1837 Fordon Farm
Appendix A: Garden Area Midden
History and physical setting:
The Fordon family has occupied this property continuously from 1837 to the
present time. Since the early 1980s the family has maintained a flower, fruit and
vegetable garden on a site between the back yard and a small fruit tree grove. The
current garden is approximately half its former length (East to West). It is rototilled
twice each year. The exposed soil exhibits many fragments of glass, ceramics, metal,
bone, etc. which would seem to indicate the presence of a past refuse dumping area or
midden. The actual boundaries of the midden are not currently known, the only visible
area is the exposed soil of the garden. William Edward Fordon (born in 1946 and grew
up on the farm) remembers this general area (East to West, beyond the current boundaries
of the garden) being littered with farm and household trash at one time. There is a
subsurface brick foundation near the garden (approximately ten feet to the Northwest).
1
Exposed midden area
1
Fordon family garden, looking to the South East. Photographed 28 April 2003 by Michael Fordon.
2
Subsurface brick foundation wall, discovered in the late 1990s while digging a leach line.
The artifacts, collecting and quantifying:
In an attempt to supplement the documentary history of the farm an effort was
made in 2008-2009 to recover artifacts from the midden. All artifacts were surface
collected and show a moderate to high degree of weathering.
3
A freshly collected batch of artifacts, before cleaning and after. This batch contained
clear and colored glass, fired clay rubble, decorated and plain ceramics, coal, coal ash,
building materials, metal, plastic and bone fragments.
2
3
Subsurface brick foundation wall. Photographed circa late 1990s by Michael Fordon.
Photographed by Michael Fordon, 2008.
List of artifacts collected from garden area midden
Ceramic, transferware, blue:
(also flow blue and others)
87 fragments
Ceramic, transferware, red:
Blue pebble (fish tank?):
3 whole
3 fragments
Clay pipe pieces:
7 fragments
Ceramic, transferware, black:
12 fragments
Glass, clear:
218 fragments
2 whole
Ceramic, transferware, clear / faded:
2 fragments
Glass, clear, painted:
1 fragment
Ceramic, transferware, yellow:
1 fragment
Glass, colored white:
18 fragments
Ceramic, white porcelain?:
(some decorated)
32 fragments
Glass, colored pink:
28 fragments
Ceramic, plain white:
(ironstone and others)
204 fragments
Glass, colored yellow:
1 fragment
Glass, colored pale green:
5 fragments
Ceramic, misc. decorated:
22 fragments
Glass, colored green:
3 fragments
Ceramic, shell edge, blue:
9 fragments
Glass, colored dark green:
9 fragments
Ceramic, shell edge, green:
2 fragment
Glass, colored light blue / aqua:
70 fragments
Ceramic, yellow ware:
12 fragments
Glass, colored blue:
26 fragments
Ceramic, glazed:
(earthenware/stoneware)
70 fragments
Glass, colored brown:
50 fragments
Ceramic, glazed, decorated:
(earthenware/stoneware)
2 fragments
Glass, colored dark (?):
1 fragment
Glass, colored dark, almost black:
15 fragments
Ceramic, unglazed:
(earthenware/stoneware)
25 fragments
Coal, unburned:
38 fragments
Ceramic, doll / figurine face:
1 fragment
Coal, burned / ash:
36 fragments
Plastic, misc.:
11 fragments
Stone, square stone:
1 fragment
Plastic garden planting tags:
4 whole
12 fragments
Brick, glazed:
7 fragments
Clay rubble, white:
18 fragments
Rubber:
1 fragment
Fired clay rubble, tan / orange:
159 fragments
Textile:
1 fragment
Fired clay rubble, dark red:
18 fragments
Tin / aluminum scraps:
6 fragments
Mortar / concrete:
13 fragments
Metal squeeze tube remains:
4 fragments
Metal, modern pieces:
9 fragments
Metal, antique pieces:
21items
Metal, green four hole button:
1 whole
Metal / plastic, electric fence wire cap?:
1 fragment
Coin, 1800 5 cent piece:
1 whole
Coin, play money, 10 cent piece:
1 whole
Beads:
2 whole
Misc. unidentified, stone?, concrete?, ash?: 14 fragments
Total artifacts collected: 1,402.
Faunal remains, misc. bone:
54 fragments
(9 showing
butchery marks)
Faunal remains, teeth, bovid:
2 fragments
Faunal remains, teeth, pig:
5 fragments
Faunal remains, teeth, unidentified:
6 fragments
Faunal remains, shell:
16 fragments
The artifacts, personal items and miscellaneous:
4
Seen here is a collection of miscellaneous artifacts recovered from the midden
area showing the wide diversity of objects discarded there. Items include a bead, green
metal button, an American five cent piece dated 1800, glass lens, various fragments of
porcelain and plain and decorated ceramics, plastic soldier figurine, a large piece of a
Pond’s cream jar (probably early 20th century5), and an intact clear glass Prince
Matchabelli perfume bottle (probably early-mid 20th century6).
The large white ceramic fragment at bottom middle bares the manufacturer’s
mark, “Ironstone China O.P.Co.” Ironstone is a type of ceramic product valued for its
durability. It was first developed in the early 19th century in England by mixing finely
ground iron slag into the normal pottery making process.7 O.P.Co. stands for the
Onondaga Pottery Company located in Syracuse, New York. This particular
manufacturer’s mark was probably in use from 1874-1893.8
4
Photographed by Michael Fordon, 2008.
So dated because it seems to match pictures of Pond’s jars seen in advertisements from approximately
1915-1925 (available 21 June 2009: http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/eaa/browse/ponds/ )
6
This bottle dates to circa 1926-1950s. It is difficult to date more precisely without knowing which line of
Prince Matchabelli perfume this is –the most likely candidates are Autumn Gold (1948), Stradivari (1950)
and Wind Song (1952).
(See: http://reviews.ebay.com/Vintage-Prince-Matchabelli-Perfumes_W0QQugidZ10000000002832729
and http://www.perfumeprojects.com/museum/marketers/Prince_Matchabelli.shtml )
7
Freeman, Larry, Ironstone China, Century House, Watkins Glen, NY, 1954, page 4.
8
Kowalsky, Arnold and Kowalsky, Dorothy, Encyclopedia of marks on American, English, and European
earthenware, ironstone, and stoneware (1780-1980), Schiffer Publishing, Pennsylvania, 1999, page 54.
5
The 1800 American five cent piece is known as a “draped bust half dime” with an
heraldic eagle on the reverse. This coin was produced from 1800-1805 and is a mix of
silver (89%) and copper (10%).9 Seen here is an example in much better condition:
10
11
Fragments of clay tobacco pipes recovered from the midden. (left)
Detail of pipe fragment showing an ornamented stem. (right)
For centuries, use of the clay pipe was a popular method for smoking tobacco.
Pipes were usually produced in a mold and most were relatively plain. Some pipes were
elaborately decorated or formed in whimsical shapes. Discarded bits of pipes are
common finds in archaeological digs in the Eastern United States.12 During the 19th
century, which is the period most of the midden artifacts date to, clay pipes were cheap
9
Available 29 April 2009. http://www.coinlink.com/CoinGuide/us-type-coins/draped-bust-half-dimeheraldic-eagle-1800-1805/
10
Available 29 April 2009. http://www.coinlink.com/CoinGuide/us-type-coins/draped-bust-half-dimeheraldic-eagle-1800-1805/
11
Photographed by Michael Fordon, June 2009.
12
Davey, P. J., “Editorial,” The archaeology of the clay tobacco pipe, vol.II: The United States of America,
BAR International Series 60, Oxford, England, 1979, page 1.
and common. These artifacts are the only indicators of tobacco consumption on the
Fordon farm in the 19th century and illustrate indulgence in a widely practiced leisure
activity.
The artifacts, faunal remains:
13
Seen here is a selection of faunal (animal) remains recovered from the midden,
including fragments of fresh water clam shells, teeth (some identified as pig and cattle14)
and miscellaneous bone pieces. Photo on the right shows bones exhibiting clean, straight
cuts indicative of butchery or food preparation. These artifacts are almost certainly
remnants of meals and tell us something of the family’s meat preferences.
The shells are of special note as the fresh water clam is no longer common as a
local food item.15 In the 19th century the Geneva newspapers advertized oysters and fresh
water clams for sale in large quantities. There are over 200 native species of freshwater
mussels in eastern North America and they were aggressively harvested in the late 19th
and early 20th century.16
13
Photographed by Michael Fordon, 2008.
Author’s email correspondence with Adam Dewbury (Graduate Student, Anthropology Dept., Cornell
University), 23 December 2008.
15
Although the most likely explanation for the shells is that they were refuse from meals, they could also
be remnants from agricultural applications. Shells were finely ground and used as a dietary supplement for
poultry and also as a manure adding lime to the soil. See: Robinson, J., Principles and Practice of Poultry
Culture, New York: Ginn and Co., c1912, pages 200-201. And: Singleton, J., “On the improvement of land
by the use of shell-marle,” American Farmer, Baltimore, vol.2, issue 15, 7 July 1820, page 114.
16
Available 19 June 2009: http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/1/peacock.html
14
The animal teeth are also interesting. They are most likely discarded bits left over
from butchery and/or food preservation practices. In the 19th century home/farm
slaughtering of livestock was a common occurrence. As much of the animals as possible
was utilized, including the meat, fat, tongue and jowls of the head.
Every thrifty farmer slaughtered his own hogs and filled barrels with salt
pork, tubs with lard, and a smokehouse with hams and sides of bacon to
cure. “Hog-killin” was an important period in the farm economy of the
times. ...Not only pigs but often oxen and cows… had been fattened for
slaughter… So pickled, smoked, and potted, meats of the several kinds
were kept from butchering time to butchering time.17
The artifacts, glass:
The midden contains a large number of glass shards, both clear and colored.
These fragments represent a wide array of products including decorative items, toiletry
items and bottles and jars of many types. Fragments from clear glass jars with wide
diameters probably represent late 19th to early 20th century food preservation and storage
practices. The majority of the shards probably represent items related in some way to
food and beverage consumption / storage / preservation.
18
17
Hedrick, Ulysses Prentiss, A History of Agriculture in the State of New York, New York State
Agricultural Society, 1933, page 220.
18
Photographed by Michael Fordon, 2008.
The artifacts, ceramics:
19
20
On the left is a selection of glazed ceramic fragments (mostly stoneware) recovered from
the midden area. On the right are examples of intact stoneware products (not from the
midden).
The midden contains a wide variety of shards of earthenware and stoneware.
These are both fired clay products usually formed into vessels for food preparation,
consumption and storage. Earthenware was cheaper, more porous and less durable.
Stoneware was made of clay which was fired at a high temperature. It was sealed inside
and out with glaze, more scratch resistant and absorbed less moisture.21 For the most part
these items were utilitarian and both types of ceramics were common in the 19th century
and even into the early 20th century. The fragments from the midden exhibit multiple
colors and glazes, including salt glaze and others. The size and shape of the fragments
suggests containers of varying volume and purpose. Certainly jugs, water coolers, crocks
and jars would have been among the types of objects these items represent.
19
Photographed by Michael Fordon, 2008.
Available 16 June 2009: http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/drinking-wine-and-otherspirits-in-jane-austens-day/
21
Available 19 June 2009:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_stoneware_dishes_earthenware_dishes
20
22
Seen here is a selection of decorated ceramic shards recovered from the midden
area including blue, red and black transferware. These materials most likely represent
objects related to food and beverage presentation, consumption and tableware display as
a symbol of status. Pieces such as these were less utilitarian and more formal –perhaps
being used for tea service, family dinner and special occasions.
Transferware or transfer print ceramics originated in England in the mid 18th
century. They are produced by applying an engraved image onto a ceramic surface
before firing in low heat.23 The result is a crisp, detailed design on the final product. If
acquired new, transferware was pricier than hand painted, sponge or shell edge items.
Although tableware makes up the vast majority of ceramic products decorated in this
manner, there were also toiletry items, vases, candle holders and other miscellany.
The patterns on the shards exhibit geometric designs, floral and animal motifs.
The color scheme is predominantly blue and white which suggests coordinated
purchasing instead of haphazard accumulation. “Rural families seemed concerned about
acquiring pieces of matching color but not as concerned with sets of matching patterns –
perhaps because they couldn’t afford matched sets or maybe because matched sets were
not always available.”24 At least two transfer print patterns found on the shards are
22
Photographed by Michael Fordon, 2008.
Neale, Gillian, Miller’s Encyclopedia of British Transfer-Printed Pottery Patterns 1790-1930, Octopus
Publishing Group, London, 2005, pages 10-17.
24
Groover, Mark, The Archaeology of North American Farmsteads, Univ. Press of Florida, 2008, page 104.
23
identifiable: “Agricultural Vase” and “Tippecanoe25.” Tippecanoe was used by John
Wedge Wood of Staffordshire, England circa 1845-1860.26 Agricultural Vase was so
named because it featured an urn vase in an idyllic natural or farm setting. Often the
scene included livestock and other obvious agricultural overtones. The edges of the
pattern may exhibit a fleur-de-lis garland. Agricultural Vase was produced by Ridway,
Morley & Wear of Staffordshire circa 1840-1850.27 Seen here are intact examples of
these patterns:
28
A transferware plate in the Tippecanoe pattern.
29
A transferware tea pot in the Agricultural Vase pattern.
Formerly called “Singanese.” When that change took place is unclear.
Available 19 June 2009: http://www.rubylane.com/shops/tomjudy/item/745
27
Available 22 June 2009: http://www.rubylane.com/shops/firesidetreasures/item/8401?hgtv=1
28
Available 23 June 2009: http://www.rubylane.com/shops/tomjudy/item/745
29
Available 20 May 2009:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250382529184&indexURL=2&photoDisplayType
=2#ebayphotohosting
25
26
30
Eleven fragments of shell edged ceramics were recovered from the midden. Shell
edge was a relatively simple form of ornamented tableware, typically plates or bowls,
with a colored rim impressed with curved or straight lines and sealed with clear lead
glaze.
Shell edged, or more generically, edged wares are characterized by
molded rim motifs, usually painted under the glaze in blue or green on
refined earthenwares. …[They] were one of the most common decorative
types used on table wares …[in] North America… [and] were the least
expensive… available with color decoration between 1780 and 1860.31
Fragments of shell edge ceramics recovered from the midden exhibit a variety of styles,
including neoclassical (scalloped rim edgeware with both straight and curved impressed
lines) dating to the early 19th century, unscalloped with straight impressed lines dating to
the mid 19th century, non-impressed (painted brush strokes) dating to the late 19th century
and possibly one example of embossed which would date to the early 19th century.32
multiple examples of blue or green shell edge… with slightly different
patterns could represent a “set” in which pieces could have been
30
Photographed by Michael Fordon, 2008.
Available 21 May 2009: http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/Post-Colonial Ceramics/Shell Edged
Wares/Shell Edged Wares Main.htm
32
Available 21 May 2009: http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/Post-Colonial Ceramics/Shell Edged
Wares/Shell Edged Wares Main.htm
31
purchased individually or a few at a time – the end result would have been
a set table with everything exhibiting a very similar pattern.33
The artifacts, building/structure materials:
34
Seen here is a small selection of materials recovered from the midden which may
have come from one or more buildings. These materials include bits of mortar and
concrete, fired clay fragments assumed to be brick rubble and also small pieces of thickly
glazed brick which may have come from a fire box or furnace lining.
Fired clay fragments exhibiting flat, smooth sides resembling finished surfaces
identical to those found on bricks constitute the third largest individual category in the
artifact assemblage (177 items). Some of this material could have come from the razed
structure indicated by the site of the subsurface brick foundation which is adjacent to the
midden area.
Although concrete is a 20th century product35, most of these items can not be
dated in any meaningful way. They are of interest because they point to the possible
existence of buildings that are no longer standing. The apparent use of brick is
significant in that it indicates structures that were made for long term use, buildings that
were made to outlast the builders.
Scharfenberger, Gerard and Veit, Richard, “Rethinking the Mengkom-Mixing Bowl: Salvage
Archaeology at the Johannes Luyster House, A Dutch-American Farm,” Northeast Historical Archaeology,
vol.30/31, 2001/2002, pages 61-62.
34
Photographed by Michael Fordon, 2008.
35
Groover, Mark, The Archaeology of North American Farmsteads, Univ. Press of Florida, 2008, page 115.
33
The artifacts, coal and coal ash:
36
Seen here are samples of coal and coal ash recovered from the midden area. Until
fairly recent times, coal was a common fuel for home heating. Both houses currently
standing on the farm property used coal fired furnaces. Coal ash would need to be
removed regularly from a furnace and disposed of. It was probably deposited in the
midden as another trash item.37
The artifacts, metal:
38
Seen here are examples of metal items (both antique and modern) recovered from
the midden. Many of the older metal pieces are corroded to the point where identification
and dating are difficult. Nails, bolts and nuts, wire, a fragment of chain, squeeze tube
pieces and bits of 20th century tin and aluminum are among the assemblage. Most of
these items appear to relate to farm work or building materials. There are only a few
items linked to household refuse. A Pepsodent toothpaste tube which was recovered
36
Photographed by Michael Fordon, 2008.
Coal ash was also employed in gardens in the late 19 th century as a method of pest control.
38
Photographed by Michael Fordon, 2008.
37
probably dates to the period of that brand’s strongest popularity, which was before the
mid 1950s.39
The artifacts, plastic tags identifying plant varieties:
40
Seen here is a selection of plastic tags identifying plant varieties. These came
with newly purchased vegetables and flowers and were meant to be inserted in the soil at
the end of a planted row. Thus labeled, plantings could be easily identified by type of
plant and specific variety. These artifacts were not intentionally deposited as refuse but
were simply abandoned after being used on site. They are among the most modern items
found in the midden area and illustrate the location’s most recent function. The Fordons
have used this location as a garden since the early 1980s and new plastic tags just like
these are still accumulating here.
Although the family remembers many of the types of fruit and vegetables grown
here, these artifacts will help identify specific varieties. Preferences seemed to tend
toward readily available varieties that were well adapted to local conditions. New
varieties and hybrids were also frequently purchased –as opposed to heirloom varieties
that were harder to find and more expensive. As seen in the photograph above tomatoes
were quite popular (in part due to their versatility). Tomatoes could be made into a
sauce, used as an ingredient, eaten on their own or preserved for later use.
39
40
Available 1 June 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsodent
Photographed by Michael Fordon, 2008.
Conclusions:
The date range for the entire artifact assemblage spans two centuries. The oldest
identified item is an 1800 five cent piece and the most recent items are modern metal and
plastic fragments. Most of the items seem to date to a period of about the mid 19th
century to the early-mid 20th century, which coincides with the Fordon family’s
occupation of the area (1837-present). The wide age range of the artifacts along with the
fact that they were collected from the surface (instead of being located in the ground in
datable layers) makes interpreting them problematic.41 Artifacts collected on the surface
of the soil are usually a mix of materials from several time periods and often can not be
assigned to particular generations since they represent a jumbled deposition. Never-theless a number of interesting facts and inferences may be drawn from the total assemblage.
Assuming that the subsurface foundation adjacent to the midden was the
foundation for a building (possibly a dwelling given that it was composed of brick) which
was standing at the time the midden was originally in use, that would make the midden’s
earliest function that of a back door trash heap for household refuse. Actually it did not
necessarily have to be located at the back door. Such rubbish piles were common in the
front of houses as well as the back. It wasn’t until the later 19th century that the
beautification of the home and farm began to dictate that garbage was to be kept in the
rear of a building to hide it from roadside or public view.
A total of 1,402 artifacts were collected. Many cannot be thoroughly identified
given their size, composition and lack of distinguishing characteristics. In fact the largest
single group consists of 218 clear glass fragments –most of which are unidentifiable
except as plain shards. However, by any estimate the majority of the artifacts seem to
relate to foodways (the growing, production, preparation, presentation, consumption and
storage of food). The most inclusive estimate gives a possible total of 1,025 foodways
artifacts (73% of total). Although it is likely that the actual number of foodways items is
somewhat lower, the estimate serves to illustrate how important this area was to the
family.
41
McCann, Karen and Ewing, Robert, “Recovering information worth knowing: Developing more
discriminating approaches for selecting 19th-century farmsteads and rural domestic sites,” Northeast
Historical Archaeology, vol.30/31, 2001/2002, pages 17-18.
Judging by the material found in the midden, the 19th century Fordons were active
consumers. They purchased products made in the region (like stoneware vessels and
other ceramics) as well as imported items (like Staffordshire tableware). They obviously
cared something about appearances and status display given the amount of decorated
tableware and color coordinated transferware they seemed to have. They liked brick as a
building material and produced structures with an eye toward long term use. They ate
beef, pork and fresh water clams. Tobacco was smoked on the farm but it is impossible
to tell by whom (it is important to remember that non family laborers were employed and
boarded on the farm and some of the artifacts could have originated with them). All of
this seems to agree with the 19th century Fordons being in the upper middle class of rural
land owners.
The late 19th century and early 20th century artifacts illustrate increases in the
Fordons’ consumption of industrially manufactured products. Just like most of the
country, they began buying more factory made items that were trendy, specialized,
readily available in quantity, and more efficient at performing their specific function. For
example, the afore mentioned clear glass fragments included the remains of a number of
wide diameter jars which were intended for food storage or preservation (canning).
These artifacts illustrate the shift from earthenware/stoneware as the favored material for
containers of this type to the industrially produced glass jars.
Although a few of the 19th century artifacts exhibited maker’s marks, the number
of manufacturer’s markings on the early 20th century artifacts was far higher. These 20th
century pieces bore markings such as Pepsodent, Clorox, Pond’s, Hazel-Atlas and a wide
array of partial labels, serial numbers and other markings. These findings “provide
general insight into the spread of popular culture and consumerism in rural areas.”42
They also reflect “the archaeological effect of the consumer revolution …[which is that]
middens often contain an incredibly large amount of discarded industrially manufactured
items43
The artifacts recovered from the midden provide few specifics concerning the
Fordon family. The most surprising items involve consumption of tobacco and fresh
42
43
Groover, Mark, The Archaeology of North American Farmsteads, Univ. Press of Florida, 2008, page 115.
Groover, Mark, The Archaeology of North American Farmsteads, Univ. Press of Florida, 2008, page 70.
water clams. The general knowledge gained by examining the artifacts largely agrees
with the known history of the family. For the most part the artifacts are exactly what one
would expect to find in a farmhouse rubbish pile of the period.
This type of archaeology has been criticized as an expensive way to tell us
something we already know. However, that criticism is more valid when applied to
projects contributing directly to pubic history. In the case of small projects for the
purpose of family history the amount of effort is much easier to justify. Family history is
after all an endeavor in which the researcher is often personally invested. Genealogists
and family historians may experience a more tangible connection with their ancestors
when recovering objects owned and used by them.