sample
Coal Slag Sample
Hook
Pipe
Plastic hard Redish
pinkish
UID Frag
Wire
green
clear
Clear
Wire
bolt
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
Cut
1920
1935
1860
1902
1827
1928
1935
1860
263
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
Description
Comments
Mean Date
8
3
4
Misc
Possible Gas line
8
4
1
Ceramics
1880
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
4
8
aqua
1855
8
8
8
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
16
4
7
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Porcelain
salt glazed Albany
slip int
Whiteware
blue
blue
clear
blue
blue
blue
clear
green
green
blue
blue
1928
1935
1860
8
8
8
4
4
4
1
1
1
Misc
Misc
Misc
8
8
4
4
1
1
Misc
Misc
8
4
1
Misc
Clear
Wire
Cut
Nail frag.
Brick sample
Limestone Sample
12 ga. "Winchester
repeater" shot gun
shell cap
Coal Sample
Burnt Wood
Metal frag with
square holes
Metal Frag UID
Waterworn rock
(possible drippline
rock)
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Albany slip int/ext
Pearlware molded
Whiteware
green
clear
blue
blue
blue
blue
1.75
2.32
1.72
1.94
1.97
1.82
2.22
1.56
1.66
1.90
1.61
1.88
3.32
1.88
2.44
2.03
2.01
1880
1900
1860
1908
1858
1876
1879
1866
1900
1844
1853
1873
1848
Blue Shell Edge
1888
1810
1900
1871
1871
1919
1884
1882
264
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
2.05
1.92
2.53
1.31
1.96
1.72
1.96
2.30
1.93
1.91
2.00
8
5
1
8
5
3
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
2
9
1
10
1
1
1
9
9
1
1
1
1
1.90
0.93
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
1
1
1
1
Misc
Misc
9
2
1
Ceramics
9
9
9
2
2
2
1
1
3
9
9
2
2
1
12
Description
Comments
Mean Date
blue
green
green
blue
blue
green
clear
clear
blue
blue
blue
1885
1874
1926
1823
1878
1858
1878
1906
1875
1873
1881
lt. aqua
1855
aqua
1855
Clear
Cut
Wire
Screw/Bolt
Nail frag.
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
Metal Frag UID
1928
1860
1935
clear
green
1872
1790
amber
Cut
Wire
Brick sample
Cement Sample
Limestone Sample
Mortar Sample
Possible floor tile
or wall plaster
Slate Sample
1920
1860
1935
1888
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Albany slip int/ext
Lead Glazed
Redware
Semi-Porcelain
Semi-Porcelain
Ceramics
Ceramics
Semi-Porcelain
Whiteware
floral decal
molded
molded w/ green
coloring
1800
1865
1865
1865
1900
265
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
9
2
3
9
2
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
38
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
9
2
1
Misc
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
9
9
9
2
2
2
1
1
1
Misc
Misc
Misc
1.84
1.21
1.97
1.85
1.38
2.15
1.06
2.58
0.89
1.40
Description
Comments
Mean Date
Yellowware
blue
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
blue
blue
green
1880
1868
1813
1879
1869
1829
1894
1802
1930
1789
1831
Aqua
1855
Clear
1928
UID
fossilized tooth
Cut
Wire
Screw/Bolt
Nail frag.
Asphalt Shingle
Brick sample
Caulking
Cement Sample
Limestone Sample
Mortar Sample
Possible floor tile
Coal Sample
Coal Slag Sample
Foil Aluminium
Green hard plastic
possible cloths
basket piece
Kraft Fudgie
Wrapper
Metal Clip
Pencil Lead
Piece Quarts
Plastic Clear
Possible Hook
Rubber
Sponge Dirt
soaked
Metal Frag UID
White Plastic
1860
1935
266
Unit
9
9
9
Level
2
2
2
Count Artifact Type Thickness
Description
4 Misc
Wire
1 Misc
Wired Belt
2 Misc
Wood Sample
9
9
9
3
3
3
1
2
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2.13
Lead Glazed
Redware
Whiteware
green
Comments
Mean Date
1800
1900
1892
1855
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
aqua
2 teeth
Cut
Wire
Brick sample
Limestone Sample
Mortar Sample
Button (bone)
Coal Slag Sample
Plastic Clear
Plastic Clear w. red
and yellow stripes
Seashell
Metal Frag UID
White Plastic
Wire
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Redware
Whiteware
Cut
Nail frag.
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
Lithics UID
1860
1900
1860
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
1.71
1.93
1.22
Whiteware
clear
blue
clear
1900
1857
1875
1817
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
1.86
1.28
1.76
1.57
1.94
1.62
clear
clear
green
clear
blue
clear
1869
1820
1861
1845
1876
1849
1860
1935
267
Unit
10
Level1
Count1 Artifact
Type Thickness
Description
Flat Glass
2.06 clear
Curved
1 Glass
Aqua
Curved
2 Glass
Clear
3 Nail
Wire
1 Misc
Brick sample
1 Misc
Limestone Sample
6 Misc
Mortar Sample
1 Misc
Metal Button
10
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
2
2
1
5
Ceramics
Ceramics
10
10
2
2
2
2
Ceramics
Ceramics
10
2
5
Ceramics
Albany slip int/ no
glaze ext
Albany slip int/ext
Lead Glazed
Redware
Pearlware molded
salt glazed Albany
slip int
10
10
2
2
2
2
Ceramics
Ceramics
Semi-Porcelain
Semi-Porcelain
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
26
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Whiteware
Whiteware
green
clear
blue
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
green
clear
clear
green
green
green
green
green
1.49
3.57
2.83
1.95
2.46
2.02
2.19
1.68
1.32
1.28
3.56
2.68
2.87
3.14
2.10
2.10
2.16
3.17
2.05
2.35
Comments
Mean1886
Date
1855
1928
1935
1880
1888
Blue Shell Edge
1800
1810
1880
Molded with
floral print
Blue Transfer
Print
1865
1915
1848
1900
1838
1877
1920
1883
1879
1854
1824
1820
1838
1890
1890
1895
1886
1911
268
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
2
1
10
2
7
10
2
6
10
2
7
10
2
1
10
10
2
2
14
1
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
2.32
2.01
2.22
2.51
2.22
2.15
1.89
2.49
2.22
2.42
1.99
1.95
1.87
1.92
2.28
2.04
2.34
3.63
2.16
3.04
2.29
2.29
2.20
2.98
2.65
1.96
0.89
2.32
1.89
2.33
2.08
3.60
2.28
1.99
Description
Comments
Mean Date
green
green
green
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
blue
clear
blue
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
green
clear
blue
blue
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
1908
1882
1900
1924
1900
1894
1872
1922
1900
1917
1880
1877
1870
1874
1905
1885
1910
lt. aqua
1855
Amber
1920
Amethyst
1898
Aqua
1855
1895
1906
1906
1898
1936
1878
1789
1908
1872
1909
1888
1905
1880
UID
Clear
Clear
1928
1928
269
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
10
2
1
10
2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
9
28
2
30
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
10
10
10
3
3
3
1
1
1
10
3
25
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Description
Clear
Comments
molded pattern
Mean Date
1928
lt. aqua
1855
Lt. green
Screw/Bolt
Cut
Wire
Fencing Nails
Nail frag.
Brick sample
Cement Sample
Limestone Sample
Safty Pin Frag.
Coal Sample
Coal Slag Sample
Foil Aluminium
Lead sprue
Peach pit
Wire Fencing?
1920
Ceramics
Ceramics
Ceramics
Albany slip int/ext
Semi-Porcelain
Stoneware
1888
1915
1860
Ceramics
WBW
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
3.27
3.47
3.29
2.15
2.94
2.29
2.34
1.96
2.14
2.76
2.41
2.37
2.54
2.02
1.40
2.17
Whiteware
green
green
green
blue
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
1860
1935
1875
Blue Transfer
Print
1848
1894
1906
1910
1878
1893
1945
1916
1927
1883
1831
1896
270
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
3
5
10
3
4
10
3
1
10
3
14
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
7
5
17
7
20
1
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Nail
Nail
Nail
Misc
1.80
2.78
1.83
2.79
3.28
1.82
2.29
1.89
3.30
1.90
2.10
3.27
2.90
2.21
1.75
1.95
2.29
3.22
2.01
3.23
1.83
1.80
1.82
1.93
1.67
2.23
2.07
1.94
1.92
1.64
1.83
Description
Comments
Mean Date
clear
green
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
blue
blue
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
1864
Amber
1920
Amethyst
1898
Aqua
1855
Clear
1928
Lt. green
1920
Wire
Cut
UID
Nail frag.
Brick sample
1935
1860
1867
1866
1906
1872
1873
1890
1899
1860
1877
1906
1882
1867
1864
1866
1875
1853
1901
1887
1876
1874
1851
1867
271
Unit
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Level
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
3
10
4
Count Artifact Type Thickness
Description
1 Misc
Cement Sample
1 Misc
Limestone Sample
1 Misc
Mortar Sample
1 Misc
Button/snap
1 Misc
Coal Sample
2 Misc
Slag sample
1 Misc
Fossil
1 Misc
Pencil Lead
10 Misc
Metal Frag UID
1 Misc
Wire frag.
Kerosene Lamp
3 Misc
Hardware
14
10
10
10
10
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
10
4
1
10
4
2
10
4
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
1
1
5
1
10
10
10
5
5
5
1
1
1
10
5
1
10
5
1
10
5
2
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Bone
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Misc
Ceramics
Ceramics
Flat Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Curved
Glass
Comments
WBW
2.65
2.26
3.27
Whiteware
green
green
green
Mean Date
1875
Blue Transfer
Print
1848
1936
1903
Amber
1920
Amethyst
1898
Aqua
1855
Clear
1928
UID
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
Metal Frag UID
Wood sample
1.31
Semi-Porcelain
Whiteware
green
molded
1865
1900
1823
Amethyst
1898
Aqua
1855
Clear
1928
272
Unit
Level
Count Artifact Type Thickness
10
5
1
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
Curved
Glass
Nail
Misc
Misc
Misc
Description
Comments
Mean Date
lt. aqua
1855
Wire
Brick sample
Mortar Sample
Coal Sample
1935
*Initial identification and classification of artifacts was performed by the 2007 National Road
historical archaeology field school students under the supervision of Mark Groover. Additional
examination, secondary analysis, functional classification, and time sequence analysis performed
by the author.
273
FIGURE B.1. Bottle glass recovered at Huddleston House,2007.
274
FIGURE B.2. Decorated ceramics recovered at Huddleston House, 2007.
275
FIGURE B.3. Undecorated Ironstone (L) and Whiteware (R) recovered at Huddleston House,2007.
276
FIGURE B.4.. Machine cut nails (L) and wire nails (R) recovered at Huddleston House, 2007.
277
FIGURE B.5. Architectural group artifacts recovered at Huddleston House, 2007.
278
FIGURE B.5. Energy group artifacts recovered at Huddleston House, 2007.
FIGURE B.5. Arms group artifacts recovered at Huddleston House, 2007.
279
286
APPENDIX C. DATES AND SOURCES USED TO CALCULATE MEAN ARTIFACT
DATES (Adapted from Groover 2003)
Artifact Types
Median Date
Date Range
Sources
Porcelain
Canton
1815
1800-1830
South 1977:212
overglaze enameled
1730
1660-1800
South 1977:212
underglaze blue handpainted
1730
1660-1800
South 1977:212
general
1880
1790-1970
Site Specific*
Stoneware
brown (English)
1860
1820-1900+
South 1977:212
alkaline glaze
1860
1820-1890s
Greer 1981:264
1830-1860
Carnes 1977:212;
salt glazed exterior, dry interior 1845
Greer 1981:263
Lebo 1987:130
salt glazed exterior and interior
1834
1792-1875
Lebo 1987:130;
Site Specific
Salt glazed exterior, natural slip int.1880
1860-1900
Greer 1981:263;
Lebo et al. 1988:135
Natural slip exterior and interior
1888
1875-1940
(Albany)
Bristol glazed exterior, natural slip int. 1915
Greer 1981:264
Lebo et al. 1988:136
1890-1925
Greer 1981:264;
Lebo et al. 1988:136
287
Appendix C. Dates and Sources Used to Calculate Mean Artifact Dates, continued
Artifact Type
Median Date
Date Range
Sources
Stoneware
1915
1890-1940
Carnes 1977:212;
Greer 1981:264;
Bartovics 1981:203;
Lebo et al. 1988:136
salt glazed, general
1865
1792-1938
Site Specific
1800
1755-1845
DAACS 2005a;2005b
undercorated
1791
1762-1820
South 1977:212
annular ware
1798
1780-1815
South 1977:212
enameled overglaze
1788
1765-1810
South 1977:212
undecorated
1805
1780-1830
South 1977:212
transfer printed
1818
1795-1840
South 1977:212
polychrome, fine line
1805
1795-1815
South 1977:212
polychrome, broad line
1830
1820-1840
South 1977:212
underglaze blue handpainted 1800
1780-1820
South 1977:212
edge decorated
1810
1800-1820
South 1977:212
edge decorated, rococo
1798
1785-1810
Miller & Hunter 1990
Earthenware
Redware
Creamware
Pearlware
288
Appendix C. Dates and Sources Used to Calculate Mean Artifact Dates, continued
Artifact Types
Mean Date
Date Range
Sources
Earthenware
Pearlware
edge decorated, neoclassical
1820
1810-1830
Miller & Hunter 1990
edge decorated,embossed relief
1810
1800-1820
South 1977:212
mocha
1843
1795-1890
South 1977:212
annular wares
1805
1790-1820
South 1977:212
1900
1820-1980
South 1977:212
Whiteware
undecorated
Site Specific
transfer printed
1865
1830-1900
South 1977:212;
Majewski & O‘Brien 1987
light blue
1848
1831-1865
Bartovics 1981:203
red, green, brown
1839
1828-1850
Majewski & O‘Brien 1987
later style
1886
1856-1915
Bartovics 1981:203
edge decorated
1845
1830-1860+
Smith 1983
1850
1840-1860
Miller & Hunter 1990
edge decorated,
nonscalloped rim, relief, thin band
289
Appendix C. Dates and Sources Used to Calculate Mean Artifact Dates, continued
Artifact Types
Mean Date Date Range
Sources
Earthenware
Whiteware
edge decorated,
nonscallopped rim, no relief, thin band
1875
1860-1890
Miller & Hunter 1990
Miller & Hunter 1994
handpainted
1865
1830-1900
Bartovics 1981:203
mocha
1850
1830-1870+
Smith 1983
annular
1865
1830-1900
Bartovics 1981:203
flow blue
1870
1840-1900
Bartovics 1981:203
sponge
1850
1830-1870
Bartovics 1981:203
cut sponge
1880
1840-1920
Finlayson 1972:55
molded/embossed
1870
1840-1900 Lewis & Haskell 1981:124
decal
1925
1900-1950
gilded
1925
1870-1980 Miller 1991:10;Site Specific
hotel ware
1913
1875-1950
Miller 1991:7
fiestaware
1945
1920-1970
Moir 1982:141
undecorated
1915
1850-1980 Smith 1983;Site Specific
molded or embossed
1865
1840-1890 Lewis & Haskell 1981:124
1880
1830-1930
Bartovics 1981:203
Ironstone
Yellow ware
Smith 1983
290
Appendix C. Dates and Sources Used to Calculate Mean Artifact Dates, continued
Artifact Types
Mean Date
Date Range
Source
Curved Glass
solarized
1898
1880-1915
Moir 1982:141
Brooks and Crass 1991:7
dark green
1839
1792-1885
Newman 1970; Site Specific
milk
1938
1890-1980
IMACS 1984:472.4;
Site Specific
aqua
1855
1800-1910
IMACS 1984:472.4
lite green
1920
1860-1980
IMACS 1984:472.4
Site Specific
amber
1920
1860-1980
IMACS 1984:472.4
Site Specific
cobalt
1935
1890-1980
IMACS 1984:472.4
Site Specific
clear
1928
1875-1980
IMACS 1984:472.4
carnival
1915
1890-1940
Deiss 1981:86
depression
1930
1920-1940
Klamkin 1973:1
color label
1957
1934-1980
Jones & Sullivan 1958:16;
Site Specific
3-piece plate bottom mold 1887
1858-1915
Deiss 1981:91
improved tool finish
1870-1925
Deiss 1981:94
1898
291
Appendix C. Dates and Sources Used to Calculate Mean Artifact Dates, continued
Artifact Types
Median Date
Date Range
Sources
1960
1940-1980
Toulouse 1969:170;
Curved Glass
―Duraglass‖ in script
Site Specific
Architectural Artifacts
cut nails
1860
1830-1890
Nelson 1968;
Edwards & Wells
1993:17-18;
IMACS 1984
Wire nails
1935
1890-1980
Nelson 1968;
Edwards & Wells
1993:17-18;
IMACS 1984
Window glass
by fragment
Moir 1987b
*Site Specific: for artifacts with long manufacture date ranges, the initial or terminal
manufacture dates were adjusted to parallel historically known initial or terminal occupation
dates for the site. This adjustment was made to refine the artifact based chronology of site.
292
APPENCIX D. WINDOW GLASS DATES (Moir 1987)
Date
1780
1789
1792
1793
1795
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1803
1804
1805
1807
1809
1810
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
Thickness, (cm)
0.8
0.9
0.94
0.95
0.98
1
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.05
1.07
1.08
1.1
1.12
1.14
1.15
1.18
1.19
1.28
1.29
1.3
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.28
1.29
1.3
1.31
1.32
1.33
Date
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
Thickness, (cm)
1.58
1.59
1.6
1.62
1.63
1.64
1.65
1.66
1.68
1.69
1.7
1.71
1.72
1.74
1.75
1.76
1.77
1.78
1.79
1.81
1.82
1.83
1.84
1.85
1.87
1.88
1.89
1.9
1.92
1.93
Date
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
Thickness
(cm)
2.17
2.19
2.2
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.31
2.32
2.33
2.34
2.35
2.36
2.38
2.39
2.4
2.41
2.42
2.44
2.44
2.46
2.47
2.49
2.5
2.5
2.52
293
Appendix D. Window Glass Dates (Moir 1987)
Date Thickness, (cm)
1826
1.34
1827
1.36
1828
1.37
1829
1.38
1830
1.39
1831
1.4
1832
1.41
1833
1.43
1834
1.44
1835
1.45
1836
1.46
1837
1.48
1838
1.49
1839
1.5
1840
1.51
1841
1.52
1842
1.54
1843
1.55
1844
1.56
1845
1.57
Date Thickness, (cm)
1876
1.94
1877
1.95
1878
1.96
1879
1.97
1880
1.98
1881
2
1882
2.01
1883
2.02
1884
2.03
1885
2.04
1886
2.06
1887
2.07
1888
2.08
1889
2.09
1890
2.1
1891
2.12
1892
2.13
1893
2.14
1894
2.15
1995
2.16
Date
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
Thickness,
(cm)
2.53
2.54
2.56
2.57
2.58
2.59
2.6
2.61
2.63
2.64
2.65
2.66
2.67
2.69
2.7
2.71
2.72
2.72
2.75
2.76
294
TOTAL
TEMPORALLY
DIAGNOSTIC
42
21
Surface
UNIT
LEVEL
TOTAL
ARTIFACTS
APPENDIX E. MEAN DATES FOR ARTIFACT GROUPS
1
1
1
2
49
175
16
133
1
3
179
145
1
3
Featur
e Fill
28
10
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
Total
*207
*155
2
270
124
3
1
2
3
47
22
29
15
34
19
15
4
Mean
CERAMIC
date
Mean
CURVED
GLASS
date
KITCHEN
TOTAL
22742
13007
13007
Mean
NAIL
date
Mean
FLAT
GLASS
date
ARCH
TOTAL
1880
1880
TOTAL
Mean
Artifact
Date
1880
1900
24642
37649
24642
37649
39529
13
7
20
1
1
21
1895
1858
1882
1880
1880
1882
5
3
8
8
8
16
9350
5692
15042
15036
15036
30078
1870
1898
1881
1879
1879
1880
1878
1908
1890
1874
1883
1888
49
36
85
50
60
145
92584
68322
160906
19050
93888
112938
273844
1889
1897
1893
1905
1877
1882
1888
4
3
7
2
3
10
7539
5746
13285
1860
3770
5630
18915
1884
1915
1897
1860
1885
1876
1891
41163
45861
87024
64365
82725
147090
234114
22
24
46
44
78
124
0
1903
10
1
34
1871
1910
1891
1893
1880
1885
1888
9409
17101
26510
9600
28115
37715
64225
5
9
14
15
20
34
1881
1900
1893
1874
1885
1888
15215
7639
22854
13161
13161
36015
5
1920
8
4
12
7
7
19
1901
1909
1904
1880
1880
1895
7600
5754
13354
5684
15284
28638
4
3
7
3
8
15
1900
1918
1907
1920
1894
1910
1909
1848
1848
3720
1881
5601
7449
1
1
1
3
4
1848
1848
1881
1867
1862
9600
5
2
1860
295
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
LEVEL
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
TOTAL
TEMPORALLY
DIAGNOSTIC
UNIT
TOTAL
ARTIFACTS
Appendix E. Mean Dates For Artifact Groups
13
9
63
52
9
94
110
42
5
6
69
31
49
Mean
CERAMIC
date
Mean
CURVED
GLASS
date
KITCHEN
TOTAL
3750
3826
7576
2
2
4
53
68
29
3
4
49
17
1935
1
Mean
FLAT
GLASS
date
ARCH
TOTAL
7469
9404
16980
4
5
9
TOTAL
Mean
Artifact
Date
1875
1913
1894
1935
1867
1880
1886
11268
13260
24528
13545
54115
67660
92188
6
7
13
29
36
49
1878
189
1886
1935
1866
1879
1881
13352
13352
5655
59678
65333
78685
42
6
Mean
NAIL
date
7
7
1907
1907
5598
3775
3
2
7
32
35
42
1864
1866
1873
9373
1888
1888
11261
5
1
1
6
1866
1887
1874
28120
26595
54715
15
14
29
1874
1899
1886
46883
18842
65725
25
10
35
1875
1884
1877
16905
9413
26318
9
5
14
1878
1882
1879
3
1885
1888
1888
1876
26083
45058
99773
14
24
53
1897
1863
1877
1882
24855
37570
62425
128150
20
33
68
1911
1878
1891
1884
20685
7540
28225
54543
4
15
29
1885
1881
1880
18975
10
13
11
1880
1925
1925
3663
3663
5588
1
1
2
2
3
1925
1925
1831
1831
1862
5663
1817
1817
7480
1880
3783
1
2
3
1
1
4
1880
1891
1887
1817
1817
1870
22547
20827
43374
24241
49021
92395
12
11
23
13
26
49
1878
1893
1885
1906
1864
1885
1885
3813
3856
7669
15180
9216
24396
32065
2
2
4
5
13
17
1906
1928
1917
1843
1876
1886
24780
13
8
1897
296
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
TOTAL
TEMPORALLY
DIAGNOSTIC
UNIT
TOTAL
ARTIFACTS
Appendix E. Mean Dates For Artifact Groups
34
20
84
65
86
33
24
82
290
63
53
13
57
53
62
30
17
61
125
48
38
7
Mean
CERAMIC
date
Mean
CURVED
GLASS
date
KITCHEN
TOTAL
13055
9464
22519
7
5
12
Mean
NAIL
date
9375
5
Mean
FLAT
GLASS
date
ARCH
TOTAL
5690
15065
37584
3
8
20
TOTAL
Mean
Artifact
Date
1865
1892
1876
1875
1896
1883
1879
31903
26710
58613
41670
7583
49253
107866
17
14
31
22
4.00
26.00
57
1876
1907
1890
1894
1895
1894
1892
24445
22876
47321
37875
15168
53043
100364
13
12
25
8
28
53
1880
1906
1892
20
1893
1896
1894
1893
31916
45591
77507
24555
15130
39685
117192
17
24
41
8
21
62
13
1877
1899
1890
1891
1889
1890
15078
26757
41835
14885
14885
56720
8
14
22
8
8
30
1884
1911
1901
1860
1860
1890
7580
5711
13291
7516
19051
32342
4
3
7
4
10
17
1895
1903
1898
1922
1879
1905
1902
30202
34299
64501
30585
20810
51395
115896
16
18
34
1887
1905
1897
46709
64241
110950
25
34
59
1868
1889
1880
9460
22552
32012
1888
11535
6
16
11
27
61
1911
1891
1903
1899
92055
33891
125946
236896
18
66
125
1917
1882
1908
1895
38400
20565
58965
90977
48
5
12
17
11
31
48
1892
1879
1883
20
1920
1869
1902
1895
5598
15132
20730
21135
30084
51219
71949
3
8
11
16
27
38
1866
1891
1884
1921
1880
1897
1893
1920
1920
7665
3662
11327
13247
1
1
2
6
7
1920
1920
1831
1887
1892
11
4
1916
297
9
9
9
LEVEL
2
3
4
TOTAL
TEMPORALLY
DIAGNOSTIC
UNIT
TOTAL
ARTIFACTS
Appendix E. Mean Dates For Artifact Groups
117
77
36
7
20
3
Mean
CERAMIC
date
Mean
CURVED
GLASS
date
KITCHEN
TOTAL
Mean
NAIL
date
Mean
FLAT
GLASS
date
ARCH
TOTAL
39573
11349
50922
77250
18504
95754
146676
21
6
27
10
50
77
1884
1891
1886
1931
1850
1915
1904
5600
5565
11165
24855
1892
26747
37912
3
3
6
1
14
20
1866
1855
1860
1911
1892
1910
1895
3760
3760
1860
1860
5620
2
2
1
3
1880
10
10
10
10
10
1
2
3
4
5
29
225
181
38
12
20
169
110
26
9
40
13
1
1880
1860
7600
5711
13311
5805
4
3
7
1900
1903
1901
90444
76146
166590
48
40
88
1884
1903
1893
54386
47959
102345
29
25
54
TOTAL
Mean
Artifact
Date
1860
1873
18555
24360
37671
10
13
20
1935
1855
1873
1883
70920
82995
153915
320505
3
37
44
81
169
1916
1886
1900
1896
41295
64022
105317
207662
34
56
110
22
1875
1918
1895
1883
1880
1887
28098
17211
45309
3839
3839
49148
15
9
24
2
2
26
1873
1912
1887
1919
1919
1890
3765
9464
13229
1823
3758
16987
2
5
7
1882
1892
1889
1877
1935
1
1935
1
2
9
1823
1879
1887
298
APPENDIX F. TIME SEQUENCE DATA
LEVEL
TABLE F.1. Total Mean Dates per Level used in Time Sequence Analysis.
1
2
3
4
5
1
1880
1888
1888
2
3
1895
1909
1862
1888
1889
UNIT
4
5
1886 1876
1881 1882
1873 1884
1880
1862
6
1870
1885
1886
7
1879
1892
1893
1890
1890
8
1902
1899
1895
1895
1893
9
1892
1904
1895
1873
10
1883
1896
1887
1890
1887
TABLE F.2. Time Sequence Distribution for Kitchen Artifacts.
1850
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stoneware
Redware
Yellowware
Porcelain
Pearlware
Semi-Porcelain
Whiteware
WBW
TOTAL CERAMICS
Curved Glass
TOTAL KITCHEN GROUP
1860
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
1870
1
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
9
12
21
1880
30
5
6
2
2
8
18
135
206
178
384
1890
65
24
0
0
3
7
73
70
242
219
461
1900
2
1
2
0
0
5
19
0
29
15
44
TABLE F.3. Time Sequence Distribution for Architectural Artifacts.
Flat Glass
Cut
Wire
TOTAL
NAILS
TOTAL
1850
0
0
0
1860
2
2
0
1870
40
7
2
1880
262
56
73
1890
209
83
144
1900
20
4
45
1910
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
9
49
129
393
227
436
49
69
0
0
1910
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
299
APPENDIX G: WILL OF JOHN HUDDLESTON