the living landscape of a freed african american settlement
TRANSCRIPT
Indiana University of PennsylvaniaKnowledge Repository @ IUP
Theses and Dissertations (All)
5-2011
The People of Pandenarium: The Living Landscapeof a Freed African American SettlementAngela S. JailletIndiana University of Pennsylvania
Follow this and additional works at: http://knowledge.library.iup.edu/etd
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Knowledge Repository @ IUP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations(All) by an authorized administrator of Knowledge Repository @ IUP. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].
Recommended CitationJaillet, Angela S., "The People of Pandenarium: The Living Landscape of a Freed African American Settlement" (2011). Theses andDissertations (All). 1002.http://knowledge.library.iup.edu/etd/1002
THE PEOPLE OF PANDENARIUM: THE LIVING LANDSCAPE OF A FREED AFRICAN
AMERICAN SETTLEMENT
A Thesis
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
Angela S. Jaillet
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
May 2011
ii
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
The School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Anthropology
We hereby approve the thesis of
Angela Sue Jaillet
Candidate for the degree of Master of Arts
__________________________ _____________Signature on File_______________________
Benjamin Ford, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Advisor
__________________________ _____________Signature on File_______________________
Beverly Chiarulli, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology
__________________________ _____________Signature on File______________________
Xi Wang, Ph.D.
Professor of History
ACCEPTED
________________________ _____________________________________________________
Timothy P. Mack, Ph.D.
Dean
The School of Graduate Studies and Research
iii
ABSTRACT
Title: The People of Pandenarium: The Living Landscape of a Freed African American
Settlement
Author: Angela S. Jaillet
Thesis Committee Advisor: Benjamin Ford, PhD
Thesis Committee Members: Beverly Chiarulli, PhD
Xi Wang, PhD
An antebellum freed African American settlement in northwestern Pennsylvania existed
from 1854 into the postbellum period and the early twentieth century. At the time of its
establishment, 63 manumitted African Americans traveled from a central Virginia plantation to
start a new life. The site of Pandenarium, identified as site 36ME253 in the Pennsylvania
Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) Files, persists in the historical and archaeological records,
despite years of neglect and agricultural practices carried out at the site. While vestiges of the
community remain, little was known about the people that once lived at Pandenarium, the
abolitionists that built the settlement, and the wealthy planters that freed them. Historical
archaeological investigations carried out at the site sought to understand the spatial layout of the
site, the motivations of the parties involved in the establishment and development of
Pandenarium, and the lives of the African American residents, pre- and post-Civil War. The
research design was developed using practice theory, cultural landscape theory, and critical
theory. The questions asked of the site, its spatial layout, and the historic records were
ultimately used to elucidate the story of the men, women, and children living at Pandenarium.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the unending patience and willing assistance that were
personified in my advisor, Dr. Ben Ford. His ability to field and answer my questions was
invaluable, as was his advice in organizing and prioritizing the time and energy spent on this
thesis. From fieldwork to proofreading, Dr. Ford’s assistance was invaluable. The education I
have received from Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s Applied Archaeology program was
vital to my growth as a professional archaeologist and I have Dr. Beverly Chiarulli, Dr. Sarah
Neusius, and Dr. Phil Neusius to thank for their time and the experience they continue to share
with their students.
I would also like to thank Joe Baker, M.A. at the Cultural Resources Section at
PennDOT. Joe’s continued guidance and friendship motivated me to be the best archaeologist
and professional I could be. PennDOT’s Cultural Resource Professionals, Scott Schaffer, M.A.
and Joe Verbka, M.A. were immensely helpful, letting me bounce questions off them and
digging shovel test pits in a soggy horse pasture. I could not have asked for a more willing group
of landowners to work with, Michael Heini, Sr. and Michael Heini, Jr. offered up their land, their
backhoe skills, and their time answering questions and talking about the unique history of their
land. Seth Byler and Mose Shetler provided me access to their land and dutifully listened to my
exclamations over broken pottery. Local historian, Ruth Woods helped me understand the value
of an interested community and what Pandenarium means to the present-day population through
her stories and enthusiastic aid.
I am forever indebted to the many men and women that volunteered their time, tramping
through the fields and digging shovel test pits in the muggy August heat. First and foremost,
Sean Martorelli and Mike Sprowles, thank you for all of the fieldwork and enthusiasm you
v
brought to the site. Tristan Schaffer, Brian Jaillet, Sharon Stalker, Kyle Jaillet, Connie Leonard,
and Bob Stalker donated their time to fieldwork at the site, proofreading, equipment, and were
crucial in the project’s timely completion. I thank you all so much.
Last but not by any means least, Rich Wentling inspired me to be a good person, a good
leader, and a good archaeologist. Providing humor and manual labor in the field and editorial
assistance at home, Rich was my go-to-guy. He let me bounce ideas, theories, and a master’s
thesis off of him. Without his love and support, I could not have completed this thesis.
This research was made possible, in part, through a grant from Indiana University of
Pennsylvania’s School of Graduate Research.
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my parents, Sharon Stalker and Brian Jaillet. My
mother never knew what I would do and my father always knew I loved dirt. Thank you so
much for the unfathomable love and support you have given me all my life. You are my heroes.
vi
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1
Historical Fiction: Allen Residence, Albemarle County, Virginia…………………........... 1 Significance at Pandenarium: People and Potential Understanding……………………….. 3 Historical Archaeology and Its Development as a Sub-Disciplinary Study……………….. 4 The African Diaspora and Its Place in Historical Archaeology……..…………………….. 7 An Outline of Chapters……………………..……………………………………………… 8
CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL NARRATIVE: PANDENARIUM IN CONTEXT..................... 9
African Americans in the Antebellum Period……………………………………………… 9 Resettlement of Freed African Americans in the United States…………………………… 10
The Organized Negro Communities Movement: An Experiment in Freed African American Communities……………………………………………………………. 12
Beyond the United States: Freed and Fugitive Slave Resettlement in the Americas and Africa…………………………………………………………………………………... 14
Colonization vs. Abolitionism……………………………………………………………... 15 Planning Pandenarium……………………………………………………………………... 20 History and Development of Pandenarium: Nineteenth Century - Early Twentieth
Century…………………………………………………………………………………. 28 Collaboration amidst Contradiction: Differing Philosophies, Class, and Color at
Pandenarium…………………………………………………………………………… 38 CHAPTER 3: PANDENARIUM IN THEORETICAL CONTEXT…………………………... 42
Historical Archaeology’s Perspective……………………………………………………… 42 Historical Archaeology and Theory……………………………………………………. 42 African Diaspora and Theory………………………………………………………….. 43
Pandenarium in Theoretical Context…………………………………………………......... 45 Practice Theory at Pandenarium……………………………………………………….. 46 Cultural Landscape Theory at Pandenarium…………………………………………… 50 Critical Archaeology at Pandenarium………………………………………………….. 53
Multi-Theoretical Approach at Pandenarium……………………………………………… 54 CHAPTER 4: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT PANDENARIUM: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS……………………………………………………………………. 56
Theory, Method and Research Design: Fitting the Pieces Together…………………......... 56 Research Design…………………………………………………………………………….56
Question 1……………………………………………………………………………… 56 Question 2……………………………………………………………………………… 59 Question 3…………………………………………………………………………..….. 60 Question 4…………………………………….……………………………………….. 61
Methodology………………………………..……………………………………………… 63 Background Research……………….…………………………………………………. 63 Field Methods………………….………………………………………………………. 66
vii
Laboratory Methods…….……………………………………………………………… 69
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT
PANDENARIUM……………………………………………………………………………… 74
Cartographic Research: Results………..…………………………………………………... 74
Field Investigations: Results………………..……………………………………………… 83
Laboratory Analysis: Results…………………...………………………………………….. 87
Artifact Analyses: Categorization, Ceramics, Glass, and Distribution…………..…….. 87
Ground-Penetrating Radar: Results and Analysis……………………………………… 93
What Does It All Mean? …………………………………………………………………... 99
CHAPTER 6: INTERPRETING THE PAST FOR THE PRESENT: AN ALTERNATIVE
APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING THE PEOPLE OF PANDENARIUM………………. 101
Framing Our Understanding of Pandenarium……………………………………………… 101
Designing Pandenarium: Southern Slave-owners, Northern Abolitionists, or Both? …...… 102
The Everetts and Their Role in Designing Pandenarium………………………………. 102
The Northern Abolitionists and Their Role in Designing Pandenarium……………..…107
The Layout of Mercer: The Template of a Northern Town……………………………. 109
The Layout of a Hadley: The Template of a Northern Rural Village………………..… 110
The Layout of Two Southern Slave Quarters: Belmont and Monticello’s Mulberry
Row………………………………………………………………………………… 112
The Spatial Layout of Pandenarium: An Archaeologically and Historically Informed
Perspective…………………………………………………………………………. 113
Comparison of Spatial Layouts: Mercer, Hadley, Belmont, Monticello, and
Pandenarium…………………………………………………………………………… 115
Collaboration in the Construction of an Uncommon Endeavor……………………..….117
Renegotiating a Structured Landscape: The African American Community of
Pandenarium…………………………………………………………………………… 118
Beyond the Landscape to the Living: The Lives of the African American Men, Women, and
Children of Pandenarium……………………………………………………………..... 121
First Phase of Re-construction at Pandenarium: Shacks Along the Stream………….……. 121
First-Generation Freed Slaves: The John and Rosie Allen Family Residence…........... 122
Second-Generation Family Life: The Bob and Lizzie Allen Family Residence…….… 124
Domestic Life Amidst Turbulent Times: The Story of African Americans Living at
Pandenarium…………………………………………………………………………… 127
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION: THE REALITY OF FREEDOM AT PANDENARIUM……. 129
Historical Fiction: Allen Residence, Mercer County, Pennsylvania…………………...….. 129
Synthesis of Archaeology at Pandenarium………………………………………...………. 131
The Importance of Pandenarium……………………………………………..……………. 132
Avenues for Future Research at Pandenarium…………………………………………...… 132
Unexplored Places……………………………………………………………….…….. 133
Unexplored Spaces……………………………………………………………………...134
viii
Working with Pandenarium’s Descendant Community………………………….……. 134
In Closing: We’ve Only Just Begun…………………………………………..…………… 135
REFERENCES CITED………………………………………………………………………… 136
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………………….... 149
Appendix A: Shovel Test Pit Form…………………………………………………………149
Appendix B: GPR Survey Transects………………………………………………………..150
Appendix C: Shovel Test Pit Survey Results……………………………………………… 152
Appendix D: Artifact Catalogue…………………………………………………………… 159
Appendix E: Mean Ceramic Dates………………………………………………………… 204
Appendix F: Glass Assemblage Dates……………………………………………………... 207
Appendix G: GPR Survey Results…………………………………………………………. 209
Appendix H: Manumitted Slaves from the Everett Estate, 1855…………………………... 219
Appendix I: Soils Map of Pandenarium, Site 36ME253…………………………………... 222
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: GPR Survey Data Collection Settings………………………………………………... 69
Table 2: LiDAR Polygon Identification Table………………………………………………… 79
Table 3: LiDAR Linear Feature Identification Table………………………………………….. 79
Table 4: Artifact Distribution of Midden Feature. Combined MNI Count of STPs B1, B1a, B1b,
B1c, B1d and TU 1, S10 W11…………………………………………………………………. 90
Table 5: Artifact Distribution of Wall-Fall Feature. MNI Count of STP Z1………………….. 91
Table 6: Anomaly Identification, Location, and Ground-Truthing Methods………………….. 95
Table 7: Summary of Site Comparison. Qualitative Comparison……………………………... 116
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: 1867. Jed Hotchkiss. Map of Albemarle County, Virginia. Staunton, Va. Courtesy of
Albemarle County Historical Society, 2010……………………………………………….. 24
Figure 2: 1822. H.C. Carey and I. Lea. American Atlas. Philadelphia, PA…………………… 33
Figure 3: 1873. G.M. Hopkins. East Lackawannock Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia, PA…………………………………………………………………………… 33
Figure 4: 1980. Hand-drawn map of Indian Run circa 1900. Reprinted in the The Globe. New
Wilmington, PA……………………………………………………………………………. 34
Figure 5: 1980. Indian Run about 1900. Reprinted in The Globe. New Wilmington, PA…….. 36
Figure 6: 1907. Neshannock. 15' U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle. Topographic Map.
Washington, DC……………………………………………………………………………. 37
Figure 7: Map of Study Areas. Pandenarium, 36ME253. Aerial Photograph. 2005………….. 58
Figure 8: Shovel Test Grid Pattern…………………………………………………………….. 67
Figure 9: Aerial Photograph, Taken July 2, 1939. Possible Features Related to Historic
Pandenarium Outline. Yellow for Historic Resources in 1873 Map. Red for Historic
Resources in Test. White for Historic Boundaries of Settlement. Photograph courtesy of
http://www.pennpilot.psu.edu/.............................................................................................. 75
Figure 10: Aerial Photograph, Taken June 7, 1958. Courtesy of
http://www.pennpilot.psu.edu/.............................................................................................. 76
Figure 11: Aerial Photograph, Taken September 8, 1968. Courtesy of
http://www.pennpilot.psu.edu/.............................................................................................. 76
Figure 12: LiDAR Imagery in Color Scale, Processed Using ArcMap Version 9.0. Polygons and
Linear Features, Jaillet 2010……………………………………………………………….. 77
Figure 13: LiDAR Imagery in Gray Scale, Processed Using ArcMap Version 9.0. Polygons and
Linear Features, Jaillet 2010……………………………………………………………….. 78
Figure 14: Plan Map of the John and Rosie Allen Residence. Jaillet 2010……………………. 81
Figure 15: Stone Along Historic Road. Possible Marker Stone, Jaillet 2010…………………. 82
Figure 16: Close-up of Modifications. Stone Along Historic Road. Possible Marker Stone. Jaillet
2010……………………………………………………………………………………….. 82
Figure 17: Map of Archaeological Testing at Pandenarium, Site 36ME253. Red STPs were
Negative. Green STPs were Positive. Aerial Photograph Courtesy of USGS, 2005…….. 84
Figure 18: Contour Map of Archaeological Testing. Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinate
System. Jaillet 2010……………………………………………………………………….. 86
Figure 19: 3D Surface Imagery Map of Archaeological Testing. Universal Transverse Mercator
Coordinate System. Jaillet 2010…………………………………………………………… 87
Figure 20: Summary of Artifacts By Group: Percent of MNI…………………………………. 88
Figure 21: Comparative Glass and Ceramic Dates from Pandenarium……………………….. 89
Figure 22: Artifact Distribution Percentages from Wall-Fall and Midden Features………….. 91
Figure 23: PAR 1. GPR-Slice Time Slice. Anomalies #1 and #2 Identification. STP Y1. Jaillet
2010……………………………………………………………………………………….. 96
Figure 24: PAR 2. GPR-Slice Time Slice. Anomaly #3 Identification. Jaillet 2010…………. 96
Figure 25: PAR 3. GPR-Slice Time Slice. Anomalies #4 and #5 Identification. Jaillet 2010… 97
Figure 26: Photograph of STP Y1. Base of Unit. Showing Ash Layer with Possible Foundation
Stones. Jaillet 2010………………………………………………………………………… 98
Figure 27: Photograph of STP Y1: Close-up of Unit Base. Showing Ash Layer with Possible
Foundation Stones and Charcoal Flecking. Jaillet 2010…………………………………... 98
xi
Figure 28: STP Y1. 50cm x 50cm. Base of Stratum III. Showing Possible Fieldstone
Foudnation............................................................................................................................ 99
Figure 29: STP Y1. 50cm x 50cm. North Wall Profile……………………………………….. 100
Figure 30: Engraving of Mercer, 1843. Reproduced in A Pioneer Outline History of
Northwestern Pennsylvania by W.J. McKnight, MD in 1905…………………………….. 108
Figure 31: 1873 Atlas of Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Mercer Borough. G.M. Hopkins. Area
Outlined in Red is the County Courthouse and the Courthouse Park…………………….. 110
Figure 32: 1873 Atlas of Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Hadley. G.M. Hopkins…………….. 111
Figure 33: Buttons Recovered from STP Z1. Jaillet 2010…………………………………….. 122
Figure 34: Eyeglass Lens Recovered from STP Z1. Oval. Heat-Altered. Jaillet 2010……….. 122
Figure 35: Advertisement for Eyeglasses. Sears, Roebuck, & Company Catalogue. 1897:468. 123
Figure 36: Composite Steel Nib Pen with Wood Holder. Recovered from STP Z1. Jaillet
2010……………………………………………………………………………………….. 123
Figure 37: Buttons and Button Inlay. Recovered from Midden Feature. Jaillet 2010………… 124
Figure 38: Footwear Leather and Eyelets Recovered from Midden Feature. Jaillet 2010……. 125
Figure 39: Bakelite Comb. Recovered from Midden Feature. Jaillet 2010…………………… 125
Figure 40: Brass Rings. Recovered from Midden Feature. Jaillet 2010…………………….... 125
Figure 41: Toy Tea Set. Recovered from Midden Feature. Jaillet 2010……………………… 126
Figure 42: Graphite Pencil. Recovered from Midden Feature. Modified. Jaillet 2010……….. 126
Figure 43: Left to Right: Shot and Two Brass Cartridge Heads from 12-Gauge Shotgun Shells.
Recovered from Midden Feature. Jaillet 2010………………………………………...….. 126
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION: THE HOPE FOR FREEDOM
Historical Fiction: Allen Residence, Albemarle County, Virginia
Tears glistened in Rosie‟s eyes as she swiped at her cheek. It was natural, to cry over
something so wonderful, terrifying and bewildering all at the same time. She still could not quite
believe the news John had brought with him to their Virginia dinner table that night. Questions
and doubts swirled in her mind as she sat quietly sewing a tiny porcelain button onto an old shirt,
keeping a watchful eye on the children as they played. John, still deep in thought, sat quietly
next to the fire exuding something she had never hoped to see before, a sense of freedom.
Freedom... was it possible for a black family in 1853? They had heard of and known
fugitive slaves that escaped to the North on their way to Canada, but the risks for a family of five
were seemingly insurmountable. They had even known former slaves who had bought their
freedom by hiring out their free time and labor. John, a blacksmith by trade, had earned extra
money by hiring out his services to other nearby planters, but they were still cautious of trying to
buy their freedom and that of their children. What would they do afterwards? Remain nearby,
close to their family and friends, or try to start anew in the North? The Fugitive Slave Act of
1850 had embroiled Virginia and border states like it in a dangerous game of human trafficking.
Other slaves were talking about staying in Virginia and buying their own land with the money
young Dr. Everett was offering them for their freedom.
It seemed surreal. When the elderly Dr. Charles Everett died in 1848, they had heard the
rumors like everyone else that he had hoped to find them passage to Liberia in Africa, but that
had proved too expensive for his nephew. Since that time, they had been working on the
2
plantation for wages, saving the money for their future freedom. The latest rumor concerning
that elusive freedom was far more elaborate and had even been validated by Dr. C.D. Everett
himself. A village in the North built for them, with shops, a hotel, their own Baptist church and,
what was more, their own houses with their own land to work. Dr. Everett promised $1,000 and
a 2-acre plot to each family to start their new lives as freed men and women. What could they
possibly do with that much money? She smiled quietly to herself, sneaking a glance at John
again. John knew how they could spend $1,000. She could see the thoughts spinning in his
head. There would be new shoes for the children; a pretty porcelain set for the girls; a new dress
for herself with all the pretty matching ribbons she could find, and tools. Oh, the many tools!
Her smile slowly faded, because she knew that no amount of money would ease the
hardships they would continue to endure as African Americans. John did not need tools; he
needed land. She did not need a new dress; she needed a new crock. The children did not need
toys; they needed an education. In that moment, she knew. She knew that her family could
move to the North, leaving behind friends and family, the place they had come to know as home,
and everything familiar. She knew that they would not only survive; they would determine their
own future, as free people at Pandenarium. How in the world were they going to do this?
The narrative of Rosie and John Allen, as it is presented above, is largely fictional. The
people, Rosie, John and their family were very real. Their journey north to Pandenarium was
real. The hardships they would endure were real. The lives they built for themselves and their
descendants were real. Unfortunately, no first-hand personal accounts of the original residents of
Pandenarium, an antebellum freed slave settlement in Mercer County, Pennsylvania, have
surfaced. Their hopes, dreams, fears, and realities remain largely unknown in the historical
record of Pandenarium. The material culture the residents left behind provides a tangible link to
3
the past and provided an archaeological basis for the fictional narrative of the Allens. The
archaeological investigation of Pandenarium‟s residents, their homes, and their space conducted
during the summer and fall of 2010 is beginning to fill in the gaps of a history, quieted and
forgotten.
Significance at Pandenarium: People and Potential Understanding
As an antebellum freed slave settlement site, Pandenarium, is a significant and ultimately
crucial connection to the past on local, regional and global scales. Pandenarium‟s 1854
establishment in the predominantly non-slave holding North, its contextual placement amidst an
active Underground Railroad network, and its unique status as a legally-sanctioned and protected
freed slave settlement are only part of the story; the people of Pandenarium are its true claim to
significance. Pandenarium‟s men, women and children wove a free community from the fabric
of an abolitionist-built environment. Living on a changing landscape, the former slaves
restructured the settlement much as they restructured their lives. The newly freed African
Americans arrived on-site to find a partially built settlement that they utilized and shortly
thereafter they began building new residences in a domestically vacant portion of the site. Yet,
they remain largely unknown, despite historical documents and accounts; the ability to
understand the people of Pandenarium is what archaeology offers the present, by developing a
context to truly grasp the dynamics of an antebellum freed slave community.
While the importance of Pandenarium in its own time and space is undeniable, the impact
that it may have on present-day descendant communities in the region remains to be seen. There
is little doubt that it has the potential to affect the lives of the local and descendant communities
in a variety of significant and extensive ways. Archaeology is beginning to play a larger role in
many descendant communities and their perception of history, in both positive and negative
4
ways (McDavid 2002). Carol McDavid‟s work with the Levi Jordan Plantation Website Project
is an innovative and pluralistic approach to dealing with politically and socially sensitive issues
surrounding an eighteenth century sugar plantation and the multiple affected and interested
present-day communities (McDavid 2002). Her dealings with “archaeologies that hurt” required
an assessment of “the „interests and conflicts‟ (Leone et al. 1987) that formed the social and
political landscape of Brazoria, and to determine whether people in the community would
support a project which would, necessarily, require them to deal publicly with some rather
uncomfortable aspects of their community‟s history (McDavid 2002:234).”
Historical Archaeology and Its Development as a Sub-Disciplinary Study
Historical archaeology is able to people the past, especially the past forgotten or denied
so many diasporan communities and inevitably their descendants (Orser 1998, 2007; Sabloff
2008). “Historical archaeologists have a special contribution to make to our understanding of the
American experience because of our ability to unearth information that is not usually present in
other sources” (Orser 2007:14). Pandenarium‟s 1854 establishment and lasting presence into the
1930s allows an archaeological glimpse of a series of dynamic periods in the past. Pandenarium
provides a glimpse of a varied past and a way to better understand regional developments across
the antebellum North, the Civil War Era, Reconstruction, the Jim Crow period, and the early
years of the twentieth century.
Globally, the people of Pandenarium represent a social phenomenon that has far-reaching
implications for African diaspora communities worldwide. The effects of European colonization
and later American colonization on the African diaspora were and are far-reaching,
geographically and socio-politically. Historical archaeology is in the unique position to study
these effects in a global context. As diasporan communities around the world look to their past
5
for answers, the archaeology of places like Pandenarium takes on a greater degree of importance.
By combining the historic documents and an archaeological investigation of the site, the voices
of Pandenarium‟s past can speak to the present. The potential wealth of knowledge existing at
Pandenarium remains beneath the soil and will help to people the past while providing avenues
for future research.
In order to unearth the potential to people the past at Pandenarium, archaeological
theories and methods informed the research conducted at the site. Archaeology is the study of
past cultures including their material culture; historical archaeology extends that study to past
cultures with written records. Archaeologists developed theories and methods over the past
century of archaeological practice; historical archaeology continues to benefit from the
theoretical models and field methods of their anthropological forebears. As a subdiscipline of
anthropology, archaeology focuses on the culture and people take center-stage in interpreting the
past. The study of history, on the other hand, is largely perceived as a chronological record of
events involving the human past. A reliance on historic documents combined with
archaeological theory and methods characterizes historical archaeology as it is practiced today.
At its core, historical archaeology is an interdisciplinary practice, combining the broader
disciplines of anthropology and history, with far-reaching applications to anthropological
archaeology and history.
Historical archaeology suffered a severe identity crisis in its early years (Cleland and
Fitting 1968), partly due to its sharing of research methods, specifically merging historical
documents with archaeological data (Deagan 1982; Orser 2001: 621-2). The question became,
where did anthropology, the discipline in which American historical archaeologists had primarily
been trained, fit into this practice (Orser 2001: 622). Many notable historical archaeologists in
6
the 1950s and 1960s promoted the idea that historical archaeology was the “handmaiden of
history” effectively leaving anthropology out of the equation (Harrington 1955; Noël Hume
1964, 1972). The critical flaw in this thinking was that the study of history had no place for
things, living or dead, nor methods and theories to deal with them (Leone 2010:69). The things
of material culture, the artifacts that past people produced, used, and discarded continue to be
used and perceived in the present, ultimately facilitating our understanding of past cultures.
While history inevitably deals with things, as they are the tangible evidence of the stories that fill
the history books, it is uncomfortable with the mundane realities of people‟s garbage (Leone
2010). Fortunately, archaeologists have overcome this feeling of discomfit, as have the vast
majority of historians.
In the 1960s, the New Archeology of Lewis Binford enabled archaeologists to project
anthropological research into the past (Orser 2001: 623), regardless of how recent that past might
be. This movement allowed historical archaeologists to gain a more concrete foothold in
anthropological science. The New Archeology, combined with cultural resource laws passed in
the 1960s and the support of prominent archaeologists like Stanley South, aided in an
increasingly firm foundation upon which historical archaeology could grow (South 1977; Orser
2001:624). Stanley South‟s Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology provided a concrete
set of methodologies and their underlying theoretical base for a new generation of historical
archaeologists concerned with the scientific validity of their discipline (South 1977). At this
point, historical archaeology began to look for ways to develop its unique position in
anthropological study.
Historical archaeology is currently characterized by the diversity of its applications. As a
critique of both modern history and the ways in which that past is interpreted, historical
7
archaeology acts as a lens through which present populations can critically view the actions of
those in the past as relevant in today‟s society (Deagan 1982; Leone 2010: 41; McDavid 2002;
Orser 2001: 625; Orser 2007). Historical archaeology also pulls heavily on its anthropological
roots to study diachronic cultural trends and processes (Mrozowski 1988; Orser 2001: 625;
Singleton and Orser 2003). Places and people, individuals as well as groups, play a larger role in
historical archaeology compared to its prehistoric counterpart, although the latter has been
making greater strides towards bringing individuals into focus in recent years (Deagan 1982;
Little 1994; Orser 2001: 625; Galle 2010).
The African Diaspora and Its Place in Historical Archaeology
As an extension of historical archaeology‟s ability to link the present and the past,
African diaspora archaeology allows archaeologists to give a voice to those past populations
whose histories were repressed, ignored, erased, and forgotten. The study of the African
diaspora benefits greatly from historical archaeology‟s ability to compare “what people said they
did, what observers said people did, and what the archaeological record said people did” (Deagan
1982). Facing oppression prior to emancipation and again during the post-Reconstruction era,
African Americans strove to build new lives, restoring severed ties and their history. African
American historian, George Washington Williams published the first comprehensive history of
African Americans in 1882, nearly twenty years after legal emancipation. The struggle to regain
a history denied African Americans by a torn nation, an upswing in racial tension, and ignorance
was similar to the struggle for freedom, in that these movements in history were not immediate
nor were they unprecedented.
The haunting words of African American writer, Ralph Waldo Ellison, reflect the
dilemma in which African Americans found themselves, while simultaneously giving a voice to
8
the unseen peoples of the past (Ellison 1947). “I am invisible, understand, simply because
people refuse to see me” (Ellison 1947, Prologue). In the late nineteenth century and the early
twentieth century, African American politicians, writers, musicians, educators, and activists
would seek to legitimate, to vindicate, to forget, to remember and to be seen. Historical
archaeology, specifically African diaspora archaeology, allows for another look at the past,
through the material culture of the African American men, women and children.
An Outline of Chapters
The following chapters weave together an historical archaeological interpretation of the
settlement at Pandenarium through archaeological theories and the larger historical context of the
mid to late nineteenth century United States. In Chapter Two, the historical backdrop of the
antebellum North, the establishment of Pandenarium and its development, the Civil War and the
following period of Reconstruction will be explored as integral to understanding the people of
Pandenarium. In Chapter Three, archaeological theories including practice theory, landscape
theory, and critical theory, and their application to the African diaspora will be considered as a
theoretical context in which to interpret Pandenarium, as a community and as a structured
settlement. In Chapter Four, the research design and methodology undertaken in the
archaeological investigation of the site will be discussed in detail. In Chapter Five, results of the
archaeological investigations at Pandenarium will be introduced. In Chapter Six, the results will
be interpreted, while the people of Pandenarium take center-stage: the southern planter, who
envisioned the town; the Northern abolitionists, who designed the town; and the African
Americans, who inhabited and modified the town. Chapter Seven, the final chapter, discusses
the significance of the people at Pandenarium as well as avenues for further research at
Pandenarium.
9
CHAPTER 2. HISTORICAL NARRATIVE: PANDENARIUM IN CONTEXT
African Americans in the Antebellum Period
In the years preceding the Civil War, the barely disguised friction between the North and
South began to escalate to the point of combustion. The increasingly industrial urban centers of
the North began to compete with the agricultural emphasis in the South for capital and labor
(Harper 2003). Slavery was not solely a concern of the South, northern industrial centers were
intimately tied to the crops provided by their southern counterparts and had their own stake in
continuing slavery (Berlin et al. 1992; Harper 2003; Singleton 1995). The staple crops of cotton,
sugar cane and tobacco required a large manual labor work force and slavery upheld these
agricultural enterprises prior to Emancipation (Rodrigue 2001). Slavery in the South, while not
the sole reason for the Civil War, was undoubtedly one of the major points of friction between
the two regions. Discord on the topic of slavery existed prior to the war and was framed by a
wide spectrum of discourse as to what to do about slavery and how to do it. The anti-slavery and
pro-slavery literature was widely available throughout the North and South (Library Of Congress
(LOC) 2010a, 2010b).
As the war progressed, slavery took on a meaning beyond economics and morality; it
became political. In one of his most famous acts, President Abraham Lincoln issued the
Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863, an act that dealt a legal, if limited, blow to slavery.
The Emancipation Proclamation also enabled the Union Army to begin recruiting and enlisting
African Americans. Individuals, including Secretary of War Simon Cameron, his replacement,
Edwin Stanton, and General William Butler of the Union Army, pioneered the way in politically
10
maneuvering the limited language of the act, pushing its bounds to welcome fugitive slaves as
free in various Union military encampments like Fortress Monroe (Berlin et al. 1992). Prior to
the Emancipation Proclamation, the First Confiscation Act of 1861 provided a legal basis for the
confiscation of slaves as contraband in the seceded South (Berlin et al. 1992).
Prior to the Civil War, the primary answer to the issue of slavery had been the
resettlement of former and fugitive slaves outside of the legally slave-holding South.
Resettlement took the form of freed slave settlements and fugitive slave settlements. Freed slave
settlements, before and after the Civil War, were located primarily in the North, but not
exclusively; the existence of war-time contraband camps in the South were an important
exception to this rule (Berlin et al. 1992). Fugitive slave settlements existed throughout the
United States, in various capacities and persisted longer in the North, where many of the states
afforded freedom to slaves prior to passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Passage of the
Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 would have a ripple effect on the North. The law‟s passage
strengthened the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act by allowing for the punishment of those aiding fugitive
slaves, mandating the aid of law enforcement in slave-catching enterprises and denied fugitive
slaves due process of law (LOC 2010a).
Resettlement of Freed African Americans in the United States
In the interest of understanding Pandenarium in context, an overview of the different
types of African American settlements is critical. Settlements took many forms from temporary
camps to permanent enterprises and often varied in size and longevity. The Dennis Farm
Charitable Land Trust in northeastern Pennsylvania is an intact archaeological site representing a
long-term, from 1793 to the present, free African American family farm (Dennis Farm
Charitable Land Trust 2008). The site itself is 153-acres of farmland and remains home to
11
generations of Perkins and Dennis descendants (Dennis Farm Charitable Land Trust 2008). The
Dennis Farm site was similar to many small enclaves of freed or fugitive slaves across the North
and Canada; however, its longevity makes it distinct.
Less than ten miles away from Pandenarium in Pennsylvania, along the shores of Sandy
Lake (now Stoneboro Lake), a settlement of fugitive slaves existed. The settlement, Liberia,
appears in the historical record around 1825 and persists until the passage of the Second Fugitive
Slave Act in 1850, when the majority of Liberia‟s inhabitants moved to Canada (Barksdale-Hall
2009:17). The Liberia settlement set a precedent in the region, in addition to a substantial
African American presence, the abolitionist movement gained support early on in Mercer
County.
Free African American sites associated with religious groups, specifically Quaker sects,
appear early in the nineteenth century and into the mid-nineteenth century period. The Quakers
were a religious group with a large presence in Pennsylvania and had a central role in the
creation of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and other anti-slavery movements in the North
(Newton 2002:1). While many of the settlements espoused freedom as their primary ideological
basis, those associated with the Quaker religion often had a decidedly economic bent. For
example, the Timbuctoo freed African American community was built outside of a New Jersey
Quaker community in 1825, within walking distance to the local Quaker-owned and managed
brickyard and factory where many of the black Timbuctoo inhabitants worked (Barton 2009; Orr
2010). In addition, the freed African Americans were paid in bricks that were used to build their
homes (Leach 2010). The marriage of economic pursuit and religious reasoning is not
unprecedented and has been identified archaeologically in Shaker communities of the North and
Midwest (Savulis 2003).
12
On the surface of the matter, Pandenarium appears to represent a local phenomenon.
However, contemporary sites similar to it are beginning to resurface as a result of recent
excavations across the northern United States. Nationally, the New Philadelphia site exists as an
archaeological testimony to the first establishment of an integrated town by a freed African
American in 1836 (Fennell 2006; Shackel et al. 2006). The New Philadelphia community
represented a business venture, as it was platted for commercial resale and incorporated by the
town‟s founder, Frank McWorter (Fennell 2006). It also denotes the first planned interracial
community in the United States, a pivotal point in national history. The likelihood of
rediscovering more communities like these sites is growing as research on the African diaspora
begins to seek new avenues of interpreting the complexity of the archaeological record in regards
to African American heritage.
The Organized Negro Communities Movement: An Experiment in Freed African American
Communities
The Organized Negro Communities Movement responded to the American Colonization
Society‟s endorsement of resettlement in Africa by proposing resettlement on the frontier of
America in “undeveloped rural areas” (Shackel 2010:28). In their book, Black Utopia: Negro
Communal Experiments in America, Pease and Pease discuss what they term the Organized
Negro Communities Movement (1963). This movement promoted agricultural settlments that
would allow for the development of economic opportunities for the freed African American
inhabitants (Pease and Pease 1962, 1963; Shackel 2010:28-29). In 1819, Edward Coles, a former
aide to President James Monroe and future Governor of Illinois, set his former slaves free while
traveling en route to Illinois (Pease and Pease 1962, 1963). Upon reaching Illinois, Coles
established an agrarian community named Edwardsville to serve as the home and economic
13
center for the manumitted slaves in the paternalistic hopes of creating a freed utopian community
(Pease and Pease 1962, 1963; Shackel 2010:28).
In hindsight, Edwardsville stood as the pivotal precedent for organized freed African
American settlements. The number of freed settlements included those in the United States such
as the Randolph and Wattles settlements in Mercer County, Ohio; Gist‟s settlement in Ohio;
Silver Lake, Pennsylvania; Edwardsville, Illinois; Port Royal, South Carolina; and Nashoba,
Tennessee (Pease and Pease 1962:19). The movement did not stop at the American-Canadian
border and extended into Canada‟s frontier at Wilberforce, Ontario; Dawn, Dresden; Elgin,
Chatham; Refugee Home Society, Windsor (Pease and Pease 1962:19). While it is not included
among the ranks of the other Organized Negro Communities, Pandenarium undoubtedly stands
as an example of a later product of this movement, settled in a rural, undeveloped agricultural
community of western Pennsylvania.
Despite the number of organized freed African American communities, Pease and Pease
suggest that the Organized Negro Communities Movement was neither a national mass
movement nor a reflective enterprise building on the past successes or failures of its predecessors
(1962:20). An estimate of approximately 3,500 to 5,000 African Americans took part in the
movement, approximately 1% of freed African Americans in the United States in 1864 (Pease
and Pease 1962:20). Pease and Pease also suggest that the movement was not evolutionary and
modifications to the general ideas and layout of the communities were individually-based were a
result of the “rage for Utopian communities” and mid-nineteenth century reform, more than they
were correcting for past flaws in design (Pease and Pease 1962:20). Settlements in the
movement provided for the economic independence of the inhabitants, but political and social
considerations were left unaddressed and untouched. Acknowledging and correcting for the past
14
successes and failures of its predecessors, Pandenarium appears to represent an instance of
reflection; the African Americans at Pandenarium were both economically and politically
independent, provided with funds, land, and legal protection by their founder and benefactor, Dr.
Charles Everett.
Beyond the United States: Freed and Fugitive Slave Resettlement in the Americas and
Africa
Neither freed nor fugitive slave resettlements were limited to the United States. African
Americans fled to Canada in increasing numbers after the passage of the Second Fugitive Slave
Act, an act that provided the impetus to escape a conflicted United States and find freedom in its
northern neighbor (LOC 2010a). With the passage of the British Imperial Act abolishing slavery
in 1833, African Americans living in Canada enjoyed the freedom they were denied in the
United States. However, they would endure many of the same social and racial injustices on
Canadian and American soil. The community of Elgin in Buxton, Ontario was established in
1849, as a way to disprove pro-slavery arguments against the possibility for freed slaves to
prosper (Library and Archives Canada 2010). Regardless, Canada was often the professed
destination of many fugitives escaping along the Underground Railroad, as opposed to the
common misconception that fugitive slaves were fleeing to the northern states (NPS 2010).
South America and Central America, despite the additional obstacle of lengthy travel by
land and sea, became places of refuge for African Americans fleeing the bonds of slavery.
Earlier maroon settlements consisting of largely fugitive slave populations existed in these
regions (Orser 1998; Singleton 1995). Maroon settlements, groups of runaway slaves and
fugitives, often developed their own creole cultures throughout the Americas and represent one
form of fugitive slave settlement (Delle 1998).
15
Freed slave settlements extended beyond the Americas, crossing the Atlantic Ocean to
Africa. The African nation of Liberia and other smaller settlements, such as Cape Palmas, were
established as an American effort to relocate or colonize freed slaves in their ancestral homeland
of Africa (LOC 2010b). The colonies established in Africa were colonies of the American
Colonization Society and other like-minded initiatives that began to sweep the United States in
the early nineteenth century. The “back to Africa” movement had been in place early on in the
nation‟s history and was formalized in the 1816 organization of the American Colonization
Society (Harper 2003).
Colonization vs. Abolitionism
In the years after the Civil War, the cause of abolitionism took on a popularity that was
largely unknown during the Antebellum period in both the North and South. Complete abolition
of slavery had not appealed to politicians or the masses prior to the war (Phillips 1853). The
reality of the abolition of slavery in the United States, with the Emancipation Proclamation and
the Thirteenth Amendment, made the previously unpopular and dangerous tenet appear attractive
in hindsight. Those previously opposed to the seemingly radical ideals of the movement rushed
to jump on the abolition bandwagon. Rumors of antebellum Underground Railroad involvement
abounded in local lore, despite the truth of little or no aid given to fugitive slaves. The men and
women involved in the Underground Railroad and its success had faced persecution, possible
jailing, and even death. Abolition was a dangerous idea, politically and physically.
Colonization was the safer and more popular course of action for the large majority of
educated Northerners, Southern elites, and politicians prior to the Civil War. Historian Douglas
Harper goes so far as to say that:
“Though neglected by historians, the American Colonization Society was vastly
16
more popular with ante-bellum Northerners than abolition societies. Its leading
men included clergy, college presidents, and politicians of all parties -- among the
officers of the society over the years were Daniel Webster, William H. Seward,
Francis Scott Key, and Winfield Scott. It was lauded by the legislatures of 14
states. In 1829, for instance, the Pennsylvania Assembly endorsed the American
Colonization Society and agreed that black removal would be „highly auspicious
to the best interests of our country.‟ (American Colonization Society 2003)”
Also, included among the ranks of colonization supporters were President James Monroe,
President Abraham Lincoln, Henry Clay, and Alexander Crummell (LOC 2010b). Many
prominent statesmen considered colonization an imminently more viable and politically sound
option, than complete abolition of slavery.
Abraham Lincoln supported the idea of colonization early on in his presidency as is
indicated in his letters to Congress on March 6 and April 16, 1862 (Lincoln 1862a and Lincoln
1862b). In his March letter, Lincoln advocated the implementation of a gradual and
compensated emancipation policy as both a practical and economic consideration of border state
status (1862a). Compensated emancipation referred to a gradual and financially compensated,
for slaveholders and slave states, abolishment of slavery. Lincoln‟s ultimate concern lay in
maintaining the Union, by any means possible (Lincoln 1861). Some scholars contend that
Lincoln‟s backing of colonization and compensated emancipation were indirect measures
towards the emancipation of slaves, designed to ease the country into non-slavery without
alienating the southern states (Guelzo 2004 and McPherson 2002). While the indirect measures
were unsuccessful in the long run, Lincoln professed himself as anti-slavery, but without the
constitutional rights to disregard the southern states‟ laws he had to rely on other methods of
17
ending slavery in the Union as a whole (Guelzo 2004 and McPherson 2002).
In the April letter and with mixed feelings, President Lincoln discussed the recent
passage of a bill enacting compensated emancipation in Washington, DC on April 7, 1862 (New
York Illustrated News 1862). Lincoln referenced his disappointment that the act may have taken
a course he had not intended in its eschewal of the compensated measures of his own policy that
included compensating those aiding in rebellion (Lincoln 1862b; New York Illustrated News
1862). Despite this disappointment, he expressed his satisfaction with the inclusion of
colonization and compensation in the language of the act. “I am gratified that the two principles
of compensation and colonization are both recognised and practically applied in the Act” (LOC
2010c). In many ways, colonization offered a middle, more politically advantageous, course of
action for the newly-elected president concerned with the state of the Union.
What was the appeal of colonization? The idea of transporting African American slaves
to Africa initially was voiced in the eighteenth century by both African Americans and white
statesmen. The first evidence of active pursuit of this idea is indicated in the Memoir of Captain
Paul Cuffee, A Man of Colour: To Which is Subjoined The Epistle of the Society of Sierra Leone
in African & etc (Cuffee 1812; Woodson 1922:156). In his memoir, Captain Cuffee, a man of
African American and Native American ancestry, expounded on the idea of returning African
Americans to Africa aboard his ship (1812). In 1816, he made the voyage across the Atlantic
Ocean to the coast of Sierra Leone, where he established twenty-eight African Americans in a
settlement named Freetown (LOC 2010b). His death in 1817 halted any additional colonization
efforts of Africa, until the 1822 voyage of the Elizabeth to establish Liberia by the American
Colonization Society.
The American Colonization Society (ACS) was organized in 1817 and by 1867 it had
18
transported over 13,000 African Americans across the Atlantic to Liberia (LOC 2010b). The
quantity of transported individuals is a telling factor in the popularity of colonization, to white
Americans, as an alternative to emancipation. Compared to the large outflow of fugitive slaves
to Canada between 1850 and 1865, with estimates ranging between 3,000 to 100,000 total
refugees (Historic Dominion Institute 2010), it was obvious that colonization was not the most
viable option of freedom for African Americans. As the numbers imply, colonization was less
popular than its more dangerous alternative, fugitive escape to the north. In his pivotal history,
The Negro in our History, African American historian, Carter G. Woodson noted the resistance
to colonization felt and demonstrated by many African Americans (1922:159-163).
In the North, colonization was viewed as a moderate approach to the issue of anti-slavery
sentiment. Thus, slaves would be freed, but the obstacles of integration and racial inequality
could be entirely avoided. In the South, colonization was billed as a middle-of-the-road solution
to the increasing black population and in some instances African American rebellion (Carey
1832). By the 1840s, Liberia‟s economic feasibility was beginning to be questioned as were
many of the tenets of colonization (LOC 2010b). Many of the issues that starred center stage in
this debate would be seen again in the years of Reconstruction, the Jim Crow Era, and the Civil
Rights Movement.
In contrast to the removal of African Americans to Africa, as espoused by
colonizationists, abolitionist sentiments sought emancipation of African Americans within the
United States. Anti-slavery abolition movement traced its roots to the eighteenth century and
religious sentiment. The Pennsylvania Abolition Society was founded in 1775, as a result of the
Quaker anti-slavery influence in the colony that effectively predated the republic (Newman
2002). By the 1820s, abolitionist literature was becoming increasingly more available and in
19
1833, the American Anti-Slavery Society was organized by William Lloyd Garrison (LOC
2010b). Abolitionism was clearly gaining momentum and support, despite its seemingly
progressive or radical stance. Anti-slavery espoused emancipation of African Americans
through gradual integration and racial inequality (LOC 2010b).
Many well-meaning men and women began to consider alternative approaches to
colonization; as an alternative approach to colonization, the tenets of abolitionism became a
more attractive option. Abolitionism sought immediate release of slaves, without expatriation or
removal of the former slaves to distant shores (Phillips 1853). As discussed earlier, there were
varying shades of abolition proposed to Congress, such as gradual, partial, and compensated
emancipation. However, the tenets advocated by abolitionists tended to adhere to immediate,
complete, and uncompensated emancipation of slaves in the United States (Phillips 1853).
Abolitionists struggled to address the inconsistency of owning slaves and the American ideals of
freedom and equality for all, an inconsistency that was both noted by abolitionists and opponents
of slavery, but ignored by the vast majority of the antebellum United States (Phillips 1853).
Individuals, including slave owners, began to look for ways to rectify the inherent
contradictions of slavery in a nation founded upon ideals of freedom and equality. In 1820,
Richard D. Bayley (Bailey) of Accomack County, Virginia, wrote to the Pennsylvania Abolition
Society regarding the emancipation of slaves (Bayley 1820). He was inquiring on behalf of “an
individual in this County who is the owner of a number of slaves and is desirous of emancipating
them, if certain obstacles could be removed for which purpose the information is requested”
(Bayley 1820). He continues that he “has determined to embrace the present opportunity (while
there is no law to prevent their becoming inhabitants of your state) to liberate his slaves provided
he can satisfy his mind that they will be placed in a situation in which the adults with industry
20
can obtain a sufficiently comfortable subsistence, and the children, be brought up in a proper
manner & free from suffering” (Bayley 1820). Bayley wished to obtain an economically and
politically safe situation for his friend‟s slaves, a place that individuals “with industry” could
build their own future.
The rivalry between the two factions, abolitionists and colonizationists, was often bitter,
with both sides denouncing the claims and motives of the other. William Lloyd Garrison
condemned the ACS as the slaveholder‟s method of continuing slavery and declared war on the
society (Garrison 1832). Accusations by colonization advocates abounded in the tracts, claiming
the impracticality of complete and instant emancipation as called for by the “radical”
abolitionists. Evidently, the two sides rarely found a point of mutual agreement, aside from the
concurrence that the slave trade was a “nefarious activity” (Carey 1832).
Planning Pandenarium
Despite the tensions existing between colonizationists and abolitionists, the interests and
philosophies of both parties found a point of intersection in the Organized Negro Communities
movement that manifested in the founding of Pandenarium. Pandenarium was created by
ordinary men and women acting within a conflicted society. A wealthy slave-owner, four
abolitionists, and sixty-three former slaves and their children pooled their resources and ideas to
build a freed village in a rural, agricultural region of northwestern Pennsylvania. The
establishment of Pandenarium was an unprecedented instance of collaboration between a
colonizationist, abolitionists, and former slaves in the Antebellum period.
In Slaves No More: Three Essays on the Civil War and Emancipation, the authors note
the extraordinary circumstances in which many ordinary people found themselves when faced
with the issue of Emancipation (Berlin et al. 1992).
21
Under the tutelage of unprecedented events, ordinary men and women become
extraordinarily perceptive and articulate, seizing the moment to challenge the
assumptions of the old regime and proclaim a new social order. Even then, few
take the initiative. Some – perhaps most – simply try to maintain their balance, to
reconstitute a routine, to maximize gains and minimize losses as events swirl
around them. But inevitably they too become swept up in the revolutionary
process. Barely conscious acts and unacknowledged motives carried over from
the past take on a changed significance (Berlin et al. 1992:x-xi).
With this in mind, the establishment of Pandenarium is placed in another context, at once unique
in its singular status of collaboration amongst vastly different parties, and also representative of
the larger discourse surrounding race. It is also important to acknowledge the realities of
prejudice, paternalistic tendencies, and inequalities that existed in the Antebellum North, all
around Pandenarium – despite the best intentions of those involved in its creation and duration.
In 1837, Dr. Charles Everett, a wealthy physician and plantation owner, decided that
upon his death he wished to free the slaves on his Albemarle County, Virginia plantation.
Having decided on this course of action, Everett began to plan for the future safety and well-
being of the freed men and women on his plantation. His original plans for the site included the
construction of houses, restaurants, inns, a church, a school, a college and more on a substantial
parcel of land, originally over 1,000 acres (Weidhmann 1973; Woods 1999:28). With this ideal
in mind, he contacted his nephew, Dr. Charles D. Everett, a Philadelphia physician, to make
arrangements for the venture.
After his uncle‟s death, Dr. Charles D. Everett acted in the elder physician‟s stead in
Philadelphia, placing advertisements for the land and assistance in the newspapers of the North
22
(Woods 1999:29). At the time, Philadelphia was at the heart of the abolitionist movement and
home to one of the largest freed slave populations and earliest anti-slavery societies. The
influence of the anti-slavery society and the freed African American community in Philadelphia
created an atmosphere of abolitionist thought and action. It was in just such an atmosphere that
the younger Dr. Everett would have found both sympathy and assistance for his cause.
The elder Dr. Everett died in 1848, before he could see his vision come to fruition
effectively turning over the execution of Pandenarium to his nephew. The former slaves living
on the Everett plantation were manumitted on October 4, 1848, and were hired to work on the
plantation for a period of five years in preparation for freedom (Everett 1992:27, 31-32;
Weidhmann 1973). In the 1850 U.S. Census, 28 slaves were listed as belonging to Dr. Charles
D. Everett. It is unclear as to why the African Americans remaining on the estate were recorded
as slaves; however, historic records indicate that he continued to own slaves until the
Emancipation Proclamation and the combination of freed and enslaved African Americans at the
site may account for the Census records (Everett 1992). Regardless, the total number of slaves
heading north would triple by the time they reached the Pennsylvania settlement. Prior to his
death, their benefactor also set up a “Negro Fund” for the former slaves to buy the freedom of
their family members working on neighboring plantations (Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1960;
Woods 1999:31). The funds provided to obtain their family members may account for the total
of 63 freed African Americans arriving at Pandenarium in 1854. Despite their wages and the
Negro Fund, many former slaves would be unsuccessful in their attempts to purchase the
freedom of their loved ones and many traveled to Pandenarium without the solace of family
(Woods 1999:31).
Upon the elder Dr. Everett‟s death in 1848, his nephew managed his uncle‟s estate and
23
carried out a modified version of his uncle‟s wishes concerning the establishment of a freed slave
community (Everett 1992:31). Originally, Dr. Everett had planned on establishing a place for his
manumitted slaves in Africa, specifically American Colonization Society‟s Liberia colony
(Everett 1992:31 and Woods 1999:28). However, by the 1840s, the colony of Liberia was
showing a decrease in economic viability and had taken a great deal of criticism from
abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison (LOC 2010b). Thus, Dr. Charles D. Everett adjusted
the plan to resettlement in the northern United States, where the manumitted slaves would be
afforded legal protection.
Dr. Charles D. Everett‟s residence in Philadelphia, the home of the Pennsylvania
Abolition Society (PAS), placed him at the geographical heart of the abolitionist movement. Dr.
C. D. Everett was educated at the University of Pennsylvania, grew to adulthood, and spent his
early career as a physician within the Philadelphia city limits (Everett 1992:29-30), subject to
abolitionism at its most devout. His role as executor of his uncle‟s estate placed him in a
position to act on the abolitionist ideals of his neighbors. The argument that the PAS and
abolitionist reformers in Pennsylvania “defined the antislavery movement for an entire
generation of activists” points to the likelihood of the younger Everett‟s sympathies being of the
abolitionist nature (Newman 2002:1; Nash and Soderlund 1991). While it is unclear whether
Everett was an abolitionist, he was clearly in the right place, at the right time to act as one.
24
The elder Dr. Charles Everett was clearly more influenced by colonization, the more
popular stance for the South and slave owners than his nephew. Another influencing factor is the
likelihood of Everett‟s exposure to the Organized Negro Communities movement via his
neighbor and acquaintance, Edward Coles. According to local historian W. Edward Weidhmann,
Everett had expressed, on more than one occasion, his devout wish to resettle his former slaves
in West Africa (Weidhmann 1973). The senior Everett went so far as to obtain the assistance
with his plan from friends and family (Weidhmann 1973). Everett‟s plantation, Belmont, later
renamed Everettsville, was located due east of Thomas Jefferson‟s Monticello, southeast of
James Monroe‟s Highland, and northeast of Edward Coles‟s home, Green Mountain (See Figure
1). Dr. Charles Everett was the physician to and neighbor of former presidents James Monroe
Figure 1. 1867, Jed Hotchkiss. Map of Albemarle County,
Virginia, Staunton, Va. Courtesy of Albemarle County
Historical Society, 2010.
Everettsville,
formerly
Belmont, Home
of Charles
Everett
Monticello, Home of
Thomas Jefferson
Highland, Home of James Monroe
Enniscorthy, Green
Mountain, Home of
Edward Coles
25
and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom maintained correspondence with Edward Coles throughout
their lives (Evans 1995). Regular correspondence among and interaction between the Everetts
and their neighbors and their movement in the same social circles establishes an acquaintance
that was most likely cemented by their shared offices, as presidential secretary and presidential
aide.
Not only were Edward Coles and Everett social contemporaries, but they were also
political contemporaries to the extent that they both served in political appointments under
President James Monroe. Dr. Charles Everett‟s role as an active politician, holding many public
offices, culminated in his appointment as personal secretary to President James Monroe (Everett
1992:21-22). Everett‟s political position placed him at the center of political debates including
abolition of slavery and other alternatives to abolition early on. Edward Coles preceded Everett
in his political appointment as personal secretary to President James Madison (Pease and Pease
1962). President James Monroe would later appoint Edward Coles to the Register of the Land
Office in Illinois, facilitating the famed trip to Illinois where he set his slaves free (Pease and
Pease 1962). Everett would have been in the position to discuss the merits and disadvantages of
colonization, abolitionism, and the Organized Negro Communities movement, while formulating
a valid plan for establishing a successful community of manumitted African Americans.
Despite the clarity of Dr. Everett‟s original wishes, in 1853, his nephew began actively
pursuing resettlement of the former slaves in the North, specifically Pennsylvania. Everett‟s
sympathies, pocketbook, and guidance from his uncle‟s last testament may have played a
significant role in his decision to relocate the settlement to Pennsylvania, rather than Africa. The
construction of a settlement in the North would have been a substantially less expensive
endeavor (LOC 2010b), freeing up funds for other purposes and providing a degree of economic
26
independence for the freed slaves. The free Organized Negro Communities of the American and
Canadian frontier would also have established a template for building an agrarian enterprises in
rural, undeveloped lands similar to those of northwest Pennsylvania.
As the Everetts were laying their plans to establish a free settlement for the former slaves,
Mercer County, Pennsylvania was becoming known for its involvement in the Underground
Railroad. As historian Roland Barksdale-Hall notes, “Mercer County acquired a reputation as a
freedom stop” through its involvement with the Underground Railroad and a fugitive slave
settlement existing within its bounds (2009:13). The local Anti-Slavery Society established on
July 4, 1835 in Mercer County included in its ranks many locally prominent abolitionists. Local
histories abound with the tales of the many local villagers that were heavily involved in the
movement of fugitive slaves through the Underground Railroad route from the New Castle and
Sheakleyville stations, to other northern “depots.” Despite the abolitionist presence in the North,
the majority of northerners either opposed abolition of slavery or refused to take a stand against
it. As previously discussed, abolitionism was not the popular cause and a great deal of
controversy surrounded the issue and made aiding fugitive slaves a dangerous, often unpopular,
and, beginning in 1850, illegal effort.
In 1840, the local congregation of the Neshannock Presbyterian Church in nearby New
Castle split on the issue of slavery. The departing group of parishioners was led by the
outspoken abolitionist John Young and shortly thereafter established a new church. The newly
created White Chapel Church, located near Indian Run, preached to the abolitionist ideals of its
congregation. John Young also became known for his heavy involvement in the Underground
Railroad, operating a station at Indian Run, Pennsylvania. One account tells of his transportation
of thirteen fugitive slaves at night in a hay wagon to the cellar door of another Underground
27
Railroad conductor, James Kilgore (Woods 2001:56). Young was not alone in his anti-slavery
sympathies and, in 1852, William F. Clark produced and edited an anti-slavery paper, American
Freeman, also in Mercer County (Yarian 1964:237).
Seeking an estate of 3,000 acres, Doctor Charles D. Everett placed an advertisement in
the American Freeman and eventually purchased a substantially diminished parcel from the well-
known abolitionist John Young. Historic accounts vary on the actual size of the original
purchase. Woods (1999) and Woge (1980) cite a 50-acre parcel, while Weidhmann (1973) totals
the acquisition of land at 375-acres. The background research on the settlement for recent
archaeological investigations included the analysis of Light Detection and Radar (LIDAR)
imagery and historic aerial photographs (See Chapter V). The analysis of these images indicates
an approximate 100-acre parcel was the probable extent of Pandenarium. Regardless of the
acreage purchased, land was obtained for the new settlement and plans were made to proceed
with the construction of the settlement.
Upon acquiring the land in 1853, Everett sought the assistance of established local
abolitionists, Joseph Black, John Stewart, and George Hamilton, to assist John Young (Woods
1999). The abolitionists were to assist in the construction of the settlement and ensure the well-
being of the inhabitants (Woods 1999:30). By naming four abolitionists as administrators of the
conceived settlement, Everett demonstrated his willingness to work with abolitionists and
displayed possible abolitionist ties. He simultaneously ensured the placement of the manumitted
slaves in a sympathetic environment. This action also constructed the physical framework of the
planned community and further developed the existing network of assistance, where one was
already confirmed for fugitive slaves. Established in 1854, the settlement fashioned in the mind
of Dr. Charles Everett and constructed by the hands of the northern abolitionists, Pandenarium,
28
was erected near the small, rural community of Indian Run, Mercer County, Pennsylvania
(Woods 1999).
As the physical construction of Pandenarium was completed, plans were shortly made for
the manumitted slaves to travel north. The name Pandenarium has been attributed to a
misspelled reference to the biblical Padanaram, a plain situated in the fertile Euphrates River
Valley (Woods 1999:32). This attribution reflects both the geographical setting for the
settlement, a wet and agriculturally productive location, and the hope that the journey north held
for the freed slaves. Another possible interpretation of the name Pandenarium rests in the Greek
roots of “pan” meaning all and “denarium” meaning money. Literally, Pandenarium means all
the money or all the wealth (Meyer, Personal communication 2010). Both interpretations share
an allusion to a hope of prosperity; a hope voiced by the multitudes of freed African Americans
after Emancipation in narratives, judicial hearings and newspaper accounts.
History and Development of Pandenarium: Nineteenth Century - Early Twentieth Century
Despite the optimism inherent in its name, many of the former slaves chose to remain in
Virginia for unknown reasons. The distance from family and childhood homes may have been a
factor in their decision. On November 12, 1854, 63 freed African Americans arrived to find 24
houses complete with wood furniture, bolts of linen, clothing, seed, and tools (Weidhmann 1973;
Woods 1999:32). A compiled list of the African Americans that inhabited Pandenarium can be
found in Appendix H. One woman, “Auntie” Rose Allen, would later recall her arrival at
Pandenarium as being “just like heaven” with the roads strewn with golden leaves and the
lingering warmth of an Indian summer (Woge 1980; Woods 1999). Wells were dug, orchards
and gardens planted, and the road graded prior to the slaves‟ arrival (Woge 1980; Woods 1999).
While the majority of residences were previously built for the African Americans, upon their
29
arrival, several “shacks” were erected along the banks of Indian Run by the former slaves
(Woods 1999; Heini, Personal communication 2010). Each family received a deed for two acres
of agricultural land and a purse of $1000 (Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1980; Woods 1999). The
African Americans at Pandenarium rejoiced in their newly acquired freedom from slavery, land,
and economic independence, while busily building their own future.
While the freed slaves settled into their new homes, concerns arose as to their safety from
slave-catchers and possible kidnapping. The danger of kidnapping by slave-catchers was
recognized as a significant threat to freed African Americans living in the state (Nash and
Soderlund 1991:200-201). One of many personal liberty laws in Pennsylvania, state legislation
enacted in 1820 had increased penalties for convicted kidnappers and included a clause denying
lesser officials the ability to issue writs to reclaim slaves (Nash and Soderlund 1991:200). This
state law would later stand in the way of federal legislation, especially the Second Fugitive Slave
Act of 1850. Regardless of state and national debates of sovereignty, Pennsylvania took an early
role in protecting the rights of freed African Americans, as evidenced by the 1842 United States
Supreme Court case Prigg v. Pennsylvania (41 U.S.C. 539) .
In 1855, an act of legislature by the Pennsylvania senate, Act No. 324, listed many of the
Pandenarium residents by name and provided for the legal rights of the manumitted slaves from
Everett‟s estate, their children and their grandchildren, so as to eliminate any and all questions
regarding their legitimacy as residents. The legislation would “authorize and empower the Court
of Common Pleas of Mercer county to legitimate certain persons who were emancipated by the
last will and testament of Dr. C. D. Everett, late of Ablemarle county, Virginia” (Pennsylvania
State Legislature 1855). The land, the money, and the legal protection provided an economically
and socio-politically independent settlement at Pandenarium. Complete political independence,
30
however, would not be seen until the 1868 passage of the 14th
Amendment and the 1870 passage
of the 15th
Amendment.
A large portion of the Indian Run community endorsed the freed slave settlement, but
unfortunately, many community members did not. Amidst the Underground Railroad activity,
an undercurrent of tension existed locally as the nation moved towards the Civil War, a war that
several Pandenarium residents would participate in, enlisting in the United States Colored
Troops regiments. Pandenarium did not exist in a vacuum, socially, politically, culturally, or
economically. President Lincoln‟s Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 effectively abolished
slavery in Confederate states and provided for the enlistment of African Americans in the
military. John Allen and George Lewis served in the 127th
U.S. Colored Regiment and George
Smith served in G Company of the 45th
U.S. Colored Troops (Barksdale-Hall 2009:16).
The tensions that existed prior to and during the Civil War were not immediately relieved
upon Union victory. Hardships would still be faced and overcome throughout the nation, North
and South, often in the form of lynchings and barely disguised prejudice (Carson et al. 2007:269-
271). Opposition to abolition and antagonism towards the newly liberated African Americans
ranged from open hostility and suspicion to sympathetic overtures in Pennsylvania (Eggert
1991:2-4). The motivating factors in the founding of Pandenarium stood in stark contrast to the
reception it would receive in the years following the Civil War. In what would later be termed
“white backlash,” white-on-black violence escalated in Northern states including Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York (Carson et al. 2007:269).
Locally, accounts of the Ku Klux Klan‟s activity in the area began following the end of
the Civil War and night rides were reported by several of the inhabitants at Pandenarium (Woge
1980). The reported night rides bore a startling resemblance to those enacted in the deep South
31
where “members of the Ku Klux Klan, cloaked in white hoods, galloped on horseback to the
homes of […] those who had become economically comfortable, or supposedly did not show due
deference to whites” (Carson et al. 2007:269). Night rides were not the only form of hostility
encountered by Pandenarium residents. Accusations of theft and acts of deceit purportedly
committed by Pandenarium residents abounded, without proof of any wrongdoing (Woge 1980;
Woods 1999). Hostile factions in the neighboring community informed Young and the other
trustees that they would be held responsible morally and financially for any loss of property
(Woge 1980; Woods 1999). Despite the lack of proof, the accusations succeeded in fostering
racial tension in the communities surrounding Pandenarium.
The Reconstruction Era began with the end of the Civil War and lasted into the late
1870s. With violence against African Americans increasing nationwide, the 14th
Amendment to
the United States Constitution was ratified in 1868 guaranteeing equal rights and citizenship to
all American citizens regardless of race or color. This timely amendment was followed by the
15th
Amendment in 1870 providing for the right to vote for all men regardless of “race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.” Despite the affirmation of a federal commitment to protecting
African Americans, the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1874, meant to protect voters from Klan
violence, fell devastatingly short in their aim to stop violence (Carson et al. 2007:270).
Other measures taken during the Reconstruction Era included the establishment of the
Freedmen‟s Bureau and the Freedmen‟s Savings and Trust Bank in 1865. The founding of the
Freedmen‟s Bureau was an attempt to recognize the difficult task of reconstructing the nation,
especially in the South where complications would inevitably arise (Carson et al. 2007). The
Freedmen‟s Bank recognized a need for economic independence to accompany the political
independence promised by the Constitution (Carson et al. 200:271). In 1872, the Freedmen‟s
32
Bureau was dismantled and the Freedmen‟s Savings and Trust Bank failed in 1874 (Carson et al.
2007:255, 271). The federal support of Reconstruction efforts began to wane and the Civil
Rights Act of 1875, which banned discrimination in public places, would be the “last piece of
civil rights legislation until the 1950s” (Carson et al. 2007:275). The end of legislation was
followed in short order by the withdrawal of federal troops from the South in the Compromise of
1877, the Republican concession for the debated 1876 presidential election (Carson et al.
2007:276).
Aptly describing a situation similar to the one which freed men and women of
Pandenarium found themselves, historians Nash and Soderlund close their history of
Pennsylvania‟s antislavery movement with this poignant statement:
Freed black Pennsylvanians might have hoped that emancipation would bring
prosperity and upward social mobility, but if so, most were disappointed. Lack of
capital, fear of reenslavement, and preconceived notions held by whites of what
constituted appropriate employment for blacks all constricted opportunities. In
Pennsylvania, as elsewhere, African-Americans found that the freedom to achieve
to the limits of one‟s abilities remained elusive even after perpetual bondage
(Nash and Soderlund 1991:203-204).
The post-Reconstruction era would be a period of regression for African American civil
rights. Social Darwinism, a pseudoscientific theory based on Charles Darwin‟s Origin of
Species, was promoted by sociologist William Sumner in the 1880s and touted by white
supremacists nationwide (Carson et al. 2007:291). An atmosphere of intolerance and
apathy towards racial inequity took root in American society in the last few decades of
the nineteenth century.
33
The political presence of
African Americans during this
time did not cease, nor did it
remain stagnant. African
American visionaries, Frederick
Douglass, Booker T. Washington,
W.E.B. Du Bois, and Ida B.
Wells, were actively engaged in
debating the different ways to
“uplift the race” through
education, civic action, and
economic pursuits (Carson et al.
2007:288-310). Despite their best efforts, Jim Crow laws imposing segregation were
formalized in the South by the early 1880s and, by 1890, a majority of northern states had
enacted similar laws (Carson et al.
2007:310). The monumental decision
of the United States (U.S.) Supreme
Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1896,
established the precedent of “separate
but equal,” a concept that remained in
place until the pivotal ruling of the U.S.
Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka in 1954. Racial
Figure 2. 1822, H.C. Carey and I. Lea, American
Atlas, Philadelphia, PA.
Figure 3. 1873, G.M. Hopkins, East
Lackawannock Township, Mercer County,
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
34
segregation and Jim Crow laws effectively whittled away at the civil rights advances of
the Reconstruction era and prolonged a period of racial violence and limited opportunities
for African Americans.
The changing contours of political and social reforms of the nineteenth century
were accompanied by a transition in the landscape of the county. In 1800, Mercer
County was created out of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Prior to that and for several
decades, the region presently known as Mercer County appeared in regional maps with
little detail. The first maps with place names and major throughways were published in
increasing numbers in the 1820s. A portion of the 1822 H.C. Carey and I. Lea‟s
American Atlas shows a general view of the county‟s layout in the early nineteenth
century (Figure 2). The central towns in the area, Mercer and New Castle, were
established and linked by Perry Highway,
known today as U.S. Route 19. This road
would be one of the area‟s primary routes,
from New Castle to the north, traversed in
the Underground Railroad (Switala
2001:67).
Throughout the nineteenth
century, Mercer County underwent
several changes in municipal divisions.
East Lackawannock Township, the
township in which Pandenarium is
located, was founded in 1849. While
Figure 4. 1980, Hand-drawn map of
Indian Run circa 1900. Reprinted in the
The Globe, New Wilmington, PA.
35
there are no maps of the settlement at the time of its establishment, the 1873 G.M.
Hopkins Mercer County, Pennsylvania Atlas shows several of the freed African
American residences associated with Pandenarium (Figure 3). John Allen, Mrs.
Johnston, and George Lewis were all African American residents of Pandenarium. The
residence of John Young, the abolitionist, appears in the southern portion of the map.
As the years passed by many of the residents of Pandenarium began to leave the
settlement, as evidenced by the map above. Traditionally, frequent flooding of the settlement
was named the primary factor in its abandonment (Woods 1999; Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1980).
Flooding episodes along the small stream, Indian Run, appear to have played a role in the
abandonment of some of the structures early on. However, a great deal about the eventual
abandonment of the settlement remains unknown. Upon the freed slaves‟ arrival, historic
accounts describe the flooding of the newly erected, African American built shacks in early
November 1854 (Woods 1999; Personal communication, Heini 2010). Historic accounts
document at least two periods of flooding at Pandenarium. Flooding of the Ohio River also
affected its tributaries, of which Indian Run is one, in the years 1865 and 1884 (Yarian
1964:335). Flooding was undoubtedly an obstacle for the freed African Americans, however, it
was unlikely an insurmountable one for men and women who had traveled the dusty distance
from Virginia to make a new life.
The “lure of cities” in the post-Reconstruction era provided many African Americans
with social and economic opportunities (Carson et al. 2007:295; Eggert 1991). The residents of
Pandenarium would not have been blind to these opportunities; industrial and urban centers
provided a steady source of wage labor and African American churches flourished during this
time. By the late nineteenth century, much of the former community and its descendants moved
36
to the nearby towns of Mercer, Sharon and Farrell (Barksdale-Hall 2009:8). The movement of
African Americans from Pandenarium to these urban communities reflects a broader pattern of
African American migration to urban centers in the early twentieth century, the first waves of the
“Great Migration” (Carson et al. 2007:297, 344-346).
Amidst the movement out, several residents remained at Pandenarium until at least the
turn-of-the century. Two hand-drawn maps of the area around the Pandenarium settlement, circa
1900, depict those remaining on the land (The Globe 1980; Figure 4; Figure 5). In Figure 4, the
numbers are keyed to the men and women
living in each structure. Thus, number 26 was
occupied by Bob Allen, a freed African
American and one of Aunt Rosy and John
Allen‟s twenty-one children, the couple
occupying the structure designated by number
28 (The Globe 1980). The Rosy and John
Allen residence was noted as being a place of
religious meetings and singings, a community
center of sorts (The Globe 1980). The
residence indicated by number 27 was home to
Mina Robinson, a former slave, and the residence designated number 30 (possibly 36), belonged
to George Lewis (The Globe 1980). John Young, the abolitionist, lived in the structure
designated as number 32 (The Globe 1980). The person symbol denotes the presence of freed
slaves at the site (Figure 4).
Figure 5. 1980, Indian Run about 1900.
Reprinted in The Globe, New Wilmington,
PA.
37
In a clearer view, Figure 5 shows the same basic layout, however it did not include John
Young‟s residence (The Globe 1980). The 1907 U.S. Geological Survey topographic map of the
area, the Neshannock 15‟ Quadrangle, shows a scarcely settled landscape where the people of
Pandenarium once lived. While there are no names in this map, four of the former structures
associated with the settlement were standing in 1907. The historic maps of this time period
indicate an enduring, if faint, presence of the former freed slave settlement and its inhabitants at
the beginning of the twentieth century.
Despite the migration out of the community, the legacy of political and economic
independence established at Pandenarium continued in the region. Many of the former residents
of Pandenarium and their descendants would become
the esteemed intelligentsia in the area, forming a basis
for a vibrant African American community in
northwestern Pennsylvania (Barksdale-Hall 2009:23).
Despite the obstacles of racial prejudice and natural
floods, the former slaves continued to live at
Pandenarium through much of the nineteenth century,
farming and working for wages to gain an economic
foothold in the region. While the settlement appears to
have diminished by the early twentieth century, six
members of the Robinson family, one of the original African American families to settle at
Pandenarium, were listed on the 1930 U.S. Census in East Lackawannock Township,
Pennsylvania. The Robinsons appear to have been the last African American inhabitants at
Pandenarium, the legacy of an 80-year occupation of the site. Eventually, Pandenarium ceased
Figure 6. 1907, Neshannock, 15' U.S.
Geological Survey Quadrangle,
Topographic Map, Washington,
DC.
38
to exist as a settlement and reverted to agricultural fields (Woods 1999:34).
Collaboration amidst Contradiction: Differing Philosophies, Class, and Color at
Pandenarium
The site of Pandenarium, 36ME253, is ultimately an instance of collaboration amidst
contradiction. The contradictions of slavery and its shadowed place in American history set the
stage for a heated debate of pro-slavery versus anti-slavery sentiment in the early and mid-
nineteenth century. A growing political and economic divide between North and South in the
young nation exacerbated the situation. The political and economic divisions intensified social
divisions between North and South, social divisions that remain intact and flavor social
interaction into the present.
Abolitionists, often considered radicals and religious zealots, characterized the South as
ignorant and backwards, clinging to a sordid tradition of human bondage. Southerners fought the
advancement of Northern industry and the dissolution of their agriculturally productive way of
life. Colonization appealed to the vast majority as an alternative to the radical route of
emancipation and was regarded as a middle-of-the road solution to a politically tenuous topic.
Despite the disparities in geography, politics, and wealth, a wealthy southern planter and doctor,
a wealthy northern physician, a handful of radical, middle-class, northern abolitionists, and over
sixty former slaves collaborated in establishing a freed African American settlement in the
Antebellum North.
At the site of Pandenarium, we have a rare glimpse at the contradictions that
characterized the Antebellum period at a personal level, a group level, and that of the nation. Dr.
Charles D. Everett, as a child, was raised in the frontier, border state of Kentucky and made his
home on a 1,000 acre plantation in central Virginia upon his uncle‟s death (Everett 1992:28-29).
39
In the following years, these two states would play a pivotal and tumultuous role in the Civil
War, Virginia as a Confederate state and Kentucky as a highly contested and divided border
state. The context of a deeply divided homeland is critical to understanding the decisions and
actions of Dr. C.D. Everett in implementing his uncle‟s plans for Pandenarium.
Another critical context to consider is that of Dr. Charles D. Everett‟s life in Philadelphia.
While there is no evidence linking Dr. C.D. Everett to abolitionism, aside from his role in
establishing Pandenarium, he spent over twelve years, at least from 1836 to 1848, living in
Philadelphia (Everett 1992:28-30). As previously discussed, Philadelphia was a city caught up
in the abolitionist movement (Newman 2002). There is little doubt that he would have been
exposed to the literature tracts, newspaper advertisements, and public demonstrations
characterizing the movement in Philadelphia during that time.
Adding another layer of contradiction, Dr. Charles D. Everett freed his uncle‟s former
slaves in 1854. In the following years, Dr. C.D. Everett‟s sympathy for the southern cause,
which he believed to be about the right to self-determination, prompted his political and financial
support of the Confederacy (Everett 1992:37). Everett would continue to financially back the
Confederate States of America, including outfitting “an entire company with arms and
uniforms,” a unit fondly referred to as “Everett‟s Ablemarle Artillery” (Everett 199:37). Without
doubt, Everett‟s own ideals and actions were conflicted; despite his inner turmoil and the turmoil
of a young nation on the verge of Civil War, Everett acted in a spirit of collaboration.
The African American community continued to live in the landscape of Pandenarium
well into the early twentieth century, despite accounts of failures and flooding. African
Americans would persist at Pandenarium through the difficulties of Reconstruction Era legal
battles, post-Reconstruction backsliding, Jim Crow racial tensions, and prejudice among their
40
neighbors. The success of Pandenarium lies at their feet. Their story is one of freedom, echoed
by other freed African Americans across the nation living in fugitive slave enclaves, organized
settlements, and distant colonies. At the same time, their experience is unique in its multi-
faceted endorsement by several disparate groups.
The African American past is a story of collaboration, amidst the contradictions of
political and social ideals of early American history. Returning to the words of Ralph Ellison, a
greater understanding of Pandenarium can be reached.
America is woven of many strands; I would recognize them and let it so remain.
It's 'winner take nothing' that is the great truth of our country or of any country.
Life is to be lived, not controlled; and humanity is won by continuing to play in
face of certain defeat. Our fate is to become one, and yet many-- This in not
prophecy, but description (Ellison 1947:577).
The men and women that built Pandenarium, those that built a free community and free lives, are
the strands in the American story. Historically, they were not viewed as the „winner‟ and they
left a life of control. At Pandenarium, they pursued their American dream, as heavily conflicted
and changing then as it is now.
Pandenarium‟s place in history is truly one of collaboration. Literally and figuratively,
the freedmen and women of Pandenarium, its benefactors, and its builders stood at a crossroads.
The rural intersection of Cannery Road and Rodgers Road, almost hidden among the rolling
fields of northwestern Pennsylvania, stands witness to a truly unique occasion. Figuratively, the
peoples of Pandenarium created a place amidst junctures in the differing discourses of the time.
Despite the animosities between North and South, abolitionist and colonizationist, slaveowner
and former slaves, Pandenarium existed as a freed African American settlement through one of
41
the most turbulent periods of American history.
42
CHAPTER 3. PANDENARIUM IN THEORETICAL CONTEXT
Historical Archaeology’s Perspective
Several primary research questions guided the archaeological investigations at
Pandenarium. These questions, in turn, come out of the theoretical framework used to
understand the people of Pandenarium, the former slaveowner, the abolitionists, and the
inhabitants. These questions, also, explore and expound upon the construction of and the later
development of the site by each group. A unique settlement, requiring collaboration amongst
several disparate groups during a dynamic and tense period of history, necessitates a varied
theoretical approach to appreciate the various nuances implicit in the study of an antebellum
freed African American settlement. Anthropological theories are frequently employed by
archaeologists as a way to understand the people of the past and their stories, often untold, as
relevant to the present. “Each archaeological decision is dictated by a theoretical assumption….
Therefore, any presentation of method implies presentation of relevant theory and the
assumptions that stand behind the method” (South 1977:1). Thus, the archaeological decisions
made at the site of Pandenarium were guided by several established anthropological and
archaeological perspectives, delineated in the following chapter.
Historical Archaeology and Theory.
Historical archaeology, as an area of study within archaeology, borrows a great deal from
the broader discipline and also other social sciences in its attempt to interpret a more recent
history. In an effort to emphasize the anthropological concerns upon which archaeological study
43
is based, historical archaeologists stress the study of culture not material culture. It follows that
historical archaeology stresses cultural questions about people.
Historical archaeology has become increasingly more multi-faceted as the field has
gained a foothold in the larger body of archaeological inquiry. Deagan categorized historical
archaeology as having several key emphases; specifically, historical supplementation,
reconstruction of past lifeways, processual studies, archaeological science, and cognitive studies
(1982). Little added to those categories citing an emphasis on capitalism, cross-cultural research,
production, consumption, and industrialism, and ideology and power (1994). Many of these
categories exist to some extent in the archaeological excavations of African diaspora sites. The
study of the African diaspora through historical archaeology has taken many routes in its
practice.
African Diaspora and Theory.
Historical archaeology’s role in African American studies and the study of the African
diaspora augments the past of textbooks and traditional histories. The elucidation of alternative
histories, from those minorities that were made essentially voiceless in the retelling of American
history, is one area where historical archaeology and African diaspora studies have begun to
mesh. Civil Rights movements in the early and mid 20th
century began to bring to light the
African American voice, a voice that demanded representation in the historical record. As part
of this call, authors such as W.E.B. Du Bois, Carter G. Woodson, Stanley Elkans, and Ralph
Ellison began documenting African American history and filling in some of the gaps in the
retelling of American history. Also answering this call, archaeological investigations provide an
invaluable view of the people, their material culture, their landscapes, and their past in a
scientific format. In an attempt to correct skewed representations of American history, the
44
research conducted at Pandenarium can be used to inform a more nuanced and comprehensive
past, for those denied a past by the racial prejudices and power relations of the majority.
African diaspora studies and African American historical archaeology also provide a
tangible link between the past and present, eliciting the past with reference to the present.
Furthering that point, various scholars tout African diaspora archaeology as “an illustration of the
contemporary relevance of historical archaeology” (Leone et al. 1995:111), effectively revealing
“a distinct African-American voice” (Leone et al. 1995:111; Singleton 1997; Singleton 1999;
Orser 2007). Orser traces this trend to the Civil Rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s
(2007:7). The heightened awareness of racial inequality and American incongruity during this
time coordinated with the efforts of African American historians to correct the faulty
representation of African Americans (Carson et al. 2007). This same period marked the
widespread use of the term “diaspora” by scholars to refer to displaced African peoples as a
transnational collective (Mullins 2008:105). Pan-Africanist thought pervaded African diaspora
discourse and Civil Rights movements worldwide, resulting in a transformation of the African
experience from an individual or national experience to a global one.
The archaeology of the African diaspora is often considered in the contexts of plantation
slavery (Singleton 2008), the search for ethnic markers or remnants (Ferguson 1992; Stine et al.
2008; Wilkie 2008), vindicationist histories (Mullins 2008), and maroon settlements (Weik
2004). While these studies have been an invaluable and irreplaceable staple of historical
archaeology of the African diaspora, they leave out those instances of intersection. Instances of
intersection are those occurrences of cultural innovation and integration that existed outside the
traditionally-perceived norm of African American and European relations. Settlements that
existed on the periphery of slavery and freedom, such as Pandenarium in Pennsylvania and New
45
Philadelphia in Illinois, stand as a significant but minimally investigated avenue for research of
the African diaspora.
Pandenarium in Theoretical Context
One of the primary objectives of the archaeology conducted at the site of Pandenarium
was to examine the spatial layout of the site from within the multi-scalar frameworks of agency
utilizing practice theory (Armstrong 2008; DeCorse 2008; Fennell 2008). Practice theory
(Bourdieu 1977) is ultimately a way to understand the dialectic between agency and structuration
(Giddens 1984). In Pierre Bourdieu’s Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977), the concepts of
agency and structuration are intertwined and invariably complex in their interaction. Anthony
Giddens’s The Constitution of Society (1984) follows a similar line of reasoning in that agency
and structuration theory are useful in understanding each other. Additionally, the research
design sought to utilize cultural landscape theory (Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Bowser 2004;
Pauls 2006; Smith 2008), as a way to understand how Pandenarium’s residents lived in a
changing physical and social landscape. Thus, the ways in which the freed slaves navigated the
socially and physically structured environment of Pandenarium can be developed to provide a
context that investigates the complexity of cultural exchange in the interactions of individuals
and the cultural and the physical layout of the site. The Pandenarium project also sought to
explore the possibilities of archaeological interpretation to living populations, a practice
identified as essential in the critical historical archaeology discourse (Franklin 2008; Leone
2010; Leone et al. 1987; Singleton 1997). The archaeological investigations will ultimately
allow for an opportunity for present populations to see the historical people and understand their
motivations in establishing a site like Pandenarium.
46
The archaeology conducted at the site of Pandenarium is a unique opportunity to explore
the relationships between individuals, their actions, and a constructed environment with the
dynamic antebellum United States as a backdrop. The multi-theoretical approach, more fully
discussed below, is a means to construct a more complete picture of dynamic interaction among
peoples and lay the groundwork for future investigations. Thus, the current investigations at
Pandenarium were both a product of necessity and the multivariate character of African diaspora
studies (Fennell 2008). This chapter defines the different theoretical approaches separately,
while ultimately tying the ideas together in a more fluid understanding of practice theory and its
place in interpreting the establishment and the changing faces at Pandenarium.
Practice Theory at Pandenarium.
In practice theory, the concepts of agency and structuration go hand-in-hand and can be
best understood when considered as working in tandem. Agency, based upon the principle of
action, refers to the individual’s active pursuit of choices as a process (Giddens 1984). Agency
is not merely a series of acts, but a recursive combination of processes involving a reflexive
monitoring of one’s current setting and past actions, rationalization of the intended action, and
motivation of the actual action (Giddens 1984:5). Agency can be understood as a flow of
decision-making that feeds into itself. Agency begins and ends with the individual, as it is
inherent, acting with reference to the past and guiding present decisions.
Defining structuration as “[t]he structuring of social relations across time and space, in
virtue of the duality of structure,” Giddens explicitly deals with the term (1984:376). Giddens
further defines structures as “rule-resource sets implicated in the institutional articulation of
social systems” that play a significant role in “the transformation/mediation relations which
influence social and system integration” (1984:377). Structure, as situated in the context of
47
agency, practice theory, and the usage here, refers to the limits, both social and physical, that
shape or promote the choices and opportunities present for individuals. It also refers to the
expression of those limitations, or rules, as institutional resources. Structure can range from
literal edifice to social constraint and from negative to positive in its effect on a culture or
community. Within and between social structures, conflicts of interest induce “cultural
transformation…the negotiation of the contradictions, tensions, and power relations between
these domains and the social actors who participate in them” (Eckert 2008:11). Agents move
within a given structure system in a variety of ways and their actions can be read in the ways
they manipulate or negotiate the structure system.
The discussion of structure and its place in practice theory remains incomplete without a
discussion of habitus. Habitus is defined by Pierre Bourdieu as “systems of durable,
transposable dispositions” (1977:72). Disposition, in turn, refers to “the result of an organizing
action…a way of being, a habitual state… a predisposition, tendency, propensity, or inclination
(emphasis in original)” (Bourdieu 1977:214). Thus, habitus is a system of predisposed action
that results from structure. Habitus is what one is wont to do in a given situation and in a given
environment.
Habitus can also be understood as daily practices, the routine of everyday life. When
confronted with new environs, contact with new people, or a new social structure, “social actors
will redefine and reinterpret daily practices in ways that both help to make sense of the new
social context as well as to best meet their own interests” (Eckert 2008:11; Sahlins 1981). The
residents of Pandenarium were faced with a new physical environment, a quickly changing social
structure, and a community of new people. Their daily lives were transformed and it would
follow that aspects of their daily lives, such as habitus, would transform, as well. Their lives
48
were not simply transformed, they reacted to the new structures of the settlement and social
atmosphere awaiting them at Pandenarium by adapting their habitus and altering the structure of
the previously built settlement.
Actors invariably play a large role in the discussion of agency in the greater
archaeological discourse, due to the increased emphasis on the individual in recent studies.
“Agents” or “actors” refer to individual people that are involved in the process of agency. These
terms tend to be used interchangeably, with reference to individuals, in the literature (Bourdieu
1977; Giddens 1984). However, they can, and often do, apply to entire classes of people in
sweeping generalizations (Bourdieu 1977:85). For instance, one might say that all fugitive
slaves were agents of their own freedom. However, many of the individual fugitive slaves
escaped in a variety of different ways and employed varying forms of agency within the structure
of slavery. Agents, actors, and individuals, regardless of the actual term, are situated as the
vehicle or driving force of agency. By making choices and actively pursuing those choices,
regardless of how apparent or concealed the motive might be, individuals act as agents of their
own volition.
Motivation, as Giddens argues, “refers to the potential for action” rather than the
reflexive cause of action (1984:6). Thus, motivation is inherent, whereas motive is not and is
often a matter of context and circumstance. Motives, also, provide a framework or structure for
a range of action (Giddens 1984:6). Motivation and motives may not be readily apparent and in
some instances it may even remain unconscious to the agent. However, Giddens explicitly deals
in a “practical consciousness” when elaborating on structuration and agency (1984:6). Practical
consciousness refers to “[w]hat actors know (believe) about social conditions, including
especially the conditions of their own action, but cannot express discursively” (Giddens
49
1984:375). In their actions, agents are unlikely to verbally credit the motivation of the status
quo, even though they are fully aware of it. It follows that discursive consciousness can be
defined as “[w]hat actors are able to say, or to give verbal expression to, about social conditions
of their own action” (Giddens 1984:374).
The two forms of consciousness, practical and discursive, are not starkly separate and
they tend to be fluid with the changing social conditions and learning experiences of the actors
(Giddens 1984:7). The form of consciousness in agency depends on the ability of the agent to
verbalize the social conditions in which the decisions were made. The distinction between the
two forms of consciousness is important to note because agents may not verbalize some of the
motives for their actions, while they will verbally credit social conditions of which they are
discursively aware. The lack of historical documents and first-hand accounts from those living
at and building Pandenarium makes this distinction particularly relevant, as this study undertook
practical consciousness in the absence of discursive consciousness.
Practice theory at Pandenarium is a way to explain the why and how of establishing a
freed African American settlement in the North. Acting on the inherent motivation of freedom,
individuals and groups, all agents, created a place for former slaves to build a new life. They
created this place with various structures in mind, the social implications of resettling African
Americans and the mental template of a rural Northern village being chief among these
limitations. The agents of the settling of Pandenarium knowingly acted within and outside the
status quo by building a settlement for manumitted African Americans before the Civil War.
The discursive expression of their motives is at times evident and, at other times, it is more a
matter of practical consciousness. The theoretical framework of practice theory offers a way to
50
deal with the various facets of Pandenarium that have remained unexplored in the published
histories of its establishment and later development.
Cultural Landscape Theory at Pandenarium.
Definition of the term landscape is necessary in comprehending the various ways in
which it is used and understood. Landscape is a human or social construction of the natural
environment (Ashmore and Knapp 1999:5-7). The view of landscape as cultural is a critical
concept in understanding those who built and lived at Pandenarium. This definition is succinct
and compatible with the archaeological investigation of Pandenarium, as a socially constructed
context for human interaction. It also accounts for the “active role of individuals in constructing
and interpreting the world around them” (Ashmore and Knapp 1999:7).
Cultural landscape theory refers to the ways in which a landscape can be interpreted as it
is perceived by different cultures in different ways. In this sense, it is ideal for the discussion of
Pandenarium, as the various parties all interpreted and thereby structured the landscape in
different ways. Landscape analysis is conducted from within multiple theoretical frameworks
and the specific techniques used involve spatial analysis (Pauls 2006). A large body of literature
exists on the topic of cultural landscapes and their existence in the archaeological record, which
include landscapes that are physical, conceptual, and combinations of both (Bowser 2004;
Shackel 2004; Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Leone 1984). Landscapes can include the physical,
tangible environment as it has been constructed by society, the conceptual or mental framework
manifested in the physical landscape, and the multiplicity of different expressions these two
binary contexts may include.
Ashmore and Knapp identify four interconnected themes in landscape archaeology, “(1)
landscape as memory, (2) landscape as identity, (3) landscape as social order, and (4) landscape
51
as transformation” (1999:13). All four themes are apparent at Pandenarium. The establishment
of Pandenarium in the North, prior to the Civil War lives on in the memory of a predominantly
white region of Pennsylvania. A free African American identity for the newly manumitted
inhabitants was forged in the community. The settlement and its construction represented a
social order in place in the North, one which the abolitionists took to be unmistakable; it
simultaneously represented the establishment of a new social order for the former slaves, now
freedmen and freedwomen. The site of Pandenarium embodies transformation over both time
and space with generations of freed African Americans altering the original layout of the site as
they lived through the antebellum years, the Civil War, the era of Reconstruction, and the Jim
Crow period.
Intrinsic to the contemporary understanding of landscape and held within the four themes
of landscape archaeology, the concepts of space and place work both collectively and separately
at the same time. Understanding cultural landscape theory therefore requires the definition of
place and space. Space differs from place, as space is largely devoid of meaning while place
denotes both meaning and memory (Pauls 2006:66). Questions about space and place allow
researchers to understand the level of cultural value being placed on certain aspects of the
landscape by those who construct it and inhabit it. As the landscape changed and space became
place, the freed African Americans redefined the cultural landscape of Pandenarium. However,
as Smith and Gazin-Schwartz point out, there may be a more constructive way to define and
comprehend landscape in reference to space and place:
Perhaps more useful is to combine or bridge these two concepts in a dialectical
relationship. Thus, in order to make sense of the lived experience of people we
must link these two concepts of space and place within the landscape. That is,
52
landscape bridges and encapsulates both the action and fluidity of space and the
rootedness and memory/history of place (2008:16).
Viewing the landscape as an inclusive whole links the two concepts and brings to bear
the collective inner workings of space and place at Pandenarium.
Cultural landscape theory can also be extended to include the power relations and
ideological control that exist in how people arrange their spaces with relation to place, the
conceptual landscape. As Fitts points out, “[o]f particular interest to archaeologists should be
how space and material culture were used as symbols to reinforce … ideologies” (1996:68).
Ideologies are essentially comprehensive sets of ideas, ideas that may appear to be the
inevitability of everyday life (Leone 1982:742). The manifestation of ideology can range from
objects within material culture to aspects of a culturally constructed landscape. Thus, the ways
in which the dominants and subordinates of a culture structure their environment provides a basis
for archaeologists to decipher the dominant ideology employed at the site and reactions against
that ideology. The dominant ideology reveals a great deal about the dominants, as they are the
primary producers and consumers of the ideologies, and their beliefs will manifest themselves in
a physical form (Fitts 1996:68). However, by looking at the spatial layout of the physical
landscape and keeping the dominant ideology in mind, one can begin to see how the subordinates
“undermine spatial control by circumventing dominant-planned space” (Fitts 1996:68).
Thus, cultural landscape theory is ideal for the analysis of those that planned and
constructed Pandenarium, the dominants, and those that inhabited and reinterpreted the spatial
layout of Pandenarium, the subordinates. The northern abolitionists hired by Dr. Cutlip Everett
built a settlement in anticipation of freed African American inhabitants. The ways in which they
structured the community can convey their views of settlement arrangement, freed African
53
Americans, and their intended interaction with the inhabitants of Pandenarium. Once the
manumitted slaves arrived at Pandenarium, they restructured the layout of the village in some
ways, retained much of its original format, and later continued to build utilizing the available
land as the population grew. The approach they took to rebuilding and expanding upon their
own settlement can communicate their perceptions of community, settlement arrangement, and
their interaction with the abolitionists.
Critical Archaeology at Pandenarium.
Critical historical archaeology is essentially the application of critical theory, as
developed primarily by the Frankfurt School and Georg Lukacs, to historical archaeology (Leone
et al. 1987:283). Further, “Critical theory is a set of varied attempts to adapt ideas from Marx to
the understanding of events and circumstances of 20th
-century life that Marx did not know”
(Leone et al. 1987:283). The critical archaeologist must “illuminate the roots of modern
ideology” and thereby illuminate the alternative histories that have been neglected or ignored by
the dominant populations (Leone et al. 1987:284; Leone 2010:167).
The two crucial concepts in critical historical archaeology are the illumination of the
roots of the present, specifically in terms of its ideology, and the creation of alternative histories
to provide a greater, more complex and nuanced historical context for the present. The need for
“a more nuanced understanding of the African Diaspora” has been highlighted in recent
archaeological debate (Armstrong 2008:123; Mullins 2008). The nuances implicit in racial
relations of the past and present necessitate archaeological interpretations that go beyond
essentialist explanations. As argued by Douglas Armstrong, “an integrated view that examines
the relationship between local actions and global connections, as the domain of archaeology is
articulated with the greatest resolution and clarity at the local level” (2008:127). Consequently,
54
the site of Pandenarium is a key illustration of how a nuanced understanding of the dynamic
relations present at the site can be understood both locally and globally, as it is a local example
of the many different ways with which global pressures and issues of race were dealt.
The emphasis on the creation and advocation of alternative histories is an important
theme in critical historical archaeology. Alternative history, as used here, refers to the
unorthodox or nontraditional telling of a history that is informed by the archaeology and
accounts for the influence of past ideologies on those traditional histories. As part of the move
towards post-processual thought in the archaeological community, it has become increasingly
commonplace for historical archaeologists to use critical archaeology as a way to elucidate
alternative histories (Leone et al. 1987; Leone 2010; McDavid 2004; Mullins 2004; Shackel
2004; Singleton 1997). The application of critical archaeology is also a way to recognize the
social significance of the cultural discourse at Pandenarium in both the past and present.
As much as it is about critically considering the origins of modern thought and society,
critical historical archaeology is also considered a way to bridge the gap between present and
past. Orser treats “historical archaeology constructed in this manner [as] seek[ing] to make the
past relevant to the present” (2001:625). By peopling the past and bringing an alternative history
to life, it is hoped that the consequences of that past will become apparent to the present. It is in
this theoretical vein that the interpretation of the people at Pandenarium is being used to develop
an exhibit at the Mercer County Historical Society, as a way to target and involve descendant
and local communities.
Multi-Theoretical Approach at Pandenarium
The multi-theoretical approach outlined here is ultimately a way to understand the
complex dynamics of the establishment and inhabitation of Pandenarium. The complexity of the
55
site is apparent in both temporal and spatial considerations. The establishment of Pandenarium
prior to the Civil War and Emancipation in a distant state makes it ideal to study using both
cultural landscape theory and practice theory with a dynamic and lengthy time depth to study the
changes made to the site. The questions that arise from this unique set of circumstances can
effectively be interpreted using the concepts of agency, structuration, landscape as social order,
transformation of landscape, and its place in the present. The use of critical historical
archaeology helps to answer some of the spatial questions that arise as well as illuminating the
past to the benefit of the present. Ultimately, it is hoped that the archaeological investigations at
Pandenarium provide access to a past otherwise ignored by modern society in a real and tangible
way. The multi-scalar nature of this archaeological investigation is deeply rooted in the fields of
historical archaeology, the study of the African diaspora, and the interdisciplinary research
opportunities that exist in the inquiry of the people of Pandenarium. It follows that a multi-
theoretical approach would be devised and applied to its interpretation. By combining historic
documents, comparative studies of similar settlements, and archaeology, Pandenarium can be
viewed using several theories at local, regional, and global scales.
56
CHAPTER 4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT PANDENARIUM:
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Theory, Method and Research Design: Fitting the Pieces Together
The theoretical approaches outlined in the previous chapter provided a framework for the
questions asked of the site. The questions were developed within the following research design,
which provided a framework for the archaeological investigations conducted at Pandenarium,
site 36ME253. In an attempt to expand upon the scanty historical knowledge of Pandenarium
and other settlements like it, the questions were designed to establish a basis for archaeological
data on the site. The research design was also an attempt to flesh out the historical record with
the archaeological record in its application to African diaspora studies, an attempt at addressing
the various nuances of the study. The four principal questions outlined below comprise the basis
for understanding some of the dynamics of the cultural expression of identity by the people
living at Pandenarium and the interaction between the former slave community and their
neighbors, abolitionist and otherwise. The research design, as presented in this chapter, is laid
out in order to better understand the field and laboratory protocols that were used to obtain the
data presented in the following results chapter.
Research Design
Question 1: What was the initial physical layout, both designed and built, of the site?
Out of the necessity of understanding the site, questions arose concerning the physical
layout of the site as a built environment. One objective of this investigation was to identify the
57
limits of the site, as well as the organization of the associated structures encompassed within the
site. Historical accounts indicated that the initial plan for the community involved a more
extensive settlement including a church, restaurants, and inns (Woods 1999:28). However, later
accounts describe an abbreviated version of this original plan (Yarian 1964:17). Also, the
original ideal hinged on a 3,000-acre estate in Africa; the reality of the settlement diminished the
extent to a supposed 50-acre farming community. Aerial photography, LiDAR imagery, extant
field lines, and historic maps indicated that the site may have expanded to a 100-acre parcel by
1873. It remains unclear as to what magnitude and in what ways the achieved site layout
differed from the original ideal.
The investigation of Pandenarium‟s site limits and layout sought to answer Question 1.
In order to understand the spatial layout of the site, aerial photography, LiDAR imagery, and
historic maps were initially consulted to identify possible features of the site to include historic
roads, historic fields, buried structures, wells, and other disturbances. Once possible features, or
anomalies, were identified in the LiDAR, their presence or absence was compared with the
historic maps, historic aerial photographs, modern aerial photographs, and a modern topographic
map. Using this combination, areas of high potential for structural features, specifically those
features associated with domestic structures and the historic roads, were chosen for further
testing. Three study areas were identified and labeled to guide field investigations. See Figure 7
(USGS 2005). For the first question, two study areas were identified as potential establishment
era structures.
Study Area 2 (SA 2) included a ground-penetrating radar survey along the banks of
Indian Run, the stream running southeasterly across the northeastern corner. Historic accounts
and histories of the site stated that upon the freed African Americans arrival at Pandenarium,
58
they immediately built additional houses, or “shacks,” along the stream‟s banks (Personal
communication, Heini 2010). Accounts, also, indicate that the structures were subsequently
flooded in the ensuing winter season (Woods 1999). Thus, the lifespan of the structures was
between four and twelve weeks. The nature of the soils in this section precluded shovel testing,
as it consisted primarily of clay and historic flooding deposits that were thought to have buried
historic deposits too deeply to test using shovel test pits.
Figure 7. Map of Study Areas. Pandenarium, 36ME253. Aerial Photograph. 2005.
Study Area 3
Study Area 2 Study
Area
1
Legend
Study Area
59
Study Area 3 (SA 3) consisted of a single shovel test pit placed in the wall-fall of a
visible half-cellar foundation, tentatively identified as the home of John and Rosie Allen, two of
Pandenarium‟s first-generation residences, former slaves from Virginia (see Field Methods
section below for details regarding archaeological testing). The shovel test pit was excavated to
obtain a stratigraphic sample of datable artifacts with which to test the identification of the site as
one of the first domestic residences constructed for the site. The judgmental placement of the
shovel test was combined with a mapping and limited pedestrian survey of the vicinity. The
historic road running alongside the John and Rosie Allen residence was tentatively identified and
mapped to compare with the LiDAR and historic maps.
Question 2: What can the spatial arrangement of the site tell us about those who designed and
constructed the site?
A large body of literature exists on the topic of cultural landscapes and their existence in
the archaeological record (Bowser 2004; Shackel 2004; Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Leone 1984).
Questions about space and place allow researchers to understand the level of cultural value being
placed on certain aspects of the landscape. Recently, archaeologists applied these concepts of
cultural landscape development to the study of the African American landscape in the interior
and exterior spaces at the Brice House in Annapolis, Maryland (Ruppel et al. 2003). This work
effectively combines several aspects of African diaspora archaeology, including the search for
Africanisms (De Corse 1999) and vindicationist attempts (Mullins 2008), but more importantly
for this study it seeks to explore the cultural development of a landscape including place and
space, which can be applied at a macro-scale to Pandenarium.
Dr. Cutlip Everett hired three local men, all intimately tied to the abolitionist movement
in southern Mercer County, Pennsylvania, to oversee construction of the settlement and to
60
provide guidance and assistance to the inhabitants upon their arrival. The degree of influence the
northern abolitionists had upon the arrangement of the site remains vague. The degree to which
the abolitionists upheld the original wishes of Dr. Charles Everett for a community is a matter in
need of more thorough understanding. The plans for church, stores, and farmsteads would have
been communicated to the abolitionists by the elder Dr. Everett‟s nephew. By analyzing the
spatial layout of the site using ground penetrating radar and limited shovel testing, a comparison
of historic town designs from the Pennsylvania and Virginia regional contexts, was intended to
provide an answer as to the cultural concepts that informed the construction of Pandenarium. As
Elizabeth Pauls describes the concept, “architectural forms simultaneously reflect and shape the
people and cultures that build them” (2006:68-69).
The spatial layout of the site as identified in Question 1 was compared to the nearby town
of Mercer, the county seat, laid out in 1803-4 by the earliest European settlers to the region. It
was also compared to the layout of other known settlements of the Organized Negro
Communities movement. Additionally, Pandenarium was compared to the slave quarters of
Monticello, a plantation within ten miles of Everett‟s plantation in Ablemarle County, Virginia.
The Monticello slave quarters, known as Mulberry Row, are an example of late eighteenth and
nineteenth century slave housing in northern Virginia established by the political elites, such as
Thomas Jefferson and his neighbor, physician and fellow politician, Dr. Charles Everett.
Features of each layout were researched and presence or absence of those features at
Pandenarium were noted and compared to each other.
Question 3: What can the landscape of the site and its development through time, tell us about
the freed slave population and later generations living there?
61
Living within a previously structured environment, the freed slave population and their
descendants lived on the site for nearly forty years. By the end of the nineteenth century, many
individuals had moved to nearby urban communities abandoning their houses and agricultural
plots. With the movement of individuals out of the settlement, the individuals remaining at the
site renegotiated their physical environment by redefining the layout of agricultural lands and
domestic structures. Several maps from the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century
depict houses with associated names, each of which can be linked to manumitted slaves that were
listed in the elder Everett‟s probate records. The ways in which the individuals negotiated their
cultural environment speaks to the agency of the inhabitants of Pandenarium. The ways in which
they redefined the physical and social boundaries of the site over time remain largely
undetermined. The historical records lack clarity; a clarity that archaeological investigation can
provide the site by exploring the spatial boundaries and the social implications of these
boundaries.
Archaeological investigation of the third question at Pandenarium involved the testing of
Study Area 1. Study Area 1 (SA 1) consisted of a shovel test pit survey to identify the potential
for remaining features associated with a turn-of-the-century residence. The residence was
inhabited by Bob Allen, a second generation Pandenarium resident, and his family until an
unknown date. SA 1 was located in the extreme northeastern corner of the site, at the crossroads
of Cannery and Rodgers roads. SA 1 allowed for investigation of how the site expanded and
how the African American inhabitants renegotiated the constructed environment.
Question 4: What role can the interpretation of the cultural experience of the freed slaves at
Pandenarium play at local, regional and global scales in creating a more nuanced
understanding of the complexity of racial relations during the nineteenth century?
62
Locally, Pandenarium represents a unique initiative on the part of manumitted African
Americans and northern abolitionists. In large part, the actions of these individuals reflected the
local, regional and global sociopolitical sentiments that began to favor the abolition of racially-
based slavery in the early nineteenth century United States. The abolitionist concerns and
entreaties to the political figures of that time brought about seemingly radical legislative acts in
many of the northern states. The historical context at the site of Pandenarium, while unique to
the site itself, shares similarities with the diversity of diasporan contexts worldwide. As argued
by Douglas Armstrong (2008:127), integration of diverse diasporan contexts is essential and “an
integrated view that examines the relationship between local actions and global connections, as
the domain of archaeology is articulated with the greatest resolution and clarity at the local
level.” A comparison of this site with other instances of antebellum African American
settlements locally, regionally, and globally will allow for a consideration of where in the
spectrum of the African diaspora Pandenarium falls.
The interpretation of the site‟s inhabitants and builders, their motives, and the expression
of those motives was considered in the context of its local, regional and global implications for
understanding racial relations throughout the nineteenth century. The interpretation combined
the archaeological investigations, the data created, and the subsequent analysis of the data. In a
hierarchical approach, the findings at the site were then considered on a local, then a regional,
and ultimately a global scale. The local interpretation facilitated comparison with its regional
counterparts, other known examples of the Organized Negro Communities movement. Once
regional comparison was completed, global consideration of Pandenarium‟s inhabitants in a
broader context of racial relations in the nineteenth century was undertaken.
63
Methodology
The methodology employed at Pandenarium was informed by the questions asked in the
earlier section and the theoretical underpinnings of those questions discussed in Chapter III.
These methods consisted of a combination of techniques including background research, field
techniques, laboratory techniques, and analysis of the data generated by each technique using
standard professional methods. The methods were designed with reference to the Bureau for
Historic Preservation‟s (BHP), Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania
(PA Archaeological Guidelines) (PHMC 2008) and the National Park Service‟s Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (NPS 1983). In
the following sections, the various methods are detailed in their intent and application.
Background Research.
Background research included a broad spectrum overview of historical themes in the
nineteenth and early twentieth century, a subsequently narrowed regional overview, and then an
exhaustive review of local resources to include primary and secondary sources. Historical and
archaeological themes were determined in a literature review of historic resources of the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and archaeological literature of the African diaspora.
The review was then narrowed to include region-specific resources pertaining to the free North
and the slave-holding Chesapeake region. A local survey was then undertaken of historical
resources of nineteenth century Mercer County, Pennsylvania and nineteenth century Ablemarle
County, Virginia to facilitate comparisons. Both the Mercer County Historical Society and the
Ablemarle County Historical Society provided documents, literature, and historical accounts of
the related individuals, plans for Pandenarium and local abolition movements.
64
Early use of aerial photography in identification of archaeological sites is well-
documented in the literature, as is its linkage with geophysical techniques (Cox 1992; Crawford
and Keiller 1928; Crawford 1945; Estes et al. 1977; Giardino and Haley 2006; Kvamme 2003;
Kvamme et al. 2006; Parrington 1979; PHMC 2008; Solecki 1957). The use of aerial
photography to identify possible prehistoric and historic archaeological sites is often considered
an essential, if not initial consideration in archaeological background research. Traditionally,
black-and-white aerial photography has been used due to its ability to sustain pattern recognition
(Giardino and Haley 2006). The growing availability of color aerial photography has led to its
more widespread use in recent years and is becoming increasingly popular as it conveys more
differentiable information to the human eye (Giardino and Haley 2006). In this study, the
historic aerial photographs were black-and-white and the modern aerial photographs used to
interpret the site included both black-and-white and color images.
The Penn Pilot: Historic Aerial Photographs of Pennsylvania (Penn Pilot) website,
http://www.pennpilot.psu.edu/, archives black-and-white historic aerial photography from the
late 1930s to the late 1960s. Modern aerial photographic, LiDAR (Light Detection and
Ranging), satellite, and orthophoto images were obtained through the United States Geological
Survey‟s (USGS) various online resources, http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. LiDAR is a constant
transmittal of high-resolution laser light to the ground surface, with the time differential of each
pulse recorded at the receiving station attached to a low-altitude aircraft (Fennell 2010:6-7). The
accuracy of the method varies, the data available for this study was at a 2-foot contour interval,
essentially a micro-topographic map of the bare surface of the site and surrounding lands.
LiDAR has been used in multiple case studies including both prehistoric and historic
65
archaeological surveys with and without vegetation cover (Fennell 2010; Harmon et al. 2006;
Petzold et al. 1999).
Aerial photography of the area and LiDAR data, available online through Pennsylvania
Spatial Data Access (PASDA), was analyzed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
ArcMap version 9.0, to extrapolate information and identify possible buried features including
foundations of structures. The use of “GIS-base „data fusion‟” techniques has gained in
popularity in recent years and this study reflects the trend to apply “multidimensional imagery
into composite data sets that enhance interpretability” (Kvamme et al. 2006:251). The specific
techniques used to analyze the photographs and LiDAR are laid out in more depth, later in this
chapter. The combination of remote sensing techniques provided potential areas to investigate
and ground-truth for the existence of structures during field investigations.
Informant interviews were conducted prior to archaeological testing at the site and
included local landowners, local historians, and curious passersby. The structure of the
interviews was informal and was often guided by the interest expressed by the informant.
Historic accounts of the site were retold and often expanded upon by those informants, many of
whom were involved in the compilation of the local township‟s history, having lived in the
vicinity since birth. What they did not remember personally of the settlement, they would often
tell of what their parents and grandparents had witnessed. The accounts were noted in a field
journal and used to help determine which areas were of highest potential for resources. As noted
earlier, the background research was compiled and used to identify Study Areas 1, 2, and 3 for
archaeological and geophysical investigations.
66
Field Methods.
Field methods were consistent with current professional practice and included limited
excavation, shovel testing, ground penetrating radar, and walkover surveys. Dependent upon
field conditions and the existing land use practices, different methods were undertaken in
different designated sections of the site. Soils at the site were noted and considered when
determining the depth of excavations and the methods used in investigation. Also, the
topographic features of the site were considered to determine appropriate methods of excavation.
Thus, a variety of issues were factored into the testing methods applied at the site. Due to the
current agricultural land use of the site, local landowners and farmers were consulted, to devise
the most efficient modes of testing for the site and to create a hierarchical testing scheme. Thus,
a variety of different methods were employed as a means of coordination between research
questions and the economic concerns of the local agricultural community. The archaeological
investigations included limited use of a variety of methods to identify structures and high
probability areas via remote sensing, a shovel test pit survey, a single test unit, and a geophysical
investigation.
A shovel test pit (STP) survey of judgmentally selected portions of the site was
undertaken where 80 percent surface visibility could not be attained. Each of the STPs in the
northeastern corner (Study Area 1 on Figure 7) was laid out in a grid pattern. The grid was
overlaid in 15m intervals south and west of the site datum. The grid measured 75m west and
45m south from the datum. An STP was placed at each intersection (Figure 8). The STPs were
standard, 50cm x 50cm square units or circular STPs with a diameter of 57cm, excavated in
natural stratigraphic layers into culturally sterile soils or glacial sediments. Two square STPs
were excavated for additional control purposes, while all other STPs were circular. When
67
appropriate, arbitrary 10cm stratigraphic layers were recorded within the predominant natural
stratigraphy in order to facilitate a tighter control of data collection. All soil was screened
through ¼ inch hardware mesh with all cultural artifacts collected and relevant information
recorded. The STP locations were determined upon analysis of results from the historic mapping
and LIDAR imagery and used as a way to further test areas with high potential for structural
foundations. If an STP in the grid tested positive for cultural material, radials, consisting of four
additional STPs, were placed at 5-meter intervals in the four cardinal directions.
Figure 8. Shovel Test Grid Pattern.
Artifacts collected in the course of testing were bagged and the provenience information
recorded on the outside of the bag. When appropriate, artifacts were noted on the shovel testing
forms designed for the project, see Appendix A for a blank shovel test pit form. The artifacts
collected in the course of the different surveys were removed, with all provenience information
recorded, to undergo analysis that constituted the data for artifact distributions, for spatial
patterning on the site in the form of the different artifact classes, for dating purposes, and for
preservation purposes that will enable future research. All data recorded and collected during the
field archaeological investigations was compiled in a searchable database format to facilitate
analysis. The potential for the presence of prehistoric resources at the site was recognized and
the minimal prehistoric artifacts found were collected and catalogued without undergoing
N
15 m
eter
s
A1
A2
A3
B1
B2
B3
C1
C2
C3
D1
D2
D3
E1
E2
E3
68
detailed analysis. Materials such as slag and non-cultural ecofacts were sparingly collected as a
sample of materials present on-site.
In the northeastern corner of the site, an STP grid of five transects consisting of three
STPs each was laid out at 15m intervals between both transects and individual STPs. Starting
from the corner and working west, transects were labeled alphabetically, A, B, C, D, and E.
Each STP was labeled numerically, 1, 2, and 3, from north to south. Thus, STP A1 is the first
shovel test of transect A (Figure 8). Radial STP units were labeled alphabetically, a, b, c, and d
moving clockwise from the north. Thus, STP A1a is designated as the northern radial shovel test
STP A1. Teams of archaeologists excavated each shovel test systematically, starting with the
first STP of each transect and working to the end of each transect. Upon finishing a transect, the
team moved to the next transect or “leap-frogged” a transect with another team.
In selected areas of high potential for buried historical structural features, a geophysical
survey was conducted. The geophysical survey was developed by selecting high potential areas
using a combination of informal informant interviews, historic accounts, aerial photography, and
LIDAR imagery in a hierarchical approach. Due to the restrictive factor of time, geophysical
investigations at the site were limited to a total of 0.5 acres. Due to the soil conditions at the site,
the majority of the Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey was conducted in late August and
early September to ensure that the water content of the soil did not interfere with the readings.
The high mixed grasses on-site were brush-whipped and weed-whacked down to facilitate the
passing of the GPR equipment over the ground surface.
The geophysical investigation was conducted using GPR, specifically, the MALA X3M
Monitor with a 250 MHz shielded antenna that scanned a shallow depth range adequate for
historic investigations. The survey collected data in 0.25 meter intervals, to allow a greater
69
degree of resolution. The grids were established along transects running north-south or east-
west, dependent upon vegetation and ease of collection. In the GPR survey grid designated as
PAR 1, the transects ran along an east-west transect. In the GPR survey grids designated as PAR
2 and PAR 3, the data was collected along north-south transects. Table 1, below, shows the
computer settings used in the data collection and relevant data. See Appendix B for the transect
direction maps.
Table 1. GPR Survey Data Collection Settings
GPR Grid Interval
Transect (m)
Antenna
(MHz)
Time
Window (ns)
Velocity
(m/µs)
Collection Direction
PAR 1 0.25 250
Shallow
56.5 100 East-West;
Unilateral/Single
PAR 2 0.25 250
Shallow
56.5 100 North-South;
Reverse/Zig-Zag
PAR 3 0.25 250
Shallow
56.5 100 South-North;
Reverse/Zig-Zag
The data was later processed in the laboratory and anomalies were identified. While it is
important to identify possible anomalies in the datasets, it is equally important to verify the
results in a procedure known as “ground-truthing” (Hargrave 2006; Conyers 2006). Thus,
anomalies identified in the processed data were ground-truthed by excavating a single 50cm x
50cm test unit and 2.5cm auger probing in a five-point pattern, depending upon anomaly depth
and soil makeup. Test units were excavated in arbitrary 10cm stratigraphic layers within natural
soil horizons. All data recorded in ground-truthing was collected and applied to data analysis.
Laboratory Methods.
Laboratory methods were consistent with current professional practice and included
curation and analysis of all data and artifacts collected during this study. Interpretation of the
data will provide a basis for public education efforts and public archaeology events planned for
the future.
70
No unrecorded archaeological sites were identified in the course of the archaeological
survey. Several prehistoric and historic archaeological sites were identified in the nearby
vicinity; however, they were unrelated to the study at hand. Pandenarium, site 36ME253, was
the sole cultural resource identified in the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files
in the specified study areas. A total of five prehistoric artifacts were recovered from the site, all
of which were lithic shatter. However, due to the dispersed nature and unrelated or questionable
contexts of the artifacts, the prehistoric artifacts were not recorded as a site. An updated version
of the PASS file for Pandenarium was prepared as part of the research.
All artifacts collected during the survey were washed, analyzed, categorized and stored in
accordance with the BHP‟s Archaeological Guidelines (PHMC 2008). The Mercer County
Historical Society (MCHS) agreed to house the entire collection, with previously obtained
permission and signed gift agreements from private landowners, from the site and will provide
assistance in displaying the collections for the benefit of public education and outreach. The
MCHS will also provide future access to researchers and the interested public.
The analysis of the historic artifacts consisted of categorizing them using a modified
version of Stanley South‟s artifact categories (1977:93-96) as developed by Sonoma State
University researchers, Mary Praetzellis and Erica Gibson, for the Sonoma Historic Artifact
Research Database (SHARD) (Gibson 2008). SHARD was used to catalogue the artifacts,
reporting percentages, and basic artifact analysis. This Microsoft Access database allowed for
cataloguing, sorting, artifact counts, and data analysis in a standardized and comparative format
and is ideally suited for the artifact catalog for site 36ME253 (Gibson 2008). Thus, the uses of
space, domestic, agricultural, and public, were determined from the distribution of artifacts
across the landscape.
71
Following the cataloguing and preliminary analysis of function, the mean ceramic dates
for the STPs with datable ceramics and TU1 were calculated. The mean ceramic dating of the
site was based off of South‟s Mean Ceramic Date Formula, Mean Ceramic Date ∑
∑
(1977:217-221). South‟s formula is essentially the relationship between the frequency of dated
ceramic types at a site and a mean ceramic date for the assemblage is the outcome (1977:218).
Prior to applying the formula, the ceramics were dated as tightly as possible using surface
treatment, ceramic types, manufacturer‟s marks, and other diagnostic features. Once a date
range was produced, the median manufacture date for each ceramic artifact was determined by
adding the beginning date and the end date and dividing by 2. The median manufacture date was
represented as (South 1977:217). To implement South‟s mean ceramic date formula, the
frequency of each ceramic type was noted and was represented as (South 1977:217). The
number of ceramic types in the collection was represented as n (South 1977:217). Upon
determining each figure, the numbers were input into the formula for each STP, TU, and stratum,
where appropriate.
Data generated using GIS in the background research and the GPS data collected in the
fieldwork were compiled in the form of a database for easy access to the information and
processing needs. Interpretation of the data collected and analyzed at the site included the spatial
analysis of artifact distributions and applicable data analysis. Data analysis enabled the
identification and dating of artifact scatters and associated structures. Further, the artifact classes
and their distribution at the site enabled a reconstruction of structure and land use. The data
compiled in these analyses will also allow future research to focus upon areas of high density
artifact clustering.
72
While it does not answer the immediate research questions designed for the site, a public
archaeology component for the site was developed and partially informed by the archaeological
investigation carried out for this thesis. Archaeologies of African diaspora contexts stand at an
intersection of the theoretical concerns of critical archaeology (Leone et al. 1987) and the
methodological concerns of public archaeology (Sabloff 2008). In this capacity as a crossroads,
African diaspora archaeology takes on a greater role in the interpretation of the archaeological
record by involving the public in both a participatory and an educational sense. Public
archaeology programs are now being designed around the ability of African diaspora sites to
speak to a general audience and the descendant communities on a variety of levels (Singleton
1997; McDavid 2002; Shackel et al. 2006; Delle 2010; Orr 2010). The nearby descendant
community of Pandenarium is largely situated in an economically depressed region of Mercer
County in the communities surrounding Sharon. Members of the local African American
community strives to reconstruct the past that for so long was denied them. The site at
Pandenarium provides the opportunity for archaeology to matter and to people the past of the
descendant community. By peopling the past, understanding the archaeological record at
Pandenarium provides the opportunity for the descendant population to build a relationship with
their past.
In this vein, funds were obtained to support a public archaeology component designed in
collaboration with the MCHS and the descendant community that will involve education
opportunities, material handouts, and presentations. It is hoped that volunteers will help design
future investigations and interpretations of the site. The data collected and the public
involvement will also provide substantive information for the development of interpretive
programs and exhibits at the museum. As part of the public outreach, an educational
73
presentation will be designed and implemented for use at local schools, as a way to engage the
youth of the region with the history that occurred in their backyards. Ultimately, it is hoped that
volunteers from both the local and descendant communities will be involved in the entire process
of archaeological investigations at Pandenarium, from background research to public
interpretation.
74
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT
PANDENARIUM
Cartographic Research: Results
The historic and modern aerial photography of the site provided a bird’s-eye-view of the
current and past land use practices dating from 1939 to the present. The historic aerial
photographs of the study area, taken in 1939, 1958, and 1968, included high resolution, black-
and-white imagery. Modern aerial images obtained through the USGS provided the most recent
images of the site, dating to 2005.
An analysis of the 1939 aerial photograph of the site, Figure 9, provided a basis for
comparison to the historical maps at the turn of the century. The yellow dashed lines are historic
resources that were verified by the 1873 East Lackawannock Township map, Figure 3, the two
circa 1900 hand-drawn maps, Figures 4 and 5, and the 1907 Neshannock 15’ USGS Quadrangle,
Figure 6. The northwest trending line is the historic road along which many of the original
residences stood, as depicted in many of the historic maps. The central polygon is the John and
Rosie Allen residence, two of Pandenarium’s original residents and former Everett slaves. The
southeastern polygon is the historic residence of George Lewis, one of the original freed slaves
living at Pandenarium. Also, in the northeast corner, the rectangular polygon indicates the
possible location of a streamside residence depicted in the 1873 East Lackawannock Township
Map as belonging to John Allen. The two lines following the paths of the roads also represent
the historic roads bounding the site, Cannery Road to the north and Rodgers Road along the east.
Pulling from textual historic records, the set of red dashed lines indicate historic
resources described in the various texts. These references included the associated agricultural
fields of the settlement, a possible apple orchard, and flooding along the banks of Indian Run
(Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1980; Woods 1999). The two circular polygons in the northeast
75
corner represent flooding along Indian Run, as described in the text and in informant interviews.
The rectangular polygon in the central portion of the site indicates the remains of an apple
orchard. The remaining rectangular features in red represent agricultural field lines at the
southeastern extent of the site. Looking solely at the 1939 aerial photograph, specific prominent
features were noted as the remnants of the historic boundaries. The white dashed lines may
represent the historic boundaries of Pandenarium.
Figure 9. Aerial Photograph, Taken July 2, 1939. Possible Features Related to Historic
Pandenarium Outline. Yellow for Historic Resources in 1873 Map. Red for Historic
Resources in Test. White for Historic Boundaries of Settlement. Photograph courtesy of
http://www.pennpilot.psu.edu/.
75
An analysis of the historic aerial photographs from 1958, Figure 10, and 1968, Figure 11,
showed a changing landscape and changing aerial photographic flight paths. Between 1958 and
1968, the pipeline running through the center of the site, in the cleared path shown in Figure 11,
displaced an unknown number of foundations and human remains in an unmarked cemetery
(Heini 2010, personal communication). Legal records indicate that the pipeline was approved in
July of 1960 and construction of the pipeline began by July 1961 (Peoples Natural Gas Company
2010:35-36, 42). The cleared agricultural lands of the 1939 photograph were increasingly
covered in second-growth forests over the thirty year period represented by the aerial
photographs. In the 1990s, the wooded section in the center of the photographs was logged by
local companies and resulted in additional disturbance to the site at that time, though the extent is
undetermined at this time (Heini 2010, personal communication).
A modern aerial photograph was taken in 2005, Figure 7. This photograph illustrated the
current state of the site and showed an additional pipeline running northwest-southeast across the
northern half of the site. New construction on the site, altered field lines, changed boundaries
and evidence of livestock are visible in an overview of the modern photograph. The disturbance
shown in the later photographs was noted and accounted for in the field investigations that
followed the background research. However, the 1939 aerial photograph played the primary role
in guiding the selection of study areas. The polygon and line features created for the 1939 aerial
photograph were also overlaid on a modern topographic map and the modern aerial photograph
to determine those features that were modern and unrelated to the development of the site.
LiDAR data, accessed from the PASDA database, provided a valuable view of the
various features of the site that are often hard to identify with dense undergrowth and heavily
wooded areas in aerial photography. The highest resolution LiDAR available for the site was at
76
a two-foot contour interval. The increased resolution allowed for a micro-topographical analysis
of the site as compared to the ten-foot contour interval of the USGS topographical maps. Once
the LiDAR file was uploaded into ArcMAP 9.0, the hillshade effect was applied to the dataset as
a way to highlight changes in the contours of the site. Several versions of the LiDAR data were
produced in different color scales, ranging from color to gray scale, to facilitate identification of
possible anomalies. When looking at the LiDAR images, possible historic structures, linear
features such as roads, field outlines, wells and unknown disturbances were identified.
Polygons and lines were drawn for each identified anomaly and a new dataset, or layer, was
created using the GIS program. The polygon and line features were then overlaid on a modern
topographic map and a modern aerial photograph to determine those features that were modern
and unrelated to the development of the site. Modern features included a hunting camp
driveway, pipeline throughways, and modern construction on the site.
Figure 10. Aerial Photograph, Taken June Figure 11. Aerial Photograph, Taken
7, 1958. Courtesy of http://www.pennpilot. September 8, 1968. Courtesy of http://
psu.edu/. www.pennpilot.psu.edu/.
77
Figure 12. LiDAR Imagery in Color Scale, Processed Using ArcMap Version 9.0. Polygons
and Linear Features, Jaillet 2010.
78
Figure 13. LiDAR Imagery in Gray Scale, Processed Using ArcMap Version 9.0. Polygons
and Linear Features, Jaillet 2010.
The LiDAR imagery resulted in the identification of 57 polygons and 21 linear features
(Figure 12 and Figure 13). Of the 57 polygons, 18 polygons, or 32% of the total, were
unidentifiable when compared to the historic aerials, historic maps, modern aerial, and
topographic map. There was a greater degree of success in identifying the linear features. Only
79
1 of the 21 linear features was unidentifiable, 5% of the total lines. Tables 2 and 3 depict the
results of the field and map verified features and possible features, currently unverified.
Table 2. LiDAR Polygon Identification Table
Feature Type (LiDAR
Polygons)
Total Field or Map
Verified
Percentage of
Total
Unidentified 18 0 31.5
Possible Well Feature 2 0 3.50
Possible Field Feature 11 0 19.2
Possible Foundations 24 0 42.1
Historic/Modern
Residence
1 1 1.75
Stream 1 1 1.75
Total 57 2 100
Table 3. LiDAR Linear Feature Identification Table
Feature Type (LiDAR
Linear Features)
Total Field or Map
Verified
Percentage of
Total
Unidentified 1 0 4.76
Historic/Modern Road 2 2 9.52
Historic Road 1 1 4.76
Historic Foundation 1 1 4.76
Modern Fenceline/Fields 4 4 19.0
Historic Field Lines 12 12 57.1
Total 21 20 100
Informal informant interviews conducted on-site with landowners, passersby, and local
historians indicated the presence of “shacks” along the banks of Indian Run (Anonymous 2010,
personal communication; Heini 2010, personal communication; Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1980;
Woods 1999). These structures were erected upon the arrival of the former slaves in November
and the inhabitants made use of the slow-flowing stream for washing and recreation (Heini 2010,
personal communication and Woods 2010, personal communication). Historians’ assertions that
there were 24 houses built at the time of the former slaves’ arrival at Pandenarium are the sole
record of the settlement’s layout (Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1980; Woods 1999). If 24 houses
80
were erected by the time the 63 African Americans arrived, the construction near the stream
would have been unnecessary. The accounts describe the buildings as erected with clothing and
furniture in boxes waiting for the incoming inhabitants (Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1980; Woods
1999). Also, wells were dug and the road had been graded in preparation (Woods 1999). There
is no indication, aside from the turn of the century maps, what the spatial layout of the settlement
originally looked like or the extent of it. Based upon the historic accounts, there was no practical
reason for the new inhabitants to alter the unfamiliar landscape immediately at the advent. Thus,
the African Americans must have had other, cultural motivations for renegotiating the site.
During the first winter, the structures were flooded and subsequently abandoned (Heini
2010, personal communication; Woods 1999; Woods 2010, personal communication). Even
though the structures were abandoned the inhabitants at Pandenarium continued to use the stream
and children of the community would ice-skate on it in the winter (Heini 2010, personal
communication). Another informant indicated that the children did not ice-skate on Indian Run,
but on a nearby pond owned by a family with the surname Black (Woods 2010, personal
communication).
Landowners, Michael Heini, Sr. and Michael Heini, Jr., offered to take me to an extant
building foundation on the upper slopes of the hill, southwest of the shovel testing grid and
towards the center of the site. Upon arriving at the foundations and consulting historic mapping,
LiDAR mapping, and aerial photographs, the foundation was tentatively identified as the John
and Rosie Allen residence. The landowner indicated a depression, approximately 10m west-
northwest of the half-cellar foundation that used to be a “smithy shop” measuring 3.5m (11.3
feet) north-south by 3m east-west (10 feet) (Heini 2010, personal communication) (Figure 14).
The half-cellar foundation measured 2.75m (9 feet) along the western facing side of the cellar by
81
4.55m (15 feet) along the northern axis (Figure 14). The eastern and southern walls were less
distinct, having partially, the southern wall, and wholly, the eastern wall, fallen into the center of
the cellar depression. The wall fall from the building measured approximately 4m (13.6 feet)
along the southern wall of the cellar and extended south to a maximum of 5.2m (17 feet) and a
minimum of 2.6m (8.7 feet), see Figure 14. A brick path approximately 4.5m (14.5 feet) long
stretched from a stone/concrete pad measuring 1.5m (4.5 feet) along the north-south axis by
1.8m to 2.5m (5.8 feet to 8.3 feet) along the east-west axis to the brick-lined well with a diameter
measuring 0.6m (2 feet) (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Plan Map of the John and Rosie Allen Residence. Jaillet 2010.
82
The landowners also
indicated the remains of the historic
road and several piles of modified
stones marking the historic roadway,
placed on either side (Heini 2010,
personal communication). The
historic road was aligned to the west
of the residence and possible
blacksmith shop. The majority of
stones were irregular in shape and size, ranging from small to large. Some stones were modified,
exhibiting scratches, as shown in pictures taken from the site, Figures 15 and 16, that may have
been a result of use or a result of passing traffic. However, it is possible that some of the stones
may have been moved from the foundations of
former residences by modern activities, such as
timbering and heavy machinery operation nearby.
The landowners expressed concern that the
original path of the historic road may not have
followed the present alignment of stones, as
historic timbering practices may have altered its
course (Heini 2010, personal communication).
Figure 15. Stone Along Historic Road. Possible
Marker Stone, Jaillet 2010.
Figure 16. Close-up of Modifications.
Stone Along Historic Road. Possible
Marker Stone. Jaillet 2010.
83
Field Investigations: Results
The site datum was established as 0,0 at the western, inside corner of the intersection of
Cannery and Rodgers roads. The datum and testing completed at Pandenarium is shown in
Figure 17, below. A total of 19 shovel tests were excavated in the northeastern corner of the site;
15 shovel tests on the original grid pattern extending west and south from the established site
datum. See Appendix C for Shovel Testing Results. Four additional shovel tests were excavated
in a radial pattern around STP B1, as a result of a positive shovel test. STPs B1a, B1b, B1c, and
B1d all tested positive for historic cultural remains.
Several STPs tested positive, but did not warrant additional excavation. STPs A1 and A2
tested positive, but no radials were excavated due to the proximity of the road, the evidence for
disturbance, and the mixed stratigraphy of the units (See Appendix C). STP D1 tested positive
for modern cultural remains and prehistoric cultural remains. Due to the limits of the
investigation and the research questions, no additional excavation was performed for STP D1.
Two additional shovel tests were excavated, one (STP Z1) in a wall-fall of a visible half-
cellar foundation in the center of the site, and one (STP Y1) within the GPR survey grid, PAR 1,
as a ground-truthing method for the GPR results. STP Z1 tested positive for historic cultural
remains. The sizable quantity of artifacts excavated precluded any additional excavation in this
portion of the site, as the quantity provided a number of datable artifacts and a small sample from
the Allen residence. STP Y1 yielded a single piece of slag and the possible remains of a field-
stone foundation. No additional shovel testing was performed.
A single 1m x 1m test unit was excavated within the limits of the shovel testing grid in
the northeastern corner. The placement of the unit was based off of positive shovel tests STP
B1, B1a, B1b, B1c, and B1d. It was clear from the sloping stratigraphy in the STP walls that the
84
feature fill extended to the east at a greater depth. Thus, Test Unit 1 (TU 1) was placed 3m due
east of STP B1a. The test unit was designated TU 1, S10 W11, as it was 10m south and 11m
west of the site datum.
Figure 17. Map of Archaeological Testing at Pandenarium, Site 36ME253. Red STPs were
Negative. Green STPs were Positive. Aerial Photograph Courtesy of USGS, 2005.
85
The Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey of Pandenarium consisted of a total of 1879
square meters and a total of 220 transects were collected. As discussed earlier, the study areas
were chosen with reference to informal informant interviews and historic accounts of African
American residences built upon the banks of Indian Run in the fall of 1854. The brief duration
of time that these structures were in existence points to an ephemeral archaeological record.
LiDAR produced no noticeable changes in contour or ground surface visible beneath the dense
vegetation. Shovel testing of the edges of PAR 1, STPs E1-E3, produced no cultural material,
with the exception of one piece of slag. The heavy clay content of the soils and lack of cultural
deposits precluded additional shovel testing closer to the banks of Indian Run. Thus, GPR was
chosen as an alternative method for archaeological investigation.
GPR conducted at the site included study areas PAR 1, PAR 2, and PAR 3. See
Appendix B, GPR Survey, for the results of this survey including time slices, radargrams, and
grid maps of all collected datasets. PAR 1 data collection consisted of 0.25m interval transects
running east to west. A total of 106 transects were recorded for PAR 1. Due to heavy brush and
wetlands vegetation at the edge of the stream, transects were staggered in varying lengths. The
y-axis was established as the constant line from which the x-axis lengths were taken. A total of
479 square meters were investigated as PAR 1. PAR 2 data collection consisted of 0.25m
interval transects running north-to-south and south-to-north in an alternating grid. A total of 13
transects were recorded for PAR 2 and additional data collection in this study area ceased upon
the increasing water content of the surface. As the survey got closer to the stream, the ground
surface became soggier and more waterlogged. At that point, data collection proved to be more
effective in other portions of the site, on higher drier ground. The grid measured 3m (on the x-
axis) by 50m (on the y-axis) and a total of 150 square meters were investigated in PAR 2. PAR
86
3 was established on the western bank of Indian Run in a higher, drier portion of pasture. Data
collection for PAR 3 consisted of 0.25m interval transects running south-to-north and north-to-
south in an alternating grid. The grid measured 25m along the road (the x-axis) by 50m along
the stream edge (the y-axis) and a total of 1250 square meters were investigated in PAR 3. A
total of 101 transects were recorded for PAR 3.
Mapping of the site included mapping the three designated study areas, Study Areas 1, 2,
and 3, discussed in Chapter V. A Trimble R8 Global Positioning System was used to record
relevant points and significant features. Each shovel test pit was mapped at the approximate
center of the unit. Each corner of TU 1, S10 W11 was mapped. The three GPR grids were
marked at the four corners at each grid’s extent. The historic foundation on the hilltop and the
extent of its wall fall were mapped, as were its associated features including the adjacent
depression from a possible blacksmith shop, the well, and the brick path leading from the
depression to the
well. Also, the
remnants of the
possible historic
road were mapped
as far as visible,
surface features
allowed. Figures
18 and 19 were
produced with the
GPS data collected in the mapping of the site and processed with the Golden Surfer software.
N
Figure 18. Contour Map of Archaeological Testing. Universal
Transverse Mercator Coordinate System. Jaillet 2010.
87
The historic foundation on
the hilltop was mapped and
is shown in the bottom, left-
hand corner of Figure 18.
The drastic drops in
elevation represent the cellar
remains of the historic
residence.
Laboratory Analysis: Results
Artifact Analyses: Categorization, Ceramics, Glass, and Distribution.
A total of 959 artifacts were recovered during the field investigations at the site of
Pandenarium, 36ME253. See Appendix D, Artifact Catalog, for a complete catalog of the
artifact inventory and subsequent analyses. Of the 959 artifacts, 451 Minimum Number of
Individuals (MNI) were determined in the laboratory analysis by comparing the individual
artifacts by dimensions, material, surface treatment, and other diagnostic characteristics. Using
function groups, modified from South (1977), the artifacts were catalogued into domestic, faunal,
industrial, personal or structural groups. The structural group included a raw total count of 655
artifacts, 335 MNI. The domestic group included a raw total count of 231 artifacts, 54 MNI.
The industrial group accounted for a raw total of 52 artifacts, 44 MNI. The personal group
consisted of a raw total of 14 artifacts, 13 MNI. The faunal artifacts included a raw total count
N
Figure 19. 3D Surface Imagery Map of Archaeological
Testing. Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinate
System. Jaillet 2010.
88
of 7 bones, 5 MNI. See Figure 20 below for the percentage breakdown of function groups, by
MNI.
Figure 20. Summary of Artifacts By Group: Percent of MNI.
The Mean Ceramic Dates (MCD) for the ceramics of the site were determined using
ceramics from STP A1, STP B1, STP B1a, STP B1b, STP Z1, and TU 1, S10 W11. See
Appendix E, Mean Ceramic Dates, for calculations and dating. A total sample of 177 ceramic
sherds, the raw count, was selected for MCD calculations. The sample was chosen on the basis
of relatively tight dating ranges. The MCD for STP A1, Stratum I was AD 1918.3. The MCD
calculation for STP B1, Stratum I was AD 1906. STP B1a, Stratum I produced an MCD of AD
1914.5. STP B1b, Stratum II was calculated as having an MCD of AD 1874.6. The MCD for
STP B1b, Stratum III was calculated as AD 1896.6. The MCD for STP Z1, Stratum I was AD
1864.9. The MCD calculation for STP Z1, Stratum II was AD 1854.8. The MCD for STP Z1,
Stratum III was AD 1872.5. STP Z1 was excavated in a wall-fall and while the stratigraphy was
clear, it appears to have been reversed by the process of the wall collapse. Thus, an additional
Domestic
12% Faunal
1% Industrial
10% Personal
3%
Structural
74%
Summary of Artifacts By Group Percent of MNI
89
cumulative MCD for STP Z1 was calculated as AD 1860.2. TU 1, S10 W11, Stratum I produced
an MCD of AD 1906. The MCD for TU 1, S10 W11, Stratum II was calculated as AD 1903.1.
Additional dates for the site were determined using the datable glass assemblage. Dates
were determined for STP B1, STP B1a, STP Z1, TU1, S10 W11. See Appendix F, Glass
Assemblage Dating, for calculations and dating. A total sample of 217 glass shards, the raw
count, was selected for dating purposes. Selection of the glass sample consisted of datable
artifacts with a reasonable range, essentially excluding window glass and any artifacts without
dates. The calculated date for STP B1, Stratum I was AD 1883.3. The date for STP B1a,
Stratum I was calculated as AD 1885.5. STP Z1, Stratum I was calculated as AD 1884.1. The
calculation for STP Z1, Stratum II provided a date of AD 1902.6. For the same reasons as
above, the glass assemblage dates for STP Z1 were combined for a cumulative date of AD
1893.4. TU1, S10 W11, Stratum I had a calculated date of AD 1939.8. The date for TU 1, S10
W11 was calculated as AD 1916.6.
Figure 21. Comparative Glass and Ceramic Dates from Pandenarium.
1840
1860
1880
1900
1920
1940
STP B1,Stratum I
STP B1a,Stratum I
STP Z1,Stratum I
STP Z1,Stratum II
TU1,Stratum I
TU1,Stratum II
Ceramic Dating
Glass Dating
90
Clearly, the dates attained from the assemblage do not sync up, as illustrated in Figure 21
below. One potential reason for this is differing sample sizes in glass and ceramics for a given
test unit or STP. Typically, a glass assemblage dates range between 10 years to 15 years later
than the true date of a site (Lindsey 2010). Ceramic assemblages tend to exhibit a time lag of 15
years to 20 years (Adams 2003:1). The nature of time lag may account for the noticeable
differences in dates at the site.
The distribution of artifacts for the two identified features at the site, the midden feature
and the wall-fall feature, were compared. STPs B1, B1a, B1b, B1d and TU 1, S10 W11 are
associated with the midden feature at the northeastern corner, second-generation Allen residence.
STP Z1 represents the wall-fall feature from the centrally located, first-generation Allen
residence. By combining the artifact MNI for the four STPs and test unit, percentages of artifact
groups were derived for the midden feature, Table 4. This combined artifact distribution was
then compared to the MNI percentages of the wall-fall feature, Table 5. The features were
distinct in that the midden was purposeful and the wall-fall was a natural process of decay.
Despite the distinction, the archaeological signatures, Figure 22, were, as a result of their similar
contexts – associated with a nearby structure.
Table 4. Artifact Distribution of Midden Feature. Combined MNI Count of STPs B1, B1a,
B1b, B1c, B1d and TU 1, S10 W11
Function
Group
MNI Percentage
Activities 3 1
Domestic 106 17
Industrial 46 7
Personal 21 3
Structural 450 72
Total 626 100
91
Table 5. Artifact Distribution of Wall-Fall Feature. MNI Count of STP Z1
Function Group MNI Percentage
Domestic 35 43
Personal 3 4
Structural 44 53
Total 82 100
Figure 22. Artifact Distribution Percentages from Wall-Fall and Midden Features.
Archaeological investigation of both features indicated a predominance of structural and
domestic artifacts, affirming the preliminary interpretation that both features were associated
with the remains of domestic structures on the site. The artifact distributions are similar and
follow the same pattern, even though the physical quantities of artifacts from each feature differ.
The wall-fall feature produced a limited number of artifacts, as it was a limited unit based solely
on a single shovel test, STP Z1. The midden feature, however, produced a large quantity of
artifacts and hence a larger sample as it was based upon the accumulated artifacts from STPs B1,
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Midden
Wall-Fall
92
B1a, B1b, B1c, B1d and TU 1, S10 W11. Despite the differing quantities, the distribution of
artifacts appears to reflect similar contexts and comparison of the two sites is warranted.
Using the dates calculated from the glass and ceramics assemblages and the
archaeological composition of the test pits and unit, it is evident that the residents of
Pandenarium were living on the site from its establishment in 1854 into the late 1930s. This
coincides with US Census Records and some historic accounts. On the other hand, it disproves
historic accounts that state the settlement was abandoned by the first decade of the early
twentieth century (Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1980; Woods 1999). While it remains unclear as to
why the myth of early abandonment persists, it essentially distanced the present-day community
from the past community by adding years in temporal distance.
Another aspect of the community unearthed in the archaeological investigations was its
development over the years. The African American inhabitants began building additional
structures upon their arrival, as was indicated in historic accounts (Weidhmann 1973; Woge
1980; Woods 1999). What was not recorded in historical records or accounts was the
development of the site after the arrival of the former slaves. By looking at the assemblages of
two different structures, one dating to the establishment of the settlement and one dating to the
late nineteenth century, the archaeological record provides an account of the site’s development.
Continuing to build upon the original structure of the site, Pandenarium’s inhabitants
renegotiated the landscape and at least one second-generation family built a home at the primary
crossroads.
The construction of a house at the corner of Cannery and Rodgers roads was practically
advantageous as well as socially advantageous. The house’s location provided ease of access to
the larger roads, the house’s inhabitants linked the settlement to those outside the community by
93
its location. Not only was the house located at the crossroads, but it was also located on the
periphery of the site. As the inhabitants at the site became more familiar with their surroundings,
they began to manipulate and push the former boundaries that relegated them to the center of the
100-acre site, while taking advantage of the more accessible portions of the site.
Ground-Penetrating Radar: Results and Analysis.
The data collected in the GPR survey required additional processing in the laboratory.
Using the GPR-Slice version 7.0 program developed by Dean Goodman (2010), the raw data was
processed to clean, integrate, and interpolate existing data into an accessible and digestible
format. Using a 3x3 low pass filter, the data was processed in the specified 0.25m interval in
order to provide an accurate view of the historical subsurface features within the test area. To
increase resolution of data and account for obstacles in the data collection, a 50% overlap was
applied to all data. Twenty time slices were created in sequence for each data set and it is from
these slices that the following comparisons were based. From the time slices, anomalies were
identified and two anomalies were chosen for ground-truthing, see Appendix G.
It is important to note that while depths are assigned to the data, they represent the
distance traveled by the radar waves and not the physical depth of the anomalies. A total of five
anomalies were identified in the three study areas. Anomalies were chosen on the basis of
persistently showing higher readings on the color scale attached to each time slice. When
interpreting the time-slices, the higher readings on the scale portrays the radar reflection in
amplitude, positive and negative, as compared to the normal readings of the surrounding soil
(Conyers 2006:143).
Another key consideration in the interpretation of the data collected from Pandenarium,
especially the data set from PAR 1, is the soils found on-site. Appendix I includes the soils for
94
the entire site. GPR data collection was solely in the area mapped as Pa, Papakating silt loam.
Papakating silt loam is a poorly drained silt loam soil on a 0 to 3 percent sloped floodplain,
which results from recent alluvium, in the case of Pandenarium brought in by Indian Run (USDA
2010). The typical profile is a silt loam from 0 to 109 cm below surface (cmbs) and a stratified
gravelly sand from 109 cmbs to 152 cmbs with the water table at approximately 31 cmbs (USDA
2010). Field investigations showed a higher clay content than the soil maps indicated, see
Appendix C, specifically in the shovel test pit transect E bordering the GPR survey grid PAR 1.
The ability of GPR to penetrate clay soils is typically questionable (Conyers 2006); however, the
permeability of the soils to reflect the radar waves depends on the types of clay on-site. Clays
that form as a result of weathering sedimentary materials, such as kaolin, do not conduct
electrical pulses as well as silt loams (Conyers 1994:50-52). However, the clays found on-site
were a result of alluvial deposits and were not the truer, more compact clays that make GPR
collection problematic. Conyers points out that saturated soils are highly conductive surfaces
and resistance in the soils, such as historic features and cultural deposits, reflect the radar waves
well (Conyers 2004:50-52). Heavily saturated soils in PAR 1 and PAR2 were noted in the field
investigation. Thus, the clay’s mineral makeup and the saturation of the soils along the banks of
Indian Run proved to be both reflective and conductive aiding in the GPR data collection.
Anomaly #1 was identified in the PAR 1 dataset. Anomaly #1 measured approximately
6m, along the east-west axis, by 4m, along the north-south axis. Anomaly #2 was also identified
in PAR 1, measuring approximately 5m, east-west, and 3m, north-south. Anomalies #1 and #2
were identified at a time-depth of 138cm-173cm, shown in Figure 23. Anomaly #3 was
identified in PAR 2 at a time-depth of 139cm-174cm, shown in Figure 24. Anomaly #3
measured approximately 3m east-west and 10m north-south, running outside of the GPR survey
95
on both axes. Anomaly #4 persisted throughout all 20 time-slices of PAR 3, to some extent, and
was identified as a horse path clearly demarcated on the surface of the grid. Anomaly #4
measured approximately 1.5m east-west by 48m north-south, weaving back and forth from north
to south. Also in PAR 3, Anomaly #5 was identified at a time-depth of 234cm-269cm and
measured approximately 6m north-south and 10m east-west, shown in Figure 25. The table
below, Table 6, displays the identification of each anomaly, the coordinates of the northeast
corner of each anomaly, in relation to the datum and the azimuth along the road, the
measurements of the anomalies, the ground-truthing measures undertaken for each anomaly.
Table 6. Anomaly Identification, Location, and Ground-Truthing Methods
Anomaly GPR
Survey
Grid
Coordinates
of NE Corner
of Anomaly
Measurements Ground-Truthing
Method
Results
#1 PAR 1 S10 W86 6m x 4m Shovel Test Pit;
50cm x 50cm
Positive;
Possible
Foundation
#2 PAR 1 S9 W77 5m x 3m N/A N/A
#3 PAR 2 S71 W80 3m x 10m N/A N/A
#4 PAR 3 S2 W130 1-2m x 48m Visual Inspection Positive;
Horse Path
#5 PAR 3 S42 W131 6m x 10m Bucket Auger
Probe; Cruciform
Negative
Identification of anomalies is a critical step, but interpreting the GPR data and time-slices
does not stop there. A crucial step in understanding the results is the verification of those results.
Thus, ground-truthing of the results required additional testing. Two anomalies of the five
identified were ground-truthed using two types of additional testing, a 50-cm by 50-cm shovel
test pit and a cruciform pattern of a 1-inch soil auger. The shovel test pit, excavated into
Anomaly #1, was positive for cultural remains, whereas the soil probes at Anomaly #5 did not
yield any soil disturbances. The results of the ground-truthing measures are described below.
96
Figure 23. PAR 1. GPR-Slice Time Slice. Anomalies #1 and #2 Identification. STP Y1.
Jaillet 2010.
Figure 24. PAR 2. GPR-Slice Time Slice. Anomaly #3 Identification. Jaillet 2010.
Anomaly #2
Anomaly #3
N
N
STP Y1
Anomaly #1
97
Figure 25. PAR 3. GPR-Slice Time Slice. Anomalies #4 and #5 Identification. Jaillet 2010.
A single shovel test, STP Y1, discussed earlier and shown in Appendix C, was excavated
as a ground-truthing measure of Anomaly #1. Anomaly #1 was located on the eastern bank of
Indian Run in PAR 1. What appeared to be the remains of a fieldstone foundation and a layer of
ash, see (Figures 26 and 27), were exposed at 35cmbs, the depth of the current water table. Upon
Anomaly #4
N
Anomaly #5
98
reaching the water table,
water began filling in the
lower portion of the shovel
test pit and partially
obscuring the base of the
pit. See Figure 28 for a map
of the unit base. A series of
successive flooding
episodes was evident in the
stratigraphy of the unit and
was recorded in Figure 29, as it is
hard to discern in photographs.
Additional excavation should be
undertaken to verify and expand
upon this preliminary
identification. Anomaly #5 was
ground-truthed in a series of soil
auger probes, five points were
probed forming a cruciform
around the initial point. The soil
auger probes were excavated to glacial sands and no cultural remains or discernible cultural
layers were identified. Additional testing should be undertaken to identify the persistent
disturbance indicated by Anomaly #5. With the mixed results in identifying cultural features
99
with the GPR at Pandenarium, additional ground-truthing measures should be undertaken to
better gauge the accuracy of the survey results and to ascertain the survey’s utility in identifying
and interpreting features of the site.
Figure 28. STP Y1. 50cm x 50cm. Base of Stratum III. Showing Possible Fieldstone
Foundation.
What Does It All Mean?
The ultimate goal of this research design was not the production of data, nor the
excavation of a unique archaeological site. In Chapter IV, the research objectives and the
methodology to achieve the objectives was laid out. This chapter provided the archaeological
investigations and ensuing analyses undertaken in pursuit of those objectives. In the following
chapter, Chapter VI, the research questions, the methodology, and the data come together in
several alternative histories at Pandenarium. The alternative histories at Pandenarium are three-
fold; the Everetts and their efforts for emancipation take on a more contradictory light, while the
story of the abolitionists and the African Americans is unearthed. Looking at the layout of the
site at its establishment provides the present-day audience a glimpse into the contradictions and
Possible Fieldstone
Foundation
Rock
Rock
Rock
Rock Rock
Rock Rock
Rock
100
internal struggles of the Everetts and the northern abolitionists. By weaving together the
historical record, the archaeological record, and the data created in the course of archaeological
investigations, a more nuanced approach to a silent past uncovers the story of multiple
generations of free African Americans living at Pandenarium.
Figure 29. STP Y1. 50cm x 50cm. North Wall Profile.
101
CHAPTER 6. INTERPRETING THE PAST FOR THE PRESENT: AN ALTERNATIVE
APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING THE PEOPLE OF PANDENARIUM
Framing Our Understanding of Pandenarium
Pandenarium has been understood in many different capacities in the course of history.
To the Everetts, Pandenarium represented an opportunity to show a paternalistic benevolence
and a politically-informed pursuit of acknowledging an increasingly complex issue of the
abolition of slavery. To the abolitionists of the North, Pandenarium represented an opportunity
to demonstrate their adamant proclamations that freed slaves could live and prosper with
financial and political provisioning. To the free African American men, women, and children,
Pandenarium represented an opportunity to build and determine their own lives and futures in a
distant, rural county of Pennsylvania, at a time when freedom came at a dangerous price. To the
descendants of all involved, Pandenarium represents a largely forgotten, unexplored, and silent
past. This interpretation seeks to provide an additional context by exploring an alternative
approach to understanding the many peoples of Pandenarium.
In this chapter, the focus is on understanding the various stakeholders at Pandenarium
during the course of the settlement‟s existence by weaving together the historical, cartographic,
and archaeological data. Initially, the ideas and people behind Pandenarium‟s establishment are
explored. Following the establishment of the settlement, the renegotiation of the structured
settlement by its African American inhabitants is understood as a testimony to the agency and
aspirations of the first and following generations living at Pandenarium. Finally, a comparison
102
of the different residences investigated at the site looks at the archaeological record as an
additional avenue to uncovering the lives of a forgotten past.
Designing Pandenarium: Southern Slave-owners, Northern Abolitionists, or Both?
One of the questions raised in this study sought to understand the structure of the
settlement. What was the physical layout of the site and what was its basis? Due to their
proximity and their physical presence at the site, the abolitionists were most likely responsible
for the initial physical design of Pandenarium, as it appeared in 1854. In order to test this
proposition, the different spatial layouts of sites in the Chesapeake region and the north are
compared, as a way to determine which stakeholders developed the physical structure of the site.
The spatial arrangement of Pandenarium is explored as a way to understand those who designed
and constructed the site. Along those same lines, the question of what the changing landscape of
the site and its temporal development can tell us will be understood in several contexts. Finally,
Pandenarium‟s potential to play an interpretative role developing a more nuanced understanding
of the complexity of racial relations in the nineteenth century will be discussed. The
arrangement of the site is slowly coming into focus as LiDAR data, historic maps, written
accounts, informant interviews, and archaeological testing showed in the previous chapter,
Chapter V.
The Everetts and Their Role in Designing Pandenarium.
Traditionally, historians framed Pandenarium as a philanthropic, paternalistic venture
designed by the elder Dr. Everett, put in motion by the younger Dr. Everett, and constructed by
the northern abolitionists (Everett 1992; Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1980; Woods 1999). African
Americans were largely absent in the narrative, aside from their gracious role as beneficiaries of
a structured freedom. This absence is in part due to the nature of the historical records of the
103
site; the majority of documents recording it existence were created and curated by those
designing and establishing the settlement, the Everetts and the abolitionists. Thus, this
interpretation uses those documents and historical records as a starting point for understanding
an antebellum freed slave settlement in context.
Pandenarium was originally conceived of by Dr. Charles Everett, a wealthy, politically-
informed, and educated planter. As discussed in Chapter II, his political and social connections
placed him in proximity to the concepts of colonization, the utopian Organized Negro
Communities Movement, and gradual, compensated emancipation. His will clearly indicates his
intent to proceed with a planned community in an African colony, such as Liberia (Everett
1992). The codicil added to his will allowed his nephew to assume control of the intended
settlement, as he saw fit (Everett 1992).
The will, in essence, placed Pandenarium in the hands of the young, southern raised and
northern educated, Dr. Charles D. Everett. His uncle‟s will left no doubt as to his wish to see his
slaves free, but the costliness and growing opposition to colonization appear to have closed that
avenue to the young doctor. Upon his arrival to Belmont, after his uncle‟s death, it appears as
though the local community welcomed him and he took his place in the same social and political
circles as his uncle (Everett 1992). Thus, it would stand to reason that colonization, the
Organized Negro Communities Movement, and gradual emancipation would have become
familiar concepts, if they were not already. Dr. C.D. Everett‟s northern education and former
residence in Philadelphia undoubtedly made him aware of the abolitionist network in
Pennsylvania. His knowledge of the Pennsylvanian abolitionist network came into play when he
needed to find land and assistance for his uncle‟s planned settlement. Everett placed
104
advertisements in northern abolitionist newspapers, seeking 3,000 acres of land and men willing
to assist in the venture (Weidhman 1973; Woge 1980; Woods 1999).
Understanding Everett‟s actions in the context of practice theory, his motivations were
clear. As discussed in Chapter III, there is a distinction to be made between motivations and
motives. Motivation is inherent and can be understood as “the potential for action” (Giddens
1984:6). Everett frees his uncle‟s slaves, at the very least for the sake of following his uncle‟s
direction in the will. By doing so, Everett exhibited both the potential for action and an active
choice. Everett‟s action involved reflexive monitoring of his current setting, reflexive
observation of past actions of abolitionists and colonizationists, a rationalization of his intended
action and the motivation for the action (Giddens 1984).
Motives, on the other hand, are a matter of context and circumstance, providing a
framework for action (Giddens 1984:6). Everett‟s motives, however, can be understood in a
broader context, that of the discourse surrounding the slavery issue. Everett‟s familiarity with
the idea of colonization, presented in his uncle‟s will as the primary course of action, is thus
documented. Everett‟s northern education and Philadelphia residence may account for his
familiarity with abolitionist alternatives to colonization. Everett‟s subsequent entrance into the
politically-informed social circle of his uncle‟s neighborhood may account for his familiarity
with the Organized Negro Communities Movement, a movement initiated by another Ablemarle
County politician who spent the majority of his later years in Philadelphia, Edward Coles
(Langhorne, Lay and Rieley 1987).
Looking beyond the scope of central Virginia, it is clear that the context and
circumstance of an antebellum freed African American community was framed by national and
global concerns. Slavery was a much debated topic in the years preceding the war and the
105
American nation depended heavily on slave labor for the agricultural production of money-
producing crops that provided the young industrial centers with raw goods (LOC 2010b). The
United States also began receiving global criticism from Europe and other regions (Dickens
1842). Charles Dickens published his American Notes describing his trip to the United States
and the sights that met him on the foreign shore (Dickens 1842). He devoted an entire chapter to
the institution of slavery in America and its deplorable state and the stakeholders in its
persistence (Dickens 1842). He closed the chapter beseeching his fellow countrymen in a
haunting verse.
“Let the plain Truth be spoken…When knives are drawn by Englishmen in
conflict let it be said and known: „We owe this change to Republican Slavery.
These are the weapons of Freedom. With sharp points and edges such as these,
Liberty in America doth hew and hack her slaves; or failing that pursuit, her sons
devote them to a better use, and turn them on each other‟” (Dickens 1842:265).
Dickens‟s account and others like it began to flavor the world‟s perspective of and interactions
with the young American nation and this global perception undoubtedly led to national and local
discourse on the subject of slavery (Adrian 1952).
Looking at the motives and motivation behind Everett‟s actions, an alternative history
emerges. Critical theory urges its practitioners to seek illumination of alternative histories
neglected or ignored by society‟s dominants (Leone et al. 1987). The traditional history framed
Everett and his uncle as paternal philanthropist‟s acting on guilty consciences. By understanding
the larger context of various forces and concerns weighing on the actions of the dominant
Everett, a white, educated planter in Virginia, an alternative history is unearthed. The
manumission of Everett‟s slaves went beyond the actions of a paternal philanthropist; he was
106
ultimately acting as the forward-thinking, educated politician he had become in the course of his
life. He was not alone in this effort and his similarly educated and socially-informed nephew
continued his uncle‟s efforts, updating the wishes expressed to reflect the most contemporary
thinking on emancipation in Philadelphia and the central Virginia region. Thus, a more nuanced
history emerges considering other influences weighing on their actions, such as the discourse
surrounding slavery in the North and South and the various options for freed African Americans
in the United States.
The degree to which the elder Everett‟s wishes were a matter of discursive or practical
consciousness is largely unknown due to the nature of the historical record limiting our
knowledge of his consciuosness. While no correspondence regarding the disposition of his
former slaves is available, a discursive consciousness can be read from his will, his instructions
regarding their freedom, and the his “Negro Fund,” money set aside for the freed slaves to
purchase the freedom of their families. The elder Everett clearly knew what he was about,
specifying the manumission of his slaves. However, the will expressly left the details of the
manumission up to the younger Everett and using his familiarity with concepts of abolition,
colonization, and the Organized Negro Communities movement, Everett pursued his uncle‟s
wishes. Both the younger and elder Everetts were dealing in what Giddens refers to as practical
consciousness, that which is known about social conditions and how it pertains to one‟s own
actions, but not voiced (Giddens 1984). Regardless of whether or not the Everetts voiced their
motives or their motivations, they were acting on their beliefs and understanding of the social
situation at hand, namely how to deal with slavery.
107
The Northern Abolitionists and Their Role in Designing Pandenarium.
By 1853, Everett purchased a substantially reduced parcel of land from a well-known
abolitionist in northwestern Pennsylvania, John Young. At that point, the physical construction
of the settlement appears to have been taken on by the northern abolitionists. Young enlisted the
assistance of three abolitionists in the area and received aid in the endeavor from George
Hamilton, Joseph Black, and John Stewart (Woods 1999). All four abolitionists were local to the
region and lived near the county seat of Mercer. John Young, Joseph Black, and John Stewart
were second-generation to the area, whereas George Hamilton and his family are less well-
known (Brown, Runk & Co. 1888).
On November 12, 1854, houses, roads, and wells were waiting for the 63 freed African
Americans. Little was available in the historic record on the four abolitionists, aside from their
presence in the local community of Indian Run and their part in constructing the settlement.
John Young was the most prominent of the four, known as an outspoken advocate of anti-slavery
in the local and surrounding communities (Woods 1999). Thus, in the absence of discursive
consciousness, the spatial layout of Pandenarium, as created by the abolitionists, is the sole
indication of the abolitionists‟ intentions towards the settlement and its inhabitants. The physical
structure of the site is the primary form of physical consciousness and beliefs of those that built
the site.
As agents, the abolitionists were both constructing and interpreting their idea of what a
freed African American settlement should look like. What was their interpretation of a freed
slave community‟s physical structure? Their understanding of what a settlement should look
like, as compared to Pandenarium, played out in the structuration of the initial layout.
Structuration, as discussed in Chapter III, refers to the “structuring of social relations across time
108
and space” (Giddens 1984:376). Thus, the physical structure of the site is a window into the
social structure of the abolitionists.
As a way to understand the northern abolitionist‟s mental template of a town, a study of
two local examples was undertaken. The mental template of a town, as discussed here, refers to
what abolitionists knew communities to look like and the rules guiding their construction and
development (Glassie 1999). Mercer and Hadley are used as comparisons based on their
physical proximity to the site and, in the case of Mercer, importance it held in the first half of the
nineteenth century to the surrounding rural communities. To determine what templates the
abolitionists were familiar with, the layout of Mercer, established in 1803, and the rural layout of
Hadley, first inhabited in 1843, were examined in comparison to two southern examples of slave
quarters contemporary to the establishment of Pandenarium, those of the Belmont plantation and
Figure 30. Engraving of Mercer, 1843. Reproduced in A Pioneer Outline History of
Northwestern Pennsylvania by W.J. McKnight, MD in 1905.
109
Monticello‟s Mulberry Row.
The Layout of Mercer: The Template of a Northern Town.
Laid out in 1803 by three trustrees, Mercer was “situated near the Neshannock Creek, on
elevated ground, fifty-seven miles northwest of Pittsburg from the turnpike […] the hill on which
it was situated was formerly a dense hazel thicket” (McKnight 1905:583). The turnpike referred
to is the modern US Route 19 that runs from its northern terminus at Lake Erie south to the Gulf
of Mexico, along the way running through Mercer and Pittsburgh. Today, the historic route runs
parallel to I-79, a major highway that largely replaced US-19 as the primary route. However, at
the time of Mercer‟s establishment, the link to Pittsburg and Erie was a central means of
obtaining goods, exporting goods, travel, and communication.
By 1807, “there were two or three houses in the place,” but by 1840, the population had
increased to 781 people living in “neat and substantial” residences with “a pleasing variety of
architectural embellishment” (McKnight 1905:584). An 1843 engraving, Figure 30, shows a
view of Mercer facing the courthouse, with the bell tower in the middle ground. To the left, the
Pittsburg Road is shown lined with houses. While it is difficult to see, the courthouse is
surrounded by a park with planted trees. It is hard to discern from the image the general layout
of the town, but the roadway and hitching area in the foreground do not appear to be especially
linear or grid-like. While this may be a true representation, it may also be a stylized depiction of
an organic layout.
The 1873 Atlas of Mercer County, Mercer Borough, depicts the town as laid out around
the courthouse in a grid pattern; see Figure 31 (Hopkins 1873b). The total area of the basic grid
was approximately 560,000 square meters or 138 acres. Towards the edges of the borough, the
grid pattern was less strictly enforced with geography and topography playing a more important
110
role in the town layout. It remains unclear as to when the town was organized in the grid pattern,
but the layout persists throughout the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries.
The Layout of a Hadley: The Template of a Northern Rural Village.
The founder of Hadley, David Hadley, arrived in Perry township in 1843 (White 1909).
Upon his arrival, Hadley and his family began clearing lands, building mills, and donating lands
Figure 31. 1873 Atlas of Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Mercer Borough. G.M. Hopkins.
Area Outlined in Red is the County Courthouse and the Courthouse Park.
N
111
to the Lake Shore Railroad that later traversed the town (White 1909). Fifteen years later, the
village post office was established and platting of the village followed several years later (White
1909). The historic records and documentation on Hadley remain scant and provide little
background information on the village‟s founding, outside the narrative of David Hadley.
Situated on a hillslope leading down to the floodplains along the Little Shenango River,
just south of the central road, the village of Hadley was centered on the two central roads (Figure
32). The total area represented by the plan map was approximately 103 acres, including the
structures and the river south of it. Fredonia Road ran east-west through the village and Loper
Road ran north-south from Fredonia Road. The majority of structures were located in relation to
the two roads and the nearby river, in the case of the mills. The 1873 Atlas of Mercer County,
Pennsylvania, Plan of Hadley shows a total of 17 structures in the village of Hadley (Hopkins
1873a). Of the 17 structures, 3 mills are located along the Little Shenango River, labeled Creek
in the map, and its tributary (Hopkins 1873a). Hadley Station, the structure labeled near the
railroad, was the railroad station erected along with the railroad on the floodplain. Thus, 13 of
the 17 structures were built with the roads as the central foci.
Figure 32. 1873 Atlas of Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Hadley. G.M. Hopkins.
N
112
The Layout of Two Southern Slave Quarters: Belmont and Monticello’s Mulberry Row.
In 1811, Dr. Charles Everett, the senior, moved from his Charlottesville town properties
to Belmont, a plantation of 1,040 acres (Everett 1992). Upon his death in 1848, the entirety of
the estate, including the property and the house, were willed to his nephew, C.D. Everett (Everett
1992). After his marriage in 1852, Dr. C.D. Everett built a new “Great House” at Belmont and
by 1858 it was completed on the site of the “old Harvie home,” named after a former owner
(Everett 1992). Alice Fry, a descendant of Everett, remembered the plantation house and its
surrounding layout (Everett 1992).
“The yard, the area surrounding the house and the view from the house: There
were six acres in the yard originally […]. The hill was very large and spread
gently down in all directions – no steep sides (the house being situated on the
hill). Back of the yard was a big apple and peach orchard reaching clear to the
grove of great oaks to the North, beyond which were the negro quarters and the
overseer‟s house and the barns and stables. Above the Northern fields, back of
the quarters, rose Everett Mountain. The negro graveyard was at the lower edge
of this mountain, in a grove of pines” (Everett 1992:52).
While Belmont was the former residence of the Everett family and the freed African
Americans, the picture is largely incomplete without a description of the layout of the slave
quarters in which the former slaves lived. To fill in the historical gaps, an archaeological
comparison was derived from the nearby Monticello. Contemporary to the Belmont plantation
and the elder Dr. Charles Everett, Thomas Jefferson‟s famed country estate, Monticello, was
home to more than the Jefferson family; Monticello‟s Mulberry Row was home to the enslaved,
free, and indentured servants, slaves, and craftsmen (Kelso 1997).
113
Monticello, a 5,000 acre plantation, housed many slaves on its grounds and Mulberry
Row mainly housed the household slaves, servants, and craftsmen (Thomas Jefferson
Encyclopedia 2011). Field hands were housed below the mountain in the quarter farms (Kelso
1997). At its largest, Mulberry Row extended 1000 feet, in a long row to the southeast of the
main house, and included seventeen structures situated along its length (Kelso 1986, 1997). Of
the seventeen structures, five log dwellings belonged to household slaves (Kelso 1997 and Kelso
1986). Slave housing at Monticello, within and outside Mulberry Row, showed a great deal of
variation in size and construction, possibly exhibiting a hierarchy within the servant and slave
populations at Monticello (Kelso 1997).
By looking at the layouts of Belmont and Monticello, in reference to their slave quarters
and housing, a Chesapeake region template for the layout of African American housing can be
inferred. However, without referencing the layout of the northern town and the layout of
Pandenarium, the basis for Pandenarium‟s spatial layout cannot be determined. Thus, a
discussion of Pandenarium‟s spatial layout, as determined by the archaeological investigations
and historical records, follows. Once Pandenarium is analyzed, a comparison of the different
layouts will be undertaken to postulate what mental template of residential organization the
settlement was based.
The Spatial Layout of Pandenarium: An Archaeologically and Historically Informed
Perspective.
Little recorded information existed on the spatial layout of Pandenarium at the time of its
establishment. The layout was, thus, largely inferred from historians‟ accounts of the settlement,
historic maps, LiDAR imagery, and aerial photography. Referencing the historic records,
Pandenarium‟s extent ranged from 50 acres to 375 acres (Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1980; Woods
114
1999). However, LiDAR imagery and aerial photography combined with rectified historic maps,
show that Pandenarium most likely encompassed an area of approximately 100 acres.
While Pandenarium‟s original layout remains undocumented, the LiDAR imagery,
historic maps, historic accounts, and archaeological investigations provide a basis for inferring
the layout. The historic maps and records indicate a historic road running through the center of
the settlement (Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1980; Woods 1999). The historic road appears in the
LiDAR imagery and runs in a northwesterly direction apparently terminating towards the middle
of the site. Archaeological investigation of the first generation Allen residence, the home of
John and Rosie Allen, provided a glimpse at a structure that was most likely one of the original
twenty-four structures built prior to the African Americans‟s arrival on-site. Dating of the glass
and ceramic assemblages, an MCD of AD 1860.2 and a glass date of 1893.4, support an
interpretation for an original structure, inhabited into the late nineteenth century.
The Allen residence was situated adjacent to the historic road, along the eastern side.
The location of this residence combined with historic mapping confirmed informant interviews
placing the majority of residences along the historic road. Later phases of construction included
the African American built structures along Indian Run and structures like the second-
generation, Bob Allen residence, none of which were original to the settlement layout. Thus, this
comparison is limited to those structures and features known to have existed at the establishment
of the settlement.
The historic road and its associated residences were located on the upper slopes of a hill,
west of Indian Run. The historic road would have been the central artery of the settlement
linking the different residences on the interior with Cannery Road to the north. Outside of the
predominance of the historic road to the settlement‟s organization, there appears to be no super-
115
imposed grid organization, similar to that seen in the Mercer town layout. Also, absent at
Pandenarium is a central focal point, as seen in the other examples. Mercer‟s central focus is its
courthouse. Monticello is laid out in reference to the main house. Similar to Monticello, the
description of Belmont plantation radiates out from the main house, originally Harvie House and
later the Great House. However, in the case of Belmont, the slave quarters were set off by
themselves, past a treeline and out-of-sight from the main house.
Comparison of Spatial Layouts: Mercer, Hadley, Belmont, Monticello, and Pandenarium
The spatial layout of Pandenarium and its contemporary sites can be compared using six
qualitative attributes. Each site was compared using the attributes of location, site size,
topography of site, layout, basis for establishment, and central focus. Location was determined
by the historic county in which the site was located. Site size included the historic extent of the
site, inclusive of its various aspects, as determined from historic maps and modern maps.
Topography of the site was determined using a combination of description and topographic
mapping and refers to the topographical location of the African American residences at each site,
except in the example of Hadley, as it did not have any African American residences at the time
of the mapping. Mercer was the topographical exception; the original historic layout of Mercer
in its entirety was used for occupation. Mercer also posed another issue for consideration; in
that, it was an urban space whereas the other sites were rural. The layout of the site was
determined using a combination of historic description and available historic documents. The
basis for establishment of the site was determined using historic records for each. The central
focus of a site was determined using historic description and historic documents. In addition to
the discussions of each site earlier in this chapter, the results of this comparison were
116
summarized in Table 7, to facilitate a broad comparison. It is apparent that several similar trends
appear between sites, as do several significant differences.
Table 7. Summary of Site Comparison. Qualitative Comparison
Site Location Site
Size
Topography
of Site
Layout Basis for
Establishment
Central
Focus
Mercer
(Borough)
Mercer
County,
Pa
138
acres
Hilltop; West
of
Neshannock
Creek
Grid Political;
Economical
County
Courthouse
Hadley Mercer
County,
Pa
103
acres
Hillslope;
North of
Little
Shenango
Creek
Central
Artery;
Follows
Road
and
Creek
Economical;
Agricultural
Historic
Road
Belmont:
Slave
Quarters
Ablemarle
County,
Va
1,040
acres
Base of Hill;
East of
Carroll
Creek
Stellate;
Radiate
out
from
Great
House
Economical;
Agricultural
Harvie
House;
Great
House;
Slave
Quarters to
the North
Monticello:
Mulberry
Row
Ablemarle
County,
Va
5,000
acres
Hillslope;
East of River
Central
Artery;
Moving
from
Main
House
Economical;
Agricultural
Monticello;
Mulberry
Row to the
South;
South/
Southeast
Side of
Road
Pandenarium Mercer
County,
Pa
100
acres
Hillslope;
West of
Indian Run
Central
Artery
Political -
Abolitionists;
Economical/
Agricultural -
African
Americans
Historic
Road;
South/
Southwest
Side of
Road
Based on the qualitative comparison of the selected attributes, Pandenarium most closely
resembles the rural village of Hadley and Mulberry Row at Monticello. Pandenarium‟s
similarity to Hadley was expressed in its location, site size, topography, layout, and its basis for
117
establishment. Pandenarium resembled Mulberry Row at Monticello in its topographical
location, spatial layout, basis for establishment, and its structural orientation along the southern
side of the road. Belmont and Monticello are the most similar across the board and appear to
reflect a Chesapeake plantation spatial layout. While useful in understanding the larger context
of the sites, size is problematic in this comparison, because at the micro-level it loses its
comparative value. It is also important to note the institutional foci of Mercer, Belmont, and
Monticello, as compared to the logistical focus of Pandenarium. This difference may be a matter
of geography, ease of construction, and the smaller scale of Pandenarium, it may also imply a
lack of an intentionally constructed institutional structure at the site.
Collaboration in the Construction of an Uncommon Endeavor.
While the Everetts provided the initial ideological impetus and the financial backing for
the endeavor that became Pandenarium, the northern abolitionists appear to have built the
original settlement with a mental template of a northern town in mind. The collaboration of the
southern planters and the northern abolitionists is an example of negotiating contradictions in
beliefs and ideas of socially-structured landscapes. In many ways, both parties interpreted the
world around them and the changing political atmosphere. Acting on these interpretations, they
constructed a corresponding landscape. Pandenarium began as a conceptual landscape in the
minds of the Everetts and later the northern abolitionists tasked with building its framework.
With the construction of the settlement, the abolitionists structured the “landscape as social
order,” as they knew it (Ashmore and Knapp 1999:13). The “landscape as transformation”
(Ashmore and Knapp 1999:13) would come at the hands of the African Americans living at
Pandenarium.
118
Renegotiating a Structured Landscape: The African American Community of
Pandenarium
Upon their arrival, the freed African Americans immediately began renegotiating the
landscape of the structured settlement. Pandenarium represented a new physical environment
and a quickly changing social structure to the incoming inhabitants. Thus, the active
restructuring of the landscape in building the residences along the stream was an almost
instantaneous act of transformation, as it pertains to cultural landscape theory. Where the
northern abolitionists left space, the incoming African Americans made place. They went to the
additional effort of building homes along Indian Run, despite the twenty-four houses built along
the historic road on the nearby hill slope. The African Americans placed a great deal of cultural
value on the small, slow-moving stream in the northeastern corner of the site.
With the original structures placed along the historic road, the inhabitants were
essentially contained within the settlement. The only route out of and into the site‟s structures
would have been the historic road. One possible reason for the building of structures along the
stream was its proximity to the external roads connecting the site with the community outside
Pandenarium. Rather than a structured isolation or segregation, the African American
inhabitants chose an integrated accessibility. The floods following their arrival put a halt to
additional attempts to live along the stream banks.
Another possibility may be that the freed African Americans redefined the landscape to
reflect changes in their habitus. Confronted with a new landscape, the freed men and women
chose to structure their settlement around the stream rather than the historic road. The
construction of their settlement around a main thoroughfare would have been a familiar spatial
119
layout, as seen in the structure of Mulberry Row. Rather than live in a setting similar to that of
slave housing, they chose a more organic approach to defining their space.
After the initial phase of African American construction at the site, in the winter of 1854,
there is no indication, archaeological or historical, that there were additional phases of
construction on the site until the late nineteenth century. The 1873 East Lackawannock
Township map, Chapter II, Figure 3, shows four names associated with the settlement. John
Allen, George Lewis, Mrs. Johnston and the abolitionist John Young all appear in the 1873 map.
In the circa 1900 maps, the names Alec and Sade Johnson, Bob Allen, Mina Robinson, Aunt
Rosie and John Allen, George Lewis, and the abolitionist John Young appear. Of the additional
names, only Bob Allen‟s residence appears to be a new addition to the settlement‟s original
layout.
A second phase of African American construction at the site is represented in the second-
generation Bob Allen residence located at the northeastern corner. A test unit and shovel test
pits excavated in a midden of the residence resulted in the identification of ceramics with a mean
ceramics date range between AD 1874 and AD 1914. Glass dating of the midden produced a
mean range of AD 1883 to AD 1940. A conservative mean range of AD 1883 to AD 1914
allows for the interpretation of the residence as both a second-generation habitation and most
likely one of the last residences inhabited at the site by descendants of the freed African
Americans from Albemarle County, Virginia.
A son of Rosie and John Allen, Bob Allen was born in 1857 at Pandenarium. The 1880
United States Census shows a twenty-three year old African American Bob Allen, his white
twenty-two year old wife Lizzie and their three sons, Joseph, Samuel, and William, and their
daughter, Rettie living in East Lackawannock Township. The sketch maps place Bob Allen in a
120
house at the northeastern corner of the settlement circa AD 1900 (Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1990;
Woods 1999). The younger Allen family most likely built and inhabited the corner residence
circa AD 1880.
The original inhabitants saw Pandenarium through the turbulence of the Civil War, the
renewal of the Reconstruction Era, and the legal backsliding of the Jim Crow period. The
second-generation inhabitants saw the community into the twentieth century. Some of the
inhabitants continued to farm the land as had the first inhabitants of Pandenarium, while others,
like Bob Allen, found work in the local community as laborers. As the years passed, the second-
generation pushed at the settlement‟s seams, renegotiating the structure of the settlement.
Bob and Lizzie Allen built a new home at the crossroads, raising their children on the
boundaries of two communities, one specifically designed for free African Americans and one
inhabited by working-class European Americans. As ideologies of segregation began to be
called into question, the inhabitants at Pandenarium began to “undermine spatial control by
circumventing dominant-planned space” (Fitts 1996:68). Cultural landscape theory explains the
changes in the landscape as the African Americans at the site restructured and renegotiated a
landscape culturally constructed for them by the ideas and intentions of others. No longer would
the structure of their settlement be determined by the dominant ideologies of the northern
abolitionists and southern slaveholders; African Americans began moving to those portions of
the site more accessible to the community beyond Pandenarium and the opportunities available
for work and education.
121
Beyond the Landscape to the Living: The Lives of the African American Men, Women, and
Children of Pandenarium
In the preceding discussion, the renegotiation of the landscape by the first African
American inhabitants and the restructuring of space by ensuing generations looked at the ways in
which people manipulated the landscape. In this section, the focus shifts to the ways in which
the multiple generations of African American men, women, and children lived on that landscape.
A comparison of the three residences investigated at the site, the geophysical investigation of the
streamside residence, the excavation of the wall-fall at the Allen residence on the hill, and the
excavation of the midden associated with the Allen residence at the corner, follows in
chronological order. Going beyond the dates and the placement of each residence, the material
culture, or lack thereof, will be discussed in the context of the lives being lived at Pandenarium.
First Phase of Re-construction at Pandenarium: Shacks Along the Stream.
A single piece of slag recovered from the shovel test pit placed in the GPR survey area
PAR 1 represents the entirety of the material culture. Thus, the archaeological potential of the
streamside residences remains largely unknown outside of the historical record. One historic
account tells of the neighborhood children ice-skating on the frozen stream in the winter and
another local family‟s pond, in the nearby community of Indian Run, as impromptu skating rinks
(Woods 1999). The same historic account also talks about the women of Pandenarium gossiping
and washing clothes in the small stream (Woods 1999). The historic records that describe this
account were compiled from local childhood experiences of the residents of East Lackawannock
Township that find their way into the township history (Woods 1999). Those living at
Pandenarium chose to live along the banks of the stream early on and when that did not work,
they continued to make the stream a part of their daily lives despite the flooding banks and a
122
further distance to walk. The space along the banks of Indian Run became a place with cultural
value imbued upon its muddy waters by the multiple generations of African American residents
at Pandenarium.
First-Generation Freed Slaves: The John and Rosie Allen Family Residence.
The artifact assemblage recovered from the John and Rosie Allen family residence in the
center of the settlement represents a habitation
of over fifty years. The single shovel test pit
excavated in the wall-fall of the former
residence produced a total of 261 artifacts, 95
minimum number of individuals. The artifacts
recovered from STP Z1 were classified as
functional groups, based on South‟s (1977)
usage, including personal, domestic, and
structural (Table 5, Chapter V).
STP Z1 also produced a faunal assemblage,
analyzed by Katy Lowman of the Indiana University
of Pennsylvania‟s Archaeological Services
Laboratory, twenty-four bone artifacts represented
twelve individuals. The faunal assemblage included
large and medium mammalia, mature cattle, mature
pigs, and mature sheep. It is evident from the varied
faunal material recovered that the Allens most likely
purchased or raised their own food, as farm animals Figure 34. Eyeglass Lens Recovered
from STP Z1. Oval. Heat-Altered.
Jaillet 2010.
Figure 33. Buttons Recovered from STP Z1.
Jaillet 2010.
123
dominate the identifiable artifacts. The historic accounts of the settlement characterize the
inhabitants at Pandenarium as farmers and the census records support this interpretation as many
inhabitants, the Allens included, were listed as farmers (Weidhmann 1973; Woge 1980; Woods
1999; U.S. Department of Labor and Commerce 1860, 1870, 1880,
1910, 1920, 1930).
Fifty-three percent of the assemblage was considered
structural. Structural artifacts included architectural materials such
as hardware, brick, mortar, and glass. Forty-three percent of the
assemblage was classified as domestic and included artifacts such as
tableware, food storage containers, bottles, and glass chimney
globes. Four percent of the assemblage was defined as personal.
Personal artifacts included a writing instrument, eyewear, and
buttons.
What does the material culture recovered from the Allen
residence tell us about John, Rosie, their children, and their
grandchildren? The historical record
provides an often biased basis to build
upon. In the 1880 United States
Census, John and Rosie were raising
their two children James and Mary, as
well as, their grandson John (US
Department of Labor and Commerce
Figure 35.
Advertisement for
Eyeglasses. Sears,
Roebuck, & Company
Catalogue. 1897:468.
Figure 36. Composite Steel Nib Pen with Wood Holder.
Recovered from STP Z1. Jaillet 2010.
124
1880). Also, the census records indicate that Rosie could not read or write, but all three children
were attending a local school (US Department of Labor and Commerce 1880). Reading the
archaeological record requires a great deal of inference (Johnson 2010) and uncovering the
individuals of the past can be a difficult pursuit.
Looking at the personal group of artifacts found in STP Z1, the objects of everyday life
illuminate the past and the individual. A single porcelain shirt button and a flat brass button with
a floral design and edging, held together the clothing worn by the elder John and Rosie or their
children (Figure 33). The single oval eyeglass lens recovered from the site, shown in Figure 32,
would have resembled the ones shown in the 1897 Sears, Roebuck, & Company Catalogue
(Figure 35). Inevitably the lens came from a pair of wire frame glasses worn by one of the
individuals living or visiting the Allen family. Grasped in the fingers of a young Allen and
tapped on the sides of an ink pot, the composite nib pen and pen holder, shown in Figure 36,
wrote words, sentences, numbers, and equations documenting a life lived. As indicated by the
census records discussed earlier, the elder Allens were illiterate, but the education of their
children and grandchildren would
have been important to the family, as
they began to build new lives (Berlin
et al. 1992).
Second-Generation Family Life: The
Bob and Lizzie Allen Family
Residence.
The artifacts recovered from
the midden feature associated with the Bob and Lizzie Allen family residence represents a
Figure 37. Buttons and Button Inlay. Recovered
from Midden Feature. Jaillet 2010.
125
Figure 38. Footwear Leather and Eyelets Recovered
from Midden Feature. Jaillet 2010.
habitation of over sixty years,
estimated from the archaeological
dating methods discussed in Chapter
V. Five shovel test pits and a test
unit were excavated in the feature
interpreted as a midden. The testing
in this feature produced minimum of
626 individuals. Of these artifacts, seventy-two percent of
the assemblage was classified as structural. Seventeen
percent of the minimum number of individuals were
classified as domestic. Seven percent of the assemblage
was categorized as industrial. Faunal analysis was
underta
ken on
three bone fragments identified as two
unidentified medium mammals and a mature
pig (Lowman 2010). A single peach pit
recovered from the midden feature adds an
additional dimension to the diet. Not only
were the members of the second-generation
Allen family eating butchered farm animals Figure 40. Brass Rings. Recovered from
Midden Feature. Jaillet 2010.
Figure 39. Bakelite Comb.
Recovered from Midden
Feature. Jaillet 2010.
126
obtained from their neighbors, family, or local markets, but they were also eating imported fruits,
such as peaches. For the purposes of this comparison, the artifacts making up the function
groups of personal and activities, totaling three percent and one percent respectively, were
considered together.
The personal artifacts from the Allen family
residence at the northeastern corner of the site
provide an opportunity to see the individuals that
made up the second and third generations of
African Americans at Pandenarium. Within the
personal functional group, the artifacts were further
divided by function. The clothing category included
nine buttons (portion shown in Figure 37), one button
inlay (Figure 37), one button back, fragments of shoe
leather (Figure 38), one fragment of boot leather
(Figure 38), and one wire buckle. The accoutrements
category
included one
Bakelite comb
(Figure 39) and two brass rings (Figure 40). The toys
category included two fragments of a toy tea set (Figure
41). The writing category consisted of a graphite pencil
(Figure 42) and fragments of an embossed ink bottle.
Finally, the activities group included in this comparison
Figure 43. Left to Right: Shot
and Two Brass Cartridge Heads
from 12-Gauge Shotgun Shells.
Recovered from Midden Feature.
Jaillet 2010.
Figure 42. Graphite Pencil.
Recovered from Midden Feature.
Modified. Jaillet 2010.
Figure 41. Toy Tea Set. Recovered from
Midden Feature. Jaillet 2010.
127
entailed two head and partial primers from a 12-gauge shotgun shell and one piece of shot
(Figure 43).
Listing artifacts aside, what can be understood about the individuals living at the Bob and
Lizzie Allen residence? The 1880 U.S. Census record indicated that the Bob Allen residence
was home to his white wife Lizzie, and their children, five-year old Joseph, three-year old
Samuel, two-year old William, and one-month old Rettie (US Department of Labor and
Commerce 1880). The toy tea set, shown in Figure 40, likely provided hours of pleasure for
young Rettie and even, on occasion, her older brothers. Given the size of the two brass rings
recovered, they were most likely worn by one or both of the adult Allens or served some other
purpose (Figure 40). The buttons held together the fabrics worn by the Allens, with two buttons
being substantially smaller in size possibly belonging to a child-sized garment or being sleeve
buttons (Figure 37). Shoes that treaded along the paths to their parents‟ and grandparents‟ house
higher on the hill appeared as fragments in the archaeological record (Figure 38). As Bob Allen
could not read or write (US Department of Labor and Commerce 1880), it can be inferred that
Lizzie or one of the children was literate, as the the graphite pencil and the fragments of an ink
bottle suggests (Figure 42). The shotgun shells and shot, shown in Figure 43, suggest that the
partial diet of pig and medium-sized mammals may have been supplemented by hunting. As
incomplete of a picture as the archaeological record might provide, the material culture allows
for archaeological interpretation of a past too often forgotten.
Domestic Life Amidst Turbulent Times: The Story of African Americans Living at
Pandenarium
A great deal can be learned from the historic record, literature, and accounts of the past,
but a great deal is left out in our understanding of that past, as these sources are riddled with
128
biases, absences, and revisionist histories. The archaeological record, while subject to its own
biases and its own missing pieces, provides a picture of the past to be interpreted by the present.
The layout of the settlement and the ideas behind it represent the broader discourse on slavery
and alternative approaches to freeing millions of slaves throughout the North and South. The
material culture represents the individual lives, despite the racial tensions felt in the local area,
the nation, and the world. Racial tensions would persist throughout the nineteenth century and
would come to the fore in the twentieth century. Through it all, the residents of Pandenarium
lived lives of racial hardship, fighting for education and better lives as free African Americans.
Education of the children is evident, as are, the choices in clothing being made, activities such as
play, hunting, and community gatherings. The people of Pandenarium were agents in living their
lives in a time of contradiction, living through hardship, freedom, and the other varying realities
of life.
129
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION: THE REALITY OF FREEDOM AT PANDENARIUM
Historical Fiction: Allen Residence, Mercer County, Pennsylvania
Rettie Allen slowly lowered the heavy blanket, blinking into the winter sunlight filtering
through the bedroom window of her family’s home. She could hear her mother preparing
breakfast in the kitchen, pleading with Rettie and her brothers to wake up and start cleaning up
their toys. Rettie threw her legs over the side of the bed, grabbed her comb and started pulling it
through her hair. She looked around the room, assessing the mess. She started with the toy tea
set placed lovingly in front of her stuffed rabbit, Elsie, who always enjoyed a cup of tea in the
morning. Soon, she started hearing her brothers rustling around, slower to rise and inevitably
louder as there were three of them.
Bob Allen came in the door rubbing his hands together, blowing heavily in them to warm
them up, to the sounds of a waking house. His wife, Lizzie, ceased calling to the children and
began humming a hymn. Bringing in coal, used to heat the house, was not his idea of a good
morning, but it was necessary. Bob knew that they had a busy day ahead of them, church
services, an after-church sing-along at his mother’s house on the hill, and the children were
anxious to try out their Christmas presents on the thickened ice of Mr. Black’s pond. Bob shook
his head and sighed; his mother was getting up there in age and had enough on her plate without
having the whole neighborhood over. Every time he broached the topic, Rosie promptly quieted
him, telling him that the community needed her sing-alongs as much as they needed the jobs, so
few and far between.
130
In some ways, Bob knew she was right, but he could not help thinking that there were
better opportunities beyond the local saw mills and the small family-run farms. Lizzie was not
crazy about the idea of moving away from Pandenarium. She was not blind to the racial
hardships their family would undergo, as a biracial family and as African Americans. She relied
a great deal on the companionship of his mother and the children loved being near their cousins.
Could he pull them away from the love and support of his family and friends at Pandenarium? If
there was anything his mother and father had taught him, it was the courage to build a new life in
a new place – even if that meant leaving Pandenarium.
Without personal diaries and accounts from the individuals present at Pandenarium, it is
impossible to know what life was really like for those living there. However, by combining the
available historic record and the archaeological record more can be understood about those
involved in creating, building, and living at Pandenarium. The Allens were a single family living
at the settlement, a settlement made up of dozens of African American families freed by Dr.
Charles Everett. While limited, the archaeological interpretation of a portion of the site provides
an alternative history, giving volume to the voices of the men, women, and children living at
Pandenarium.
The role of archaeologist as historical raconteur has gained a growing audience over the
past decade (Gibb 2000; Lewis 2000; Little 2000; Majewski 2000). The use of narrative to
elucidate the people of the past informs many public archaeology efforts (Gibb 2000; Little
2000; Majewski 2000). Historical archaeologist, James Gibb, advocated storytelling as a
method, based upon a theoretically informed and archaeologically verified, and encouraged its
use as a form of archaeological analysis (Gibb 2000). While many archaeologists would
disagree with his use of interpretive historical fiction as scientific archaeological analysis (Lewis
131
2000; Little 2000; McKee and Galle 2000), few argue the merits of the narrative in its ability to
reach an audience, especially the public. The narrative of the Allens, as used here, is not a
singular truth; it is, however, based upon a critical review of historic documentation and analysis
of archaeological material excavated in the investigations at Pandenarium. The story is a method
for bringing the past to the attention of and understanding of the present.
Synthesis of Archaeology at Pandenarium
The archaeological investigations at Pandenarium included multiple methods of inquiry.
An extensive analysis of historical documents relating to the development of Pandenarium, as a
settlement, and as representative of broader historical trends was undertaken. Based largely
upon the historic documents and archaeological theories including practice theory, cultural
landscape theory, and critical theory, a research design was developed to guide archaeological
investigation of the site. Laboratory analysis of LiDAR data, aerial photography, and other
available resources defined preliminary areas of interest. Informant interviews conducted on-site
provided invaluable knowledge and assistance in further defining study areas. Fieldwork at the
site included twenty-two shovel test pits, a test unit, auger-borings, and a ground-penetrating
radar survey. A total of 959 artifacts were excavated, cleaned, catalogued, and analyzed. An
interpretation based upon qualitative and quantitative analysis of archaeological data,
supplemented by comparative analysis of historic documents, was developed as a way to
illuminate the past at Pandenarium.
The interpretation of the site hinges upon the spatial layout of the site with reference to
other similar settlements and the material culture recovered from the site itself. The southern
slave-owners, the northern abolitionists, and the African American inhabitants of the site are
viewed as agents, structuring the initial layout of the site and eventually renegotiating the
132
planned settlement. The cultural landscape of the settlement was both built and reconceived in
several phases by the multiple parties involved imbuing the landscape with cultural meaning as
place and redefining space. The alternative history of the site, as presented here, fulfilled the
role left vacant by traditional histories of the site, especially with respect to the African
American inhabitants at the site.
The Importance of Pandenarium
The import of Pandenarium lies in its people, African American men, women, and
children who lived at the site building a free life from a slave system in 1854. Traditionally cast
in the guise of a benevolent act by a distant statesman, the motivations behind the settlement go
far beyond simplistic interpretations of a solitary settlement and its demise. Pandenarium’s
establishment was truly a product of its time, primarily the fractious discourse surrounding the
topic of slavery and its abolition. Moving from its initial construction by the hands of northern
abolitionists, Pandenarium was restructured from its outset by African Americans determined to
live their own free lives. Beyond one-dimensional histories of the site, the alternative history of
Pandenarium establishes its significance based upon the nuances of collaborating parties with
contradictory beliefs and circumstances. The story of the people of Pandenarium is a rare
opportunity for a modern audience to see the varying shades of gray in our national narrative.
Avenues for Future Research at Pandenarium
As research progressed on the settlement and its many peoples, it became clear that the
wealth of archaeological data and historical inquiry into the settlement has been merely scratched
at the site. The nature of archaeological interpretation is that, as more information comes to light
and additional data is produced, it is constantly evolving. Pandenarium is a unique site with a
great deal of potential and it has been my pleasure and privilege to have worked at the site and
133
with the community, uncovering stories of everyday life and uncommon collaboration. The
potential for Pandenarium is untapped and continues to provide instances for furthering our
understanding of diasporan contexts and providing a link between past and present. Continuing
in the theme of landscape archaeology, several avenues for future research exist and should be
further developed to understand Pandenarium in a more complete context.
Unexplored Places.
In the course of research and informant interviews, a community concern was expressed
about the cemetery located on-site (Personal communication, Heini, Sr. 2010 and Heini, Jr.
2010). It was indicated that during the pipeline construction through the site, between 1961 and
1968, human skeletal remains were either removed or “blown through,” as were several
foundations located near the Rosie and John Allen residence (Personal communication, Heini,
Sr. 2010). The land upon which both pipelines were constructed is currently privately-owned by
multiple parties, however these parties have proved both interested and concerned for the
possible human remains existing on-site. Future research could be focused upon the descendant
community’s own knowledge of and concerns with the unmarked status of the cemetery and their
ancestors’ remains. The unsettled issue of the cemetery is clearly a matter of community
conscience that should be addressed in future research endeavors.
Additional places and structures were described in the literature and different accounts of
Pandenarium discuss these places as existing, but no evidence, aside from the accounts, has been
found detailing or placing them. Unidentified places and structures include the Baptist church
that was intended for the site, the schoolhouse intended for the community’s use, and the
remainder of the original twenty-four houses built in 1854, along with their associated wells,
fields, and parcels. The archaeological research completed in 2010 focused on only one of the
134
original twenty-four structures, while a great deal more may survive beneath the surface due to
the site’s good preservation of archaeological material. Future research at the settlement should
strive to understand the community in a more complete context inclusive of a more varied
sample of features at the site.
Unexplored Spaces.
While the places of the site are undoubtedly important to understanding the site, the
spatial understanding of the site necessitates a survey of the unexplored spaces at the site. By
focusing efforts on understanding the totality of the spatial layout, future research can help to
illuminate the cultural importance placed on particular places with reference to the surrounding
space. Concerns about meaning and memory could be addressed by understanding the dynamic
relationship between space and place at the site. Future research efforts could focus on
developing a bridge linking the “action and fluidity of space with the rootedness and
memory/history of place” (Smith and Gazin-Schwartz 2008:16).
Working with Pandenarium’s Descendant Community.
The potential for Pandenarium to provide a past to the present descendant community
will inevitably fall short, if the archaeological community does not include the descendant
community. While public education opportunities are being designed, further research should
seek to bring the descendant community into the archaeological process earlier than what was
done in this research design. In the spirit of critical theory as applied to historical archaeology,
the descendant community’s role in the interpretation of the site as part of their past and as a
potential source of community pride should be both illuminated and sought in the course of
archaeological inquiry (Leone 2010). Without doubt, the descendant community of
Pandenarium will bring the past to bear on the present and hopefully bring a chorus of voices to a
135
once silent past.
In Closing: We’ve Only Just Begun…
Reiterating several of the themes in this chapter, the narrative of Pandenarium is neither
complete nor fully understood at present. Evolving interpretations, unexplored avenues of
research, and community collaboration are only a few of the considerations to appreciating the
depth of cultural interaction at Pandenarium. The various nuances of diasporan context require a
multi-scalar look at influences and action, in order to understand the complexities of culture at
sites like Pandenarium. Turning again to the words of Ralph Ellison, “America is woven of
many strands; I would recognize them and let it so remain. […]Life is to be lived, not
controlled; and humanity is won by continuing to play in face of certain defeat. Our fate is to
become one, and yet many” (Ellison 1947:577). The people of Pandenarium represent several of
the many strands making up the American narrative and deserve to be understood as such,
recognizing in them their humanity and their lives as lived in a dynamic and varied past.
136
References Cited
Adrian, Arthur A.
1952 Dickens on American Slavery: A Carlylean Slant. PMLA. 67(4): 315-329.
Allen, David
2008 All About Nails. Appalachian Blacksmiths Association. Electronic Resource,
accessed October 16, 2010.
Armstrong, Douglas
2008 Excavating African American Heritage: Towards a More Nuanced Understanding of
the African Diaspora. Historical Archaeology. 42(2): 123-137.
Ashmore, Wendy and A. Bernard Knapp
1999 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In
Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Ed. Ashmore and Knapp. 3-
30. Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Malden, MA.
Barksdale-Hall, Roland
2009 African Americans in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Images of America Series.
Arcadia Publishing. Charleston, SC.
Barton, Christopher
2009 Antebellum African-American Settlements in Southern New Jersey. The African
Diaspora Archaeology Network Newsletter. 1-14. December.
Bayley, Richard D.
1820 Letter from Richard D. Bayley regarding the emancipation of slaves in Virginia.
Pennsylvania Abolition Society Collection of Incoming Correspondence. Philadelphia,
PA.
Berger, Louis, The Cultural Resource Group and Associates, Inc.
1996 Analytical Coding System for Historic Period Artifacts. Prepared by Sharla Azizi,
Diane Dallal, Mallory A. Gordon, Meta F. Janowitz, Nadia N.S. Maczaj, and Marie-Lorraine
Pipes. East Orange, NJ.
Berlin, Ira, Barbara Fields, Steven Miller, Joseph Reidy, and Leslie Rowland
1992 Slaves No More: Three Essays on Emancipation and the Civil War. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Birks, Steve
137
2003 W & E Corn. North Staffordshire Pottery Marks. Electronic document,
http://www.thepotteries.org/mark/c/corn_we.html, accessed October 13, 2010.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University of Press. New York, NY.
Bowser, Brenda J.
2004 Prologue: Toward an Archaeology of Place. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory. 11(1): 1-3.
Brown, Ann R.
1982 Historic Ceramic Typology with Principla Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive
Characteristics for Identification. DelDOT Archaeology Series 15. Dover, DE.
Brown, Runk & Co., Publishers
1888 History of Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Brown, Runk & Co. Chicago, IL.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA)
2010 Historic Bottle Identification & Information Website. Electronic document,
www.sha.org/bottle, accessed September 2.
California State Parks
2010 Maker’s Mark Type Collection Photo Gallery. Electronic document,
http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22319, accessed October 13.
Carey, H.C. and I. Lea
1822 American Atlas. Philadelphia, PA.
Carey, M.
1832 Reflections on the Causes that led to the Formation of The Colonization Society: with
a view of its Probable Results. Philadelphia, PA.
Carson, Clayborne, Emma J. Lapsansky-Werner, and Gary B. Nash
2007 The Struggle for Freedom: A History of African Americans. Vol. II. Pearson
Longman. New York, NY.
Chisholm, Hugh
1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General
Information. Eleventh Edition. 21. Cambridge, UK.
Conyers, Lawrence B.
138
2006 Ground-Penetrating Radar. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North
American Perspective. Ed. Jay K. Johnson. 131-160. University of Alabama. Tuscaloosa,
AL.
2004 Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. Altamira Press. New York, NY.
Cuffee, Paul
1812 Memoir of Captain Paul Cuffee, A Man of Colour: To Which is Subjoined The Epistle
of the Society of Sierra Leone African & etc. West Alexander, York, England.
DeCorse, Christopher
2008 Varied Pasts: History, Oral Tradition, and Archaeology on the Mina Coast. In Small
Worlds: Method, Meaning, and Narrative in Microhistory. 77-97.
1999 Oceans Apart: Africanist Perspectives on Diaspora Archaeology. In “I, Too. Am
America”: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life. Ed. Theresa Singleton. 132-
155. University of Virginia Press. Charlottesville, VA.
Deetz, James
1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life. Anchor Books,
New York.
Delle, James
2010 Race, Resistance, and Remembrance: Archaeology and Social Memory of the
Christiana Riot. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for
Pennsylvania Archaeology, Greensburg.
1998 An Archaeology of Social Space: Analyzing Coffee Plantations in Jamaica’s Blue
Mountain. Kluwer Academic/Plenum. New York, NY.
Dickens, Charles
1842 American Notes. Ed. Patricia Ingham. 2004. Penguin Classics. London, England.
Eckert, Suzanne
2008 Pottery and Practice: The Expression of Identity at Pottery Mount and Hummingbird
Pueblo. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque, NM.
Eggert, Gerald G.
1991 “Two Steps Forward a Step and a Half Back”: Harrisburg’s African American
Community in the Nineteenth Century. African Americans in Pennsylvania: Shifting
Historical Perspectives. Ed. Joe W. Trotter, Jr. and Eric L. Smith. 1997. Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission and Pennsylvania State University Press. University
Park, PA.
139
Ellison, Ralph Waldo
1947 Invisible Man. Random House, Inc. New York, NY.
Estes, John E., John R. Jensen, and Larry R. Tinney
1977 The Use of Historical Photography for Mapping Archaeological Sites. Journal of
Field Anthropology. 4(4): 441-447.
Everett, Robert L.
1992 The Everetts of Albemarle County Virginia. Canyon Crest Printing. Riverside,
California.
Evans, Douglas
1995 Jefferson’s Neighbors. Unpublished Monticello Research Report. Electronic
document, http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/edward-coles,
accessed December 23, 2010.
Fennell, Christopher
2010 Archaeological Investigations and LiDAR Aerial Survey in Edgefield, South
Carolina. African Diaspora Archaeology Network: December 2010 Newsletter. 1-11.
Electronic document, http://www.diaspora.uiuc.edu/news1210/news1210-4.pdf, accessed
10 December.
2006 Report on Shovel Test Pit Surveys at the New Philadelphia Archaeology Site Pike
County, Illinois (11PK455), Summer 2005. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Ferguson, Leland
2004 Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and the Early African America, 1650-1800.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Garrison, William L.
1832 THOUGHTS ON AFRICAN COLONIZATION: or an Impartial Exhibition of the
Doctrines, Principles and Purposes of the American Colonization Society. Together with
the Resolutions, Addresses and Remonstrances of the Free People of Color. Library of
Congress. Washington, DC.
Gates, William, Jr. and Dana Ormerod
1982 The East Liverpool Pottery District: Identification and Manufacturers Marks.
Historical Archaeology. 16(1-2): 1-358.
Giardino, Marco and Bryan S. Haley
140
2006 Airborne Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis. In Remote Sensing: An Explicitly
North American Perspective. Ed. Jay K. Johnson. 47-78. University of Alabama Press.
Tuscaloosa, AL.
Gibb, James G.
2000 Imaginary, But by No Means Unimaginable: Storytelling, Science, and Historical
Archaeology. Historical Archaeology. 34(2): 1-6.
Giddens, Anthony
1984 The Constitution of Society. Society Press. Cambridge, UK.
Glassie, Henry
1999 Material Culture. Indiana University of Press. Indianapolis, IN.
Guelzo, Allen C.
2004 The Great Event of the Nineteenth Century: Lincoln Issues the Emancipation
Proclamation. Pennsylvania Legacies. (4)2. 20-23.
Gwaltney, Tom
2004 New Philadelphia Project Pedestrian Survey: Final Report and Catalog. Phase I
Archaeology at the Historic Town of New Philadelphia, Illinois. arcGIS Consultants,
LLC. Bethesda, MD.
Hargrave, Michael L.
2006 Ground-Truthing the Results of Geophysical Surveys. In Remote Sensing in
Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. Ed. Jay K. Johnson. 269-304.
University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa, AL.
Harmon, James M., Mark P. Leone, Stephen D. Prince, and Marcia Snyder
2006 LiDAR for Archaeological Landscape Analysis: A Case Study of Two Eighteenth-
Century Maryland Plantation Sites. In American Antiquity 71(4): 649-670.
Harper, Douglas
2003 Slavery in the North. Electronic document, accessed 1 September 2010.
http://www.slavenorth.com/.
Hedges, Ernest
1962 Tin in Social and Economic History. St. Martin’s Press. New York, NY.
Heini, Michael Jr.
2010 Personal Communication with Author. Mercer County, PA.
141
Heini, Michael Sr.
2010 Personal Communication with Author. Mercer County, PA.
Hinson, David
1996 A Primer on Fruit Jars. The Federation of Historical Bottle Collectors. Electronic
document, http://www.fohbc.com/FOHBC_References3.html/, accessed October 30,
2010.
Historica Dominion Institute, The
2010 Settling Canada: Underground Railroad. Electronic Resource, accessed October 20.
http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10166.
Hopkins, G. M.
1873 Atlas of Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA.
Hotchkiss, Jedediah
1867 Map of Albemarle County, Virginia. Staunton, Virginia.
Johnson, Jay K., Editor
2006 Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective.
University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa, AL.
Johnson, Matthew
2010 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction, 2nd
Edition. Wiley-Blackwell. Malden,
MA.
Kelso, William M.
1997 Archaeology at Monticello. Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc. Monticello,
VA.
1986 The Archaeology of Slave Life at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello: "A Wolf by the
Ears." Journal of New World Archaeology 6(4): 5-20.
Kvamme, Kenneth L.
2003 Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology. In American Antiquity. 68(3): 435-
457.
Kvamme, Kenneth L., Jay K. Johnson, and Bryan S. Haley
2006 Multiple Methods Surveys: Case Studies. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An
Explicitly North American Perspective. Ed. Jay K. Johnson. 251-268. University of
Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa, AL.
142
Langhorne, Elizabeth, K. Edward Lay and William D. Rieley
1987 A Virginia Family and Its Plantation Houses. University of Virginia Press.
Charlottesville, VA.
Leone, Mark P.
1984 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Using the Rules of Perspective in
the William Paca Garden at Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology, Power and Prehistory.
Eds. Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley. 235-261. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge, UK.
Leone, Mark P., Parker B. Potter, Jr. and Paul Shackel
1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology.
28(3): 283-302.
Lewis, Kenneth E.
2000 Imagination and Archaeological Interpretations: A Methodological Tale. Historical
Archaeology. 34(2): 7-9.
Library and Archives of Canada
2010 The Anti-Slavery Movement in Canada: Black Communities in Canada. Electronic
Resource, accessed November 15.
Library of Congress (LOC)
2010a African American Odyssey: Abolition, Anti-Slavery Movements, and the Rise of
Sectional Controversy. Electronic Resource, accessed November 15, 2010.
2010b A Library of Congress Resource Guide for the Study of Black History and Culture:
The African-American Mosaic. Electronic document,
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/african/afam002.html, accessed October 1, 2010.
Little, Barbara J.
2000 Compelling Images Through Storytelling: Comment on “Imaginary, But by No
Means Unimaginable: Storytelling, Science, and Historical Archaeology.” Historical
Archaeology. 34(2): 10-13.
Lincoln, Abraham
1861 State of the Union Address. Address to Congress. December 3. Washington, DC.
1862a A Message to Congress Requesting a Joint Resolution on Compensated
Emancipation. Letter to Congress. March 6. American Antiquarian Society. Worcester,
MA.
143
1862b The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress. Letter to Congress. April
16. Correspondence from 1833-1962. Washington, DC.
Lowman, Katy
2010 Faunal Analysis for Pandenarium, Site 36ME253. Unpublished. Indiana University of
Pennsylvania. Indiana, PA.
Majewski, Teresita
2000 “We Are All Storytellers”: Comments on Storytelling, Science, and Historical
Archaeology. Historical Archaeology. 34(2): 17-19.
McDavid, Carol
2002 Archaeologies That Hurt; Descendants That Matter: A Pragmatic Approach to
Collaboration in the Public Interpretation of African-American Archaeology. World
Archaeology. 34(2): 303-314.
McKee, Larry and Jillian Galle
2000 Scientific Creativity and Creative Science: Looking at the Future of Archaeological
Storytelling. Historical Archaeology. 34(2): 14-16.
McKnight, William J.
1905 A Pioneer Outline History of Northwestern Pennsylvania. J.B. Lippincott Co.
Philadelphia, PA.
McPherson, James M.
2002 How President Lincoln Decided to Issue the Emancipation Proclamation. The Journal
of Blacks in Higher Education. 37: 108-109.
Meyer, Jeffrey
2010 Personal communication with author. Latin translation. Indiana University of
Pennsylvania. Indiana, PA.
Miller, George
2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology. 29: 1-22.
Mullins, Paul
2008 Excavating America’s Methaphor: Race, Diaspora, and Vindicationist Archaeologies.
Historical Archaeology 42(2): 104-122.
Museum of Vision
2010 Artifact Identification. Electronic document, www.museumofvision.org, accessed
October 1.
144
Music Folk
2010 Instruments. Electronic document, www.musicfolk.com, accessed October 13.
Nash, Gary B. and Jean R. Soderlund
1991 Freedom By Degrees: Emancipation in Pennsylvania and Its Aftermath. Oxford
University Press. New York, NY.
National Park Service
2010a The Underground Railroad. Pamphlet. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC.
2010b Learn about the Underground Railroad (UGRR): Electronic document,
http://www.nps.gov/ugrr/TEMPLATE/FrontEnd/learn.cfm, accessed October 1, 2010.
Newman, Richard S.
2002 The PAS and American Abolitionism: A Century of Activism from the American
Revolutionary Era to the Civil War. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia,
PA.
New York Illustrated News
1862 “Congress, April 7.” April 19. New York, NY.
Orr, David and Christopher Barton
2010 “Timbuctoo: The Discovery of an African-American Community.” Paper presented at
the 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Greensburg.
Orser, Charles E., Jr.
2007 The Archaeology of Race and Racialization in Historic America. University Press of
Florida. Gainesville, FL.
1998 The Archaeology of the African Diaspora. Annual Review of Anthropology. (27): 63-
82.
1996 Images of the Recent Past: Readings in Historical Archaeology. Altamira Press.
Walnut Creek, CA.
Parrington, Michael
1979 Geophysical and Aerial Prospecting Techniques at Valley Forge National Historical
Park, Pennsylvania. Journal of Field Archaeology. 6(2): 193-201.
Pauls, Elizabeth P.
2006 The Place of Space: Architecture, Landscape, and Social Life. In Historical
Archaeology. Eds. Martin Hall and Stephen Silliman. Blackwell Publishing. Malden,
MA.
145
Pennsylvania State Legislature
1855 Laws of Pennsylvania: Of the Session of 1855. No. 324.
Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission (PHMC)
2008 Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania. Bureau for Historic
Preservation. Harrisburg, PA.
Peoples Natural Gas Company
2010 Peoples Natural Gas Company LLC before the Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission. Docket No. R-2010-2201702. Vol. 1. Harrisburg, PA.
Petzold, Bettina, Peter Reiss, and Wolfgang Stossel
1999 Laser Scanning – Surveying and Mapping Agencies are Using a New Technique for
the Derivation of Digital Terrain Models. Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing. 54: 95-104.
Phillips, Wendell
1853 Speech at the Melodeon. Boston. January 27. Library of Congress. Washington, DC.
Ruppel, Timothy, Jessica Neuwirth, Mark P. Leone and Gladys-Marie Fry
2003 Hidden in View: African spiritual places in North American landscapes. Antiquity
77(296): 321-335.
Sabloff, Jeremy A.
2008 Archaeology Matters: Action Archaeology in the Modern World. Left Coast Press.
Walnut Creek, CA.
Sahlins, Marshall D.
1981 Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the
Sandwich Islands Kingdom. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, MI.
Savulis, Ellen-Rose
2003 Zion’s Zeal: Negotiating Identity in Shaker Communities. In Shared Spaces and
Divided Places: Material Dimensions of Gender Relations and the American Historical
Landscape. Eds. Deborah L. Rotman and Ellen-Rose Savulis. University of Tennessee.
Knoxville, TN.
Sears, Roebuck, & Co.
1897 Sears, Roebuck & Co. Catalogue. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc. New York, NY.
Shackel, Paul A.
146
2010 New Philadelphia: An Archaeology of Race in the Heartland. University of California
Press. Berkeley, CA.
2004 Working with Communities: Heritage Development and Applied Anthropology. In
Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology. Eds. Paul Shackel and
Erve Chambers. 1-16. Routledge. New York, NY.
Shackel, Paul A., Alison Azzarello, Megan Bailey, Caitlin Bauchat, Carrie Christman, Kimberly
Eppler, Christopher Fennell, Michael Hargrave, Emily Helton, Athena Hsieh, Jason Jacoby,
Charlotte King, Hillary Livingston, Terrance Martin, Maria Alejandra Nieves Colon, Eva
Pajuelo, Marjorie Schroeder, Erin Smith, Andrea Torvinen, and Christopher Valvano
2006 New Philadelphia Archaeology: Race, Community, and the Illinois Frontier. Multiple
contributors. Center for Heritage Resource Studies. University of Maryland, College
Park. Electronic document,
<http://heritage.umd.edu/chrsweb/New%20Philadelphia/2006report/2006 menu.htm>,
accessed 20 December 2009.
Singleton, Theresa
1997 Facing the Challenges of a Public African-American Archaeology. Historical
Archaeology. 31(3): 146-152.
1995 The Archaeology of Slavery in North America. Annual Review of Anthropology. (24):
119-140.
Solecki, Ralph S.
1957 Practical Aerial Photography for Archaeologists. American Antiquity. 22(4): 337-351.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press. New York, NY.
Sprague, Roderick
2002 China or Prosser Button Identification and Dating. Historical Archaeology. 36(2):
111-127.
Steinhauer, Curtis
2010 Winchester Shotshell Headstamps. Electronic document,
http://members.shaw.ca/cartridge-corner/winch1.htm, accessed October13.
Switala, William J.
2001 Underground Railroad in Pennsylvania. Second Edition. Stackpole Books.
Mechanicsburg, PA.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
147
2010 WebSoil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Electronic resource.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed August 20.
United States (U.S.) Department of Commerce and Labor
1840 Census of the United States – Population. Bureau of the Census. East Lackawannock
Township. Mercer County, PA.
1850 Census of the United States – Population. Bureau of the Census. East Lackawannock
Township. Mercer County, PA.
1860 Census of the United States – Population. Bureau of the Census. East Lackawannock
Township. Mercer County, PA.
1870 Census of the United States – Population. Bureau of the Census. East Lackawannock
Township. Mercer County, PA.
1880 Census of the United States – Population. Bureau of the Census. East Lackawannock
Township. Mercer County, PA.
1900 Census of the United States – Population. Bureau of the Census. East Lackawannock
Township. Mercer County, PA.
1910 Census of the United States – Population. Bureau of the Census. East Lackawannock
Township. Mercer County, PA.
1920 Census of the United States – Population. Bureau of the Census. East Lackawannock
Township. Mercer County, PA.
1930 Census of the United States – Population. Bureau of the Census. East Lackawannock
Township. Mercer County, PA.
United States Geological Survey
1907 Neshannock. 15’ Quadrangle Topographic Map. Pennsylvania.
United State Supreme Court
1842 Prigg v. Pennsylvania. 41 U.S. 539.
Weidhmann, W. Edward
1973 Indian Run History Compiled by Educator. The New Wilmington Globe. August 23.
Wells, Tom
1998 Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. Historical
Archaoelogy. 32(2): 78-99.
White, J.G.
148
1909 20th
Century History of Mercer County, PA: Vol. I & II. Lewis Publishing Co.
Chicago, IL.
Whitten, David
2010 Glass Factory Marks on Bottles. Electronic document,
http://www.myinsulators.com/glass-factories/bottlemarks.html, accessed October 30.
Woge, Mairy J.
1980 The History of Indian Run. The New Wilmington Globe. May 28.
Woods, Ruth Z.
2010 Personal Communication with Author. Mercer County, PA.
1999 History of East Lackawannock Township, Mercer County Pennsylvania 1900-2000.
Supervisors of East Lackawannock Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania.
Woodson, Carter G.
1922 The Negro in Our History. The Associated Publishers, Inc. Washington, DC.
Yarian, Frank F.
1964 Early History of Southern Mercer County. N.P. Mercer, PA.
3M Inc.
2010 1970-1979 A New Era of Expansion. Historical Timeline. Electronic document,
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_WW/History/3M/Company/timeline/1970-
profile/, accessed October 31.
Appendix A
Shovel Test Pit Survey Form
149
Pandenarium Archaeological Research
Site Name:__________________________ Date:_______________ Excavators:______________ Page: ___ of ___
Study Area: Transect: STP:
Stratum Depth Soil Description Artifacts Notes Opening Closing Munsell Munsell
Color Soil
Texture Inclusions Bag
Number Quantity
Additional Information:
PAR 1
30 meter
PAR 2
3 meters
rs by 26 mete
by 47 meter
Ground
ers
rs
Apd-Penetratin
ppendix Bng Radar Suurvey Transsects
150
PAR 3
25 meterrs by 50 mete
Ground
ers
Apd-Penetratin
ppendix Bng Radar Suurvey Transsects
151
Appendix C
Shovel Test Pit Survey Results STP Stratum
/Horizon Depth (cmbs)
Soil Description
Artifacts
Notes
Excavator Date
Open Close Munsell Munsell Color
Soil Texture
Inclusions Type/Quantity
152
A1 A 0 9 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Medium
Sandy Silt 0 Mixed/1Bag ASJ,
BLF, SCS
8/23/10
Disturbed 9 18 10YR6/6 mottled with 10YR3/3
Brownish Yellow/Dark Brown
Medium Sandy Silt
0
Buried A 18 28 10YR4/3 Brown Firm Sandy Silt
0
B 28 38 10YR7/6 Yellow Firm Sandy Silt
0 *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
A2 Ao 0 3 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Loam 0 1 piece glass; 1 chunk of coal
BLF, SCS
8/23/10
A 3 7 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown
Silt Loam 0 1 piece glass; 1 chunk of coal; 1 nail
A/B 7 12 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown
Medium Sandy Silt
Stones
B 12 34 10YR5/1 mottled with 10YR7/6
Gray/Yellow Firm Sandy Silt
0
C 34 45 10YR6/3 Pale Brown Firm Sandy Silt
0 *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
A3 Ao 0 3 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Loam 0 BLF, SCS
8/23/10
A 3 11 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown
Silt Loam 0 1 piece glass – modern discarded in field
B 11 20 10YR5/1 Gray Firm Sandy Silt
0
B/C 20 37 10YR5/1 mottled with 10YR7/1
Gray/Light Gray/Yellow
Firm Sandy Silt
0
STP Stratum
/Horizon Depth (cmbs)
Soil Description
Artifacts
Notes
Excavator Date
Open Close Munsell Munsell Color
Soil Texture
Inclusions Type/Quantity
153
and 10YR7/6
C 37 50 10YR7/1 and 10YR7/6
Light Gray/Yellow Firm Sandy Silt
0 None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
B1 Ao 0 17 10YR2/2 Very Dark Brown Silt Loam 0 Glass - Window/Bottle/Table; Whiteware; Porcelain; Iron Bolt; Ring
ASJ, SVM, MRS
8/23/10
A 17 21 10YR4/1 Gray Silt Loam 0 None
B 21 27 10YR6/2 Light Brownish Gray
Silt Loam 0 1-lithic shatter?
B/C 27 37 2.5Y6/3 Light Yellowish Brown
Sandy Silt Loam
0 None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
B1A A 0 12 10YR2/1 Black Silt Loam Coal/Cinders Ceramics; Stoneware; Glass; Tin; Slag; Buttons
SCS, TS 8/24/10
A, Level II
12 35 10YR2/1 Black Silt Loam Coal/Cinders Ceramics; Stoneware; Glass; Tin; Slag; Buttons
Feature Fill; Midden?
C 35 37 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Silt Clay 0 None *** Closed upon reaching clay/culturally sterile soils
B1B Ao 0 10 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silt Loam Light Coal None SVM, MRS
8/24/10
A-Feature 10 17 10YR4/1 Dark Gray Silt Loam Dense Coal/Slag Ceramics; Stoneware; Glass; Ferrous Objects
Note: A slopes down from east to west (See drawing on original form)
A-Feature 17 31 10YR4/1 Dark Gray Silt Loam 0 Ceramics; Stoneware; Glass; Ferrous Objects
B/C 31 41 2.5Y6/3 mottled with 10YR6/6
Light Yellowish Brown/Brownish Yellow
Silt Clay 0 None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
B1C A 0 17 10YR2/1 Black Silt Loam Charcoal/Slag 2-Glass shards ASJ, 8/24/10
STP Stratum
/Horizon Depth (cmbs)
Soil Description
Artifacts
Notes
Excavator Date
Open Close Munsell Munsell Color
Soil Texture
Inclusions Type/Quantity
154
RLW
B 17 27 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Silt Clay 0 None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
B1D Ao 0 15 10YR2/2 Very Dark Brown Silt Loam Slag 6-Pieces of Plastic Bucket (Modern); 2-Glass
ASJ, RLW
8/24/10
A/B 15 24 10YR5/3 mottled with 10YR5/6
Brown/Yellowish Brown
Silt Loam/Silt Clay
Large Sandstone Cobbles None
B 24 36 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Silt Clay 0 None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils; Note: Photos 131-3108 & 3109
B2 Ao 0 5 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silt Loam 0 None SVM, MRS
8/24/10
A 5 15 10YR4/1 Dark Gray Silt Loam 0 None
B 15 30 10YR6/1 mottled with 10YR5/6
Gray/Yellowish Brown
Silt Clay Sandstone None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
B3 Ao 0 3 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Loam 0 None BLF, SCS
8/23/10
A 3 6 10YR4/1 Dark Gray Firm Sandy Silt
0 None
B/C 6 23 10YR6/1 mottled with 10YR6/6
Gray/Browish Yellow
Firm Sandy Silt
Manganese/Gravel None
C 23 45 10YR7/2 mottled with 10YR6/6
Light Gray/Brownish Yellow
Firm Sandy Silt
Manganese/Gravel None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
C1 A 0 14 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silt Loam Coal/Slag None Note: Iron Concretions
ASJ, SVM, MRS
8/23/10
STP Stratum
/Horizon Depth (cmbs)
Soil Description
Artifacts
Notes
Excavator Date
Open Close Munsell Munsell Color
Soil Texture
Inclusions Type/Quantity
155
B 14 30 10YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Silt Loam Coal/Slag None Note: Iron Concretions
C 30 49 10YR5/2 mottled with 10YR4/6
Grayish Brown/Dark Yellowish Brown
Silt Clay Sandstone None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
C2 A 0 7 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silt Loam 0 None ASJ, SVM, MRS
8/23/10
B 7 13 2.5Y4/1 Dark Gray Silt Loam 0 None
C 13 23 10YR6/2 Light Brownish Gray
Silt Clay 0 None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils; Note: Oxidation
C3 A 0 5 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Loam 0 None BLF, SCS
8/23/10
A/B 5 10 10YR4/1 Dark Gray Firm Sandy Silt
0 None
B/C 10 16 10YR6/1 mottled with 10YR6/6
Gray/Light Yellowish Brown
Firm Sandy Silt
0 None
C 16 32 10YR7/2 mottled with 10YR6/6
Light Gray/Light Yellowish Brown
Silt Clay 0 None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
D1 A 0 13 10YR2/1 Black Silt Loam Gravels/Slag/Sandstone None ASJ, RLW
8/23/10
A/B 13 22 10YR4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown
Sandy Loam
Gravels/Slag/Sandstone/Coal 1-Ferrous Fragment Note: Soils wet from recent rains
B/C 22 30 10YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Clay Loam Gravels/Slag/Sandstone/Coal 2-chert fragments Note: 1-cultural; 1-non-cultural
C 30 40 10YR4/2 Dark Grayish Brown
Sandy Loam
Gravels/Slag/Sandstone/Coal None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils;
STP Stratum
/Horizon Depth (cmbs)
Soil Description
Artifacts
Notes
Excavator Date
Open Close Munsell Munsell Color
Soil Texture
Inclusions Type/Quantity
156
Note: Water Table at 35cmbs
D2 A 0 14 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silt Loam 0 None SVM, MRS
8/23/10
B 14 28 2.5Y4/1 Dark Gray Silt Loam 0 None
C 28 40 10YR5/1 Gray Clay Loam Sandstone Cobbles None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils; Note: Hydric subsoil
D3 Ao 0 6 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Loam 0 None BLF, SCS
8/23/10
A 6 18 10YR4/1 Dark Gray Firm Sandy Silt
0 None
B/C 18 38 10YR6/1 mottled with 10YR6/6
Gray/Light Yellowish Brown
Firm Sandy Silt
0 None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
E1 Ao 0 14 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown
Silt Loam 0 None BLF, SCS
8/23/10
A 14 21 10YR4/2 Dark Gray Brown Silt Clay 0 Discarded Slag
B1 21 35 10YR4/1 Dark Gray Firm Sandy Silt
0 None Note: Burnt Root extending from A into B1
B2 35 48 10YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Firm Sandy Silt
0 None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils
E2 A 0 15 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silt Loam 0 None SVM, MRS
8/23/10
B/C 15 27 2.5Y4/1 Dark Gray Silt Loam 0 None *** Terminated due to high soil moisture content; Note: Hydric Subsoils
STP Stratum
/Horizon Depth (cmbs)
Soil Description
Artifacts
Notes
Excavator Date
Open Close Munsell Munsell Color
Soil Texture
Inclusions Type/Quantity
157
E3 A 0 15 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Silt Loam 0 None SVM, MRS
8/25/10
B/C 15 30 10YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Silt Loam 0 None *** Terminated due to high soil moisture content; Note: Hydric Subsoils
Y1 Ao 0 10 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown
Clay Loam 0 None Note: Root Matrix
ASJ, KAJ 10/9/10
B- Flood Episode
10 14 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Silt Clay 0 None Note: Flooding Episode
B- Flood Episode
14 17 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Silt Clay 0 None Note: Flooding Episode
B- Flood Episode
17 23 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Silt Clay 0 None Note: Flooding Episode
B- Flood Episode
23 25 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Silt Clay 0 None Note: Flooding Episode
B-Flood Episode
25 28 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Silt Clay 0 None Note: Flooding Episode
C 28 35 10YR6/1 Gray Fine Ash Charcoal/Slag Field Stone Foundation? Note: Left In Situ; Note: Water Table at 35cmbs; Note: Field Drawing (See Original Form)
Z1 A 0 26 10YR2/2 Silt Loam 0 See Artifact Inventory Note: Loose Structure; Note: Root Matrix
SCS, ASJ 8/25/10
B-Feature Fill
26 38 10YR2/2 mottled with 10YR3/2
Silt Clay Loam
0 High Density; See Artifact Inventory
Note: Blocky Structure; Note: Wall Fall - House; Note: Roots Present
B-Feature Fill
38 45 10YR4/6 Silt Loam Charcoal Flecking High Density; See Artifact Inventory
Note: Loose Structure
STP Stratum
/Horizon Depth (cmbs)
Soil Description
Artifacts
Notes
Excavator Date
Open Close Munsell Munsell Color
Soil Texture
Inclusions Type/Quantity
158
B/C 45 52 10YR4/6 Silt Clay Loam
0 None *** Closed 10cm below culturally sterile soils; Note: Blocky clay structure; Note: No Roots or Artifacts; Note: Photographs and Field Drawing
Appendix D
Artifact Catalogue
Pandenarium (36ME253)
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
289 HSC
Hill
Location,
2-3m N of
STP Z1
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Spoon Frag. Iron N
290 HSC
Hill
Location,
2-3m N of
STP Z1
Personal Clothing Fastener Button Back Whole Brass N
291 HSC
Hill
Location,
2-3m N of
STP Z1
Activities Music Instrument
Harmonica
Reed Whole Iron 1826 Present Y Music Folk 2010
292 HSC
Hill
Location,
2-3m N of
STP Z1
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Tableware
Condiment
Bottle Cap Frag.
Cast-
iron N
293 HSC
Hill
Location,
2-3m N of
STP Z1
Domestic
Furnishin
gs
Decorative
Item Indefinite Frag. Glass N
294 HSC
Hill
location,
2-3m N of
STP Z1
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container
Medicine
Bottle Whole Glass 1850 1870 Y BLM and SHA 2010
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
160
69
STP
A1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
70
STP
A1
Stratum I,
Level I
Indefinite
Use Indefinite Indefinite Amorphous Frag. Glass N
71
STP
A1
Stratum I,
Level I
Activities
Transport
ation Automotive Windshield Frag. Glass 1915 Present Y Miller 2000
72
STP
A1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container Bottle Frag. Glass 1800 1926 Y BLM and SHA 2010
73
STP
A1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Frag.
Ceram
ic N
74
STP
A1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting - Fuel Frag. Coal N
75
STP
A1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Undefined Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1800 Present Y Berger 1996
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
161
76
STP
A1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Undefined Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
77
STP
A1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Undefined Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
78
STP
A2
Stratum I,
Level I
Prehistori
c Lithic - Shatter - Chert
79
STP
A2
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s 1885 Present Y Allen 2008
80
STP
A2
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Frag.
Ceram
ic N
81
STP
A2
Stratum I,
Level I
Activities
Transport
ation Automotive Windshield Frag. Glass 1915 Present Y Miller 2000
82
STP
A2
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting - Fuel Frag. Coal N
100
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting Lamp
Lamp
Chimney/Li
ght Bulb Frag. Glass 1879 Present Y Miller 2000
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
162
101
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
102
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Canning Jar Frag. Glass 1820 1930 Y BLM and SHA 2010
103
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container
Medicine
Bottle Frag. Glass 1870 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
104
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container
Bitters
Bottle Frag. Glass 1830 1880 Y BLM and SHA 2010
105
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container
Alcoholic-
beverage
Bottle Frag. Glass 1820 1870 Y BLM and SHA 2010
106
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Prehistori
c Lithic - Shatter Frag. Chert N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
163
86
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Personal
Accoutre
ments Jewelry Ring Whole Brass N
87
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
88
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Fastener Bolt Whole
Ferrou
s N
89
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Frag.
Ceram
ic N
90
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 Present Y Berger 1996
91
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
92
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic Toys Tableware Cup Frag.
Porcel
ain 1850 Present Y Berger 1996
93
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1800 Present N Berger 1996
94
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Crock Frag.
Stone
ware 1800 1940 Y Berger 1996
95
STP
B1
Stratum
II, Level Personal Clothing - Shoe/Boot Frag.
Leathe
r N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
164
III
96
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting - Fuel Frag. Coal N
97
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Prehistori
c Lithic - - Frag. Shale N
98
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting Lamp Base Frag. Glass 1825 Present Y Miller 2000
99
STP
B1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Container Dish Frag. Glass 1825 Present Y Miller 2000
109
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Faunal Food Animal
Mammalia
Medium Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
110
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Faunal Food Animal Pig Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
165
111
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Faunal Food Animal
Mammalia
Medium Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
126
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
127
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container Bottle Frag. Glass 1860 1880 Y BLM and SHA 2010
128
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container
Medicine
Bottle Frag. Glass 1850 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
129
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container
Medicine
Bottle Frag. Glass 1850 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
166
130
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container Bottle Frag. Glass 1860 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
131
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container
Medicine
Bottle Frag. Glass 1850 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
132
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Canning Jar Frag. Glass 1820 1930 Y BLM and SHA 2010
133
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic Indefinite - Amorphous Frag. Glass 1800 1950 Y BLM and SHA 2010
134
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Undefined Frag. Glass 1825 Present Y Miller 2000
135
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting Lamp
Lamp
Chimney/Li
ght Bulb Frag. Glass 1879 Present Y Miller 2000
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
167
136
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container
Liquor
Bottle
Whole
/Frag. Glass
Embos
sing;
A &
Co. in
Diamo
nd
Agnew
& Co.
Pittsbu
rgh,
PA 1876 1892 Y
Whitten 2010; BLM
and SHA 2010
137
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Indefinite Undefined Frag.
Ferrou
s N
138
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural - Slate Frag. Slate N
139
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Industrial Indefinite - Slag Frag. Slag N
140
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Crock Frag.
Stone
ware 1800 1940 Y Berger 1996
141
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container
Large
Storage
Vessel Frag.
Stone
ware 1880 1950 Y Berger 1996
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
168
142
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
143
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Cup Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
144
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 Present Y Berger 1996
145
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Personal Clothing Fastener Button
Whole
/Frag.
Porcel
ain 1840 Present Y
Sprague 2002 and
Berger 1996
146
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Indefinite - Undefined Frag.
Ferrou
s N
147
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Can Frag. Tin 1825 Present Y Hedges 1962
148
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Personal Clothing Fastener Buckle
Whole
/Frag.
Ferrou
s N
149
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Personal Clothing Fastener Button Inlay Whole Brass N
150
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
151
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Structural Hardware Fastener Tack
Whole
/Frag.
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
169
152
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural - Slate Frag. Slate N
153
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting - Fuel Frag. Coal N
154
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Industrial Materials - Slag Frag. Slag N
155
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
156
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
157
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic Indefinite - Amorphous Frag. Glass N
158
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Personal Writing Container Ink Bottle Frag. Glass N
159 STP Stratum I,
Domestic Liquid Container Liquor Frag. Glass 1885 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
170
B1A Level II Storage/C
onsumpti
on
Bottle
160
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container
Medicine
Bottle Frag. Glass 1845 1865 Y BLM and SHA 2010
161
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container
Large
Storage
Vessel Frag.
Stone
ware 1880 1950 Y Berger 1996
162
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Crock Frag.
Stone
ware 1800 1940 Y Berger 1996
163
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
Stone
ware
East
Liverpo
ol
Potterie
s
East
Liverp
ool,
Ohio 1880 1930 Y
Gates and Ormerod
1982
164
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Container Indefinite Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
165
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
Yello
wware 1828 1940 Y Berger 1996
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
171
166
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Cup Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 Present Y Berger 1996
167
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Bowl Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 Present Y Berger 1996
168
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Cup Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
169
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Cup Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
170
STP
B1A
Stratum I,
Level II
Personal Toys Tableware Cup Frag.
Porcel
ain 1850 Present Y Berger 1996
171
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Structural Indefinite - Undefined Frag.
Ferrou
s N
172
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
172
173
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
174
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
175
STP
B1B
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting - Fuel Frag. Coal N
176
STP
B1B
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural
Architect
ural - Mortar Frag. Mortar N
177
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Frag.
Ceram
ic N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
173
178
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware
Ironst
one
China;
Powell
&
Bisho
p;
Royal
Coat
of
Arms
Powell
&
Bishop
Hanley
,
Staffor
dshire,
Englan
d 1867 1878 Y
California State Parks
2010
179
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
Yello
wware 1828 1940 Y Berger 1996
180
STP
B1B
Stratum
II, Level
III
Activities Firearms
Ammunitio
n Grape shot Whole
Ferrou
s N
181
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
182
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Structural Indefinite - Undefined Frag.
Ferrou
s N
183
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Floral Food Seed
Peach/Necta
rine
Whole
/Frag. Plant N
184
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
185
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C Container Bottle Frag. Glass N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
174
IV onsumpti
on
186
STP
B1B
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Frag.
Ceram
ic N
187
STP
B1B
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural
Architect
ural - Mortar Frag. Mortar N
188
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting - Fuel Frag. Coal N
189
STP
B1B
Stratum
II, Level
III
Prehistori
c Lithic - Shatter Frag. Chert N
190
STP
B1B
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
Yello
wware 1828 1940 Y Berger 1996
191
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 1860 Y Berger 1996
192
STP
B1B
Stratum
II, Level Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
White
Impro
ved 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
175
III Earthe
nware
193
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Saucer
Whole
/Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware
Royals
tone
China
Maker'
s
Mark;
Royal
Coat
of
Arms
Thomas
Hughes
& Son
Bursle
m,
Staffor
dshire,
Englan
d 1855 1894 Y
California State Parks
2010
194
STP
B1B
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Crock Frag.
Stone
ware 1880 1950 Y Berger 1996
195
STP
B1B
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container
Liquor
Bottle Frag.
Stone
ware 1880 1940 Y Berger 1996
107
STP
B1C
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
108
STP
B1C
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
176
68
STP
B1D
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
83
STP
D1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic Hardware Indefinite Undefined Frag.
Ferrou
s N
84
STP
D1
Stratum
III, Level
IV Prehistori
c Lithic - Shatter Frag. Chert N
85
STP
D1
Stratum
III, Level
IV Prehistori
c Lithic - Shatter Frag. Chert N
67
STP
Y1
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Industrial Materials - Slag Frag. Slag N
10
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Personal
Accoutre
ments Eyewear Lens Whole Glass 1780 1889 Y
Museum of Vision
2010
11
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
177
114
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level II
Faunal Food Animal
Mammalia
Large Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
115
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Faunal Food Animal
Mammalia
Medium Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
116
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Faunal Food Animal Cow
Whole
/Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
117
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Faunal Food Animal Sheep
Whole
/Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
118
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Faunal Food Animal Sheep Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
178
119
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Faunal Food Animal Pig Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
12
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on
Drinking
Vessel Bottle Frag. Glass 1821 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
120
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level II
Faunal Food Animal Cow Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
121
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Faunal Food Animal
Mammalia
Large Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
179
122
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Faunal Food Animal
Mammalia
Medium or
Large Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
123
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level II
Faunal Food Animal
Mammalia
Medium or
Large Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
124
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Faunal Food Animal
Mammalia
Medium Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
125
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Faunal Food Animal
Mammalia
Medium Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
13
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on
Drinking
Vessel Bottle Frag. Glass 1800 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
180
14
STP
Z1
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on
Drinking
Vessel Bottle Frag. Glass 1800 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
15
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting Lamp
Lamp
Chimney/Li
ght Bulb Frag. Glass 1879 Present Y Miller 2000
16
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Canning Jar Frag. Glass 1869 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
17
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Canning Jar Frag. Glass 1869 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
181
18
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic - Container Undefined Frag. Glass 1800 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
19
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
2
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 Present Y Berger 1996
20
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container Bottle Frag. Glass 1800 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
21
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container Bottle Frag. Glass 1800 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
182
22
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Undefine
d Use Ecofact - - Frag. Wood N
23
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I Undefine
d Use Ecofact - - Frag. Coal N
24
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Frag.
Ceram
ic N
25
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Frag.
Comp
osite N
26
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural Hardware - Hinge Whole
Ferrou
s N
27
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I Undefine
d Use Hardware - Casing Frag.
Ferrou
s N
28
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Indefinite Handle Frag.
Ferrou
s N
29
STP
Z1
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Whole
Ferrou
s 1805 1836 Y Wells 1998
3
STP
Z1
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
183
30
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural Hardware Fastener Tack Whole
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
31
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level II
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s N
32
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural Hardware Fastener Spike Whole
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
33
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1833 1849 Y Miller 2000
34
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Saucer Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 1860 Y Berger 1996
35
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Undefined Frag.
Redwa
re 1800 1900 Y Brown 1982
36
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Frag.
Ceram
ic N
37
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III Undefine
d Use Indefinite - - - Slag N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
184
38
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Undefined Frag. Glass N
39
STP
Z1
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Whole
Ferrou
s 1805 1836 Y Wells 1998
4
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Storage Container
Large
Storage
Vessel Frag.
Stone
ware 1775 1900 Y Brown 1982
40
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Indefinite Undefined Frag.
Ferrou
s N
41
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Whole
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
43
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Undefined Frag.
Redwa
re 1800 1900 Y Brown 1982
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
185
44
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container
Large
Storage
Vessel Frag.
Stone
ware 1800 1940 Y Berger 1996
45
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Undefined Frag.
Redwa
re 1670 1900 Y Brown 1982
46
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Undefined Frag.
Yello
wware 1830 1900 Y Brown 1982
47
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Undefined Frag.
Stone
ware N
48
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Crock Frag.
Stone
ware 1800 1940 Y Berger 1996
49
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 1900 Y Berger 1996
5
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container
Large
Storage
Vessel Frag.
Stone
ware 1800 1940 Y Berger 1996
50
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1825 1836 Y
Berger 1996 and
Miller 2000
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
186
51
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
Pearlw
are 1830 1840 Y Berger 1996
52
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 Present Y Berger 1996
53
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1833 1849 Y Miller 2000
54
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Frag.
Ceram
ic N
55
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level II
Structural
Architect
ural - Mortar Frag. Mortar N
56
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on
Drinking
Vessel Bottle Frag. Glass 1800 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
187
57
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level II
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
58
STP
Z1
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting Lamp Globe Frag. Glass 1852 Present Y Brown 1982
59
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s N
6
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container
Large
Storage
Vessel Frag.
Stone
ware 1800 1940 Y Berger 1996
60
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Personal Clothing Fastener Button Whole Brass Y
62
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level II Undefine
d Use Ecofact - - Frag. Wood N
63
STP
Z1
Stratum
III, Level
IV Undefine
d Use Ecofact - - Frag.
Charc
oal N
65
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Crock Frag.
Stone
ware 1800 1940 Y Berger 1996
66
STP
Z1
Stratum
III, Level
IV
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Tableware Cup Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 Present Y Berger 1996
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
188
7
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container
Large
Storage
Vessel Frag.
Stone
ware 1800 1940 Y Berger 1996
8
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level I
Personal Clothing Fastener Button
Whole
/Frag.
Porcel
ain 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
9
STP
Z1
Stratum I,
Level II
Personal Writing Instrument Nib Pen
Whole
/Frag.
Comp
osite 1831 1900 Y Chisholm 1911
112
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Faunal Food Animal
Mammalia
Large Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
113
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Faunal Food Animal
Mammalia
Medium or
Large Frag. Bone N Lowman 2010
196
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Indefinite Indefinite Indefinite Frag.
Ferrou
s N
197
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic Clothing Fastener Buckle
Whole
/Frag.
Ferrou
s N
198
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
189
199
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s N
200
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural Hardware Fastener Spike Frag.
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
201
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s 1860 Present Y Miller 2000
202
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Fastener Tack
Whole
/Frag.
Ferrou
s N
203
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Industrial Indefinite Indefinite Slag Frag. Slag N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
190
204
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Personal Clothing Fastener Button Back Whole Brass N
205
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Faunal Bone - - Frag. Bone N
206
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Faunal Shell Shell Clam Frag. Shell N
207
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural
Heating/L
ighting Electrical Fuse Whole
Comp
osite 1970 Present Y 3M 2010
208
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Storage Closure
Canning Jar
Liner Whole Glass
Embos
sing
with
Comp
any
Name
on
Front;
"15"
on
back
Consoli
dated
Fruit
Jar
Compa
ny
New
York 1859 1910 Y Hinson 1996
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
191
209
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
210
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic Indefinite Indefinite Amorphous Frag. Glass N
211
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting Lamp Light Bulb Frag. Glass 1879 Present Y Miller 2000
212
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Tableware Cup Frag. Glass 1880 Present Y Miller 2000
213
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic Indefinite Indefinite Indefinite Frag. Glass N
214
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
Porcel
ain 1816 1836 Y Miller 2000
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
192
215
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
Stone
ware
East
Liverpo
ol
Potterie
s
East
Liverp
ool,
Ohio 1880 1930 Y
Gates and Ormerod
1982
216
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 Present Y Berger 1996
217
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Indefinite Frag.
Stone
ware 1800 1940 Y Berger 1996
218
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Indefinite Frag.
Stone
ware 1850 1940 Y Berger 1996
219
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Crock Frag.
Stone
ware 1800 1940 Y Berger 1996
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
193
220
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Crock Frag.
Stone
ware 1880 1950 Y Berger 1996
221
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Whole Brick N
222
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Frag. Brick N
223
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural
Architect
ural - Mortar Frag. Mortar N
224
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Industrial Indefinite Indefinite Slag Frag. Slag N
225
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Faunal Bone - - Frag. Bone N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
194
226
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Cup Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
227
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Cup Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 Present Y Berger 1996
228
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic Indefinite
Decorative
Item Indefinite Frag.
Porcel
ain 1816 1836 Y Miller 2000
229
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container
Large
Storage
Vessel Frag.
Stone
ware 1880 1950 Y Berger 1996
230
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Crock Frag.
Stone
ware 1880 1950 Y Berger 1996
231
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container
Large
Storage
Vessel Frag.
Stone
ware 1880 1950 Y Berger 1996
232
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container
Large
Storage
Vessel Frag.
Stone
ware 1880 1950 Y Berger 1996
233
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Bowl Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
234
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
Domestic Tools Kitchen
Knife
Sharpener Frag. Stone N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
195
II
235
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1833 1849 Y Miller 2000
236
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting - Fuel Frag. Coal N
237
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Personal Clothing Fastener Button Whole
Porcel
ain 1840 Present Y
Sprague 2002 and
Berger 1996
238
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Personal
Accoutre
ments Jewelry Ring Whole Brass N
239
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Activities Firearms
Ammunitio
n Primer/Head Whole Brass
W.R.
A. Co.
No. 12
Rival
Winche
ster
Repeati
ng
Arms
Co.
Conne
cticut 1894 1904 Y Steinhauer 2010
240
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Personal Clothing Fastener Button Whole
Ferrou
s N
241
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Personal
Accoutre
ments Toiletry Comb Frag. Plastic 1907 Present Y Miller 2000
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
196
242
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Personal Clothing - Shoe eyelet Frag.
Leathe
r N
243
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Personal Writing - Pencil Whole
Graphi
te 1875 Present Y Berger 1996
244
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Furnishin
gs Furniture Tack Whole Brass N
245
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic Indefinite - Bracket Frag.
Coppe
r-alloy N
246
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic - Indefinite - Frag.
Unide
ntified N
247
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
248
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Canning Jar Frag. Glass
D.O.C
.
Domini
ck O.
Cunnin
gham
Glass
Co.
Pittsbu
rgh,
PA 1882 1931 Y Whitten 2010
249
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic Indefinite - Amorphous Frag. Glass N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
197
250
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Container Candy Dish Frag. Glass N
251
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container Bottle Frag. Glass 1850 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
252
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic Indefinite Indefinite Amorphous Frag. Glass N
253
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic Indefinite Container Indefinite Frag. Glass N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
198
254
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting Lamp Light Bulb Frag. Glass 1879 Present Y Miller 2000
255
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Indefinite Indefinite Frag.
Ferrou
s N
256
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural Hardware Fastener Tack
Whole
/Frag.
Ferrou
s N
257
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural Hardware Fastener Nut Whole
Ferrou
s N
258
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural Hardware Fastener Bracket
Whole
/Frag.
Ferrou
s N
259
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
199
260
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail
Whole
/Frag.
Ferrou
s 1850 Present Y Miller 2000
261
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail
Whole
/Frag.
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
262
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural Hardware Indefinite Indefinite Frag.
Ferrou
s N
263
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail
Whole
/Frag.
Ferrou
s 1805 1836 Y Wells 1998
264
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Tableware Pitcher Frag.
Stone
ware
East
Liverpo
ol
Potterie
s
East
Liverp
ool,
Ohio 1880 1930 Y
Gates and Ormerod
1982
265
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Plate
Whole
/Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware
Ironst
one
China;
W &
E
Corn
Bursle
m;
Royal
Coat
of
Arms
W & E
Corn
Bursle
m,
Englan
d 1864 1891 Y Birks 2003
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
200
266
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Crock Frag.
Stone
ware 1850 1940 Y Berger 1996
267
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 1910 Y Berger 1996
268
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Personal Clothing Fastener Button Whole
Porcel
ain 1840 Present Y
Sprague 2002 and
Berger 1996
269
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container
Teapot
Spout Frag.
Porcel
ain N
270
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 Present Y Berger 1996
271
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Sugar Bowl Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1815 Present Y Berger 1996
272
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural Materials - Wood Frag. Wood N
273
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Domestic
Food
Prep/Cons
umption Tableware Indefinite Frag.
White
Impro
ved
Earthe
nware 1840 Present Y Berger 1996
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
201
274
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Industrial Indefinite Indefinite Slag Frag. Slag N
275
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural
Architect
ural - Mortar Frag. Mortar N
276
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural
Architect
ural -
Roofing
Slate Frag. Slate N
277
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural
Architect
ural - Brick Frag. Brick N
278
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Heating/L
ighting Lamp Light Bulb Frag. Glass 1879 Present Y Miller 2000
279
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic Indefinite Indefinite Amorphous Frag. Glass N
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
202
280
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Canning Jar Frag. Glass 1858 1915 Y BLM and SHA 2010
281
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Domestic
Food
Storage Container Indefinite Frag. Glass 1800 1920 Y BLM and SHA 2010
282
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Domestic
Liquid
Storage/C
onsumpti
on Container Bottle Frag. Glass 1910 1950 Y BLM and SHA 2010
283
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
II
Structural
Architect
ural
Fenestratio
n Window Frag. Glass 1820 1926 Y Berger 1996
284
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s 1805 Present Y Miller 2000
285
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Fastener
Bracket/Cas
ing
Whole
/Frag.
Ferrou
s N
286
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum I,
Level I
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s N
287
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural Hardware Fastener Nail Frag.
Ferrou
s 1850 Present Y Miller 2000
Cat
No
Test
Unit
Proven-
ience
Artifact
Group
Artifact
Category
Artifact
Type
Artifact
Description
Con-
dition
Mate-
rial Mark Maker Origin
Begin
Date
End
Date Date Reference
203
288
TU
1,
S10
W11
Stratum
II, Level
III
Structural Indefinite Indefinite Indefinite Frag.
Ferrou
s N
Appendix E Mean Ceramic Dating - 36ME253
Feature Stratum Type Median Date Frequency Product
Mean Ceramic Date
204
STP A1 I Ironstone, Plain 1925 2 3850 I White Improved Earthenware 1905 1 1905
Total: 3 5755 1918.3
STP B1 I White Improved Earthenware 1905 2 3810 I Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, Salt-Glazed 1870 1 1870 I Whiteware, Plain 1913 2 3826 I Porcelain, Plain Hard-Paste 1930 1 1930
Total: 6 11436 1906
STP B1A
I Ironstone, Plain 1925 9 17325 I Porcelain, Plain Hard-Paste 1930 2 3860 I Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, Salt-Glazed 1870 2 3740 I Whiteware, Plain 1913 6 11478 I Yellowware, White Slip Interior 1884 1 1884 I Stoneware, East Liverpool Rockingham 1905 1 1905 I Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, Albany Slips 1915 5 9575 I Porcelain, Small China 1925 1 1925
Total: 27 51692 1914.5
STP B1B
II Yellowware, Plain 1884 1 1884 II Whiteware, Plain, Maker's Mark 1873 6 11238
Total: 7 13122 1874.6
STP B1B
III Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, Albany Slips 1915 3 5745 III Stoneware, Buff-Bodied 1915 1 1915 III Whiteware, Plain, Maker's Mark 1875 1 1875 III Ironstone, Plain 1925 2 3850 III Whiteware, Transitional 1838 1 1838 III Yellowware, Plain 1884 4 7536
Total: 12 22759 1896.6
Feature Stratum Type Median Date Frequency Product
Mean Ceramic Date
205
STP Z1 I Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, Alkaline Glazed 1870 1 1870 I Redware, Alkaline-Glazed 1850 1 1850 I Stoneware, Buff-Bodied; Salt-Glazed 1870 1 1870 I Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, Plain 1870 1 1870 I Ironstone, Plain 1925 1 1925
I Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, American Blue & Gray 1838 1 1838
I Whiteware, Floral Motif 1841 2 3682 I Whiteware, Transitional 1838 1 1838 I Whiteware, Plain 1875 4 7500
Total: 13 24243 1864.9
STP Z1 II Whiteware, Floral Motif 1838 1 1838 II Whiteware, Plain 1875 2 3750 II Whiteware, Shell-edged Blue 1858 1 1858 II Pearlware, Sponged Polychrome 1835 1 1835 II Porcelain, Plain 1925 1 1925 II Whiteware, Purple Transfer Print 1831 1 1831 II Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, Salt-Glazed 1870 2 3740 II Yellowware, Lead Glaze Exterior 1865 1 1865 II Redware, Unglazed 1785 1 1785 II Redware, Alkaline-Glazed 1850 5 9250
Total: 16 29677 1854.8 STP Z1
III Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, Salt-Glazed 1870 1 1870 III Whiteware, Plain 1875 1 1875
Total: 2 3745 1872.5 STP Z1 Total: 31 57655 1860.2
TU 1, S10 W11 I Stoneware, Brown-Bodied, Salt-Glazed 1895 1 1895 I Stoneware, Buff-Bodied, Salt-Glazed 1870 1 1870
I Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, Salt-Glaze, Albany Slip 1870 1 1870
I Whiteware, Plain 1913 4 7652 I Stoneware, East Liverpool 1905 1 1905
Feature Stratum Type Median Date Frequency Product
Mean Ceramic Date
206
I Porcelain, Chinoiserie 1826 1 1826 I Stoneware, Buff-Bodied, Albany Slips 1915 15 28725
Total: 24 45743 1906
TU 1, S10 W11 II Stoneware, East Liverpool 1905 12 22860 II Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, Salt-Glazed 1895 2 3790 II Ironstone, Polychrome 1875 3 5625 II Ironstone, Plain, Maker's Mark 1878 1 1878 II Ironstone, Plain 1925 21 40425 II Whiteware, Plain 1875 15 28125 II Porcelain, Small China 1925 7 13475 II Stoneware, Buff-Bodied, Albany Slips 1915 3 5745 II Whiteware, Polychrome 1841 1 1841
II Stoneware, Gray-Bodied, Salt-Glazed, Albany Slip 1915 1 1915
II Porcelain, Chinoiserie 1826 1 1826 Total: 67 127505 1903.1
Appendix F
Glass Assemblage Dates for Pandenarium (36ME253)
Feature Stratum Type Median Date
Frequency Product Mean Glass Date
STP B1 I Candy Dish; Molded Pyramidal Design
1917.5 7 13422.5
I Lamp; Chimney 1944.5 4 7778 I Canning Jar; Aqua 1875 1 1875 I Medicine Bottle; Clear 1895 1 1895 I Alcohol Bottle; 3-Piece Mold;
Suction Scar 1845 12 22140
I Bitters Bottle; Hexagonal; Light Green Aqua
1855 1 1855
Total 26 48965.5 1883.3 STP B1A
I Medicine Bottle; Straw Tint; Rectangular
1885 5 9425
I Liquor Bottle; Oval Flask; Maker’s Mark
1884 11 20724
I Lamp; Chimney 1944.5 2 3889 I Canning Jar; Aqua 1875 1 1875 I Liquor Bottle; Oval Flask; Straw
Tint 1902.5 10 19025
I Medicine Bottle; Mouth-Blown; Bare Iron Pontil Scar
1855 7 12985
I Bottle; Embossing; Light Blue-Green Aqua
1890 4 7560
I Bottle; Suction Scar; Blue-Green Aqua
1870 6 11220
I Medicine Bottle; Cup-Bottom Mold
1885 4 7540
I Medicine Bottle; Clear 1885 1 1885 I Tableware; Amber; Floral Motif;
Molded 1917.5 1 1917.5
Total 52 98045.5 1885.5 STP Z1 I Bottle; Mouth-Blown; Aqua 1870.5 1 1870.5 I Bottle; Light Blue-Green Aqua 1860 6 11160 I Canning Jar; Deep Aqua; With
Milk Glass Liner 1894.5 21 39784.5
I Lamp; Chimney 1944.5 3 5833.5 I Bottle; Aqua 1860 8 14880 I Eyewear; Lens; Oval; Beveling 1834.5 1 1834.5 Total 40 75363 1884.1 STP Z1 II Bottle; Light Blue-Green Aqua 1860 2 3720 II Lamp; Globe 1931 3 5793
Feature Stratum Type Median Date
Frequency Product Mean Glass Date
208
Total 5 9513 1902.6 TU 1 I Canning Jar Liner; Milk Glass;
Embossed Seal 1884.5 1 1884.5
I Tableware; Clear; Manganese Solarization
1945 8 15560
I Lamp; Light Bulb 1944.5 3 5833.5 Total 12 23278 1939.8 TU1 II Lamp; Light Bulb 1944.5 25 48612.5 II Canning Jar; Blue-Green Aqua 1886.5 1 1886.5 II Bottle; Clear; Mouth-Blown 1885 18 33930 II Bottle; Machine-Made; Clear 1930 28 54040 II Container; Blue-Green Aqua 1860 8 14880 II Canning Jar; Blue-Green Aqua;
Maker’s Mark 1906.5 2 3813
Total 82 157162 1916.6
PPAR 1
AGround-Pen
Appendix G etrating Radar Results
r Survey
209
AGround-Pen
Appendix G etrating Radar Results
r Survey
210
AGround-Pen
Appendix G etrating Radar Results
r Survey
211
AGround-Pen
Appendix G etrating Radar Results
r Survey
212
PPAR 2
AGround-Pen
Appendix G etrating Radar Results
r Survey
213
AGround-Pen
Appendix G etrating Radar Results
r Survey
214
PPAR 3
AGround-Pen
Appendix G etrating Radar Results
r Survey
215
AGround-Pen
Appendix G etrating Radar Results
r Survey
216
AGround-Pen
Appendix G etrating Radar Results
r Survey
217
AGround-Pen
Appendix G etrating Radar Results
r Survey
218
Appendix H
Manumitted Slaves from the Everett Estate, 1855
219
Source Family Name
Individual Relation Verified in PA Act No. 324, 1855
Verified in Other Historic Records
Not Verified
Charles Everett’s Will
Allen John Husband Yes
Rose Wife Yes Mary (Ann?) Child Yes Frances
(Francis) Child Yes
John Jr. Child Yes Allen Charlie Unknown Yes
(Woods 1999)
Atkinson Hazel Allen Unknown Yes (Woods 1999)
Bell Dan Husband Yes (Woods 1999)
Nancy Wife Yes Tom Child Yes Nelly Child Yes Milly Child Yes Lucy Jane Child Yes Rachel Child Yes Susan Child Yes Jody Child Yes Jackson (Jack) Child Yes William Child Yes Brent George Husband Yes
(Woods 1999)
Jane Daughter of William & Lucy Reeves
Yes (Woods)
Duke Winsor Unknown Yes Duke Joe Husband (Wife
and 15 children left in Virginia)
Yes
Unknown Child Yes Unknown Child Yes Unknown Child Yes Unknown Child Yes Unknown Child Yes Unknown Child Yes Unknown Child Yes
Source Family
Name Individual Relation Verified in
PA Act No. 324, 1855
Verified in Other Historic Records
Not Verified
220
Duke G(eorge).W. Father Yes Duke James Husband Yes Unknown Wife Unverified Samuel J. Son Yes Unknown Children
(Number unknown)
Johnson Mike Unknown Unverified Lewis George
Washington Husband Yes
Caroline Wife Yes (Woods 1999)
Sarah Child Yes (Woods 1999)
Lewis Willis Unknown Unverified Myers Old Lucy (A.) Mother Yes Myers Henry Husband Yes Sophia Wife Yes
(Woods 1999)
William Child Yes Jerry Child Yes Myers Nick Child (of
Lucy) Yes
Myers Susan Child (of Lucy)
Yes
Nicholas Wilson Unknown Unverified Rives
(Reeves) Willie C. Husband Yes
Lucy Wife Yes (Woods 1999)
Robertson Frank Child (of Letitia)
Yes
Robertson Joe Child (of Letitia)
Yes
Robertson Louisa (Eliza) Child (of Letitia)
Yes
Robertson Alexander Child (of Letitia)
Yes
Robinson Jackson Unknown Yes (Woods 1999)
Source Family
Name Individual Relation Verified in
PA Act No. 324, 1855
Verified in Other Historic Records
Not Verified
221
Robinson Wally Unknown Yes (Woods 1999)
Robertson Letitia Mother Yes Stokely Joe Unknown Unverified Watson Edward Unknown Yes Watson Hannah Unknown Yes Watson Amanda Unknown Yes Watson Sally Unknown Yes Watson Margaret Unknown Yes Wiske Old Joe Unknown UnverifiedPA Act No. 324, 1855 (not included in Will list)
Robertson Richmond Child (of Letitia)
Yes
Duke Reuben Child (of G.W. Duke)
Yes
Duke Charles Child (of G.W. Duke)
Yes
Duke Joseph Child (of G.W. Duke)
Yes
Bell Henrietta Child (of Rachel Bell)
Yes
Lewis Willis Child (Grandchild of Lucy Myers)
Yes
Lewis Mary J. Child (Grandchild of Lucy Myers)
Yes
Totals 52 11 6
Appendix I
Soils Map of Pandenarium, Site 36ME253
222
USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey taken from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. 2010.
Soils Key:
Pa – Papakating silt loam
Wa – Wayland silt loam
CdC2 – Canfield silt loam
CdB2 – Canfield silt loam
FhB – Frenchtown silt loam
RaA – Ravenna silt loam
RaB2 – Ravenna silt loam
CoB2 – Chenango silt loam N