South Carolina Antiquities (Vol. 40, 2008)

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons Jakob D. Crockett (editor)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project is supported in part by: Historic Columbia Foundation; a grant from The Humanities Council SC, a National Endowment for the Humanities program; the Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina—Columbia, and a McNeil Dissertation Fellowship at Winterthur Museum, Delaware. The success of this project is the direct result of an outstanding crew, three field schools composed of talented individuals, and all the field and lab volunteers. A special thanks goes to Joseph Crockett for his work during the 2005 excavations and Jay Cox for his work during summer 2007. Excavations and artifact processing would not have been possible without the extraordinary work done by Heléna Ferguson. Meg Gaillard and Kimberly Cavanagh made sure the excavations were photo-documented with exceptional quality. I owe more thanks than I could give to John Sherrer and Robin Waits, who let me place large holes and piles of dirt all over their property. Finally, I thank the authors of the articles in this issue, who were interested enough in the site to conduct their own research and make it a better project.

INTRODUCTION As a collection of nineteenth and twentieth century urban African American commercial and domestic spaces in downtown Columbia, South Carolina, the Mann-Simons site (38RD1083) is unique. As a collection of spaces that remained intact throughout six generations of the same family, from its initial occupation in circa 1825 to its purchase by the Columbia Housing Authority in 1970, the site is outstanding. As a re-appropriated space that survived—at least below surface—the urban renewal of the 1970s and 1980s, the Mann-Simons site represents an ideal platform for investigating myriad topics, from the development of consumer culture to landscape and race.

When I initiated the Mann-Simons African American Archaeology Project in 2005, I went about the initial research process in the typical way: I evaluated what was already known of the history and archaeology of the site, defined broad research goals, developed objectives to reach those goals, applied for funding, and set about the task of digging. Shortly after the project began, however, I quickly realized that I wanted the project to be more than a contribution to social history and the practice of archaeology (as lofty as those aspirations are): I wanted a project that offered other students the opportunity to conduct their own original research at the site while contributing to the larger project goals. The articles in this issue of South Carolina Antiquities represent one realization of this goal.

From the beginning, support for, and participation in, the project has been exceptional. Over the course of two years, I directed three archaeological field schools drawing students from as far away as Florida and New York and benefited from the participation and interest of community and academic volunteers in the field and lab. Historic Columbia Foundation (HCF) plans to integrate the archaeological findings into their public interpretations of the site in a way that foregrounds the complex and often contradictory nature of the urban Jim Crow South. Lauran Riser’s forthcoming MA thesis will add a valuable component to the interpretation by focusing on rental properties owned by the Mann-Simons family, while Meg Gaillard’s (2007) production of a documentary on the 2007 field school and creation of a webpage (http://mannsimons.freehostia.com) has given the project a distribution that was lacking before.

130

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

One of the most rewarding aspects of the project—certainly the most unexpected—has been neighborhood and community interest. Working outside on a downtown street corner off-and-on for two years, I talked with more people than I could possibly count, and, just by virtue of where I was located, was probably exposed to a more representative sample of Columbia’s population than most projects allow. What I came to realize is that those who found the most significance in the site, those who were most interested and were able to connect to the site and tell their own stories through the site, were those individuals who are rarely included in formal outreach efforts, particularly those who we might call Columbia’s wandering population. It is within this context of support, interest, and participation that the interpretations of the Mann-Simons site are taking form.

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons In terms of excavation, the objective was to generate a representative sample of the entire area occupied by the Mann-Simons family between 1825 and 1970 within accessible spaces (i.e. the site boundaries defined by modern features, for example, the paved parking lot east of the site). Figure 1 illustrates the placement of excavation units in relation to existing and extinct structures and site boundaries. While materials spanning the full history of the site were recovered, the current interpretive focus is the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a crucial transformative period between Victorianism and modernism that set the stage for the development of our current culture of consumption.

As consumer culture reached maturation in the years between the 1880s and 1930s, the growing commercial and semi-public spaces in the South that came with urbanization created new places for old social conflicts (Hale 1998; Slater 1997). Although the growth of consumer culture drew the South into the nation, it also played a central role in the (re)creation of racial identities (Mullins 1999). The culture of segregation that developed in the South during this era is largely due to two related developments that occurred in tandem with the adoption of racial segregation: the expansion of consumer culture and the growth of the African American middle-class. As Elizabeth Grace Hale (1998:123) explains, “the multiplying spaces of consumption within the growing towns and cities of the … South became key sites for the white Southern creation of and African American resistance to the culture of segregation.”

From the 1880s onward, the link between everyday consumption and the social themes of entitlement, mobility, race, status, and affluence became increasingly normalized (Slater 1997). At a national level, this normalization of consumer culture created new opportunities for cultural participation. In the South, the development of small-scale, backyard commercial spaces made possible by the integration of consumer goods into everyday life—e.g. restaurants and groceries—facilitated the growth of an African American middle-class and prompted the development of a culture of segregation and Jim Crow legislation, what historian Robert Weems (1998) has called “American apartheid.” From this, the question becomes: how did the mutual construction of racial segregation and consumer culture affect middle-class African American social mobility and status in the developing urban spaces of Columbia?

Recent discoveries at the Mann-Simons site have produced exciting new materials to answer this question. A good example is the structure at 1401 Richland Street. Although Sanborn Fire Insurance maps (1904) and Columbia City Directories (1875-1930) indicate that the Mann-Simons family owned and operated a small, 13 x 13-foot lunch counter next to the main house between 1891 and 1909, little else was known (Figure 1). Excavations by field school students during May 2006 revealed not only structural foundations, but also a large, well-preserved trash pit associated with the lunch counter (Crockett 2007). Preliminary analysis of the recovered artifacts from the trash pit suggests that the structure caught fire, prompting its removal in 1909, which seems to have consisted of emptying

131

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Figure 1. Plan of the Mann-Simons site: blue indicates excavation units, green STP units, red outlines past and present structures, black shows site boundaries as defined by modern features (e.g. the parking lot), and purple decrements the northern site boundary along the north property line of 1904 Marion Street. Excavation units labeled “1998” are units placed by Chris Clement (Clement, et al. 1999) in 1998. The main Mann-Simons house (still standing) is at 1403 Richland Street; the family’s second house is 1904 Marion Street; the grocery store is 1407 Richland Street, while the lunch counter is 1401 Richland Street. 1906 Marion Street was a rental property owned by the Mann-Simons family until the 1930s (Drawing by the author).

132

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Figure 2. Photograph of Block 1 excavations during November 2006. This space was the common yard area behind the main Mann-Simons house (standing) and the house at 1904 Marion Street (associated with the exposed foundation piers) (Photograph by the author).

133

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

the complete contents of the lunch counter into a large pit directly behind the structure. The result is an extraordinary material snap-shot of the day-to-day operations of an early African American commercial undertaking within the context of an expanding mass market during a period when such undertakings played a central role in the (re)creation of racial identities (Hale 1998).

Excavations of similar structures of the period are few, and those owned and operated by African Americans nonexistent in the archaeological literature. The exact reason for this lack of scholarship is unclear, but contemporary political processes offer a partial explanation. Minority communities were disproportionately impacted by urban renewal projects during the 1960s and 1970s and rarely seen as significant cultural resources. Critical Race Theory suggests that the lack of comparable sites today reflects, at least in part, these spatial relations created through institutional racism (Epperson 2004).

All together, over 15,000 artifacts were recovered from the excavations, which revealed, among other things, the foundations of the grocery store at 1407 Richland Street and the lunch counter at 1401 Richland Street, nine foundation piers associated with the house at 1904 Marion Street, multiple large trash deposits, a privy, three pet burials, gardens, and a multitude of post-molds. Although analysis is still in progress, each unit contained a broad and abundant range of household, commercial, and faunal material, including children’s toys, possible colono-ware, Chinese porcelain, cutlery, and leather.

The Articles Austin Paterek, in “Historic Photograph Superimposition: A New Photographic Method at the Mann-Simons Site,” explores how old photographs can be used to generate new interpretations. Drawing on his work in visual anthropology and media studies, Paterek uses several period photographs to spatially reconstruct the built environment of the Mann-Simons site prior to its destruction in the 1970s, making available for study above-ground features and landscape elements not visible archaeologically. Paterek further presents a new method of photograph superimposition using readily available technologies and how this method might aid public outreach and participation.

Heléna L. Ferguson’s “Material Culture and Documentary Relations of the Mann-Simons Tenants” illustrates how archaeological and historical data can be used together to understand urban tenancy by examining changes in occupation at the 1906/8 Marion Street property. In doing so, Ferguson illustrates the methodological challenges that face archaeologists of the recent past when integrating disparate sources of data generated through different formation processes. Her analysis reveals that mass-produced consumer goods—the archaeological data set from the early twentieth century—are not always sensitive indicators of significant aspects of identity revealed through documents.

Kathleen A. Clardy, in “Dating and Identification of American Rimfire and Centerfire Metallic Cartridges,” synthesizes different archival sources to produce a comprehensive guide to American-made cartridges during the nineteenth and early twentieth century. A project conceived of while cataloging cartridges from the Mann-Simons site, Clardy sought to gather widely separated sources into one convenient collection. The potential for archaeologies of the recent past to contribute to the larger discipline of anthropology lies in the ability to generate fine-grained site chronologies. Clardy’s synthesis, and in particular, her illustrations representing cartridge evolution, is a welcome addition to artifact identification and chronology.

134

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Erika Heimbrook Shofner, Meg Gaillard, and Tamera Looney, in “1905 Marion Street: A Look at Changing Urban Life in Columbia, South Carolina,” document their archaeological testing at 1905 Marion Street, a domestic lot directly across the street from the Mann-Simons site. Their investigation concerns two of the most important concepts in archaeology: site integrity and significance. Shofner, Gaillard, and Looney explore these issues in relation to their excavations, cumulating in a proposed framework for evaluating the research potential of turn-ofthe-twentieth century urban sites.

Ben Johnson’s article, “Window Glass Thickness as a Chronological Marker: A Case Study from Columbia, South Carolina,” explores the methodological background of using window glass as a temporal marker. Window glass is said to have increased in thickness during most of the nineteenth century. Using two large, well dated trash deposits from the Mann-Simons site, Johnson examines the utility of glass thickness as a chronological marker on urban sites and suggests several refinements of the method.

HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPH SUPERIMPOSITION: A NEW PHOTOGRAPHIC METHOD AT THE MANNSIMONS SITE

By Austin Paterek Photography plays a major role in research at most archaeological sites. These photographs serve a vital purpose in documenting the appearance of the units and the layers that are excavated, since eventually each layer in the units will be destroyed by excavation or the units will be back-filled with dirt once excavation of the site is completed. At the Mann-Simons site, after a layer has been entirely removed from a unit, profile photographs are taken from each of the four sides of the unit. These photographs are combined with written forms describing provenience and stratigraphy as well as hand-drawn maps of the units and features to give as detailed a description of the findings as possible.

Photographs can serve more purposes than just the documentation of the site though. In my research, I used historic photographs in a method, which adds an additional layer of interpretation to the archaeology being done at the Mann-Simons site. By superimposing historic photographs on the current site-landscape, I was able to see how the environment of the site changed over the last half century. I also used this method to relate features found in the excavation of the site to the structures as they appear in the historic photographs.

There are multiple benefits to the implementation of this method, including mapping sites prior to excavation and as a supplement for public interpretation of the site after excavation is complete. The current method of superimposition, as it was designed by Gene Prince (1988) several decades ago, has several disadvantages as well.

In this article, I illustrate the benefits and drawbacks of implementing the research method as originally proposed by Prince. I also show that by utilizing several new innovations in photography and the technology of capturing images, the same results can be reached and possibly lessen some of the drawbacks inherent in Prince’s method.

Methodology The method of historic photograph superimposition used in this research was originally used by Gene Prince (1988) of the Phobes Museum at the University of California at Berkeley. Prince used the method for locating archaeological sites as well as determining scale. To understand how photograph superimposition can be used in the ways that Prince used it, I will describe how to put this method into practice.

135

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

The first step is acquiring the necessary materials for the research. In order to attempt this research method, there must have been photographs taken in the past, which can be related to the general area of the current archaeological site. Often times these photographs can be found in a variety of formats. These photographs may be paper copies, prints, or in an electronic format. To use these historic photographs in the method of superimposition, you must convert your photographs into 35mm positive slides. In his article, Prince suggests that these slides be made in several exposures, in order to insure that the image and the current landscape will both be visible. If a photograph does not contain a great deal of contrast, it may difficult to see the necessary points in the original photograph for aligning the camera, and it may also be difficult to see the contemporary landscape due to the opacity of the slide in the camera. Having several versions of each slide can help in this situation, but by utilizing photographic editing programs, both time and money can be saved.

Instead of requesting the slides be developed in several exposures, a researcher can change the opacity and contrasts of his photographs before they are converted to slides by using photo editing software, like Adobe Photoshop. An electronic version of the photograph (.bmp, .gif, .jpg, or .png) is loaded into the program. Using the opacity option located on the editing toolbar, the photograph can be made more translucent. This will have the same effect as having the slides developed at higher exposures. The greatest benefit to this is that the researcher controls the appearance of the slide. If the slides are lightened by the laboratory developing the slides, the researcher will only be able to see if the slides are light enough after paying for development. As a result, only one slide will need to be made, as opposed to have several of varying opacities.

Once the slides have been procured, the next item necessary is the appropriate camera. The camera that Prince used in his original research is a 35mm single lens reflex (SLR) camera with removable prism housing. One of the popular cameras with this feature is the early Nikon F-series camera. The removable prism housing allows the researcher to place the transparency of the original photograph directly on the focal screen of the camera. The prism housing is then placed back onto the camera.

The next step is locating the photograph’s origin. First, a print should be obtained or made of the photograph.

Using this as a guide, find the general location of where the photograph was taken. This is also when you should locate two points of reference that will be used to triangulate the photograph’s origin. These can be any objects or lines that appear in both the current landscape and the photograph being used. Next, check to make sure that the starting focal length on the camera is set to 50 mm. A camera lens with a 50 mm focal length is referred to as a “normal lens” since this focal length, when used with a 35mm camera, best duplicates the way that the human eye would see an image. It is important that the camera being used have a zoom lens, preferably from 35-70 mm. This will cover most of the focal lengths that may have been used to make the photograph. With the focal length now set, hold the camera in your hands, look through the viewfinder and locate the points of reference that will be used in locating the origin. Move around and change focal lengths until the points in the current landscape and the photograph line up. Once this position is located in a hand-held method, mark the photograph’s origin. Next, place the camera on a tripod at the photographs origin. Make sure that the images are still aligned in the camera. Now, hang a plumb bob from the bottom of the tripod. This will determine the precise location of the origin. Mark the precise origin of the photograph with a nail.

Now that the origin has been located it is possible to take a photograph from the same location as the original photograph. Replace the camera containing the original photograph with either a film or digital 35 mm SLR camera. Make sure that before the cameras are switched that the tripod head is tightened in order to make the two photographs as similar as possible. With the new camera in place, and making sure that the focal length of the new

136

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

camera is the same as the one with historic photograph, another new photograph can be taken from the same place as the original photograph.

One of the greatest benefits of Prince’s method is that it allows the researcher to map the location and scale of features that appear in the photograph but no longer exist at the site. Once these photographs have been taken, place the camera with the slide inside of it back onto the tripod. With the help of an assistant, the researcher can determine the location of surface and above-ground features and their scale. The researcher continues to examine the photograph through the camera, and directs the assistant to the original locations of the features in the historic photograph. Once the assistant is standing at a point of the feature that can be measured, the point can be recorded using a total station. Once all of the required points have been recorded, the feature can be mapped in. Another benefit of superimposition is that it allows the researcher to see the scale of the features at the site. The assistant is able to stand next to features that exist only in the photographs with a stadia rod of similar measuring instrument and thus record the scale of the features.

Prince’s Example of the Method Gene Prince discusses his photography method in locating and mapping possible archaeological sites. This is used as a sampling method, much like shovel test pits, which can help in locating areas that are significant to an archaeologist. Prince discusses two different sites where he has used this method of superimposition. The first example is in Somersville, California. The second example is the site of an old pontoon bridge located on the Potomac River. Both of these examples show how superimposing old photographs can help to locate sites, much like shovel test pits would be used to locate areas to excavate.

Somersville, California was the location of a 19th century coal-mining town. The town has vanished completely.

Prince used the fence lines in a photograph from 1900 to line up the present-day landscape with the image produced almost a century prior to his research. The mapping done using the photograph was used to locate areas for excavation. The resulting excavation showed errors of less than one percent (1988: 115). Prince also used his method to determine the location of a pontoon bridge the Potomac River used by General Grant before the siege of Petersburg (1988: 115).

One great point that Prince brings up in his research is that “Archaeology is a destructive research technique” (1988: 115). By using the method of photographic superimposition, the archaeological record is left in tact. A sampling method like shovel testing would partially destroy the archaeological record. Prince has shown that, if photographs of a site are available, photographic superimposition is a very suitable and reliable sampling method.

Use and Findings at the Mann-Simons Site My research was conducted as part of the Mann-Simons African American Archaeology Project in Columbia, South Carolina, during fall 2006. Since being saved from demolition, the Mann-Simons house has become a museum managed by Historic Columbia Foundation. During the 1970s, the Columbia Housing Authority converted the 1904 and 1906/8 Marion Street properties into a public park (Figure 3) (Crockett 2006). This park is now primarily used by the residents of a large apartment building just north of the site, as well as the annual Jubilee Festival celebrating African American heritage in South Carolina.

Four photographs of the Mann-Simons property were located for use in this project. The first photograph was taken in front of Charles Simons’ grocery store at 1407 Richland Street in 1969 (Figure 4). This photograph had multiple

137

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

points of reference that still existed in the current landscape (Figure 5), including a portion of the original driveway that ran into the alleyway between the grocery store and the Mann-Simons house, the curb on the side of Richland Street, and an electrical pole. The alignment of this photograph was simplified by multiple points of references that

Figure 3. 1919 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, where ‘A’ indicates location of the main Mann-Simons house, ‘B’ the house at 1904 Marion Street, and ‘C’ the grocery at 1407 Richland Street (Courtesy of South Caroliniana Library).

138

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Figure 4. Charles Simon’s Grocery at 1407 Richland Street, circa 1969 (courtesy of Historic Columbia Foundation).

Figure 5. Site of Grocery Store in 2006 (photograph by author).

139

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

appear in both the historic photograph and in the current landscape. The remaining photographs did not contain as many clear points of reference that could be used to align the historic photographs with the current landscape.

The second image is of the backyard of the Mann-Simons House (Figure 6). The points of reference that were used to align the image are the roof line of a two story house east of the Mann-Simons house and the northern side of the Mann-Simons house. One of the major complications with aligning this photograph was the renovations to the Mann-Simons House (Figure 7). Gutters have been added around the edge of the Mann-Simons house. These gutters obstructed the view of the chimney that is located in the photograph. Once this fact was realized, the location of the camera was moved so that the chimney is just out of view, but would line up if the gutter were not on the house.

The photograph of the backyard contains one very interesting feature. It shows a small shed that was erected in the backyard of the house. The Sanborn map from 1919 (Figure 3) shows a small building in the backyard that I originally believed to be the structure in the photograph. Once the photograph was aligned with the current landscape though, the structure was at least ten feet further north than the building located on the Sanborn map.

This leads me to believe that the structure located in the photograph was built after the structure in the 1919 map had been destroyed. Several postmolds have been located in the area of the structure shown on the map. The evidence from the archaeological record and superimposition of the historic photograph seem to suggest that more than one structure has stood in the backyard of the Mann-Simons house. A portion of the area where the building in the photograph once stood has already been excavated with no indications of a foundation in the ground. It is possible that the structure was only supported by cinder blocks on the surface of the ground. This would mean that any evidence of the structure was destroyed when the area was cleared for the construction of the park. By using superimposition, we added another layer of historical context that will benefit the analysis of features found at the site.

The third photograph shows the front of the Mann-Simons house and illustrates the drastic changes in the landscape of the Mann-Simons property and surrounding areas. The original photograph (Figure 8) shows a clear view of the front of the Mann-Simons house. Today, it is almost impossible to see the house from the origin of the historic photograph (Figure 9). Trees have been placed down the sides of the street by the city and a gardening club has planted vegetation throughout the garden. This is the most difficult of all the photographs to use. The only clear point of reference to use in aligning the photograph was the inside of the sidewalk running between the house and Marion Street.

The last photograph is house that was located at 1904 Marion Street (Figure 10). During excavation, many of the brick foundation pillars of this house were excavated. Since the location of the house was already known, locating the photograph’s origin was much easier. The inside of the sidewalk and the edge of the Mann-Simons house were used to align the photograph (Figure 11). This location was also confirmed by matching the location of pillars that had been excavated with the foundation pillars in the photograph. Since the location of the house was already known, the greatest benefit of using superimposition with this photograph was the ability to determine the aboveground dimensions of the building by placing a measuring rod next to the building as it appears in the photograph.

Implications for the Mann-Simons Site Besides being beneficial in the process of locating sites and features in the process of archaeological research and discovering the size and scale of features, this method also shows possible uses in the area of public interpretation of the site. Two key uses stand out that will benefit Historic Columbia Foundation in their presentation of historical 140

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Figure 6. Backyard of the Mann-Simons house, circa 1969 (courtesy of Historic Columbia Foundation).

Figure 7. Backyard of Mann-Simons house in 2006 (photograph by author).

141

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Figure 8. Mann Simons house at 1403 Richland Street, circa 1969 (courtesy of Historic Columbia Foundation).

Figure 9. Mann-Simons house in 2006 (photograph by author)

142

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Figure 10. House at 1904 Marion Street, circa 1969 (courtesy of Historic Columbia Foundation).

Figure 11. 1904 Marion Street lot in 2006 (photograph by author).

143

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

information at the museum located at the site. First the method will aid in the construction of “ghost frames” which will be a new way of extending the museum outside of the house onto the entire property. The second is creating slide viewers that will be set up at each photograph’s origin. This will allow the public to view the changes that have taken place at the site over the past four decades.

The ghost frames are bare, replica house frames that outline where the original structures were located. The hope is that this addition to the property can connect the backyard portion of the property to the museum inside of the building. Superimposition can be of great use in planning the construction of the frames. By superimposing the photographs over the site, we can not only see the location of the features, but also their scale. By using objects in the current landscape as scale references, we can determine the size of the features. This can be taken into account in the construction of the ghost frames.

Currently the photographs used for this research are on display in the basement of the Mann-Simons house, which is used to display artifacts and photography in a museum setting. Superimposition gives these photographs the chance to move outside of the walls of the museum and the chance to be displayed from the exact location where they were originally taken. By setting up a monopod on the marked origins of the photographs, the public will have a chance to not only see the photographs, but also see the change that has occurred since the photographs were taken. The public will be able to view the picture through the camera, one by one. This addition to the public interpretation can act as a transition from the interpretation being done inside the house to the archaeological excavation being done outside of the house.

Alternative/Updated Method One of the main issues that slowed the research process was the procurement of the appropriate equipment. Not just any 35 mm SLR camera will work and perform properly. The key for this to work is that the prism housing on the Nikon F can be removed, leaving a focal screen exposed that is just the right size for a 35 mm positive slide to lay down underneath the housing. It could be possible to place the slide on the mirror just behind the lens of the camera, but the image will slide around and it is more likely to scratch the mirror and render the camera body useless. I was lucky enough to locate a professor in my department who owns the camera needed for this research, but the ordeal of locating these antique collectible cameras made me wonder if this research could be replicated using more modern equipment.

A revised version of this method utilizes digital video cameras and computer video editing software. Instead of having photographs converted into slides, the photographs are converted into a digital format. The photos are not translucent like the slides used in Prince’s method, so the opacity of the slides should be lowered using image editing software, like Adobe Photoshop. With the photo now translucent, it is possible to locate the photograph’s origin using a video camera and video editing software. Using a fire wire cable, connect the camera to computer.

With the video camera set to record directly into the computer, you will be able to see the images being captured on the camera in a video editing program.

To be able to locate the photograph’s origin, the original photograph must be laid over the original landscape. When using this new method, this is achieved by using multiple video channels. Video editing software, like Final Cut, allows the user to place different images on top of one another. To superimpose the image on the current landscape, the images coming from the video camera should be placed in the first video channel of the timeline. In a channel just above the video feed, place the historic photograph. Since this image has a decreased opacity, it is possible to see both the past and present images at the same time.

144

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Since both images can now be seen on the computer screen at the same time, it is possible to locate the photograph’s origin. This is done in the same manner as the original method. First locate the general area of the photograph’s origin using a copy of the photograph. Then line up two points of reference that appear in both the original photograph and the current landscape. Move the camera until these points are aligned. Mark the location of the tripod in the same manner as you would with Prince’s method. Once the origin of the photograph has been located, it is possible to begin to recording the location and scale of features in relation to the current site. A great benefit to this new method is that multiple researchers will be able to see the image at the same time.

Conclusion Gene Prince’s (1988) method has been underused in the past at archaeological sites. Photography is generally used for the documentation of features and artifacts at a site. As this paper has shown though, there are other ways in which photography can be valuable in historical archaeology.

While Prince’s original method has several drawbacks that I highlighted, it still has benefits that the newer method does not have. If photographic superimposition is used in public interpretation, it will not be very practical to have a laptop and video camera set up for the public to look at. The 35mm camera is a much better method for displaying the historic photographs for public interpretation around the Mann-Simons museum. It is much more practical to set up a single camera and have the public take turns looking through the camera. Also, looking through the camera and seeing images of the past can connect the public with people from the past. The original photograph was taken by a single person looking through a camera, not at a screen. It is only fitting that the public see the photograph through the camera, the way it was created from the place that it was created.

These romantic qualities of photography lend themselves to public interpretation, but a superimposition method that utilizes digital video is much more practical for the purposes of research. When using superimposition for mapping features and documenting the scale of features that appear in the historic photograph, the new video method has many benefits that Prince’s original method does not. With this new method you are able to turn channels on and off, so you can see the images together or separate. This is not possible using a 35mm camera. Another benefit is that multiple researchers can see the image at the same time on the computer screen.

As I have shown, there are many benefits to using historic photograph superimposition in historical archaeology. It can be a great tool for mapping the location of features at a site. Prince has also shown that it can be a very effective tool for sampling and locating sites for excavation. One of the greatest benefits of superimposition is the addition that it can make to public interpretation at the Mann-Simons site.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Columbia Historic Foundation for allowing research to be done at their property. I would also like to thank Dr. Walter Hanclosky of the University of South Carolina Media Arts Department and John Cooper, a Media Arts student. Their technical assistance in planning the project was invaluable. I would also like to thank Dr. Kenneth Kelly, Department of Anthropology, for the use of his camera. Lastly, I would like to thank Jakob Crockett for his help throughout the semester.

145

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

MATERIAL CULTURE AND DOCUMENTARY RELATIONS OF THE MANN-SIMONS TENANTS

By Helena L. Ferguson Surviving historical documents are useful in understanding the mechanisms of capitalism that shaped identities worldwide. However, documents alone cannot give a complete picture of the individual. The site-specific nature of archaeology provides a unique way to examine specific individuals or small groups of individuals. Using historical documents and archaeological data together is a necessity for studying individuals immersed in the consumer driven world. Together, these sources raise a number of important questions: What does each source tell about the people who used these goods? What cultural characteristics are indicative from analysis of the archaeological and documentary record together? What types of social dynamics are perceivable? This article examines if archaeological data revels demographic shifts known from the documentary record by examining variation and frequency in artifact assemblages. Specifically, I examine the 1906/08Marion Street lot in Columbia, South Carolina, a rental property owned by the Mann Simons family during the early 20th century. The Mann-Simons African American Archaeology Project is a unique situation to study material culture, particularly for urban tenant identity.

Historical Documentation Behind the 1403 Richland Street house on the property sat two dwellings, owned by the Mann-Simons family: 1904 and 1906/1908 Marion Street. 1904 Marion Street was used by family members, while 1906/1908 Marion Street was used as a tenant house for much of the early twentieth century (Figure 12). During this time Columbia went under some demographic shifts. The tenants of 1906/1908 Marion Street shifted with the rest of the city. In 1907 Agnes Jackson, daughter of Celia Mann, passed away and her son Charles Simons acquired the estate upon which he then purchased the remaining lots on Marion Street up to Calhoun Street (Crockett 2007). Charles demolished all the houses north of 1904 Marion Street in 1912 and rebuilt them (Crockett 2007). After the reconstruction of the new houses the address at 1906 Marion was changed to 1908 Marion Street (Figure 13 & 14). Prior to 1912, only African American tenants occupied the residence, than after renovations, only Euro-American tenants after 1913.

The broader social setting of the American South at this time was the tail end of Post-Reconstruction and the introduction of Jim Crow Segregation, both of which implemented significant markers on the cultural landscapes of this time. City directory information and Federal Census data were acquired starting in 1900. Table 1 shows the City Directory Information for 1906/1908 Marion Street. The City Directories list the heads of households, their ethnicity (black or white), spouse’s name, and occupation. There is no record of age or other individuals living at the address. 1906/08 Marion Street was listed as “under construction” during the years of 1910-1916, however the next resident listed in the City Directory is in 1913. Table 2 is the Federal Census records for 1906/1908 Marion Street from 1900-1930. The Census data provides a bit more information than the City Directories. Census data provides a detailed list of each person in the household, their relationship to the head of household, age, sex, origins of birth, ethnicity, relationship to property occupied, and occupation. The Federal Census data also provides information such as health and literacy status of each individual. Together, the City Directory and Federal Census data provide a chronological illustration of the tenants at 1906/1908 Marion Street.

Mail-Order catalogs provide the third documentary data set used in this study. The mail-order business provided a unique consumer experience in the way it broadened the separation between retailer and consumer. The largest mail order houses were Montgomery Ward and Sears Roebuck and Company, founded respectively in 1872 and 1886.

Mail order houses provided a wide array of products and consumers could order almost anything. Items ran as small

146

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Figure 12. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map overlaid with 1999 Field Season Units (courtesy of South Caroliniana Library)

Figure 13. 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map (courtesy of South Caroliniana Library)

147

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Figure 14. 1919 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map (courtesy of South Caroliniana Library)

148

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Table 1. Columbia City Directory Records for 1906/1908 Marion Street Year

Head of Household

1910

Edward Robinson

1910-16

In Course of Construction

1920

1930

Ethnicity

Spouse

Occupation

B

Carrie

W. B. Kelly

W

Lula

J. O. Langston

W

J. R. Sellers

W

Mrs. Lula Kelly

W

Barber; T H Pickney

Table 2. Census Data for 1906/1908 Marion Street Census 1900

1910

1920

1930

Name

Household Role

Sex

Ethnicity

Age

Occupation

Julie Thompson

Head

F

B

45

Washerwoman

James Thompson

Son

M

B

23

Carpenter

Anna Thompson

Daughter

F

B

19

Lona Thompson

Daughter

F

B

15

Edward Robinson

Head

M

MU

25

Other Renter

Jewelry Store Porter

Carrie Robinson

Wife

F

MU

25

At Home Laundress

(F)Bonnie Kelly

Head

M

W

42

Commercial Traveler

Lula Kelly

Wife

F

W

34

None

Dalton Kelly

Son

M

W

17

None

Rols Sellers

Head

M

W

27

Grocery Store Salesman

Marcie Sellers

Wife

F

W

19

None

Carl R Sellers

Son

M

W

0.33

None

Javer O Langston

Head

M

W

35

Barber

Renter

Renter

Renter

Renter

Eunice Langston

Wife

F

W

19

None

Leo O Davenport

Head

M

W

21

Moving Picture Operator

Grace K Davenport

Wife

F

W

18

None

Lula Kelly

Head

F

W

43

None

Dalton Kelly

Son

M

W

23

Hotel Cahier

Mary Allen

Roomer

F

W

40

Dry Cleaner Alterations

Beulah Allen

Roomer

F

W

19

Telephone Company Operator

Eula Allen

Roomer

F

W

19

Telephone Company Operator

Eunice Jacobs

Roomer

F

W

23

Hotel Cahier

Renter

Owner

as a needle to at times as big as a house. This new means of acquiring products also provided an opportunity for African Americans to partially avoid local retailer’s racism. By ordering out of a mail order catalog, consumption of goods was without influence from localized social pressures (Strasser 1989). One unique characteristic of period mail-order catalogs is their ability to provide insight into the availability of objects. As a means to analyze what materials were most prevalent, the archaeological data was compared to three primary sources that indicated availability and costs of the materials. These documents were the 1895 Montgomery Ward and Co. Catalog, the 1898 Sears Roebuck Catalog, the 1902 Sear Roebuck Catalog, and the 1908 Sears Roebuck Catalog. Kitchen goods, table wares, and other items were searched for in all three catalogs and compared to the frequency and variation of recovered materials.

149

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Archaeological Data Materials recovered from one 10 x 10 foot unit (530N 555E) located in the 1906/1908 Marion Street yard was used to examine the questions asked in this analysis. Figure 12 shows the structures recorded by the 1904 and 1919 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of Columbia overlaid with the unit locations. 530N 555E, excavated by Chris Clement in 1998 (1999), was located in the center of the rear yard of 1906/1908 Marion Street. Within this unit was a trash midden likely deposited during the 1890s, labeled the Feature 6 complex and is the only feature created prior to the demographic shift.

To further narrow the scope of analysis, material culture that more clearly demonstrate demographic shifts were analyzed. These items were ones that were not highly disposable and would not have been discarded unless broken, rendering it unusable. Once the data was compiled these items were primarily kitchen wares but also included table wares, clothing related objects, and eating utensils. The ceramic items were broken down into types for analysis in order to illustrate the variety of ceramic materials used by the tenants. The tabulations of materials extracted from the F6 complex data are reflected in Table 3. By far the highest concentrations of materials are ceramic kitchen and tablewares, with approximately 79% of all the data. Ceramic data were further broken down according to type (Table 4).

Table 3. Summary of F6 Complex Materials (extracted from Crockett 2005).

Object

150

Material

Quantity

% Sample

Buttons

Bone

2

0.92%

Buttons

Brass

1

0.46%

Buttons

Glass

4

1.84%

Buttons

Gutta Percha

3

1.38%

Buttons

Iron

1

0.46%

Buttons

Porcelain

7

3.23%

Buttons

Shell

2

0.92%

Toothbrush

Bone

1

0.46%

Harmonica

Metal

2

0.92%

Jewelry Related Objects

Brass

3

1.38%

Pearlware

Ceramic

1

0.46%

Porcelain

Ceramic

21

9.68%

Redware

Ceramic

7

3.23%

Stoneware

Ceramic

27

12.44%

Whiteware

Ceramic

112

51.61%

Yellowware

Ceramic

6

2.76%

Bead

Glass

1

0.46%

Tablewares

Glass

11

5.07%

Utensils

Metal

4

1.84%

Fan

Ivory

1

0.46%

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Table 4. Ceramic Summary for F6 Complex (extracted from Crockett 2005) Object

Quantity

% Sample

Pearleware

1

0.57%

Porcelain

12

6.90%

Porcelain, Molded

2

1.15%

Porcelain, Semi-Vitrified

6

3.45%

Porcelain, Underglaze

1

0.57%

Redware

5

2.87%

Redware, Combed Slip

1

0.57%

Redware, Luster

1

0.57%

Stoneware

1

0.57%

Stoneware, Albany Slip

2

1.15%

Stoneware, Alkaline

17

9.77%

Stoneware, Bristol Slip

4

2.30%

Stoneware, Salt Glaze

3

1.72%

Whiteware

57

32.76%

Whiteware, Annular

9

5.17%

Whiteware, Banded

2

1.15%

Whiteware, Edge

5

2.87%

Whiteware, Finger Trail

1

0.57%

Whiteware, Hand Painted

4

2.30%

Whiteware, Molded

3

1.72%

Whiteware, Overglaze

1

0.57%

Whiteware, Sponge

4

2.30%

Whiteware, Sprig

1

0.57%

Whiteware, Stencil

1

0.57%

Whiteware, Transfer Print

24

13.79%

Yellowware

3

1.72%

Yellowware, Banded

2

1.15%

Yellowware/Whiteware

1

0.57%

Analysis Archaeologists use pattern recognition as a common method of analysis. Documents provide patterns of demographic shifts and the archaeological data provides patterns of the material culture. The goal of this analysis is to try and find where these two patterns overlap. Analysis revealed two instances of overlap. Examination of documents and archaeological data reveal an economic overlap. Due to the fact that the tenants were of working class, they were participated in consumerism equally. The second overlap was in availability, the materials found were materials available through mail-order catalogs of the turn of the century.

The materials coming out of the F6 Complex feature were accessible and affordable during the early twentieth century. The most frequent type of material was white whiteware, or hotel ware. In the 1895 Montgomery Ward catalog, a 56-piece set of plain white English Stone China could be bought for a whopping $3.65 plus shipping.

Also, each of the pieces could be bought individually for sometimes less than a quarter, making these types of dishes very affordable. Not only that, but because this was a mail order catalog, they were also very accessible. Figure 15

151

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

shows a piece of whiteware mitigated from the F6 Complex and Figure 16 an advertisement from the 1902 Sears Roebuck and Co. mail order catalog for the type recovered. Examining the 1902 Sears Roebuck and Co. mail order catalog it is evident that whiteware was by far the easiest and cheapest form of ceramics available around the turn of the 20th century.

The other material that was prevalent in the material analysis was buttons.

Even though it could be construed that buttons are not so much a nondisposable item at this point in time, they were an item that often needed Figure 15. Whiteware from F6 Complex (Clement et al 1999) replacing. The material composition of the buttons and intricacy of design can suggest certain characteristic of those who lost them. Interestingly enough, all but a few of the types of buttons sampled were available in all three of the mail order catalogs. This suggests that these types of buttons, just as the ceramics, were very affordable and accessible. It is worth mentioning that one of the tenants was a laundress and could account for the high number of buttons found in the mitigated materials. Again, there is a pattern of consumption among the buttons. If the buttons sampled were available through an affordable and accessible source, then it can be assumed that this is indicative of a working class income. Socio economic status of the tenants compared to the buttons found in the data implicates another positive correlation.

One interesting pattern that does not overlap between the documentary and archaeological records was the demographic shift. The documents provide the information of the shift; however it simply is not seen archaeologically. There was no indication when examining the archaeological remains that there was a difference in materials between the African American tenants and the Euro-American tenants. This suggests that there are social dynamics that are not capable of being seen in the material records.

Figure 16. An advertisement from the 1902 Sears Roebuck and Co. mail order catalog (p.797).

152

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Conclusion According to Paynter (1988), historical archaeologists have begun to involve themselves in the study of “changing mentalities and sensibilities associated with the material world of domestic life” and approaching them through the “emerging ideology of the capitalist mode of production”. Historical archaeology has an advantage over other disciplines of archaeology due to its access to prior knowledge of the people it studies. Historical documents can provide an archaeologist insight into what might be expected. This preliminary knowledge opens new sorts of questions to ask. It provides tools to shape the focus of a project, parameters set initially. When a project is complete this knowledge is utilized again. This time the information is used to help contextualize the data collected.

It provides a framework into which the data is placed in order to interpret findings. This is extremely important to the field of archaeology and anthropology because without knowing how to relate the information, the artifacts simply become objects in the ground. So, it is an exchange, a symbiotic relationship between the knowledge gained prior to analysis and the raw data obtained from physical excavation of a site. When this relationship is exploited properly, much can be known about the people under study; more than could have ever come from either historical documents, accounts or the archaeological data.

Only one prevailing issue is raised from the analysis of this research and that is economic status. All the other aspects of the tenant’s identity were not highlighted by the data. Looking at the data from the other end of the research tunnel, this does raise interesting issues. With no diversity among the data it can be assumed that the tenants of the Mann-Simons were participating in the cultural phenomena of consumerism equally. This means that the consumption of goods was not related to ethnicity but economic status. This is important because it shows that economic status was the primary indicator of types of material culture acquired during the early twentieth century by the Mann-Simons tenants. Generally speaking, this implies that in a time period of American history when ethnicity was used to divide, economic status was a method of commonality through consumerism.

Other issues that are raised by this analysis are the importance of not relying on one data set, either historical or archaeological. In this case, without the documents, the demographic shift would never have been seen in the archaeological record. While some of the broader social processes such as mass consumerism can be shown through the material record, others such as demographics are not. This means that important social processes of this era are not showing up archaeologically. Conversely, relying solely on the historical record could not reveal the true nature of how individuals are participating in the rising consumer culture. Archaeologists and historians should be aware of this potential danger when examining their findings. They should remember the importance of these two disciplines and how each can complement the other.

DATING AND IDENTIFICATION OF AMERICAN RIMFIRE AND CENTERFIRE CARTRIDGES –

By Kathleen A. Clardy Introduction Starting in 1850, American-made cartridges went through a period of rapid developmental change that lasted until roughly the turn of the century. This change was characterized by the introduction of metal cartridges, rather than previously used paper cartridges. The introduction of metal was marked in 1846 when patent number 1,936 was taken out in France by Houllier, a gunsmith, who called for a complete metallic case made of copper or brass (Logan 1959). After metal began to be used, many more patents and changes were made to metallic cartridges that are

153

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

useful in determining the production date of an unidentified metallic cartridge, especially in the absence of a headstamp, which is the key identifying marker (for a comprehensive guide to headstamps, see White and Munhall 1963). However, because so many changes were made to cartridges in such a short amount of time, whether from changes in technology or in the use of new materials, identifying cartridges can be difficult, as there are multiple identifying markers on any particular cartridge and many of these markers have overlapping dates of production.

After going through quite a number of metallic cartridges at the Mann-Simons site (38RD1083), which encompasses the same time period in which metallic cartridges first appeared and began to change drastically, it became clear to me that a more comprehensive method of dating was needed. Because of the high volume of cartridges, it was difficult to date them accurately, as there are few resources with enough collective information, dating techniques, and identifying markers to make a more reliable approximation. A comprehensive chronology of what attributes developed and when they occurred is missing from much of the available literature. Without a chronology of events, seeing the bigger picture in relation to the history of metallic cartridges is difficult.

My goal for this article is to present not only general information on cartridges in a condensed and comprehensible manner, but also to make an easy guide for archaeologists to use for dating American-made cartridges. I accomplish this by dividing indentifying characteristics of metallic cartridges into attributes that are important to how the cartridge was made, fired, and used. These attributes include metal type, firing type, reloadability (as associated with certain primers), caliber (combined with length), headstamps, and cartridge manufacturing companies. All of the information I used was extracted from: International Ammunition Association 2001, 2007; GunTech 2008; Hawks 2005, 2008; Logan 1959; Steinhaur 2008; Sundra 1999; and Winchester 2008. Much of the information available is focused primarily on a single attribute, making it difficult to link other characteristics together to get a more specific date. By compiling all the information on metallic cartridges together in conjunction with a chronology, a better developed and more fine-grained site chronology can be obtained, allowing better conclusions to be drawn and ultimately, a better understanding of history through the archaeological record.

Cartridge Metal While entire cartridge cases were not made of metal until after 1845, other parts, such as the head of cartridges, were made of metal. For the developmental period discussed in this article, however, brass and copper are the two most common metal types. The differences between copper and brass may be difficult to determine, especially in incidences of high amounts of corrosion, but typically copper will maintain a discernable green color, especially noticeable on the head, or base, of the cartridge; brass can also have a green color to it, but usually will manifest itself as a darker brownish-grey color (Light 2000).

Iron 1814 (head only) Pewter 1815 (head only) Copper First introduced in 1816 for use in cartridge heads, but not mass produced and used for the entire cartridge in America until 1857.

Brass Introduced in 1846, though not produced in the United States in mass quantity until 1860.

Cartridge Fire Type The first major development in fully self-contained metallic cartridges was the introduction of the rimfire cartridge.

A rimfire is distinguishable from all other firing types in that it has the priming compound distributed in a ring, in the base of the cartridge (Figure 17). The primer is ignited when a firing pin hits the rim, causing a small mark to 154

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

Figure 17. Illustration of a rimfire metallic cartridge (extracted from US Patents 466,320 and 2,359,087).

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Figure18. Illustration of a centerfire metallic cartridge (extracted from US Patents 466,320 and 225,591).

remain on the edge of the base after firing. Rimfire was first patented in 1846 by M. Houllier (patent number 1,936), but was not used in the United States until 1857.

The second most common firing type of this time period was introduced shortly after the rimfire and consists of a cartridge case with a primer contained in the very center of the cartridge, called the centerfire (Figure 18). Unlike rimfires, centerfire cartridges are normally reloadable, as they remain intact after the firing pin hits the center of the cartridge during firing. Early centerfire cartridges were introduced 1858, but the first successful American centerfire cartridge put into mass production was the Winchester .44, manufactured in 1873.

Reloadability Most centerfire metallic cartridges were reloadable; however, some inside-primed centerfire cartridges were nonreloadable. Primers that caused metallic cartridges not to be reloaded, as the firing pin and primer warped the cartridge upon firing, include the Benet (patent number 466,320; year 1891), Martin (patent number 2,423,837; year 1942), and Bar Anvil (patent number 225,591; year 1880).

Caliber While calibers vary between types of cartridges and in length, the introductory dates of certain calibers can help determine the production date of a cartridge (for a complete listing of calibers, makes, lengths and years introduced, please refer to members.shaw.ca/cstein0/rimiden.htm). To determine the caliber of a cartridge, which is measured in

155

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

hundredths of an inch, measure the outside diameter of the outside with calipers closest to the base (Figure 19).

Note: calibers are not always measured consistently. For instance, a .22 caliber rimfire cartridge may actually measure .225, but will still be named a .22 caliber rimfire. The aforementioned guide also has diameter measurements to help identify more specifically cartridge variation within caliber designations. To determine the length of a cartridge, use calipers to measure from the base to the top of the cartridge in hundredths of an inch (Figure 20). .22 Caliber. This caliber is perhaps one of the most widely used calibers still in production. One of the first .22 calibers was the .22 short BB cap for the Smith and Wesson revolver (length: 0.284) introduced in 1857 and is considered the first American metallic cartridge. Next, the .22 Long was introduced in 1871 with a length of 0.423 and was followed by the .22 Extra Long in 1880. Stevens Arms Company manufactured a .22 Long Rifle cartridge (length: 0.595) in 1887, while Winchester produced their .22 rimfire cartridge in 1890 and their .22 Auto in 1903.

Figure 19. Illustration of how to determine the length and caliber of a cartridge. Length is from end-toend; caliber is the outside diameter just above the base (illustration by Jakob Crockett, modified from US Patent 2,359,087).

.30 Caliber. This cartridge was widely used by Winchester starting in 1894. .32 Caliber. Like the .22, the .32 became another popular caliber in the 1800s. The .32 can be found in multiple lengths, including the .32 Short (length: 0.932) introduced in 1860, the .32 Extra Short (length 0.645) in 1871, the .32 Long (length 1.208) in 1861, and the .32 Long Rifle (length: 1.216) in 1900.

.33 & .34 Caliber. First inspired by the .32, the .33 came into production by Winchester as a centerfire in 1902 and the .34 by the same company in 1936, though was not widely used. .38 Caliber. The .38 Long with a length of 1.31 to 1.64 was introduced in 1864. .41 Caliber . The .41 Swiss with a length of 2.19 was first manufactured circa 1860. .44 & .45 Caliber. Common .44 caliber rimfires include the .44 Henry Short (length: 1.31) and the .44 Henry Long (length: 1.22), which both came about in 1859. Winchester began using .44 caliber as a centerfire cartridge (length: 1.39) in 1873. The .45 Long was manufactured by Colt Firearms in 1873. .56 Caliber . Spencer produced a rimfire of this caliber (length: 1.035) in 1860.

Leading American Cartridge Companies (1850 – 1920) While there were hundreds of cartridge companies during the nineteenth and twentieth century, there were a few leading companies in which the majority of American metallic cartridges were produced at one time or another.

Included here are some of the biggest names in cartridge production and manufacturing, along with important dates, such as mergers between major companies and company closures. For a more complete listing of company names, especially in reference to headstamps, please refer to International Ammunition Association 2007.

156

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Figure 20. General time-line of cartridge development from 1800 to 1900 (redrawn by Jakob Crockett after Logan 1959).

Browning Arms Company -1880 to present Other names/abbreviations: FN Browning (for “Fabrique Nationale”) Founded by John Moses Browning Notes: John Moses designed for the cartridge company Fabrique Nationale d’armes de Guerre for the Belgian government.

Earliest Date: 1880. If “FN Browing,” then the earliest date will be 1889, since his name is associated with company Fabrique Nationale, founded in 1889.

Headstamps: “BROWNING” Colt Firearms -1855 to present Other names/abbreviations: Founded by Samuel Colt in Hartford, Connecticut Earliest Date: 1855 Headstamps: “COLT” J. Stevens and Company -1864 to1920 Other names/abbreviations: see Savage Arms Company Founded by Joshua Stevens in Massachusetts Notes: Joshua Stevens worked for C.B. Allen as well as Colt.

Earliest Date: 1864

157

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Headstamps: “STEVENS” Peters Cartridge Company -1887 to 1934 Other names/abbreviations: Founded in Kings Mills, Ohio Notes: This company was purchased by Remington Arms Company in 1934 Earliest Date: 1887 Headstamps: “P”, “PETERS” “PC”, “PCCo” Remington Arms Company -1816 to 1902 (until merge with UMC) Other names/ abbreviations: E. Remington & Sons, Remington-UMC Founded by Eliphalet Remington Notes: Merged with Union Metallic Company in 1902 Earliest Date: 1816, though the first factory was not established until 1828 in NY Headstamps: “Rem-UMC”, “R-P”, “RA” Savage Arms Company -1894 to ?

Other names/abbreviations: Founded by Arthur Savage in Utica, NY Notes: This company purchased many companies at various times including: J. Stevens Co. in 1920 Earliest Date: 1894 Headstamps: “S A CORP”, “SAVAGE”, “SA CO” Smith and Wesson -1856 to present Other names/abbreviations: Founded by Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson in Connecticut Earliest Date: 1856 Headstamps: “S&W” Union Metallic Cartridge Company -1867 to ?

Other names/abbreviations: UMC, Remington-UMC Founded by Marcellus Hartley in Bridgeport, Connecticut Notes: Merged with Remington Arms Company in 1902 Earliest Date: 1867. If UMC paired with Remington, then 1902 (ex: Headstamp will read “Rem.-UMC”) Headstamps: “U”, “UMC” United States Cartridge Company -1869 to ?

Other names/abbreviations: USCCO Founded by General Benjamin Butler Notes: Company produced cartridges in World War II under govt. contract Earliest Date: 1869.

Headstamps: “US”,“USCCO” Winchester Repeating Arms Company -1866 to present Other names/abbreviations: 158

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Founded by Oliver Winchester Notes: The company was founded from two companies called Volcanic Repeating Arms and New Haven Arms companies. John Moses Browning sold rights to designs of certain firearms to this company around 1886.

Earliest Date: 1866 Headstamps: “WRA”, “WRACO”, “H” (in honor of B. Tyler Henry) Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the Department of Anthropology of the University of South Carolina, Columbia. I would also like to thank the Library of Rare Books and Special Collections at the University of South Carolina for the use of their information and resources. I would lastly like to thank Jakob Crockett for his help and encouragement throughout this year.

1905 MARION STREET: A LOOK AT CHANGING URBAN LIFE IN COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

By Erika Heimbrook Shofner, Meg Gaillard, and Tamera Looney The purpose of this project was to study the archaeological integrity of 1905 Marion Street--a 19th - 20th century domestic site in Columbia, South Carolina--to determine if it warrants a more intensive investigation.

Archaeological data from this site is of interest due to its close proximity to the well-preserved Mann-Simons archaeological site (Crockett 2007) and the fact that this property was occupied for about the same length of time.

1905 Marion Street, however, was not owned by successive generations of the same family, as was the MannSimons site, but rather by people of differing occupations and ethnicities. Data from this site could provide an important comparison to what has been found at the Mann-Simons site in terms of the materialization of demographics, ethnicity, and economic status in the archaeological record.

In order to determine the archaeological integrity of 1905 Marion Street, we began with shovel test pits in strategic locations within the backyard. Furthermore, we analyzed the artifacts and stratigraphic data recovered from the test pits which allowed us to determine that further research is feasible. Once this was determined we outlined methodological recommendations which should be considered for future projects.

In this paper, we first consider the social and site specific historical context of 1905 Marion Street. Next we discuss the specific methodologies used in the excavation as well as laboratory analysis. Our results are presented, followed by our recommendations. We review the concept of significance and site integrity as they relate to 1905 Marion Street. Also in the recommendations section we consider the social context and its significance to urban archaeology within Columbia. In our final thoughts, we outline what we learned during our first independent excavation.

History A Historic Context Columbia became the capital of South Carolina in 1786. Its central position in the state made it a convenient government seat as well as a good commercial trading ground. Despite these strengths in the city’s favor, Columbia

159

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

remained a small city. In 1820, there were about 250 houses in the downtown area. A variety of shops including grocery stores, taverns, tailor shops, and drug stores could be found. Many of these stores had become large emporiums by the mid-1800s (Crockett 2005). Growth, however, was restricted by the arrival of the Civil War in the city’s boundaries. General Sherman’s march to the sea had a huge affect on the growth of the city, which was most apparent in the burned and damaged buildings of downtown Columbia. The burned and destroyed buildings radiated from Richardson Street along streets like Gervais, Lady, Taylor, Blanding, and Richland. While the current 1905 Marion Street building was not in existence during these events, the neighboring property, 1331 Richland Street was very close to the burning activity, but not burned (Lucas 1976).

During Reconstruction, the economy and the incorporation of thousands of new citizens (freed African Americans) into society were the major concerns (Crockett 2005). These two social issues set the tone for Columbia during the Post-Reconstruction period, 1880 and 1930. With added challenges of the Jim Crow and segregation laws, “the free black population of Columbia were not full participants in the larger free society of the city of the state, but they were also not enslaved. They existed on a middle ground between these two extremes, forming a strong middle class element” (Huggins 1973:xviii). One of the most interesting qualities of this site is the proximity it has to an established Columbia African American family—the Mann-Simons family. A major archaeological excavation conducted by Crockett recently closed at the property formally owned by the Mann-Simons family. Interpretation and analysis are currently being conducted.

An Overview of the History of 1905 Marion Street 1905 Marion Street can be seen today as a small yellow structure that in close proximity to a much larger brick house at 1331 Richland Street. During the late nineteenth century, the property at 1331 Richland Street was split to create the smaller 1905 Marion Street residents. James L. Beard, a clerk, is the earliest known occupant of 1331 Richland Street beginning in 1859. He continued to live at the property until 1860. There is a gap in the records from 1861 until 1899, when George E. Boland and his wife Sarah are documented as being residents. This is also the same year when 1905 Marion Street first appeared in the records.

From the time 1905 Marion Street was constructed, many residents have made their home within the structure.

Records for 1905 Marion Street reveal that the first resident was Mary Peterman, a laundress and the property’s only African American resident, in 1899. Many varied occupants ensued, with only three residents staying longer than 5 years each. Lewis L. Mosely lived at 1905 Marion Street between 1929-1932 and at 1331 Richland Street from 1934-1968. Tillman H. Hensley and his wife Stella K. Hensley lived at 1905 Marion Street from 1944-1952.

Tillman was an employee at the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. Thomas E. Sumner lived in the house from 1953-1961 with his spouse W. Gene Sumner. Juanita T. Eargle, the widow of Olin M. Eargle, was the last person to reside in the house until a law firm purchased the buildings. Today, 1905 Marion Street is used as the law office of Derrick Chiarenza and Michael D. McMullen.

Methodology For this project, archaeological integrity was determined by the presence or absence of distinguishable strata and subsequent materials that could be used to date these strata. The biggest worry regarding the backyard area of 1905 Marion Street was that while the house itself remained relatively unaltered, the area around the house has been heavily developed. A parking lot for a law firm, which just touches the border between the two properties, was built directly north of the property. Residue from this and other construction may have impacted the 1905 Marion Street property, potentially causing any archaeological assemblages to be mixed or out of context.

160

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Field Recording Conventions Notes were taken in a field journal and copied onto the appropriate forms used by the Mann-Simons project.

Measurements were made using an engineer’s scale of feet, tenths, and hundredths. Artifacts were placed in at least two bags, one for non-metal, and one for metal artifacts. Each bag was labeled with the site number (which will soon be determined), the site name, “1905 Marion Street,” the STP number, stratum number, date, excavator’s initials, and the number of bags present for that stratum.

Shovel Test Pits The datum point is the same as that of the Mann-Simons project, set at N 500 E 500. The shovel test pits were set up along three lines running the full extent of the backyard of 1905 Marion Street. Line 1 is closest to the fence and had five STPs spaced ten feet apart. Line 2 had three STPs spaced ten feet apart, since the fourth STP’s location was underneath a slab of concrete. Due to time constraints and sampling decisions, only Line 1 has an STP at the beginning of the North property boarder, closest to the parking lot. Line 3 was the closest to the house and had two STPs spaced fifteen feet apart. A total of 10 STPs were laid out and excavated as 1x1 foot squares. Due to the nature of urban archaeology the STPs were excavated according to natural strata. Each STP was dug until no further artifacts were present or a depth of 2 feet was reached (which ever came first). All STPs were dug with square shovels, and with trowel work done only in the presence of features or other potentially fragile areas.

Cataloging Since this project created a baseline for comparisons with the Mann-Simons site, the cataloging methodology was the one used for the Mann-Simons project, which in turn is a modified form of the typology described in the National Park Service’s Museum Handbook (Crockett 2006).

Under this system each artifact is first assigned to a Class. Ceramics, Glass, Metal, Bone, Other Mineral Materials, and Unidentified the classes identified at the 1905 Marion Street site. Detailed Object Names are available to further identify the object. For much of this site, however, the artifacts were so broken, that very broad names were assigned, for example “Hardware, Nails, Unidentified”, or “Unidentified, Vessel”. The categories of Manufacturing Date, Manufacturing Technique, Decorative Technique, Decorative Design, Decorative Element, Color, Part, and Material were all used to provide further information. If we were not sure of the information for a specific category, the artifact was recorded in as Unidentified or Unknown, because it was decided that to err too broadly was better than providing incorrect information. The categories of Weight and Count were especially useful in reporting what type of artifacts were found in the initial testing as well as creating basic statistics to better communicate the general trends that began to appear.

Results Strata The field season began 10 October 2006 and ended 27 January 2007. We were pleased to find there was discernable stratigraphy present throughout all of the STPs. The general trend of strata began with dark brown or black topsoil, moving on to a lighter brown layer, typically followed by another light brown layer mottled with red. Some of the STPs had other slightly different strata, but for the most part each STP had at least these three levels in common.

Subsoil was typically reached around 1.4-2 ft from the surface, and was recorded as reddish (5YR4/6) sandy clay.

161

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Notable exceptions were STPs 1, 3, and 8. In STP 1 concrete was found a few tenths of a foot below the surface, so no further strata could be found, STP 3 had a number of unusual soil color changes, as well as a thick layer (.4ft) of charcoal. Underneath the charcoal a dense layer of artifacts were present, including items such as a bottle neck and two complete medicine bottles. These artifacts were much more intact than any others found on the site, suggesting that this STP was dug right in the middle of a possible trash pit. STP 8 had heavy disturbance, resulting in some mixing of the strata within the unit.

Though it contained typical strata, STP 2 was unique in the fact it contained an unusual soil stain. Approximately 1.45 feet from the surface, a square stain began to appear along the south wall of the unit. The area was carefully cleared, and was found to have a nail in the center. The stain was marked as a potential post hole and mapped in before the unit was closed. Given the close proximity of this STP to the current fence line, it may be the remains of a fence post along the property boundary.

After the first layer of topsoil was removed from STP 1, it was discovered that the concrete from the parking lot to the north extended underneath the 1905 Marion Street property. It was impossible to dig any further; we shifted the first STP further south until we reached the edge of the concrete. STP 5 also provided unforeseen difficulties. Half of the pit had a line of bricks running from east to west, blocking most of the excavation. The STP was then moved slightly north so its southern wall now rests against the far edge of the bricks, and a full 1 x 1 foot pit could be dug.

A second STP, designated 5A was then plotted in on the other side of the bricks, in order to see how far this feature extended.

Artifacts One of the most plentiful types of artifacts found was architectural elements. Most of these elements were cataloged by weight due to the excessive number or very small size of the objects. The total weight of brick fragments found was 515.6g, with STP 6 making up 28.03% of the total brick weight at 144.5g. Mortar had a weight 78.0g total, 56.92% of which occurred in STP 3 (44.4g). Total weight of concrete came out to be 494.92 with the vast majority found in STP 8, which made up 83.51% (412.7g). Six asbestos tile fragments were found coming from STP 1 and 8, and in both instances the fragments were found in level one.

Metal objects were heavily corroded, causing most of them to fall in an “Unknown” category. Even though some metal could be identified as nails, further categorization could not be done, so a general category of “Unidentified, Nails” was used. The total weight of unidentified metal came out to be 703.3g with 62.70% coming from STP 3.

Unidentified nails weighed at total of 957.4g with the majority again falling into STP 3 at 27.87%. A few nails were able to be identified according to manufacturing technique. This included three wire cut and three machines cut nails. Other types of hardware included a staple, tack, doorknob, and fragments of a metal screen, with the doorknob and screen both coming from STP 3.

Sixty-two bone fragments of unidentified fauna were found in the majority of the STPs. The bones varied from large fragments of the diaphysis (shaft) to small pieces of trabecular bone. The bottom layer of STP 3 yielded the highest percentage at 32.26%, giving credence to the idea of a trash pit feature being present.

While ceramics were present, the majority of the fragments uncovered were so small they were difficult to identify.

The objects that these fragments originated from could not be determined, therefore most of the artifacts were given the object name “unidentified vessel.” Only a very small portion of decoration designs could be seen, making it 162

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

difficult to place it in any one category or assign it a terminus post quem date. Earthenware was the most abundant type present at 19.43%. Whiteware was the most abundant of the earthenware collection with 32 fragments or 58.18%. The majority of whiteware came from STP 2. Pearlware was the second most abundant earthenware with 23 total fragments. These fragments exhibited the most identifiable decorative techniques, such as transfer printing and floral hand painted. Porcelain and porcelaneous materials made up 1.77% of the ceramic assemblage.

Stoneware was present in a few of the STPs, and made up 2.83% of the total. The final ceramic type was a red-paste earthenware at 2.83%, likely pieces of a flowerpot.

Closures included crown bottle caps and a milk cap with the word “Palmer” printed on it. Through research, we discovered the Palmer Corporation came into existence in 1840, giving us one of our few well-established terminus post quem dates. The majority of glass present at the site was architectural, with 58 fragments of window glass. STP 1 yielded the majority of architectural glass at 55.17%. However, this could be skewed since STP 1 is so close to the northern parking lot. STP 6 has the second highest concentration of architectural glass at 13.79%.

As with the ceramics, most pieces of bottle glass were so small identification of the vessel form was impossible.

However, basic trends were made on the observable characteristics. Most of the bottle glass is colorless, though other colors included amber, and various shades of blue, olive, and green. Despite the small size of the fragments, several decorative designs were observed, including a scalloped edge is from a lamp chimney, a pressed wood design which could be a cup, and embossed lettering. The most distinctive bottle glass was the finish of a machine made bottle and two complete medicine bottles.

The final type of artifacts are those that fall under the larger category of personal objects, including toys, beads, buttons and a bullet. The toys were the most interesting with items such as a portion of a toy railroad track, Legotype bricks, and interlocking red plastic connectors. The Lego-type bricks are interesting because a few are stamped with the label “American Bricks.” Further research showed that the American Bricks were produced by Halsam Products Company, Chicago and later Elgo Plastics Inc. from the 1940s to the 1970s (Britton 2005).

Figure 21. Ceramic Examples.

163

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Figure 22. Glass Examples.

Recommendations Through our excavations, we unearthed a variety of artifacts including ceramic, glass, and architectural materials.

But if we do not consider site integrity or archaeological significance how can this collection of artifacts create a reliable picture of the past? In the following section, we take a closer look theoretically and practically at site integrity and significance and relate this discussion to the 1905 Marion Street site.

One of the key aspects of this testing was to determine what is meant by the phrases “archaeological integrity” and “site significance” and how they might be represented at the site. While an archaeologist would ideally like a site to be perfect and complete, that is usually not the case and it is for this reason that integrity and significance play such an important role in archaeology. This type of debate is ongoing in archaeology, and in one such case Miller and Klein (2001) discuss the value of determining the integrity and significance of potential 19th and 20th century farmstead sites. “There is a need to establish a systematic and objective process for evaluating the research potential of farmstead sites so that intelligent choices can be made in deciding which site should be investigated and managed and which should not.” (Miller and Klein 2001:155). The researchers continue their evaluation through a suggested ranking system, evaluating the significance as well as the integrity of specific sites. This ranking system includes such categories as: site type, structural evidence, archaeological evidence, documents, oral history, occupation period, and length of occupation. Each category contains a number of subcategories. These are ranked according to those that provide the most complete information. For example, the oral history category is subdivided into three sections, the first being “long term occupants of the site”, which is given a value of three, “old neighbors of the site” is given a value of two, and finally “knowledgeable local historians” has a value of one. In the end, sites with higher numerical values are considered the most significant and are subjected to further research (Miller and Klein 2001:161).

164

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Though Miller and Klein’s research has to do with farmsteads, this evaluation system can also be modified and applied to urban archaeology, specifically 1905 Marion Street. We can use the general categories of the evaluation system to determine what qualities the 1905 Marion Street site does and does not have. For instance, we know the “site type” is urban, residential. While the evidence of the original structure on this site relies upon further excavation, we do know the structure currently standing has been present since at least 1899. From our preliminary excavations, we do know there is intact “archaeological evidence” present at 1905 Marion Street, and more could be uncovered by further excavations. There are numerous “documents” available for 1905 Marion Street and its residents, including tax records, census records, directory records, maps, photographs, and newspaper articles. For example, a Coker College scrapbook of Miss Loree Mosely, a former resident of 1905 Marion Street, remained behind when she left. A legal document written 17 April 1972 was found slipped into the back of the scrapbook.

This letter is of interest because the last recorded resident for 1905 Marion Street, Mrs. Juanita T. Eargle, is identified in the letter by a certain Mrs. Loree M. Hill living in Savannah. It is possible that this is the same Loree Mosely who left her scrapbook and whose father lived on that plot of land for almost 40 years. Further research might reveal other helpful documents as well. Our initial investigation did not include oral histories, but that is not to say none exist. With some of the most recent occupants living at the house no later than 2001, gathering oral histories is quite feasible. The “occupation period” and “length of occupation” are well known from city directory records, which outline the specific occupants from 1899 to the present. While we cannot give any specific ranking numbers, we feel that 1905 Marion Street fulfills the premise set forth by Miller and Klein. To get a more complete picture, this evaluation system would need to be modified to fit an urban setting.

After completing the majority of our STPs, we decided the archaeological integrity of the site is complete enough to warrant further excavation at a future date. There were distinct strata present in many of the STPs (see Figure 1), but in some cases there was disturbance, which made the strata difficult to decipher. Even in these cases where the strata were absent, the site still has a possibility of giving us archaeologically relevant information. A mixed assemblage does not give as clear a picture of identifiable archaeological time periods, but any identifiable artifacts would still give excavators a glimpse into the material life of this property. Also, though the presence of concrete made excavation more difficult, there is the potential to yield undisturbed features or materials.

Though the actual size and number of units would depend on the project’s goals and focus, we do have a few recommendations for future excavators. First and foremost, more research should be done on the history and tenants of the 1905 Marion Street property. Only Columbia records were used for our brief look at the history of the site, but sources such as the national census might be able to give more information on who a few of the owners were and who was living with them. Some of the material left in the house may also provide contact information to the former owners, which could be useful in gathering data on the site’s more recent history.

As far as excavation is concerned, there are a few areas where we would recommend units be placed. During our testing phase, STP 1 was shifted further south until excavation was again possible due to concrete obstruction.

Permission pending, future excavators could complete excavations underneath this concrete which may have sealed pristine stratigraphy. STP 3 appears to have gone through the center of a potential trash pit, which is where we found our most complete and most dense collection of artifacts. There were still visible pieces of glass in the walls of the unit when the STP was complete, and artifacts were still being taken from the final layer when work was halted at the pre-determined depth of two feet. Future excavations could widen this trash pit to determine its extent.

The area close to the fence line, which includes STPs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 5A, would be a good place for investigation.

Seeing that this area is along the property line, and the potential remains of a post hole have already been found in STP 2, remains of the original fence line may be uncovered upon further excavation. Further investigation along the brick line found in STP 5 is also recommended. Small pins were sunk into the ground on the east and west sides of

165

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

the brick to find their extent. As far as this primary investigation could discern, the bricks run most of the length of the yard from the east to the west and could be the remains of an old fence of boundary line.

While it was not attempted during our initial investigation, excavation underneath the house could prove to be interesting. The house itself is raised on cinderblock piers, leaving a one foot high gap between the base of the house and the ground. A quick glance in this area reveals old bits of wood and shapes of other materials discarded in this convenient storage area. If materials are being thrown there today, there’s a good chance people of the past used that space for the same purpose.

There are a number of potential research questions that arise from the initial investigation of 1905 Marion Street. This excavation is one of the first urban archaeological sites in Columbia. The lack of urban archaeology in Columbia stands in stark contrast to the extensive archaeology done in cities such as Charleston. Excavations such as 1905 Marion Street are needed to gain a better understanding of early urban life within Columbia. This site is in close proximity to the first urban domestic archaeological site in Columbia, the Mann-Simons site. This allows for comparing and contrasting the material culture of 1905 Marion Street and the Mann-Simons site along such lines as demographics, ethnicity, and economic status.

Final Thoughts Figure 23. Stratigraphy of STP 3 West Wall.

This project was an incredible learning experience for all of us. For Tamara, it was her first archaeological excavation, and while Erika has been on a few digs before, it was her first time helping to direct a dig. Meg, who has excavated at a few site as well, focused more on gathering historical data related to the site. Of course, putting plans down on paper at the beginning of this project looked well and good, but inevitable problems arose throughout the investigation.

The first and most debilitating hurdle was time. Though a month may seem like a long time at first, when factoring in other classes, work time, and daylight, it was amazing how few hours were available to work on the STPs. Time managed to get the better of us, forcing our plan of ten complete STPs by the end of the fall 2006 semester to be reduced to seven. Even when working in the lab, something which can be done day or night, our schedules made it very difficult to put more than a few hours at a time into washing, labeling, and cataloging our artifacts. In future projects, we will remember this lesson and be sure to budget more time than we think we will need to get the job done.

Availability of resources also became a problem during the investigation. Coinciding our dig times with when Jakob would be at his site was sometimes difficult, and it always seemed as though we forgot one or more important items when we borrowed recourses ourselves from the department. One of the hardest objects to find were rulers in divisions of engineer’s feet; a rather rare resource when most archeological projects are based in terms of meters.

166

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Human resources were also hard to come by when we discovered completing even our minimum number of STPs by the end of our field season would be impossible with just Tamara and Erika excavating during the fall 2006 semester. A few people were gracious enough to volunteer, but it was difficult for them to stay very long due to other commitments and time constraints. Being sure one knows exactly what they need throughout the entire course of an excavation project, as well as the number of people required is a point that will be at the forefront of our minds should we chose to lead another project.

Various natural and artificial barriers also made our digging more difficult than we anticipated. Concrete from the neighboring parking lot completely shut down STP 1 and though relocated, the initial time spent laying it out and beginning the work was lost. Tree roots were also a problem, usually no more than an irritation, but at some points making it next to impossible to continue excavation. Unfortunately, these are the types of problems one can never quite plan for. Unforeseen roadblocks come about in each and every project, and can only be surmounted with a level head and more planning.

Inexperience was another factor that held us back during the completion of this project. None of us had any experience at leading an archaeological investigation, and little or no experience in the field of historical archaeology. The difficulty of making executive decisions when things did not go as planned was a little nerve wracking at first, but we realized if decisions were not made, then the project would never get done. This was also difficult when we were directing others during the excavation. Though difficult, making up ones own mind in light of a problem is much easier than answering another person’s question, especially if that person is more experienced in field excavation than you. Overall, we found it was best to make the best decision we could given the circumstances, and simply stick with it.

Attempting to identify and catalogue our artifacts did well at highlighting our unfamiliarity with historical archaeology. Many artifacts we could give a cursory identification to, but when it came down to the finer points such as TPQ dates, it was almost impossible to make a positive identification. Though we consulted numerous resources from the lab manual and within the departmental lab, there are simply some details that are difficult to discern unless one has been exposed to artifacts such as these for quite some time. As with our fieldwork, we did our best with the knowledge and resources we had, but having a consultation with a seasoned historical archaeologist may be required in future research.

Overall, even with all the quirks and problems, this project taught us more about archaeological method and fieldwork than any book or class could. We had the chance to piece together historical documents, to lay out our own test units, run an excavation, make crucial field decision, wash the resulting artifacts, and attempt to put them together in a cohesive catalog. Even the struggles were an important part of the learning process, allowing us to catch a glimpse of what a professional archaeologist has to deal with everyday when running a full scale excavation.

This project taught us a lot, and we hope that the data we recovered and recommendations we made might help future excavators learn even more.

Acknowledgments A huge thanks to those who helped dig: Jean Schwab, Jakob D. Crockett, Helena Ferguson, and Don Rosick.

Thanks to the owners: Derek Chiarenza and Michael D. McMullen. Dr. Joanna Casey for supplies. Jakob D. Crockett for EVERYTHING and anything.

167

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

Table 5. Artifacts Represented in the 1905 Marion Street Excavation • •

•

•

•

•

Bone o Animal Ceramic o Brick o Earthenware o Pearlware o Whiteware o Stoneware o Semi-vitrified o Porcelaneous o Terra cotta Glass o Paneled o Molded o Melted Metal o Nails o Door hardware o Bullet o Toy train track o Assorted cans Other Mineral Material o Concrete o Mortar o Coal o Slag Synthetic o Asbestos o Toy bricks o Buttons o Hardware label

o Imitation bamboo

168

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Table 6. TPQ Dates for Selected 1905 Marion Street Artifacts Class

Object Name

Manufacturing Date

Material

Manufacturing Technique

Decorative Technique

Ceramic

Tableware, Unknown

1779

Earthenware

Pearlware

Undecorated

Metal

Hardware, Nails, Unidentified

1805+

Ferrous alloy

Machine Cut

N/A

Ceramic

Utilitarian, Vessel

1810-1940

Stoneware

Alkaline Glazed

N/A

Ceramic

Container, Bottle

1820

Stoneware

Salt glazed

Brown-Olive Glaze, Opaque

Metal

Assorted cans

1820+

Ferrous alloy

Unknown

N/A

Ceramic

Tableware, Flatware

1830-1900

Earthenware

Whiteware

Edge Decorated, Color Blue

Ceramic

Tableware, Unknown

1830+

Earthenware

Whiteware

Painted, Underglaze, “North Carolina Flower Pattern”

Ceramic

Tableware, Unknown

1830+

Earthenware

Whiteware

Transfer Printed, Underglaze, Monochrome, Color Blue

Ceramic

Tableware, Hollowware

1830+

Earthenware

Whiteware

Annular Banded, Slipped Mocha

Ceramic

Tableware, Tea waster

1830+

Earthenware

Whiteware

Transfer Printed, Underglaze, Monochrome, Color Blue

Ceramic

Tableware, Hollowware

1830+

Earthenware

Whiteware

Transfer Printed, Underglaze, Monochrome, Color Black

Ceramic

Tableware, Cup

1830+

Earthenware

Whiteware

Transfer Printed, Underglaze, Monochrome, Color Green

Ceramic

Tableware, Saucer

1830+

Earthenware

Whiteware

Liquid Gold, Banded

Glass

Container, Bottle, Closure, Seal

1840+

Glass, Milk

Pressed

Palmer

Ceramic

Clothing, Button, 4 Hole

1840+

Proser

Sew-through

N/A

Ceramic

Tableware, Unknown

1844+

Earthenware

Whiteware

Flow Transfer Printed, Color Blue

Synthetic

Clothing, Button, 4 Hole

1848+

Proser

Sew-through

Calico molded

Ceramic

Vessel Unknown

1850/1860

Earthenware

Whiteware

Molded

Glass

Container, Bottle, Medicinal, Pharmaceutical

1860-1920

Glass

Prescription finish

Cup-bottom mold, shape: beveled ideal

Glass

Lamp chimney glass

1864+

Glass

Hand pressed

Unknown

Synthetic

Architectural, Tile, Siding, Asbestos

1870+

Asbestos

Sheet

Pressed

Metal

Hardware, Nail, Roofing

1885+

Ferrous alloy

Wire

N/A

Metal

Container, Bottle, Closure, Crown cap

1892+

Ferrous alloy

Pressed

N/A

Metal

Toy, Train track

1900+

Tin

Pressed

N/A

Glass

Container, Bottle, Unknown

1905+

Glass

Crown Finish

Automatic Machine Bottle

Glass

Container, Bottle, Perfume?

1905+

Glass

Unknown

Machine made

Synthetic

Hardware, lumber, label, paper

1957+

Plastic coated paper

Printed

N/A

169

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

WINDOW GLASS THICKNESS AS A CHRONOLOGICAL MARKER: A CASE STUDY FROM COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

By Ben Johnson Introduction Within the past thirty years several historical archaeologists have suggested that window glass tended to increase in thickness throughout much of the nineteenth century (Chance and Chance 1976, Moir 1977, Roenke 1978, Ball 1983). In the first part of this paper, I briefly describe the development of this idea from the early 1970s onward. In the second part, I apply Moir’s (1987) regression formula to two assemblages of window glass recovered from discrete proveniences at the Mann-Simons archaeological site (38RD1083) in Columbia, South Carolina. In the ensuing discussion, I interpret the results, compare them to terminus post quem (TPQ) dates, and assess the usefulness of window glass thickness in establishing site chronologies.

Development of Window Glass Thickness Analysis Broadbent-Sykes (2003) credits Chance and Chance (1976) as the first researchers to assert that window glass thickness increased in thickness during the nineteenth century. Day (2001), however, cites Walker as having made this observation five years earlier, in 1971. In any case, by the mid 1970s, archaeologists had begun to consider window glass as a possible temporal marker. Roenke (1978) suggests that the transition from crown glass, which produced thinner panes, to cylinder glass, which produced thicker panes, may account for the increase in thickness.

This transition occurred during the middle of the nineteenth century. Swiatosz (1985) mentions the emergence of double-strength windows, which could help account for the increase in window thickness during the nineteenth century.

In 1978 Karl Roenke published primary mode distributions derived from window thickness with corresponding age brackets. Roenke used irregular intervals for date ranges, and they often overlap. These irregular date ranges seem to represent the messy realities of actual archaeological assemblages. Roenke’s thickness modes are at onehundredth of an inch interval, but his corresponding date ranges overlap and vary in duration from ten to twenty years. Nonetheless, one may approximate a reasonable date range by measuring window fragments to the nearest hundredth of an inch and referring to Roenke’s table. Furthermore, we should consider Roenke’s resultant modes and date ranges as statistically significant as he employed thousands of artifacts from eleven separate nineteenth century sites to arrive at his modal date range distributions.

Roenke (1978) and Chance & Chance (1976) developed schemes for dating nineteenth century window glass in the Pacific Northwest, but it was not clear that their date ranges could be reliably employed outside of that region. Moir (1987) developed a regression formula that has been tested by researchers in several American regions. In the course of my research, I examined site reports and papers testing Moir’s regression formula in Kentucky, South Carolina, Texas, New York, and Florida. Moir’s formula derives from a simple linear regression: Glass Manufacture Date=84.22 x glass thickness (millimeters) + 1712.7 We may glean a few bits of information from this formula. The product of 84.22 and thickness in millimeters will describe the constant slope of the line. The fact that this equation is linear as opposed to exponential or tangential suggests that window glass thickness increased at a fixed rate during the nineteenth century. 1712.7 represents the theoretical date at which window glass would disappear altogether, but as stated this type of analysis is applicable 170

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

primarily to nineteenth century sites, or more accurately sites with occupations between 1810 and 1915. Moir contend that his regression formula was accurate to within seven years on sixty percent of the cases in which he tested the formula.

Others have formulated different equations to describe the apparent increase in thickness seen during the nineteenth century. Ball (1983) posited the equation: Glass Manufacture Date = (M-1.00)/.0286+1800 This is also a linear equation, but may provide dates that are considerably earlier than those obtained using Moir’s equation (Broadbent-Sykes 2003). For example, if we test a sample of window glass measuring 1.98mm and plug this value into both equations, we arrive at widely differing dates. Moir’s regression formula provides a date of 1879, while Ball’s formula provides a date of 1834. As one moves backward through the nineteenth century, Ball’s equation begins to produce results more comparable to Moir’s. For the first half of the nineteenth century, Ball’s equation may provide serviceable results, however, Moir’s equation seems to more accurately describe the increase in window glass thickness. Broadbent-Sykes (2003) tested Moir’s and Ball’s equations at a site in Indian Key, Florida. Broadbent-Sykes found that Ball’s (1983) dates were much too early when compared against more traditional dating methods, as well as archival and historical data.

Moir (1987), Ball (1983), and Roenke (1978) all seemed to want to use window glass to determine construction dates for dwellings. Moir suggested nineteenth century sites with an occupation of less than thirty years as suitable candidates for regression analysis. Supposedly, longer duration sites will skew the date of construction and provide a date that is later than the actual date of construction. However, many have seen this thirty year occupation bracket as being severely limiting, and Grant (2001) observes that for most sites with a defined thirty year occupation, one would already have reliable dates. Day (2001) and Broadbent-Sykes (2003) challenged the notion that window glass thickness regression analysis be conducted on “pristine” sites with short occupations. By plotting derived dates on a histogram, Day (2001) provides a useful visual illustration of building activity over a long duration. Not primarily concerned with determining the date of construction, Day’s application of Moir’s (1987) formula displays behavior over an extended duration. Nevertheless, window glass thickness analysis is not widely practiced today and does not enjoy widespread acceptance.

Testing Window Glass Thickness at the Mann-Simonss Site The Mann-Simons site, occupied between circa 1825 and 1970, represents a unique urban context containing domestic and commercial components (for detailed contextual background, see Crockett 2005 and 2006). As a test of Moir’s (1987) regression formula I sought to compare window glass dating for discrete proveniences against the results of TPQ dating for the same features. Unfortunately, Moir cautions against conducting this type of analysis in urban contexts. Furthermore, occupation at the Mann-Simons Site is about 115 years too long to be a suitable candidate for regression mean dating (Day 2003; Moir 1987). My solution to the problem of occupation length is to analyze glass fragments from discrete proveniences with reliable TPQ dates. In doing so, I can compare the results of thickness dating against TPQ dating while focusing on a context that is more temporally limited. By analyzing window glass from features formed in a relatively short duration, perhaps we may assign a date to that provenience based on thickness, and thus use the method for features without associated TPQ dates.

Methodology For this analysis, features must meet three basic prerequisites: 1) feature assigned a TPQ date; 2) TPQ date falls between 1810 and 1915; 3) presence of enough flat glass for statistical analysis. Two features were selected for

171

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

analysis. The first feature, termed the F6 Complex, is a large trash deposit located at the rear of the lot at 1906 Marion Street, just north of the Mann-Simons property (Clement, et al. 1999). The second feature, 12T, also a large trash deposit, is associated with a small lunch counter the Mann-Simons family operated at 1401 Richland Street between the 1880s and 1909 (Crockett 2006).

I adopted a basic methodology advanced by Roenke (1978) and Broadbent-Sykes (2003). For the two assemblages tested, each fragment of window glass was measured for thickness in three locations along its surface to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter using digital calipers. The three measurements are averaged and each glass fragment is assigned an average thickness. From these values, I calculated a mean thickness in millimeters for the entire assemblage. The resulting mean value is then inserted into Moir’s (1987) regression formula. The resulting value should theoretically represent an average value for the year of glass manufacture for the glass assemblage.

Results For feature F6, I obtained a total sample of 151 window glass fragments, representing 93% of the total window glass assemblage from that provenience. The window glass assemblage yielded an average thickness of 1.761mm. This measurement provided an average manufacture date of 1861 when subjected to Moir’s (1987) regression formula.

Feature F6 has a TPQ date of 1890 (Crockett 2005).

For feature 12T, I obtained measurements for 416 window glass fragments, representing a 100% sample of that provenience. This assemblage averaged 1.753mm in thickness. According to Moir’s equation, the assemblage from feature 12T should have an average manufacture date of 1860. Feature 12T has a TPQ date of 1905. Results are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. Results for Window Glass Assemblages from Discrete Proveniences Feature Average Thickness (mm) Avg. Manufacture Date

TPQ Date

F6

1.761mm

1861.02

1890

12T

1.753mm

1860.34

1905

Discussion At first glance, the results may seem incompatible with known TPQ dates. I begin by addressing the results from feature F6. A difference of twenty-nine years between the known TPQ date and the date of glass manufacture may seem a contradictory result. The key to understanding this discrepancy lies in realizing that Moir’s regression analysis is a tool to describe the manufacture date for nineteenth century window glass, and not the date of deposition. One would not expect window glass to enter the archaeological record immediately following manufacture, and in this way we come to issues of use-life. Unfortunately, I have found no research that establishes average use-life chronologies for window glass. In the absence of a known average use- life for window glass, we are left to interpret the gap of twenty-nine years in various ways. Ultimately, these results are inconclusive, but certainly could be interpreted as complimentary if one accepts a use life of glass around thirty years.

Feature 12T provides results that are more problematic. The TPQ date for the feature is 1905, a full forty-five year difference from the date of manufacture. Feature 12T is associated with the destruction of a lunch counter that was built sometime in the 1880s. From this information, one would expect a glass manufacture date for the assemblage 172

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

to fall in the late 1870s to early 1880s. Such a manufacture date would compliment the TPQ on the basis of a twenty to thirty year use-life. The average date of 1860, derived from thickness, is a full twenty to twenty-five years too early to represent a manufacture date for window glass from this feature.

Factors such as high curation rates, artifact lag, poverty, and the heirloom effect (Hampton 2003) may help to explain results that provide earlier dates. In reality though, the efficacy of this method on sites like Mann-Simons is called into question based on the incompatible results derived from feature 12T. This method should continue to be tested on discrete proveniences within sites, as a way of further refining the slope and y-intercept of Moir’s (1987) formula. Using traditional dating techniques alongside window glass dating will enable archaeologists to alter the equation to more adequately represent the relationship between average thickness and date of manufacture.

As the equation is subtly tweaked and improved, it should continued to be employed to date discrete proveniences with and without TPQ or other traditional assigned dates in order to further establish the validity of this approach.

Window glass thickness dating should be employed to establish site chronologies for discrete features that lack other temporally diagnostic artifacts.

Conclusion The primary limitations on the acceptance of window glass thickness as a temporal marker reside in its status as under-utilized, under-tested, and misunderstood. Broadbent-Sykes (2003) maintains that window glass thickness can become an accepted nineteenth century dating technique if it is more widely tested and utilized. The underutilization of window glass regression analysis seems to stem from a general belief that window thickness did not increase in thickness at a predictable, even rate. While different thicknesses of window glass were produced at different times during the nineteenth century, statistical analysis demonstrates that window glass tended to increase in thickness throughout the nineteenth century (Roenke 1978). Results from feature F6 support the validity of window glass dating, results from 12T seem to provide an incompatible date. Further analysis of discrete proveniences at Mann-Simons site is necessary in to further test the methodology and to help establish site chronology. By outlining the methodologies used to date assemblages of nineteenth century window glass, it is my hope that this paper may serve as a reference for the emergence of window glass thickness regression as a dating technique, and encourage other archaeologists to apply and test this technique to other nineteenth century sites.

REFERENCES CITED Adams, William Hampton 2003 Dating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag in the Acquisition, Curation, Use, and Disposal of Artifacts. The Journal of the Society for Historical Archaeology 37:2.

Ball, Donald 1983

Britton, Jackie 2005

Approaches Towards the Dating of 19th Century Ohio Flat Glass. Proceedings of the Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archaeology 2:24-36.

American Bricks. Electronic Documents, http://www.architoys.net/toys/toypages/ambricks.html, accessed December 14, 2006.

173

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

Broadbent-Sykes, Alexis 2003 Signs of Life: Rediscovering Nineteenth Century Indian Key through Glass Analysis.

Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Florida.

Cauthen, Charles Edward.

1936 Confederacy and Reconstruction. In Columbia Capital City of South Carolina, edited by Helen Kohn Hennig, pp. 24-56. Columbia, SC: R. L. Bryan Company Printers Census, US Federal 1900 United States of America Federal Census.

1910 United States of America Federal Census.

1920 United States of America Federal Census.

1930 United States of America Federal Census.

www.ancestry.com www.ancestry.com www.ancestry.com www.ancestry.com

Chance, David H. and Jennifer V. Chance 1976 Kanaka Village/Vancouver Barracks 1974. Reports in Highway Archaeology, No. 3.

Clement, Christopher O., Ramona M. Grunden and John K. Peterson 1999 History and Archaeology at the Mann-Simons Cottage: A Free Black Site in Columbia, South Carolina. Cultural Resources Consulting Division, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Columbia, City of 1875-1930 1859-2004 Crockett, Jakob 2005

Columbia City Directory. South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, SC. Columbia City Directory. South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, SC

Consumption and Identity: The Archaeology of a Nineteenth-Twentieth Century Urban African American Neighborhood (38RD1083) In Columbia, South Carolina. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of South Carolina, Columbia.

2006

Mann-Simons African American Archaeology Project: Field and Lab Manual, 2006. University of South Carolina, Columbia.

2007

Mann Simons African American Archaeology Project: Field and Laboratory Manual, 2007.

University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Day, Grant 2001

Window Glass Dating: When was McConnel’s Homestead Built? Paper Presented at the Fourth Annual South Central Historical Archaeology Conference, Little Rock.

Epperson, Terrence W. 2004 Critical Race Theory and the Archaeology of the African Diaspora. Historical Archaeology 38(1):101-8.

174

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

Gaillard, Meg 2007

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons – Crockett et al.

A Visual Representation of Archaeology: The Mann-Simons Cottage, Final Field Season. Video documentary, Department of Media Arts, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Graydon, Nell S. 1964 Tales of Columbia. R. L. Bryan Company Printers. Columbia, S.C. GunTec 2008 Hale, Grace E. 1998

Hawks, Chuck 2005a

GunTech Dictionary. http://www.midwayusa.com/guntecdictionary.htm, accessed 7 March 2008.

Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890-1940. New York: Pantheon Books.

A Brief History of .22 Rimfire Ammunition. <http://www.chuckhawks.com/history_rimfire_ammo.htm>, accessed 6 March 2008.

2005 b Early Metallic Cartridges. <http://www.chuckhawks.com/early_metallic_cartridges.htm>, accessed 24 January 2008.

2008

The .22 Short, .22 Long, and .22 Long <http://www.chuckhawks.com/22_rimfire_cartridges.htm>, accessed 15 February 2008.

Rifle.

Huggins, Nathan Irving 1973 Foreword to a World in Shadow: The Free Black in Antebellum South Carolina by Marina Wikramanayake, pp. xiii-xviii. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, S.C. International Ammunition Association, Inc. 2001 A Cartridge Collectorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Glossary.

February 2008.

2007

Light, John D. 2000

<http://cartridgecollectors.org/glossary.htm>, accessed 8

Headstamp Codes. <http://cartridgecollectors.org/headstampcodes.htm>, accessed 15 February 2008.

A Field Guide to the Identification of Metal. In Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, David R. Brauner, compiler, p. 3-19. Society for Historical Archaeology, California, PA.

Logan, Herschel C. 1959 Cartridges: A Pictorial Digest of Small Arms Ammunition. Standard Publications, New York.

Lucas, Marion Brunson 2000 Sherman and the Burning of Columbia. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, S.C.

175

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Crockett et al.

Miller, George L. and Terry H. Klein 2001 A System for Ranking the Research Potential of 19th- and 20th- Century Farmstead Sites.

Northeast Historical Archaeology 30-31: 155-166 Moir, Randall W. 1977 Window Glass: A Statistical Perspective. Manuscript on file, Archaeology Research Program, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.

1987

Socioeconomic and Chronometric Patterning of Window Glass in Historic Buildings. Material Culture and People of the Prairie Margin, ed. David H. Jurney and Randall W. Moir, pp-73-81.

Richland Creek Technical Series vol. 5, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.

Montgomery Ward & Co. 1895 Montgomery Ward & Co. Catalogue and Buyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Guide: Spring and Summer. Montgomery Ward & Co. Reprinted by Dover Publications, Inc., New York1969.

Mullins, Paul R. 1999 Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African America and Consumer Culture. Kluwer Academic, New York.

Paytner, Robert 1988

Prince, Gene 1988

Steps to an Archaeology of Capitalism: Material Change and Class Analysis. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, edited by Mark P Leone and Parker B Potter, Jr., pp. 407-433. Washington/London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Photography for discovery and scale by superimposing old photographs on the present-day scene.

Antiquity 62:112-116.

Roenke, Karl G. 1978 Flat Glass, Its Use as a Dating Tool for Nineteenth Century Archaeological Sites in the Pacific Northwest and Elsewhere. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Memoir No. 4, Moscow, Idaho.

Sanborn Map Company 1904 Insurance Maps of Columbia, South Carolina. Sanborn Map Company, New York, NY. Courtesy of South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

176

1910

Insurance Maps of Columbia, South Carolina. Sanborn Map Company, New York, NY. Courtesy of South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

1919

Insurance Maps of Columbia, South Carolina. Sanborn Map Company, New York, NY. Courtesy of South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

South Carolina Antiquities, Vol. 40

The Archaeology of Mann-Simons â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Crockett et al.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. 1897 Sears, Roebuck & Co. Catalogue. Sears, Roebuck & Co. Reprinted by Chelsea House Publishing, New York 1967.

1902

Sears, Roebuck & Co. Catalogue. Sears, Roebuck & Co. Reprinted by Bounty Books, New York

1908

Sears, Roebuck & Co. Catalogue. Sears, Roebuck & Co. Reprinted by The Gun Digest Company, Chicago 1969.

Slater, Don 1997

Consumer Culture and Modernity. New York: Polity Press.

Steinhauer, Curtis.

2008 Centerfire Cartridges. <http://www.members.shaw.ca/cstein0/uscenter.htm>, accessed 1 February 2008.

Strasser, Susan 1989

Satisfaction Guaranteed: The Making of the American Mass Market. Pantheon Books, New York.

Sundra, Jon R. 1999

Ten Greatest Cartridges of All Time. Guns Magazine, June, 1999. Firearms Marketing Group.

Swiatosz, Susan 1984 A Technical History of Late Nineteenth Century Windows in the United States. Bulletin of the Association for Preserving Technology, 17:1.

Weems, Robert E., Jr. 1998 Desegregating the Dollar: African American Consumerism in the Twentieth Century. New York: New York University Press.

White, Henry Packard and Burton D. Munhall 1963 Cartridge Headstamp Guide. H. P. White Laboratory, Bel Air, MD. Winchester Repeating Arms Company 2008 Winchester Centerfire Rifle Ammunition. <http://www.winchester.com/products/catalog/rifle.aspx>, accessed 7 March 2008.

177