1    

Anthropology  550  Final  Project  Joseph  Jakubs  Spring  Semester,  2013    A  Cursory  Examination  of  Laboratory  Data  from  a  Preliminary  Survey  and  

Test  Excavations  at  Levi  Colbert’s  Prairie  Homestead    

Introduction  

This  report  summarizes  inferences  and  correlations  with  historic  documents  

achieved  through  an  assemblage  and  analysis  of  artifacts  recovered  from  the  

geographic  location  associated  with  the  historic  site  of  Levi  Colbert’s  prairie  

homestead  in  Mississippi.    Specifically,  it  highlights  the  cultural  activities  and  

processes  that  may  be  attributed  to  the  accumulation  of  these  particular  artifacts  at  

the  site.    Also,  it  attempts  to  determine  the  prevalence  of  one  activity  over  another.    

This  is  useful  for  many  reasons.  First,  the  types  and  distribution  of  activities  

provides  insight  concerning  the  number  of  persons  occupying  the  site  and  the  types  

of  work  prevalent  during  the  period  of  interest.    Second,  recognition  of  preference  

or  frequency  of  activates  will  further  an  understanding  of  the  archaeological  record  

of  this  site  and  help  to  determine  other  socio-­‐economic  aspects  of  the  Colberts.    This  

information  helps  to  achieve  a  comprehensive  understanding  of  the  Colberts  and  

their  relationship  with  communities  and  cultures  with  whom  they  interacted..    

Other  persons  studying  the  Colberts  and/or  this  particular  period  of  time  will  find  

this  analysis  useful  to  gain  insight  into  material-­‐culture  relationships  and  the  roles  

they  play  in  larger  social  and  economic  agendas.      

  An  assemblage  of  artifacts  from  the  site  provides  the  data  for  this  

quantitative  analysis.  The  assemblage  is  relatively  small  in  size  due  to  the  

2    

preliminary  nature  of  the  research  project  at  this  time.    Further  site  research  and  

excavation  is  necessary  to  achieve  a  more  thorough  and  comprehensive  

understanding  of  the  site  and  features  associated.    Due  to  the  relatively  limited  size  

of  the  assemblage  at  this  time  most  of  these  analysis  and  conclusions  will  appear  

rather  cursory  in  nature  (Beaudrey  et  al.,  1983;  Jones  et  al.,  1989;  Noël  Hume,  

1969).    

Background  

The  Levi  Colbert  prairie  homestead  site  is  one  of  many  sites  affiliated  with  

the  Colbert  family  legacy.    The  Colbert  family  influenced  the  Chickasaw  nation  and  

acted  as  mediator,  for  lack  of  a  better  word,  between  the  United  States  government  

and  the  Chickasaw  people.    Throughout  history  the  Colberts  have  been  criticized  for  

the  transformation  of  certain  historic  economic  principles  and  practices  of  the  

Chickasaw.  

  This  research  project  is  intended  to  increase  knowledge  about  the  prairie  

homestead  site  of  Levi  Colbert.    The  research  impetus  asks  questions  relating  to  the  

number  of  persons  occupying  the  site  historically,  relocation  of  the  original  home  of  

Levi  and  one  of  his  wives,  and  everyday  life  practices  by  the  Colberts.    Economic  

beliefs  and  practices  of  the  Colberts  are  addressed,  including  the  utilization  of  slaves  

and  capitalism,  free  trade,  free  market,  ideals  synonymous  with  the  incorporation  or  

dismissal  of  European  influences,  and  economic  expansion  (Craig,  1998).      

James  Logan  Colbert,  father  of  Levi  and  his  brother  George,  was  a  Scottish  

immigrant  who  married  into  the  Chickasaw  people.    While  James  Colbert  was  one  of  

the  European  traders  instrumental  in  the  dramatic  economic  and  cultural  shift  of  

3    

the  Chickasaw,  he  also  is  responsible  for  fathering  several  of  the  people  who  would  

later  protect  it,  namely  Levi  and  George  Colbert.      

Important  to  note  about  this  period  are  the  cultural  shifts  and  economic  

practices  adopted  by  the  Chickasaw,  such  as  the  European  system  of  slavery  and  

free  enterprise.    This  system  of  free  enterprise  is  perhaps  significantly  more  

prevalent  during  the  years  1803-­‐1818  portrayed  by  the  economic  enterprises  of  

Levi  and  his  brother  George.    Also  indicative  of  this  change  in  economic  beliefs  are  

the  several  treaties  that  the  Colberts  were  instrumental  in  facilitating  during  this  

period.    Specifically,  this  includes  the  Treaty  of  1818  that  played  a  pivotal  role  in  the  

future  of  the  Chickasaw.      

Through  manipulation  of  the  beliefs  and  practices  of  the  Chickasaw,  in  

particular  their  trade  arrangements,  the  United  States  government  was  able  to  gain  

considerable  leverage  and  achieve  the  end  results  of  their  (Chickasaw)  relocation  to  

“open  new  land”  for  future  settlers  at  a  price  that  was  far  below  market  value  at  that  

time  (Craig,  1998).  

  This  report  focuses  on  the  occupation  period  1818  through  the  1840’s.    The  

location  associated  with  Levi  Colbert’s  prairie  homestead  was  relatively  large  in  size  

with  a  substantial  amount  of  acreage  devoted  to  agriculture.    The  property  was  

located  within  relatively  close  proximity  to  the  site  of  the  Colbert  ferry.    The  

property  designated  as  Levi  Colbert’s  homestead  on  the  historic  plat  map  (see  

Appendix  B)  illustrates  the  geographic  and  environmental  features  attributed  to  the  

site  at  that  time.      

4    

The  property  was  bordered  on  the  North,  East  and  part  of  the  Western  side  

with  forest.    There  was  also  a  road,  designated  as  the  Cotton  Gin  Road  that  travelled  

somewhat  circuitously  through  the  southwestern  region  of  the  site  from  the  

western  border  to  the  southern  border.    The  location  of  the  structures  associated  

with  the  site  during  this  period  of  time  is  not  clearly  delineated.    However,  according  

to  the  plat  map,  the  edge  of  the  southwestern  section  of  the  property,  effectively  

divided  by  the  Cotton  Gin  Rd.,  is  an  area  indicated  to  be  the  historic  location  of  the  

home  (Elliot  Jr.,  Mary  Ann  Wells,  2003).  

The  area  associated  with  the  home  structure  was  indicated  to  be  within  close  

proximity  to  the  Cotton  Gin  Rd.  so  relocation  of  the  road  is  of  primary  interest.      

Currently,  this  area  is  under  agricultural  production    and  the  forest  has  extended  

south  over  time  covering  the  historic  Cotton  Gin  Rd.    The  fields  are  also  organized  

differently  than  on  the  earlier  plat  map  having  covered  the  area  thought  to  be  

associated  with  the  home  structure  and  historic  road  with  an  active  agricultural  

field  (see  Figure  1).    The  ground  itself  is  clayey,  relatively  dense  and  retains  a  

significant  amount  of  moisture.      

Figure  1:  Photograph  of  Area  of  Interest.  

5    

 

Source:  Weik,  2013  

Methodology  

  The  fieldwork  involved  in  this  project  is  preliminary  in  nature  consisting  of  a  

geophysical  survey  and  subsequent  test  units  and  shovel  test  pits  in  relation  to  the  

anomalies  discovered  in  the  geophysical  survey.    The  various  physical  methods  used  

to  collect  data  include  metal  detecting,  surface  collection,  shovel  test  pit  excavation,  

and  test  excavation  pits.  

“The  metal  detector  hits  (places  where  metal  was  detected)  were  often  

explored  by  shoveling  or  troweling  out  a  tiny  irregular  hole  until  the  metal  was  

recovered.  Shovel  test  pits  (“st”  or  “stp”  are  small  pits,  approximately  30x30cm,  dug  

down  to  sterile  soil  [no  features  or  artifacts]).    Data  from  st’s  are  less  precise  as  the  

soil  and  artifacts  are  not  mapped  or  bagged  and  removed  in  careful  levels  or  strata.  

6    

They  are  quick  means  to  see  the  range  of  artifacts  there.  Some  stratigraphic  

information  is  possible  to  recover  when  the  st  walls  are  cleaned  up.    However,  only  a  

small  area  is  exposed  for  profile  sketches  or  photos.  Because  st’s  are  dug  in  less  

precise  ways,  artifacts  can  fall  down  into  the  lower  level  soil  during  excavation.  Like  

metal  detector  pits,  stp’s  are  not  considered  ideal  methods  for  exposing  soil  

stratigraphy.    Surface  collection  data  are  often  indicative  of  the  presence  or  absence  

of  a  site,  but  can  be  suspect  because  it  is  not  in  situ  (soil  context)”  (Excerpt  from  

field  notes,  Weik,  2013).The  geophysical  survey  consists  of  ground  penetrating  

radar  (GPR),  magnetic  gradiometer  and  electromagnetic  induction  (EMI).    Through  

the  interpretation  of  the  data  resulting  from  these  survey  methods,  areas  of  interest  

were  delineated  and  subsequently  probed  for  information  by  the  physical  collection  

methods  listed  above  (see  Figure  2).  

7    

Figure  2:  Locations  of  STP’s  and  TU’s  with  Associated  Anomalies.

 

Source:  Weik,  2013  

The  methods  employed  in  the  lab  included  rough  sorting,  cleaning,  and  

cataloging  of  the  samples  resulting  from  the  preliminary  testing  and  excavations  

8    

stated  above.    The  artifacts  were  first  sorted  then  cleaned  according  to  the  

individual  needs  of  the  particular  artifact,  e.g.  metal  objects  were  dry  brushed  not  

submerged  or  cleaned  with  water.  After  the  sorting  and  cleaning  process  the  

artifacts  were  analyzed  and  cataloged.    All  of  these  procedures  were  completed  

while  maintaining  any  provenience  information  associated  with  that  particular  

sample  (Jones  et  al.,  1989;  Miller,  1991;  Miller,  1980;  Noël  Hume,  1969;  Beaudrey  et  

al.,  1983).    

  Analysis  of  the  artifacts  involved  the  use  of  an  Excel  which  allowed  several  

categories  of  attributes  to  be  listed.  Each  artifact  was  analyzed  by  general  attributes  

and  an  attempt  at  a  generalized  set  of  descriptors  was  made.    Categories  of  brief  

description,  material,  type,  variety,  number  of  specimens,  number  of  fragments,  

weight,  POTS  typology,  and  functional  classification  were  used  when  possible.    Some  

of  the  artifacts  could  not  be  identified  at  this  time  due  to  various  limitations  

necessitating  further  in-­‐depth  analysis  of  individual  artifacts.1      Through  application  

of  theoretical  and  interpretive  methods,  such  as  those  discussed  in  A  Guide  to  

Artifacts  of  Colonial  America  (Noel-­‐Hume,  1969),  and  several  works  by  George  

Miller,  inferences  were  made  with  relative  precision.    

For  example,  through  George  Miller’s  (1991)  A  Revised  Set  of  CC  Index  Values  

for  Classification  and  Economic  Scaling  of  English  Ceramics  from  1787  to  1880,  

valuable  information  was  discerned  to  date  and  classify  with  considerable  accuracy  

artifacts  in  the  assemblage.    By  dating  and  classifying  the  artifacts  in  the  assemblage  

                                                                                                               1  Refer  to  Appendix  A  for  a  full  list  of  artifacts  cataloged  for  this  cursory  study.      

 

9    

with  relative  consistency  and  precision,  theoretical  methods  were  applied  to  ferret  

out  information  regarding  spatial  distribution  of  features,  artifacts  and  

socioeconomic  practices  occurring  historically  at  the  site  (Jones  et  al.,  1989;  Miller,  

1991;  Miller,  1980;  Noël  Hume,  1969;  Beaudrey  et  al.,  1983;  Bradley,  2000;  Hoskins,  

2006).  

Results  

  A  functional  classification  system  was  devised  and  applied  to  the  artifacts  

during  analysis  and  cataloging.    Categories  such  as  architecture,  kitchen,  clothing,  

and  metal  were  applied  (for  a  complete  list,  see  Appendix  A).    

  Artifacts  recovered  included  a  substantial  number  of  brick  fragments  ranging  

from  several  inches  to  a  few  millimeters,  pottery  shards,  a  number  of  faunal  

remains,  and  many  metal  artifacts  ranging  from  nails  and  farm  equipment  to  

unidentifiable  pieces.    Two  of  the  metal  artifacts  that  stand  out  are  pieces  of  lead  

shot.    Table  1  demonstrates  the  chronological  frame  of  the  site  by  classification  of  

nail  types  with  associated  dates.  

Table  1  

Type     Quantity     Year   Distribution  %  

Cut   10   1790-­‐1830   76.9  

Wire   3   1880-­‐present   23.1  

 

Table  1  demonstrates  the  years  of  manufacture  for  the  nails  recovered  which  allows  

an  approximate  date  range  to  be  assigned  to  the  area  of  interest.    Also  these  data  

suggest  the  activities  at  the  site  included  construction  or  maintenance  of  structures.    

10    

Further  excavation,  recovery,  and  analysis  of  artifacts  from  the  site  is  needed  to  gain  

a  more  comprehensive  understanding  of  the  context  of  these  nails  and  structures  

and/or  activities  which  utilized  them    (Nelson,  1968).  

Table  2  demonstrates  the  pearlware  and  whiteware  ceramics  from  the  

assemblage.    Based  on  a  quantitative  analysis  of  the  ceramic  shards,  a  date  range  for  

the  site  may  be  inferred  and  an  insight  to  the  style  of  life  concerning  eating,  

drinking,  and  other  social  aspects  (Miller,  1991;  Miller,  1980;  Miller,  2010).  

Table  2  

Type   Quantity   Date  range   Distribution  %  

Pearlware   12   1780-­‐1840   52.2  

Whiteware   11   1820-­‐1900   47.8  

 

Table  2  demonstrates  that  possible  dates  of  occupation  ranged  from  

contemporary  to  the  dates  of  interest  (1800-­‐1840’s).    These  values  being  dates  of  

production,  however,  are  only  useful  in  a  relative  dating  method,  demonstrating  

that  the  site  was  indeed  occupied  around  and  through  the  period  of  interest.    

Further  analysis  of  individual  shards  is  necessary  to  achieve  a  more  comprehensive  

understanding  of  the  material-­‐culture  relationship  (Miller,  1991;  Miller,  1980,  

Beaudrey  et  al.,  1983).    

  Analysis  of  the  assemblage  indicates  the  presence  of  rough  fired  clay  which  

may  be  attributed  to  the  presence  of  brick  features  and/or  daub,  typically  used  in  an  

architectural  context  for  walls  and  insulating  buildings.    A  few  of  the  fragments  are  

indicative  of  this  from  the  impressions  in  their  surfaces.    The  surface  impressions  

11    

resemble  those  left  by  being  in  contact  with  other  objects  at  the  time  of  curing  or  

firing.    Further  in-­‐depth  analysis  is  needed  to  achieve  an  accurate  conclusion  of  

these  artifacts  (McGrath,  1979;  Noël  Hume,  1969).  

  At  the  time  of  this  study,  there  are  no  illustrations  or  photographs  of  artifacts  

to  use  in  further  analysis  of  the  assemblage.    Illustrations  and  photographs  would  be  

a  significant  boon  to  the  analysis,  enabling  a  more  detailed  approach  to  discerning  

the  material-­‐culture  relationships  and  other  socio-­‐economic  aspects  (Orton  et  al.,  

1994).  

  Through  a  quantitative  approach  various  activities  may  be  discerned  that  

likely  occurred  at  the  site.    The  ability  to  demonstrate  particular  dates  of  

manufacture  for  specific  items  allows  a  relative  date  to  be  assigned  to  the  site.    

Further  quantitative  analysis  will  result  in  a  more  comprehensive  understanding  to  

the  nature  of  the  site  indicating  the  types  of  activities  that  were  taking  place  at  the  

time  of  occupation  (Miller,  2010).  

  By  utilizing  a  qualitative  approach  to  the  analysis  of  the  assemblage,  clues  to  

the  culture  of  the  Colberts  and  other  inhabitants  of  the  homestead  area  may  be  

discerned.    Further  excavation  and  subsequent  collection  and  analysis  of  artifacts  

are  necessary  to  acquire  adequate  data  to  draw  conclusions  surrounding  the  

socioeconomic  beliefs  and  practices  of  the  inhabitants.      

A  cursory  examination  of  the  assemblage  at  this  point  in  the  research  project  

indicates  several  activities  occurred  at  the  site.    From  the  presence  of  bricks  and  

brick  fragments,  the  conclusion  may  be  drawn  that  brick  features  or  structures  were  

located  there  historically.    Also  the  presence  of  a  number  of  pottery  shards,  some  of  

12    

European  design  or  manufacture,  indicates  the  possibility  of  a  culturally  

homogenous  environment.    It  is  likely  that  the  cultural  practices  associated  with  the  

Chickasaw  began  to  incorporate  those  introduced  by  Europeans  through  

interaction.    This  could  be  attributed  to  the  influence  through  trading  or  likely  a  

result  of  gradual  incorporation  through  long-­‐term  interaction  due  to  both  trade  

arrangements  and  relatively  close  proximity  to  settlers.    It  should  be  noted  that  

though  the  Colberts  spoke  for  the  Chickasaw  nation  on  many  levels.  The  Chickasaw  

also  followed  the  free-­‐market  practices  introduced  by  early  European  settlers,  

incorporating  aspects  from  both  cultures  in  their  everyday  lives  and  economic  

practices  (Miller,  2010;  Craig,  1998;  Elliot  Jr.,  Mary  Ann  Wells,  2003;  Beaudrey,  et  al.,  

1991;  Bradley,  2000;  Hoskins,  2006).  

Conclusion  

  In  summary,  the  assemblage  positively  indicates  the  presence  of  artifacts  

associated  with  structures  contemporary  with  the  time  period  of  occupancy  by  the  

Colberts.    Several  activities  may  be  inferred  to  have  taken  place,  such  as  the  building  

of  or  maintenance  of  structures  as  well  as  eating  and  drinking,  as  indicated  by  the  

ceramic  shards  and  faunal  remains.    Other  activities  are  also  indicated  by  the  

presence  of  many  metal  artifacts,  such  as  the  two  pieces  of  lead  shot  recovered,  

chain  links,  bridal  bit,  and  horse-­‐shoe.    These  artifacts  hint  at  some  of  the  

agricultural  practices  and  the  presence  of  weapons  possibly  for  defense  or  hunting.    

Further  testing  and  analysis  of  the  current  assemblage  is  necessary  to  draw  more  

conclusive  results.      

13    

With  regards  to  the  location  of  STP’s  and  test  units  that  resulted  in  artifacts  

relevant  to  the  relocation  of  the  Colbert’s  home  structure,  further  geophysical  

surveying  and  subsequent  excavations  should  be  conducted.    The  possibility  of  

relocating,  to  a  more  accurate  degree,  the  site  of  the  home  structure  will  allow  

further  quantitative  and  qualitative  analysis.    The  ability  to  achieve  more  data  for  

future  analysis  will  significantly  enhance  the  ability  to  discern  important  social,  

cultural,  and  economic  relationships  of  the  Colberts.  

References      Beaudry,  Mary  C.,  Janet  Long,  Henry  M.  Miller,  Fraser  D.  Neiman,  Garry  Wheeler  Stone    1983.    A  Vessel  Typology  for  Early  Chesapeake  Ceramics:  The  Potomac  Typological  System.    Historical  Archaeology  -­‐  Vol.  17,  No.  1.  Society  for  Historical  Archaeology.  Historical  Archaeology.  17  1:  1-­‐5.  (tDAR  ID:  151236)  

 Beaudrey,  Mary  C.,  Lauren  J.  Cook,  Stephen  A.  Mrozowski    1991.    Artifacts  and  Active  Voices:  Material  Culture  as  a  Social  Discourse.    Images  of  the  Recent  Past,  Chapter  11.  AltaMira  Press,  Walnut  Creek,  CA.  

 Bradley,  Charles  S.    2000.    Studies  in  Material  Culture  Research.  Society  for  Historical  Archaeology,  California  University  of  Pennsylvania,  California,  Pennsylvania.  

 Craig,  Ronald  Eugene    1998.    The  Colberts  in  Chickasaw  History,  1783-­‐1818:  A  Study  of  Internal  Tribal  Dynamics.    The  University  of  New  Mexico,  Albuquerque,  New  Mexico.  

 Elliot  Jr.,  Jack  D.,  Mary  Ann  Wells    2003.    Cotton  Gin  Port:  A  Frontier  Settlement  on  the  Upper  Tombigbee.    Quail  Ridge  Press  for  the  Mississippi  Historical  Society,    

       

14    

Hoskins,  Janet    2006.    Handbook  of  Material  Culture:  Chapter  5:  Agency,  Biography  and  Objects.    Sage  Publications,  Thousand  Oaks  Califorina,  USA.    

Jones,  Olive,  Catherine  Sullivan,  George  L.  Miller,  E.  Ann  Smith,  Jane  E.  Harris,  Kevin  Lunn    1989.    The  Parks  Canada  Glass  Glossary.    Canadian  Government  Publishing  Centre,  Supply  and  Services  Canada,  Hull,  Quebec,  Canada.  

 McGrath,  Thomas  L.    1979.    Notes  on  the  Manufacture  of  Hand-­‐Made  Bricks.    Bulletin  of  the  Association  for  Preservation  Technology,  Vol.  11,  No.  3.  Pgs.  88-­‐95    

 Miller,  George  L.    1991.    A  Revised  Set  of  CC  Index  Values  for  Classification  and  Economic  Scaling  of  English  Ceramics  from  1787  to  1880.      

           1980.    Classification  and  Economic  Scaling  of  19th  Century  Ceramics.        Miller,  Daniel              2010.    Stuff.    Polity  Press,  Cambridge,  UK    Nelson,  Lee  H.    1968.    Nail  Chronology  as  an  Aid  to  Date  Old  Buildings.    American  Association  for  State  and  Local  History.    Technical  Leaflet  No.  48.  Nashville,  Tennessee.  

 Noël  Hume,  Ivor    1969.    A  Guide  to  Artifacts  of  Colonial  America.    University  of  Pennsylvania  Press.  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania.  

 Orton,  Clive,  Paul  Tyers,  Alan  Vince              1993.    Pottery  in  Archaeology.    Cambridge  University  Press.    Cambridge,  UK.    Weik,  T.              2013.    USC  Blackboard.  Anthropology  550:  Lab  Methods      

15    

                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix  A  

Insert  Appendix  A  Here  

(See  attached  file  labeled  Appendix  A)  

 

 

   

16    

Appendix  B  

 

Source:  Weik,  2013.