Volume I. Living in Columbus, Georgia 1828-1869: The Lives of Creeks, Traders, Enslaved...

Living in Columbus, Georgia1828-1869:

August 2005

The Lives of Creeks, Traders, Enslaved African-Americans, Mill Operatives and Others

as Told to Archaeologists

Sketch on Cover: Original Art Courtesy of Gloria Sampson, Columbus, Georgia.Other images, clockwise from sketch: Embossed pharmaceutical bottles used by Columbus area drug-

gists; Creek Indian Leader in the Columbus area (Swanton 1979); Dinner Toters (Hines Collection); Adfor Mehaffey’s Company (Haddock 1873).

Living in Columbus, Georgia 1828-1869:

The Lives of Creeks, Traders, Enslaved African-Americans, Mill Operatives and Others As Told to Archaeologists

Second Avenue Revitalization Project Series, Volume V

By Rita Folse Elliott Author and Field Director

With contributions by Dr. Allen Vegotsky, Dr. Barnett Pavao-Zuckerman, Dr. Linda Scott Cummings & Ms. Kathryn Puseman, and Ms. Sarah Cowie

August 2005

Rita Folse Elliott

Prepared forCity of Columbus, Georgia

Department of Community and Economic DevelopmentColumbus, Georgia

i

Acknowledgements

The 2nd Avenue Columbus Project was accomplished by what, in retrospect, seems to be a cast of thousands. The numberof people involved stem from both the duration and complexity of the project. It is hoped that after three years of fieldworkand another combined five years of analyses and alternating hiatus, the author has not inadvertently left anyone out of theacknowledgements.

Several individuals working for the City of Columbus were extremely helpful throughout this project. They are mentionedbelow in the positions occupied at the time of the project. These individuals worked hard to ensure smooth logistics andwere always available when needed. Mr. Dick Ellis, Director, Department of Community and Economic Development; Ms.Lynnette Gross, Project Manager, Department of Community and Economic Development; and Greg Clark, Chief, Depart-ment of Community and Economic Development, showed a genuine interest in preserving the valuable information abouthistoric Columbus through the archaeological investigations in the project area. This interest was evident (and appreci-ated) in each of their many visits to the site during fieldwork.

Ms. Virginia Peebles, Director of the Historic Columbus Foundation provided support to the project. Mr. Jim Buntin, ProjectManager, Total System Services, provided input to the project. Ms. Debbie Avery of Synovus aided in project logistics.State officials supporting the archaeological recovery of information about Columbus’ past and involved in various levelsof the project included Mr. Mark Edwards, Director, Historic Preservation Division; Dr. Ray Luce Division Director andDeputy State Historic Preservation Officer; and Dr. David Crass, State Archaeologist.

Other players were involved, including Larry and the team with D.H. Griffin. Larry worked with Southern Research to securethe site and access locked gates. Messrs. Bill and Craig Reaves, and Jarrell Mclendon, of Reaves Wrecking, helpedarchaeologists get access to the ground surface. Jarrell provided additional heavy machinery operations for the project,allowing faster archaeological work. Messrs. John Doragh and Lou Conti of Freeman-Beers maintained constant contactwith Southern Research. Ms. Laura Bruner of Law Engineering and Environmental, kindly provided maps and informationregarding underground storage tanks and other subsurface environmental impacts.

At Southern Research, Dean and Kay Wood, Principals, managed the many complicated aspects of this long-term project,including, but not limited to, its administration and logistics. They provided important feed-back on various segments ofthe project from initiation to conclusion. Debra Wells, Lab Director, handled the artifacts from initial lab entry throughoutthe washing, analysis, data entry, special analyses, and re-bagging. She also conserved selected artifacts and producedmultiple CAD and other maps from laser transit data, and generated some of the computer graphics. Joel Jones providedinvaluable experience and great assistance to the Field Director and served as interim director during several weeksthroughout the project. Daniel Elliott filled in as Field Director during a critical week of the Director’s absence. He alsosupplied support and useful suggestions.

The Southern Research field and/or lab crew throughout this project or its long aftermath included these numerousindividuals: Tiffany Andrews, Bill Baxter, Tasha Benyshek, Nate Bressler, Alex Caton, Paul Chandler, Leslie Cooper, SarahCowie, John Doolin, Dan Elliott, Jennifer Gentry, Mike “Chief” Griffin, Renita Harper, Ellie Haywood, Clay Helms, Joel Jones,Chris LeBlanc, Brant Loflin, Jeanne Marshall, Janet Middleton, Trish O’Brien, Virginia Pierce, Kenny Pinson, Daylan Price,George Price, Laura Ragsdale, Suzanne Rauton, Amanda Regnier, Ian Richardson, Whitney Smith, Bryan Tucker, PatUptagraft, Jamie Waggoner, Debra Wells, Russell Weisman, Adam Williams, Carrie Williams, Tiffany Williams, Dean Wood,Kay Wood, and Matt Wood. Debra Wells, Bryan Tucker, and Ellie Haywood produced additional graphics for the report.Virginia Pierce provided useful assistance in both local research and artifact data manipulation. Sarah Cowie spent manyhours with the author in intensive discussions to discover and interpret the chronology of features on each lot based ontransit map data, deed information, Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, bird’s-eye perspective views, and archaeological excava-tions. Grace Keith’s work to edit this volume and provide needed editorial and content comments is appreciated. She alsomanaged the final stages of the project. Dan Elliott provided additional insightful editorial review. Shannon Zimmermannwas tasked with the unenviable job of formatting this document.

Mr. Curtis Motes, of J&B Backhoe delivered outstanding backhoe and trackhoe services. His perfect technique anddedication to the job enabled archaeologists to strip the site without damage to important components. His ability to

ii

carefully maneuver and remove matrix from around the wells throughout the complex well excavation procedures wascritical to the success of the well excavations.

Dr. David Leigh, worked with Southern Research to determine the geological stratigraphic sequences found throughoutdifferent parts of the project area. His data and very useful commentary greatly assisted archaeologists in determining thepotential for deeply buried prehistoric sites along the river terraces.

Ms. Merne Posey tackled the tedious job of producing chains of title for each of the 88 city lots in the 10-city block projectarea from 1828-ca.1930s. This task helped guide archaeologists from survey to data recovery. In some cases it also helpedlink features and artifacts to specific individuals and families. It provided a vast quantity of data critical in interpreting siteownership and occasional site occupation, and in making broader interpretations about nineteenth century neighborhoodsin Columbus.

Dr. Allen Vegotsky voluntarily conducted exemplary research on the medicines that would have been found in the pharma-ceutical bottles excavated in the project area. His background in chemistry, familiarity with medicine, and ability to conducthistorical research produced amazingly detailed information about the products ingested by nineteenth century Columbusresidents. His research also led to the little-known fact that some medicines during that period were actually effectivetreatments for specific symptoms and illnesses. The author is indebted to him for his important contributions. Dr. Vegotskymade numerous contacts during his research. Those individuals, such as Mr. Frank Sternad, and many others are thankedfor their assistance in providing information about nineteenth century medicines, bottles, and related details.

Dr. Barnett Pavao-Zuckerman, then at the University of Georgia, conducted faunal analysis on selected samples of bonefrom the project site. She worked graciously with Southern Research to reach mutual goals. Paleo-Research Labs, underthe direction of Dr. Linda Scott Cummings, conducted the pollen, phytolith, parasite, and macro-ethnobotanical research onselected samples from features in the project.

Individuals at the Columbus Museum helped make the museum exhibit and associated outreach a success. Dr. KarolLawson, then Director of Collections, was the first to express interest in the concept of an exhibit at the museum about thearchaeology and history of the project area. Mr. Frank Schnell, Archaeologist, was co-curator of the exhibit and visited thesite frequently. Ms. Gay Carney, outgoing Curator of Education, began the initial part of museum education related to theexhibit. Incoming Curator of Education, Ms. Anita Alexander, admirably took over the bulk of the task and worked hard tomake the educational outreach portions of the exhibit, including the hands-on children’s section, an accurate and funexperience for visitors. Ms. Becky Young of the Columbus Museum assisted with the compact disc creation. Tom Butler,Director, is thanked for his vision in understanding that residents in Columbus and the surrounding region thirst for themany exciting stories of their past that can only be found, interpreted, and seen through archaeology.

The report detailing the prehistoric excavations for this project can be found in Price et al.. (2005). Living in Columbus,Georgia 1828-1869... is the culmination of work by hundreds of individuals. Several individuals made important contribu-tions to this volume. The sections of the report concerning embossed medicine bottles and their contents were written byAllen Vegotsky. The portions of the report concerning faunal and floral analysis were authored by Barnett Pavao-Zuckerman.Linda Scott Cummings and Kathryn Puseman authored sections involving soil analyses. The contributions of Vegotsky,Pavao-Zuckerman, and Scott Cummings, and Puseman are included verbatim in various portions throughout the report,with selected tables in the report and in the appendices. These sections were interspersed throughout the report ratherthan put entirely at the end as appendices in order to incorporate the data more fully into the overall study and interpreta-tion of the site. The complete, undivided faunal and soil analysis reports can be found in the Appendix of this report.(Background information in the body of the report supercedes any contradictions in the appendix, as the latter was writtenwhile site interpretations were still being developed.) The primary author takes full responsibility for the content of Livingin Columbus, Georgia 1828-1869.

iii

Dedication This report is dedicated to John Thomas Doolin (1950-2004). His nonpareil skill in preserving midden and

features while overseeing the machine stripping of archaeological sites, and in determining nuances of stratigraphic information in the process will be sorely missed, as will his unique character and valued

friendship.

iv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. iDedication ............................................................................................................................................. iiiTable of Contents .................................................................................................................................. ivList of Figures......................................................................................................................................... xList of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ xv Chapter 1. Archaeology of the 2nd Avenue Revitalization Project .......................................................1 Introduction and Background ...........................................................................................................1 Research Design ................................................................................................................................ 4 Project Comparisons..................................................................................................................... 4 Site Formation Processes ............................................................................................................. 5 Types of Sites Expected ................................................................................................................ 5 Prehistoric ................................................................................................................................ 5 Historic ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Residential ........................................................................................................................... 6 Public.................................................................................................................................... 6 Commercial .......................................................................................................................... 6 Industrial.............................................................................................................................. 6 Research Design Orientation ....................................................................................................... 6 Research Basis.......................................................................................................................... 7 Age Guidelines.......................................................................................................................... 7 Historical Documentation ....................................................................................................... 8 Study Levels.............................................................................................................................. 8 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................... 9 Ethnicity ................................................................................................................................... 9 Socio-Economics ...................................................................................................................... 9 Gender ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Subsistence ............................................................................................................................. 10 Health and Government Regulations ................................................................................... 10 Consumerism ..........................................................................................................................11 Occupations.............................................................................................................................11 Summary...........................................................................................................................................11 Chapter 2. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 13 Research Methods ........................................................................................................................... 13 Columbus, Georgia ..................................................................................................................... 13 Athens, Georgia........................................................................................................................... 14 Atlanta, Georgia ...........................................................................................................................15 Savannah, Georgia .......................................................................................................................15 Washington D.C. and Elsewhere ................................................................................................15 Field Methods...................................................................................................................................15 Survey and Resting Methods ......................................................................................................15 Data Recovery Methods ............................................................................................................. 16 Geomorphology Methods and Results ...................................................................................... 21 Data Management of Wells ........................................................................................................ 23 Public Outreach Methods and Results........................................................................................... 24 Laboratory Methods........................................................................................................................ 25 Artifact Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 25 Cross Mends, Minimum Vessel Counts, and CC Index Values............................................28 Other Date Ranges and Indices............................................................................................. 33 Conservation ............................................................................................................................... 34 Faunal Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 34 Soil Analysis ................................................................................................................................38 Pollen ...................................................................................................................................... 39

v

Table of Contents - continued

Phytolith...........................................................................................................................................39 Macrofloral .............................................................................................................................39 Schulze Digestion ...................................................................................................................40 Report Methodology .......................................................................................................................40 Chapter 3. Columbus History.............................................................................................................43 Pre-Columbus..................................................................................................................................43 Creek and Euro-American Interaction...........................................................................................43 Establishment of City of Columbus................................................................................................ 45 Second Seminole War .....................................................................................................................49 Indian Removal from Alabama ......................................................................................................50 Subsistence Level Urban Residents ............................................................................................... 52 Euro-Americans .......................................................................................................................... 52 Freedmen and Freedwomen ...................................................................................................... 54 Enslaved African-Americans and Public Hands ....................................................................... 55 Race Relations ................................................................................................................................. 55 Native American and African-Americans.................................................................................. 57 Euro-American and African-Americans....................................................................................58 Mill Worker Life ..............................................................................................................................58 Observations by Visitors and Residents....................................................................................58 Mill Housing in Columbus .........................................................................................................62 Urban Life........................................................................................................................................63 Drinking Water ...........................................................................................................................63 Subsistence.................................................................................................................................. 65 Privies, Sewerage and Plumbing................................................................................................66 General Sanitation ......................................................................................................................66 Architecture.................................................................................................................................69 Public Safety................................................................................................................................ 70 Streets and Drainage ...................................................................................................................71 Flooding and Land Alteration .................................................................................................... 74 Commons .................................................................................................................................... 75 West Commons ...................................................................................................................... 76 East Commons........................................................................................................................ 76 South Commons ..................................................................................................................... 77 North Commons..................................................................................................................... 77 Market Place ............................................................................................................................... 77 Health and Medicine, Hospitals, and Epidemics...................................................................... 78 Trade and Economics .................................................................................................................80 Schools......................................................................................................................................... 81 Social and Cultural Events .........................................................................................................83 Regional Perspective ..................................................................................................................84 Civil War .................................................................................................................................84 National Perspective...................................................................................................................86 Chapter 4. Focus Within the Project Area: Community Life In and Around the Excavated City Lots ....................................................................................................................................................... 87 Community Life............................................................................................................................... 87 Block 10 ....................................................................................................................................... 87 Intersection of 1st Avenue and 15th Street (Portions of Block 10, 11, 15) ..................................92 Block 15, Western Half ...............................................................................................................94 Intersection of Broad and 15th Street (Portions of Mott Block, Block 10, and Block 15) ........ 95 Intersection of Broad and 14th Street (Portions of Block 15 and Blocks Outside the Project Area................................................................................................................................. 95 Block 15, Eastern Half and Nearby Environs ............................................................................96 Block 3, Mott House and Surroundings .................................................................................... 97 Block 11, Courthouse Block .......................................................................................................101

vi

Chapter 5. History, Results and Interpretation of Lot 200, Block 10............................................ 105 History of the Property ................................................................................................................. 105 Late 18th to Early 19th Century Activities.......................................................................................110 Creek-Euro Features..................................................................................................................110 Cross Mends ..........................................................................................................................112 Roasting Pit, Feature 254.................................................................................................112 Pit, Feature 233 ................................................................................................................118 Pit, Feature 228 ................................................................................................................121 Pit, Feature 223 ............................................................................................................... 125 Midden, Features 193 and 194 ........................................................................................ 126 Privy, Feature 202 ............................................................................................................131 Privy, Feature 252............................................................................................................ 132 Post (Zone 6).................................................................................................................... 135 Well, Feature 203 ............................................................................................................ 135 Faunal Material in Creek-Euro Features ............................................................................ 138 Lot 200 Summary of Select Early Residents and Creek-Euro Features ........................... 139 Lot 200 Structures and Related Features .............................................................................. 140 Structure 1, House (ca. 1849 to 1928) ................................................................................. 140 Structure 1A, Servants Quarters (pre-1889 to 1895/1907)................................................ 144 Structure 2, House (ca. 1889/1895 to 1928)....................................................................... 144 Structure 2A, Outbuilding (ca. 1889/1895 to pre-1907).................................................... 146 Structure 2B, 2C, and 2D (ca. 1895/1907 to 1928)............................................................. 146 Structure 3, House, (ca. 1848 to 1854/1877) ...................................................................... 146 Early, Non Creek-Euro Features.............................................................................................. 147 Selected Mid-19th Century and Activity-Related Features on Lot 200.................................. 148 Burial, Feature 244 .............................................................................................................. 148 Late 19th to Early 20th Century Activities on Lot 200 ............................................................. 152 Greenhouse, Feature 230 .................................................................................................... 152 Pit, Feature 231......................................................................................................................157 Potable Water on Lot 200 ........................................................................................................ 158 Wells ..................................................................................................................................... 158 Pump Mechanisms............................................................................................................... 160 Cisterns ................................................................................................................................. 160 Sanitation Features and Issues on Lot 200............................................................................. 160 Privies ................................................................................................................................... 160 Pits .........................................................................................................................................161 Architecture on Lot 200 ........................................................................................................... 162 Cellars ................................................................................................................................... 162 Chapter 6. History, Results and Interpretations of Lot 204, Block 10 .......................................... 165 History of the Property ................................................................................................................. 165 Creek-Euro Features ...................................................................................................................... 171 Pit, Cooking/Subterranean Oven, Feature 336........................................................................ 171 Pit, Feature 334......................................................................................................................... 174 Pit, Feature 130..........................................................................................................................175 Summary of Creek-Euro Features on Lot 204 ........................................................................ 176 Early Non-Creek Features .............................................................................................................177 Pit, Large, Feature 333 ..............................................................................................................177 Cellar, Feature 310.....................................................................................................................177 Cellar, Possible, Feature 329.................................................................................................... 179 Mid-19th Century Architectural Features Unassociated with Sanborn Maps ............................ 179 Cellar, Feature 11....................................................................................................................... 179 Cellar, Feature 335.................................................................................................................... 185 Late 19th to Early 20th Century Activities on Lot 204.................................................................. 187 Structures....................................................................................................................................... 187 Structure 1 ..................................................................................................................................191 Structure 2..................................................................................................................................191


vii

Structure 3..................................................................................................................................191 Structure 4..................................................................................................................................191 Cellar, Feature 136 ................................................................................................................191 Privy, Feature 190 ................................................................................................................ 194 Well, Feature 152.................................................................................................................. 193 Well, Feature 104 ................................................................................................................. 198 Structure 5.................................................................................................................................204 Structure 6.................................................................................................................................207 Well, Feature 337 .................................................................................................................208 Well, Feature 347 .................................................................................................................209 Well, Feature 348................................................................................................................. 210 Potable Water on Lot 204..............................................................................................................211 Sanitation on Lot 204 ................................................................................................................... 212 Architecture on Lot 204................................................................................................................ 213 Chapter 7. History, Results and Interpretations of Lot 7, Block 11................................................ 215 History of the Property ................................................................................................................. 215 Structures....................................................................................................................................... 219 Fill Deposits on the Lot.................................................................................................................224 Selected Features and Activities ...................................................................................................225 Midden ......................................................................................................................................225 Shell-Filled Trenches................................................................................................................233 Well, Feature 19 ........................................................................................................................234 Other Features ..........................................................................................................................235 Summary ...................................................................................................................................235 Chapter 8. History, Results and Interpretations of Lot 191, Block 15............................................ 241 History of the Property ................................................................................................................. 241 Structures and Related Features ..................................................................................................246 Structure 1, Tenement 1............................................................................................................ 257 Structure 2, Tenement 2........................................................................................................... 257 Selected Features...........................................................................................................................258 Sanitation Features and Issues ................................................................................................258 Cesspool, Feature 157...........................................................................................................258 Cesspool Trap/Pipe, Feature 229........................................................................................ 261 Septic Tank/Cesspool Trough, Feature 112 ........................................................................264 Potable Water on Lot 191..........................................................................................................266 Cistern, Feature 156 .............................................................................................................266 Well, Feature 124.................................................................................................................. 267 Well, Feature 248................................................................................................................. 267 Data From Wells on Lot 191 ................................................................................................ 273 Artifacts and Bottle Information From Wells..................................................................... 273 Faunal Study of Mill Worker Assemblage ............................................................................... 279 Summary of Mill Worker Component .....................................................................................280 Non-Mill Tenement Architecture on Lot 191 ..........................................................................280 Chapter 9. History, Results and Interpretations of Lot 194, Block 15 ...........................................283 History of Property........................................................................................................................283 Structures and Related Features ..................................................................................................288 Structure 1, Main House...........................................................................................................288 Cellar, Feature 353 ...............................................................................................................288 Structures 2 and 3, Slave and Servants Quarters....................................................................296 Excavation of Slave and Servant Quarters’ Midden .................................................................... 297 Midden ......................................................................................................................................302 Midden Cross Mends................................................................................................................307 Artifact Analysis of Midden...................................................................................................... 310 Faunal Analysis of Midden....................................................................................................... 313


viii

Slave and Servant Quarters’ Environment ....................................................................................... 314 Other Features Associated with Quarters ............................................................................... 315 Hearth, Feature 378............................................................................................................. 315 Pit, Trash Filled, Feature 377 .............................................................................................. 319 Pits and Posts Near the Quarters ........................................................................................320 Other Selected Lot 194 Features and Activities...........................................................................320 Sanitation ..................................................................................................................................320 Privy, Feature 303................................................................................................................320 Potable Water on Lot 194 .........................................................................................................323 Well, Feature 339 .................................................................................................................323 Well, Feature 343 .................................................................................................................326 Well, Feature 344 ................................................................................................................. 327 Well, Feature 356 ................................................................................................................. 327 Cistern, Well Feature 336 .................................................................................................... 327 Miscellaneous Features ............................................................................................................ 331 Pit, Small, Feature 323......................................................................................................... 331 Dog Burial, Feature 233.......................................................................................................333 Garden Plot, Feature 357 .....................................................................................................333 Faunal Analysis of Main House Assemblage ...............................................................................335 Summary........................................................................................................................................336 Slave and Servant’ Quarters .....................................................................................................336 Chapter 10. Overall Results and Thematic Interpretations............................................................339 Lot Summaries ..............................................................................................................................339 Lot 200, Block 10......................................................................................................................339 Lot 204, Block 10 ......................................................................................................................339 Lot 7, Block 11 ...........................................................................................................................339 Lot 191, Block 15........................................................................................................................346 Lot 194, Block 15 .......................................................................................................................346 Artifact Patterning by Lot.........................................................................................................346 Creek and African-Americans in Early Columbus....................................................................... 351 Euro-Creek Features................................................................................................................. 351 Non-European Pottery .............................................................................................................352 Creek Pottery ........................................................................................................................352 African and African-American Pottery ...............................................................................353 Colonoware and Historic Aboriginal Pottery at the 2nd Avenue Site ................................354 Ethnobotanic and Faunal Analysis of Creek-Euro Features ..................................................356 African-American Features and Faunal Analysis ...................................................................358 Euro-Americans in Early Columbus ............................................................................................359 Early Columbus Landscapes and Environments.........................................................................360 Neighborhood Characteristics Through Time .............................................................................360 Occupations Within Excavated Blocks ....................................................................................360 Mill Operatives .....................................................................................................................360 Mill Operatives and Faunal Analysis ..................................................................................364 Economic Status of Neighborhood Blocks ..............................................................................365 Ceramics as Status Indicators on Individual Lots.............................................................. 367 Status as Reflected in Specific Artifact Types..................................................................... 374 Gender .......................................................................................................................................378 Health, Nutrition, and Hygiene ............................................................................................... 379 Tobacco Usage...................................................................................................................... 381 Diets and Medicine for Infants and Children .....................................................................383 Adult Diets as Reflected by Food Bottles............................................................................386 Medicine....................................................................................................................................386 Pharmacies and Druggists in Columbus.............................................................................386 Injections ..............................................................................................................................398 Embossed Medicine Bottles and Alcohol Bottles...............................................................399 Proprietary Versus Patent Medicines .................................................................................402


ix

Economics of Patent Medicines in Columbus .................................................................... 413 Nutrition and Economy of African-Americans and Mill Operatives, Reflected in Beef Cuts .......................................................................................................... 414 Nineteenth Century Faunal Information, Euro-Americans and Other Residents................ 415 1840-1860 (Lot 200)............................................................................................................ 415 1850-1870 (Lot 204) ............................................................................................................ 416 1880-1920 (Block 10 and Block 15)..................................................................................... 416 Faunal Research Questions Answered .................................................................................... 419 Interpretation of Pollen Analysis Across the Project Area .....................................................422 Water and Sanitation................................................................................................................423 Wells and Cisterns................................................................................................................423 Sanitation Features .............................................................................................................. 427 Architecture...............................................................................................................................429 City Lot Activities......................................................................................................................429 Leisure Time Activities .............................................................................................................432 Intra-city Relationships and Inter-city Comparisons in Historic Columbus.............................433 Intra-city Relationships............................................................................................................433 Intra-city Comparisons and Contrasts ....................................................................................433 Columbus’s Role in 19th Century America ...................................................................................435 Industry .....................................................................................................................................435 Health and Medicine ................................................................................................................436 Consumerism Revealed in Bottles ........................................................................................... 437 Food Containers and Consumerism.................................................................................... 437 Consumerism in Other Bottles ............................................................................................438 Chapter 11. Synopsis and Recommendations.................................................................................. 441 What Have We Learned? .............................................................................................................. 441 Recommendations.........................................................................................................................444 References Cited ................................................................................................................................447 Appendices: Appendix 1. Chain of Title Deed Research, Block 10 Appendix 2. Summary of Survey Trenches Appendix 3. Comprehensive Transit Plan Maps of Data Recovery Lots Appendix 4. Feature Summaries, Data Recovery Lots on Blocks 10, and 15 Appendix 5. Artifact Inventory Appendix 6. Faunal Studies Report Appendix 7. Soil Studies Report


x

Figure 1. Project Location Map ..................................................................................................... 2Figure 2. Aerial View of Project Location...................................................................................... 3Figure 3. Historic City Mills and Dam........................................................................................... 4Figure 4. Survey Trenches in Project Area...................................................................................17Figure 5. Areas of Survey and Data Recovery .............................................................................20Figure 6. Careful Stripping Uncovers a Cistern and Other Features......................................... 21Figure 7. Removal of Perimeter Soils to Allow Safe Excavation of Historic Wells ................... 22Figure 8. Excavation of Three Wells in Progress as Noted by Arrows (one well is out of view) ............................................................................................... 22Figure 9. Excavation in Progress of Two Bisected Wells............................................................ 23Figure 10. Signs Invite the Curious Public ................................................................................... 24Figure 11. Daily Updates on the Dry Erase Board Signage.......................................................... 25Figure 12. Home Schoolers Learn About History and Archaeology ........................................... 26Figure 13. Mending some of the Thousands of Historic Sherds from City Lots ........................ 31Figure 14. Creek Indian Leaders in the Columbus Area..............................................................44Figure 15. Columbus Would Be Established in What Was the Heart of Lower Creek Country in 1823, Between the Former Creek Towns of Coweta and Cusseta..............................46Figure 16. Part of Original Columbus Town Plan; Note the Blank Blocks on Washington Street Reserved for a Courthouse .......................................................................................... 47Figure 17. The Very Beginning of Columbus, Georgia, in 1828, Documented by Basil Hall.....48Figure 18. Redrawing of a Plat of Marshall’s Reserve ..................................................................51Figure 19. Marshall’s Reserve Was Directly Across the River From Columbus .........................51Figure 20. Mehaffey’s Company, Located in the Project Area, Employed Area Workers.......... 53Figure 21. Young Children Worked in Mills in Columbus, Augusta, and Macon, Georgia ....... 62Figure 22. A Wide Range of Vegetable Seeds Were Available to Columbusites in 1832...........66Figure 23. An Example of Prices in Columbus in 1828............................................................... 67Figure 24. Novel Indoor Plumbing in Columbus Brought with it New Issues in the 1890’s ....68Figure 25. A Variety of Meat Was Available at Stall No. 2 and Others in the Market ............... 78Figure 26. “Dinner Toters” Were Children Who Brought Lunch to Relatives Working in Columbus’s Mills ..........................................................................................................84Figure 27. City Blocks in Areas of Archaeological Data Recovery ..............................................88Figure 28. Block 10 Included City Lots 199 Through 206 (Yellow is area of occupation discussed in text)..........................................................................................................89Figure 29. A Bird’s Eye View of Block 10 in 1872, facing northeast ...........................................90Figure 30. A Bird’s Eye View of Block 10 in 1886, facing northeast...........................................90Figure 31. Clockwise from Bottom Left are Blocks 15, 10, 11 and a Block Outside the Project Area (Yellow is area of occupation discussed in text) ................................................ 92Figure 32. The Western Half of Block 15 (Yellow is area of occupation discussed in test ........94Figure 33. Clockwise from Bottom Left is the Mott Block, Block 10 and Block 15 (Yellow is area of occupation discussed in text) .......................................................................... 95Figure 34. The Mott Block is Top Left; Block 15 is Top Right (Yellow is area of occupation discussed in text)..........................................................................................................96Figure 35. Block 15 is on the Left (Yellow is area of occupation discussed in text) ...................96Figure 36. Modifications to the Mott House Gave it This Appearance by 1900 ........................ 97Figure 37. City Lots on the Mott Block Included Numbers 35 through 38 (Yellow is area of occupation discussed in text) ......................................................................................98Figure 38. Daniel Griffin’s Garden Plot of What Would Later Be Called Mott’s Green ............98Figure 39. Originally, Block 11 Was Not Divided into City Lots, but Reserved for a Courthouse (Yellow is area of occupation discussed in text)........................................................101Figure 40. Location of Lot 200 ................................................................................................... 106Figure 41. Chain of Title for Lot 200 .......................................................................................... 107Figure 42. Features Archaeologists Uncovered on Lot 200...................................................... 108

List of Figures

xi

List of Figures - continued

Figure 43. Two Houses Were Demolished Prior to this Early Twentieth Century Car Dealership Constructed on Lot 200 ..........................................................................110 Figure 44. Shaded Features Were Associated with a Creek-Euro Occupation ......................... 111Figure 45. Various Creek Pottery Types, by Feature, Lot 200...................................................112Figure 46. Ceramic Crossmends Between Features on Lot 200 Are Depicted by Similar Shading ........................................................................................................................114Figure 47. Feature 254, Plan View, Lot 200 ...............................................................................116Figure 48. Feature 254 Profile, Lot 200......................................................................................116Figure 49. Feature 233, Plan View, Lot 200 ...............................................................................119Figure 50. Pit Feature 233 Excavation in Progress, Lot 200 .....................................................119Figure 51. Feature 228, Plan View and Profile, Lot 200 ........................................................... 122Figure 52. Features 193 and 194, Plan Views, Lot 200 ..............................................................127Figure 53. Large Pieces of Dendritic Mocha, Edgeware, and Other Ceramics Lay in the Feature 193 Midden................................................................................................................. 128Figure 54. Selected Artifacts from Midden Feature 193............................................................ 130Figure 55. Feature 252, Profile, Lot 200 .................................................................................... 133Figure 56. Well Feature 203, Profile and Plan View, Lot 200 .................................................. 136Figure 57. Composite Map of Lot 200 Showing Features and Structural Footprints from Various Sanborn Maps................................................................................................141Figure 58. Lot 200 Houses on 1872 and 1886 Perspective Maps, facing northeast................ 142Figure 59. The Redrawn 1889 Sanborn Map Depicts Structures on Lot 200 (Not the dog-leg Along the property line)............................................................................................. 143Figure 60. The 1907 Redrawn Sanborn Map Reveals Two Houses on Lot 200 ...................... 145Figure 61. Excavated Sheep/Goat Burial, Feature 244, Lot 200 .............................................. 148Figure 62. Feature 244, Plan View After Excavation................................................................. 149Figure 63. Feature 244, Profile, Lot 200.....................................................................................151Figure 64. Image of a Bottle Glass Tool from Feature 244, Lot 200.........................................151Figure 65. In Situ Wood Flooring of a Greenhouse, Feature 230, Lot 200 ............................. 152Figure 66. Greenhouse Feature 230, Plan View and Profile, Lot 200...................................... 153Figure 67. Greenhouse Suppliers of Glass, Heaters and Other Items were Popular During the Latter Nineteenth Century......................................................................................... 154Figure 68. An Intrusive Dog Burial in the Edge of the Greenhouse (Feature 230) Fill ...........155Figure 69. Part of a Metal Toy Boat Model from Feature 230, Lot 200....................................155Figure 70. Reconstructed Meridian Flower Pot from Greenhouse Feature 230, Lot 200 ...... 156Figure 71. Small Metal Figure Recovered from Pit Feature 231, Lot 200 ................................ 158Figure 72. Well Feature 207, Profile and Plan View, Lot 200 .................................................. 159Figure 73. Location of Lot 204.................................................................................................... 166Figure 74. Chain of Title for Lot 204.......................................................................................... 167Figure 75. Changing Boundaries Associated with Lot 204 ....................................................... 169Figure 76. Transit Map of Features and Lot 204 Boundary...................................................... 170Figure 77. An Archaeologist Uncovers In Situ Brick to the Right of the Blue Transfer Print Bowl .................................................................................................................... 171Figure 78. Feature 336, Plan View and Profile, Lot 204 ............................................................172Figure 79. Part of a Reconstructed Burnished Clay Bowl ..........................................................173Figure 80. A Dutch Oven Lid form Pit Feature 336, Lot 204 .................................................... 174Figure 81. Feature 334, Plan View and Profile, Lot 204 ............................................................175Figure 82. Archaeologists Discovered a Cellar (Feature 11) in this Survey Trench, Lot 204........................................................................................................................ 180Figure 83. Artifacts Laying on the Cellar Floor When the House Caught Fire ..........................181Figure 84. Feature 11, Profile of a Portion of the Cellar Excavated During Survey, Lot 204........................................................................................................................ 182Figure 85. Archeologists Recorded Locations of Trenches that Accomodated Floor-Board Joists ........................................................................................................................... 184Figure 86. Cellar Feature 11 After Complete Excavation, Lot 204 ............................................ 185Figure 87. Overlay of Lot 204 Divisions on Feature Map .......................................................... 188Figure 88. Redrawing of 1889 Sanborn Map Showing Lot 204 ................................................ 189Figure 89. Redrawing of 1907 Sanborn Map Showing Lot 204................................................. 190Figure 90. Composite Structure Map of Lot 204........................................................................ 192

xii

Figure 91. Perspective Maps of Lot 204 Showing Structures in 1872 and 1886, View to the Northeast............................................................................................................... 193 Figure 92. Feature 152, Plan View, Lot 204................................................................................ 195Figure 93. Feature 152, Profile, Lot 204 ..................................................................................... 196Figure 94. Feature 152 (TS 2), Lot 204 (note the flare-out of the profile from erosion) ......... 196Figure 95. Feature 104, Profile and Plan View, Lot 204 ............................................................ 199Figure 96. Note the Numerous Jugs in Section TS1 (originally called Section 2) of this Well (Feature 104, Lot 204) .............................................................................................. 200Figure 97. A Bottle of Dodson’s Liver Medicine ........................................................................ 200Figure 98. An Advertisemtent for Fletcher’s Castoria................................................................202Figure 99. A Bottle that Once Held Castoria ..............................................................................202Figure 100. Hick’s Capudine Bottle Found in Feature 104..........................................................204Figure 101. Ceramic Crossmends Between Features in and Near Lot 204.................................206Figure 102. Columbus Druggist, Robert Carter, Sold Medicines in His Embossed Bottles ...... 210Figure 103. Privy Feature 107, Plan View, Lot 205 ...................................................................... 214Figure 104. Privy Feature 107, Profile, Lot 205............................................................................ 214Figure 105. Location of Lot 7 ......................................................................................................... 216Figure 106. Chain of Title for Lot 7 ................................................................................................217Figure 107. An 1872 and 1886 Bird’s Eye View of Lot 7...............................................................220Figure 108. Redrawing of the 1889 Sanborn Map Showing Lot 7............................................... 221Figure 109. Redrawing of the 1907 Sanborn Map Showing Lot 7 ...............................................222Figure 110. Map of Features Archaeologists Uncovered on Lot 7 ..............................................223Figure 111. Unit 17 Revealed that the Foundation Post-dated the Midden...............................224Figure 112. Closer View of Unit and Feature Locations on Lot 7...............................................226Figure 113. Stratigraphic View of Midden Layers in Southeastern Part of Lot 7....................... 227Figure 114. Stratigraphic View of Midden Layers in Northeastern Part of Lot 7.......................229Figure 115. Plan View of Oyster Trench Feature 17, Lot 7...........................................................235Figure 116. Profile of Oyster Trench Feature 17, Lot 7 ................................................................235Figure 117. One of the Lydia Pinkham Bottles from Lot 7 .......................................................... 237Figure 118. One of the Many Trade Cards Advertising Lydia Pinkham’s Medicine ..................238Figure 119. A More Melodramatic Later Pinkham Advertisement.............................................238Figure 120. Location of Lot 191 ....................................................................................................242Figure 121. Chain of Title for Lot 191............................................................................................243Figure 122. Mill Operatives Living on Lot 191 Would Have Worked at the Muscogee Manufacturing Company by 1888.............................................................................245Figure 123. Redrawing of a 1907 Sanborn Map Showing Lot 191 ..............................................252Figure 124. Redrawing of a 1895 Sanborn Map Showing Lot 191 .............................................253Figure 125. Redrawing of a 1885 Sanborn Map Showing Lot 191 ..............................................254Figure 126. Redrawing of a 1929 Sanborn Map Showing Lot 191 .............................................. 255Figure 127. An 1872 View of the Mill Operatives’ Tenement on Lot 191, Facing the Northeast ....................................................................................................................256Figure 128. The Mill Tenements on Lot 191 in 1886, Facing the Northeast ...............................256Figure 129. Features and Foundations on Lot 191 Uncovered by Archaeologists .....................259Figure 130. Cesspool Feature 157, Profile, Lot 191 ......................................................................260Figure 131. The Communal Brick Cesspool Used by Tenement Residents ................................260Figure 132. Associated Feature North of and Adjacent to the Cesspool, Feature 229 ..............262Figure 133. Photograph of Brick-Lined Trough...........................................................................264Figure 134. Trough Feature 112 ....................................................................................................265Figure 135. Photograph of Excavated Builder’s Trench for Well Feature 124, Lot 191 .............268Figure 136. This Four-Foot Section (TS 1) of the Well (Feature 124) Lay Between Four and Eight Feet Below the Stripped Ground Surface.......................................................268Figure 137. Well Feature 124, Profile and Plan View, Lot 191....................................................269Figure 138. These Features on Lot 191 Contained Ceramic Crossmends..................................270Figure 139. Well Feature 118, Profile and plan View, Lot 204................................................... 272Figure 140. One of Three “Dr. Hood’s Eureka Liver Medicine” Bottles Recovered from the 2nd Avenue Project.............................................................................................. 275Figure 141. A Blue Bromo Seltzer Bottle Came from Well Feature 118, Lot 191 ...................... 277


xiii

Figure 142. Bromo Seltzer Executives Used Effective Marketing Techniques .........................278Figure 143. Some of the Glass Syringe Parts Used by Mill Workers on Lot 191 ....................... 279Figure 144. Brick Pier and Builder’s Trench Containing Early 20th Century University of Georgia Medallion .............................................................................. 281Figure 145. The 1906 UGA Alumni Medallion............................................................................ 281Figure 146. Location of Lot 194 .....................................................................................................284Figure 147. Chain of Title for Lot 194............................................................................................285Figure 148. An 1832 Advertisement by Harvey Hall (Columbus Enquirer, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1832) .....................................................................................................286Figure 149. The Main House on Lot 194 in 1872 and 1886, View to the Northeast (Ruger 1972; Wellge 1886)...............................................................................................................289Figure 150. Plan View of Eastern Half of Excavated Feature 353, Lot 194................................. 291Figure 151. Photograph of West Profile, Feature 353, Lot 194 ....................................................292Figure 152. West Profile Drawing, Feature 353, Lot 194 .............................................................293Figure 153. Archaeologists Recorded Darby’s Propylactic Fluid Bottles on Lots 194 and 191 ..294Figure 154. Archaeologists Excavating the Slave and Servants’ Quarters on Lot 194................296Figure 155. The Servants’ Quarters of Lot 194, Indicated on the Redrawn 1895 Sanborn Map .....................................................................................................298Figure 156. By 1907 the Servants’ Quarters was also labeled “Kitchen” .....................................299Figure 157. By 1929 the Servants’ Quarters Had Become Three Separate Apartments............ 300Figure 158. Laser Transit Plan Map of Archaeological Features on Lot 194 .............................. 301Figure 159. Units and Features Within the Slave/Servants’ Quarter Foundation, Lot 194.......302Figure 160. North Midden Profile From Excavation Units in Slave/Servants’ Quarters, Lot 194 ........................................................................................................303Figure 161. East Midden Profile of Excavation Units in Slave/Servants’ Quarters, Lot 194 .....304Figure 162. Crossmends Between Features and Units on Lot 194 ..............................................308Figure 163. Horizontal Distribution of Kitchen Artifacts Within the Slave/Servants’ Quarters, Lot 194 ........................................................................................................................309Figure 164. Selected Jewlery and Clothing Artifacts from the Slave/Servants’ Quarters Midden, Lot 194 .........................................................................................................................311Figure 165. An 1839 Silver Dime from the Slave/Servants’ Quarters Midden ........................... 312Figure 166. Spur Located in Well Feature 349, Similar to Other Transportation Artifacts Such as Bridle/Harness Hardware from Midden and Elsewhere on Lot 194 ...................... 312Figure 167. Hearth, Feature 378, Lot 194 ..................................................................................... 312Figure 168. Photograph of Feature 378, Lot 194, After Removal of Fourth Course of Brick..... 316Figure 169. Drawing of Feature 378, Lot 194, After Removal of Fourth Course of Brick ..........317Figure 170. West Profile of Feature 378, Lot 194 ..........................................................................317Figure 171. Feature 303, Plan and Profile, Lot 194....................................................................... 321Figure 172. Note the Square Builder’s Trench and Offset Well Shaft of Feature 339, Lot 194..323Figure 173. One of Two Bottles of “Barry’s Tricopherous” From Well Feature 339, Lot 194 ....325Figure 174. Barry’s Was Marketed to Men for Baldness and Women for Luxurious Hair (Hechtlinger 1969:37)................................................................................................325Figure 175. Marble Urn Fragments in Well Feature 356, Lot 194 ...............................................328Figure 176. Well Feature 356, Profile and Plan View...................................................................329Figure 177. Initial Plan View of Cistern Feature 336, Lot 194 .....................................................330Figure 178. Cistern Profile, Feature 336, Lot 194.........................................................................332Figure 179. Plan and Profile of Feature 323, Lot 194 ...................................................................332Figure 180. Plan of Garden Plot Feature 357, Lot 194 .................................................................334Figure 181. Plan Map of Features on Data Recovery Lots ...........................................................340Figure 182. Artifact Classification Percentages and Counts by City Lots ...................................348Figure 183. Ceramics and Bottle Glass Totals in All Features, by City Lot.................................350Figure 184. Age Ranges of Tenement Heads of Households .......................................................364Figure 185. Reconstructed Vessels from Lot 191 (Scale is in 10 cm Segments)..........................368Figure 186. Reconstructed Vessels from Lot 194 (Scale is in 10 cm Segments) .........................369Figure 187. Reconstructed Vessels from Lot 200 (Scale is in 10 cm Segments) ........................369Figure 188. Reconstructed Vessels from Lot 204 (Scale is in 10 cm Segments) ........................370Figure 189. Selected Disposable Income Artifacts ....................................................................... 376


xiv

Figure 190. Mill Operatives and Other Residents May Have Purchased Their Music Locally (Haddock 1973) ............................................................................................. 377 Figure 191. Bottom: Portion of a Glass Breast Pump Excavated from the Mill Workers Tenement Lot. Top: Complete Historic Breast Pump............................................380Figure 192. Archaeologists Recovered an Assortment of Tobacco Pipe Fragments...................382Figure 193. Early Formulas of Mrs. Winslow’s Medicine for Children Contained Dangerous Amounts of Opium (Antique Advertising 1893 Reprint).........................................384Figure 194. Individuals Professing to Be Doctors Practiced in Columbus as Early as 1828 (Columbus Enquirer Vol. 1, No. IV:4, 1828) ............................................................387Figure 195. Henry Pope Was One of the Many Druggists Practicing in Columbus (Columbus Museum File, no date) ...............................................................................................390Figure 196. Pemberton and Other Druggists Advertised Their Services Frequently (Mears 1859)...............................................................................................................390Figure 197. A Large Number of Local Druggists Sold Products in Bottles Embossed With Their Names or Companies ................................................................................................. 391Figure 198. Examples of Other Bottles Sold By Columbus’ Druggists ........................................392Figure 199. This 1884 Advertisement Shows an Array of Merchandise in Turner’s Drugstore (Dickson 1884) ...........................................................................................................393Figure 200. Moffett’s Advertisement Depicted the Tools of the Druggist’s Trade (Haddock)..394Figure 201. The Corner Druggist Was a Familiar Site in Nineteenth Century Columbus (Library of Congress ca. 1899) ..................................................................................395Figure 202. An Example of Items Available in Columbus Drugstores in 1828 (Columbus Enquirer, Vol. 1, No, IV 1828.....................................................................................399Figure 203. Selected Pharmaceutical Bottles from the Project (Scale is in 10 cm Segments)...403Figure 204. This Liniment Was Advertised for Use on Animals and People (Fike 1987)..........407Figure 205. Medicines Shows Such as the One for Hamlin’s Wizard Oil Have Misled Us Into Believing that All 19th Century Medicine was Quackery (googleimages.com, nd) . 410Figure 206. Note the Cavity with Brickbats Created by Erosion in Well Feature 104, Lot 204........................................................................................................................424Figure 207. Note the Erosion Resulting in Zone 7 of this Well ...................................................425Figure 208. Evidence of the Wooden Lining was Still Visible in the Excavated Well Shaft ......426Figure 209. Graph of Percentages of Water and Sanitation Features by Lot .............................428Figure 210. Example of an 1830’s Frame House in Columbus (Columbus Enquirer 1951).......430Figure 211. Notched Log Construction of a Nineteenth Century slave Quarter (Bass House) Near Columbus (Library of Congress, after 1933) ...................................................430


xv

List of Tables

Table 1. Ceramics Used in Mean Ceramic Data Calculations and Their Dates..........................29Table 2. Columbus Mill Chronology............................................................................................. 59Table 3. Block 10 Residents (Confirmed).....................................................................................89Table 4. Block 15 Residents (Confirmed).....................................................................................94Table 5. Crossmends, Block 10, Lot 200 .....................................................................................113Table 6. Feature 228, Lot 200, Artifact Summary .................................................................... 123Table 7. Lot 200, Well Summary ................................................................................................ 158Table 8. Lot 200, Pit Features .....................................................................................................161Table 9. Euro-Creek Features, Lot 204 ...................................................................................... 176Table 10. Feature 104, Lot 204, MCD by Well Section .............................................................. 200Table 11. Crossmends, Block 10, Lot 204.....................................................................................205Table 12. Lot 204, Well Summary Table .......................................................................................211Table 13. Artifact Totals, Middens 1 and 2, Lot 7, Block 11.........................................................230Table 14. Oyster Shell-Filled Trenches, Lot 7, Block 11...............................................................233Table 15. 1873 Muscogee Manufacturing Company Operatives In or Around Block 15...........................................................................................................................245Table 16. Probable 1860 Residents of Lot 191 Mill Worker Tenements.....................................246Table 17. Probable 1870 Residents of Lot 191 Mill Worker Tenements .....................................250Table 18. Crossmends, Block 15, Lot 191.......................................................................................271Table 19. Artifact Summary of Select Wells, Lot 191, Block 15 ................................................... 274Table 20. Artifacts in Midden and Features in Quarters, lot 194, Block 15 ................................305Table 21. Crossmends, Block 15, Lot 194 ......................................................................................307Table 22. Selected Feature Summary Sheet, Blocks 10 and 15.................................................... 341Table 23. Artifact Patterning by City Lots .................................................................................... 347Table 24. Glass Totals, Olive to All Others ................................................................................... 351Table 25. Neighborhood Demographics (arranged by street frontage) ...................................... 361Table 26. Averaged Real and Personal estate Values of Neighborhoods ....................................366Table 27. MNV and Vessel Shapes by Lot (rim sherds only) ........................................................371Table 28. Holloware and Flatware, Based on MNV as Indicated by Rim Sherds .......................371Table 29. Ceramic Types, Based on MNV as Indicated by Rim Sherds ...................................... 373Table 30. Ceramic Decorative Treatments, Based on MNV as Indicated by Rim Sherds..................................................................................................................... 375Table 31. Disposable Income Artifacts.......................................................................................... 377Table 32. Druggists in Columbus, 1859-1900 ..............................................................................388Table 33. Frequency of Ingredients in Patent Medicines from the 2nd Avenue Revitalization Site .......................................................................................................... 397Table 34. Olive to Amber Bottle Glass by Lots ............................................................................ 400Table 35. Medicine Represented by Project Bottles.....................................................................404Table 36. Wholesale and Retail Costs of Medicines Used by Residents of the Project Area.................................................................................................................... 414Table 37. Well Summary Table......................................................................................................426Table 38. Water and Sanitation Features, Counts and Percentages, by Lot............................... 427Table 39. Selected Artifact Activity-Related Artifacts on Data Recovery Lots ........................... 431

1

Living in Columbus, Georgia 1828-1869

Chapter 1. Archaeology of the 2nd Avenue

Revitalization Project

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This report is Volume IV, a technical volume in aseries of reports documenting investigations at the2nd Avenue Site. Volume I was Second Avenue Re-vitalization Project, Columbus, Georgia, Volume I:Historic Resources Survey Report: ArchitecturalSurvey and Historic Context (The Jaeger Companyand Southern Research 1996). Volume II was en-titled, ‘Volume II Historic Context, ‘AutomobileRow’: The Auto Sales and Service Industry on Co-lumbus’ First and Second Avenues, 1904-1997 (Jae-ger and Southern Research 1997). The third Vol-ume, Volume III Muscogee Mills Feasibility Studyexamined the adaptive reuse potential of MuscogeeMills (Surber et al. 1997). Volume V of the seriesdetails the archaeological excavations on two pre-historic Native American sites in the project area.It is entitled, Excavation of Two Prehistoric Sites atChattahoochee Falls: Second Avenue Revitaliza-tion Project, Columbus, Georgia (Price et al. 2005).

The 2nd Avenue Revitalization Plan is an urban de-velopment of 54 acres within downtown Columbus,Georgia using a combination of Federal and Statefunding programs (Figure 1). These programs in-clude funds provided by the U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development, monies from theCommunity Block Grant Program, and Section 108Loan Guarantee Program. The use of these types offederal funds initiated federal mandates, includingthe National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Sec-tion 106, and Section 110 created in 1980 andamended in 1992), and Executive Order 11593 es-tablished in 1971. These acts and amendments re-quired HUD to have the city evaluate the impact ofconstruction to the archaeological resources andto mitigate adverse impacts to those resources. TheCity of Columbus contracted with Southern Re-

search Historic Preservation Consultants, Inc., ofEllerslie, Georgia to address the archaeological is-sues, in addition to documenting standing structuresand National Register properties within the projectarea. The project area consisted of properties ownedby the City of Columbus, purchased by the citythroughout the early phases of the project, or con-demned by the city for the revitalization project.The plan to revitalize this downtown area pivotedon attracting a local industry giant, Total SystemServices (TSYS), to occupy the property as a largedowntown “campus” that would fuel other areas ofrevitalization downtown.

Phase I of the revitalization project initially encom-passed 11 blocks (but later was reduced to 10-blocks)on the north side of town and is bordered on thewestern edge by the Chattahoochee River, on thesouthern boundary by 14th Street, on the easternedge by 2nd Avenue, and on the northern side by 19th

Street (Figure 2). The project area is segmented by aCentral of Georgia Railroad track and seven cross-streets. The northern section of the project areaterminates at the City Mills dam (Figure 3). The PhaseI area included commercial, industrial, and limitedresidential areas. Numerous historic buildings existwithin this area, including National Register of His-toric Places properties and two National HistoricLandmarks. Two historic mill complexes, City Millsand Muscogee Mills, were contained in the north andsouth of the project area, respectively. The readershould consult Second Avenue RevitalizationProject, Columbus, Georgia, Volume I: Historic Re-sources Survey Report: Architectural Survey andHistoric Context (The Jaeger Company and South-ern Research 1996) for further details.

Chapter 1. Archaeology of the 2nd Avenue Revitalization Project

2


Figure 1. Project Location Map.

N

EW

S300 0 300 600 Meters

Project Boundary

Columbus, Georgia

Phenix City, Alabama

ÊÚAlabama Georgia


3


Figure 2. Aerial View of Project Location.


4


RESEARCH DESIGN

Project Comparisons

Several similar large-scale urban projects involvingarchaeological investigation have been conductedacross the country, both recently and during thepast decade. These include the I-880 Cypress Free-way Replacement project in Oakland andEmeryville, California (Praetzellis 1994; Praetzellisand Praetzellis 2004) and the Greater New OrleansBridge II corridor in Louisiana (Castille et al. 1986).Archaeological fieldwork on the California FreewayProject was completed in the fall of 1996 and in-volved the archaeological and historical investiga-tion of 32 city blocks and in-depth study of 22 blocks(Adrian Praetzellis, personal communication, Octo-ber 1996). This was later changed to 23 blocks. In-vestigations focused on late nineteenth throughtwentieth century African-Americans and Chinese,and a distinctive single-occupation population ofrailroad workers (Praetzellis 1994). The New Or-leans project encompassed a one-mile corridorthrough the historic lower Garden District, Irish

Channel, and Warehouse District. A total of 20 citysquares were examined, with intensive investiga-tion conducted on six squares.

Other urban archaeology projects in the southeasthave examined more localized areas within cities.Excavations of the courthouse block in Knoxville,Tennessee (Garrow et al. 1996); the Federal Centersite in Atlanta, Georgia (Webb and Gantt 1996); por-tions of downtown Phenix City, Alabama (Elliott1996); the St. James Hotel lot in Selma, Alabama(Gantt et al. 1996); the Governor’s Mansion Site inMilledgeville, Georgia (Wood and Wood 1996); theColumbus Police Headquarters in Georgia (Ledbetteret al. 1997); the Charleston Courthouse in SouthCarolina (Joseph and Elliot 1993); portions of theSpringfield community of Augusta, Georgia (Josephet al. 1993); the Fahm Street site in Savannah, Geor-gia (Wood 1985); and the Telfair Site in Savannah(Honerkamp et al. 1983) are just a few examples ofthe types of urban archaeology being conductedmost recently in the region. Excavations at amillworker tenement and a mill agent house inLowell, Massachusetts offers a comparative study

Figure 3. Historic City Mills and Dam.


5


to portions of the 2nd Avenue project, particularlythe millworker tenement lot (Beaudry andMrozowski 1987, 1989). Urban archaeologyprojects come under the jurisdiction of manage-ment plans, programs in some areas such as: Alex-andria, Virginia; Boston, Massachusetts; Miami,Florida; Phoenix, Arizona; St. Augustine, Florida;and Wichita, Kansas. At present, no city in Georgiahas an overall urban archaeology management plan,including the City of Columbus.

Site Formation Processes

Urban sites are unique for many reasons, one of themost significant being the natural and cultural pro-cesses responsible for their formation. Both pro-cesses account for removal and deposition at a scaleoften unequaled in other non-urban environments.Natural deposition and/or removal of soils on ur-ban sites can be brought about by alluvium or ero-sion from adjacent rivers, and the forces of hurri-canes, occasionally evident in urban archaeologi-cal sites along the coast. Cultural processes tend tohave a greater and continual effect on urban sites.

Man-made urban activities traditionally began asindividual reactions to one’s environment in theform of “improving” one’s house and surroundinglot. These improvements often took the form of theconstruction of out-buildings, privies, and struc-tural additions; the disposal of trash as sheetmiddens, along lot lines, or in pits or previously dugfeatures; landscaping; the intentional filling of low-lying areas; the operation of garden plots; and theraising of domesticated animals and fowl. Theseprocesses alter the environment in both small andlarge ways. The move towards planned growth incities, as a result of increasing urban populationsand a greater awareness of health threats reducedthe formation of features at an individual level, suchas the creation of a privy in a back yard of a houselot, and created the formation of features at a muchlarger scale, such as the creation of city-wide sewerand plumbing systems and water treatment facili-ties. This move to urban planning and the creationand enforcement of city ordinances resulted inlarge-scale formation process, including the creationof city dumps, the grading of uneven topography,and in-filling of low-lying areas on a more massivescale. All such cultural and natural site formationprocesses and their consequences must be consid-ered when investigating urban sites.

Types of Sites Expected

Prehistoric

While the 2nd Avenue project is located in down-town Columbus, one should not automatically dis-count the possibility of finding prehistoric siteswithin its boundaries. The project’s location alongthe Fall Line and adjacent to, and downstream from,the southernmost non-navigable shoals on theChattahoochee River, make it a prime area for con-taining prehistoric components. The high, broadridges on the bluffs overlooking the river would haveappealed to Native Americans as areas for settle-ment, areas to use while extracting local riverineresources, and locations for later historic trade withEuropeans. One should expect, therefore, to findhabitation sites, extracting or processing sites, andtrade sites in this environment. Preliminary recon-naissance and survey for the 2nd Avenue Revitaliza-tion Project has revealed evidence of Native Ameri-can use of what is today Blocks 3 and 15. Prelimi-nary investigation revealed that while these sitesare too shallow to survive direct impact from im-pending construction, they are deep enough to haveavoided much past cultural activity and hold thepromise of offering unique information about Na-tive American use of what is now the Columbus area.

Previously recorded prehistoric archaeological sitesin both Muscogee County and the Columbus areareveal that the vicinity was utilized extensively byprehistoric groups of various periods. Perhaps thelargest and most well-known sites include: the Creekvillage sites of Kasita (Lawson Field), and the his-toric Yuchi village site, both located within the con-fines of Fort Benning Military Reservation; and theMississippian period Bull Creek Site located in thecity limits of Columbus. As of 1995, more than 1,000other prehistoric sites have been recorded at FortBenning, in the City of Columbus, and in MuscogeeCounty and constitute a variety of site types rang-ing from low density lithic scatters, to small ham-lets, to mound sites, to large village sites (Elliott etal. 1995).

Historic

The broad category of historic sites can be subdi-vided into residential, public, commercial, and in-dustrial areas. Preliminary historic research sug-


6


gests that the project area contains all of these cat-egories to varying degrees. Each category can bedivided further.

ResidentialA residential area is a house and lot that may beoccupied by wealthy, middle class, or poor dwell-ers. They may represent the upper elite of planta-tion society, politicians, merchants, businessmen/women, mill workers, children, servants, slaves, ora combination of occupations. One can expect arti-facts from residential areas to include predomi-nantly domestic refuse, with some personal itemsincluded.

PublicPublic areas are typically owned by the city or townrather than by an individual. Public domains withinthe project area may include a courthouse block,and also the North Commons area. Artifacts fromthese types of sites should indicate specific activi-ties, such as ink bottles and other accouterments oflegal activities. In addition, one would expect tofind limited quantities of domestic debris on thepublic land of the commons. Conversely, unex-pected amounts or varieties of artifacts may repre-sent undocumented activities. For example the re-covery of very large amounts of domestic refuse maysuggest that the commons was actually used as anofficial or unofficial dump.

CommercialCommercial areas in the project area currently in-clude businesses associated with the automotiveindustry, including auto-body shops, tire stores,auto parts warehouses, and car dealers. Prior to theautomotive industry claim on the area, however,commercial businesses may have included generalstores, livery stables, blacksmith shops, wheel-wright shops, farrier businesses, and specializedcraft shops associated with the construction and/orrepair of wagons and related paraphernalia. Auto-motive artifacts probably constitute the majority ofitems in upper, recent soil strata. Artifacts of anearlier commercial district, however, should reflectbusiness concerns. For example, artifacts from ageneral store may consist of completely manufac-tured, but broken items. Numerous identical itemsmay represent store inventory that broke during orafter shipping. A general store’s artifact assemblagemay also exhibit much greater variety than that of

residential assemblages. Craft shops would be re-flected in the archaeological record in by-productsspecific to a particular industry, such as coal andslag for blacksmithing or straight pins and buttonsfor a seamstress.

IndustrialThe industrial component of the project area ex-isted as early as the city’s inception. The City Mills,located on the northern end of the project area, rep-resent the first major industrial activity in the area.This historic corn and flour milling industry is vis-ible in the standing structures on the north end ofthe project area, and less visible in the artifacts un-derground and the social and economic effect of thesemills on the community and city. Muscogee Millswas established immediately before the Civil Warand the portion in the southern part of the projectarea was built in the 1880s. Another industrial com-ponent of the area is the railroad. The railroad trackintersects part of the project area and it is likely thatrailroad workers, as well as millworkers, lived withinthe project area. Artifacts related to the milling andrailroad industries include a variety of hardwareassemblages, gears, spikes, millstones, coal, and alimited number of personal items from industrialemployees.

Research Design Orientation

The relatively new sub-discipline of urban archae-ology within the confines of historic archaeologyalready has seen its share of factions in terms of re-search methodology and theory. Perhaps the lat-est, and most vocal theoretical discussion concernsthe advent of post-processual, or contextual, archae-ology versus the traditional anthropological ap-proach of hypothesis testing and the analysis andquantification of material culture to arrive at un-derlying universal truths of human behavior.

Contextual archaeologists believe that all sites mustbe examined within the unique context of the siteoccupants’ history, society, and culture. Contex-tual archaeologists see no universals in human be-havior. They interpret sites based on the meaning,structuralism, and symbolism of the site occupantor user, while recognizing the role of the archaeolo-gist in interpreting this meaning through the arti-facts. Since the meaning of an artifact is dependenton the context of the user, contextual archaeolo-


7


gists do not employ hypothesis testing or search forpredictable patterning in artifacts or human behav-ior (Praetzellis 1994; Leone 1986). Contextual ar-chaeology relies heavily on historical documenta-tion to produce explanations of site behavior exclu-sive to the site being studied.

The processualists have been grounded in thehypothetico-deductive method due to their originsin anthropology and prehistoric archaeology andmay have relied less on historical documentationand other site-specific contextual information whenthe field of historical archaeology blossomed (South1977). This initial shortsightedness, however, doesnot make processual archaeology inapplicable to therealm of historic archaeology. Historical processualarchaeologists must attempt to employ and integratevarious disciplines such as historical research, eth-nobotanical study, faunal analysis, soil studies, andother fields to recognize not only broad patterns,but slight differences in artifact assemblages thatrepresent subtle variations of individuals or groupswithin a broader group such as “working class” or“Irish-Americans” (Cheek and Friedlander 1990:56).This interdisciplinary approach would consider thebiological and contextual realm of sites, as do con-textual archaeologists, while also examining the wayin which material culture acts as a barometer of hu-man behavior (Mrozowski 1993:107-8).

Archaeological research at the 2nd Avenue projectemployed artifact analysis to discover broad pat-terns of human behavior while studying the specifichistorical, cultural, and environmental context inwhich the artifacts were used. It examined specifichistorical documents related to the lots, blocks, andgeneral part of town of the project area. It presentsa picture of individual lives in individual neighbor-hoods in north Columbus while striving to interpretthe broader patterns that may be present and in-dicative of urban millworkers, or railroad workers,or Southern, urban, ante-bellum African-Ameri-cans, or immigrant laborers in a river port town.

Research Basis

Sites located in the project area during the prelimi-nary reconnaissance phase date from the Archaicperiod of prehistory through this decade and it wasfinancially unfeasible to excavate every componentof every site of every age. Age usually plays a factor

in determining what sites are considered worthy ofexcavation and which are not. But how old does asite have to be before it is deemed important? Whilethe National Register of Historic Places uses 50 yearsas a guideline to consider a site old enough to beeligible for listing, this rule most often applies tostanding structures. Some states have issued de-crees declaring arbitrary dates the age of signifi-cance, raging from 150 years in Massachusetts towell into the twentieth century in Arizona (Garrow1988:3-4). The wide fluctuation in dates betweenstates like Massachusetts and Arizona correlate tothe dates of Euro-American settlement, with the ear-liest settled areas supporting the older dates for sig-nificance. Some archaeologists recommend deter-mining a cut-off date of significance based on fac-tors unique to each city, such as its age and the in-troduction of municipal services (Garrow 1988:8)

Age Guidelines

The City of Columbus was established in 1828, a timeconsidered late in comparison to Savannah orCharleston, or much of New England; yet it is old bycontrast to Euro-American settlement of many west-ern or mid-western cities. Arbitrary dates of 50 or100 years could be used as one factor in determin-ing importance of sites in the project area; however,the distinction is best made by examining previousexcavations in the city. Large-scale testing and datarecovery excavations at the Columbus police sta-tion headquarters (Ledbetter et al. 1994, Ledbetteret al. 1997) the waterworks site and the 19th Streetproject (Gresham, Lupold, and Wood 1994) havefocused primarily on the late nineteenth century.Much of Ledbetter’s work involved extensive at-tempts at taking the material culture from sites ofthis period and: tying to historical documents suchas catalogues, advertisements, and post cards; dis-covering trade networks and socio-economic tiesfrom makers’ marks and bottle patent information;and attaching this information to specific historicalpersonages based on city directory information(Ledbetter, personal communication, 1996).Ledbetter’s intensive documentation of materialculture for the period of circa 1870-1920 allowedthe 2nd Avenue archaeological project to concen-trate on earlier historic periods.

The research of the 2nd Avenue Project focused onsites dating prior to 1870, as this is a lesser-known


8


period, archaeologically, in Columbus. The pre-1870 criterion was not, however, the sole basis fordetermining whether mitigation is necessary. Onemust also consider historical documentation andstudy levels, as discussed below.

Historical Documentation

Archaeological research focused on lots that offersome of the best historical documentation, particu-larly for the pre-1870 period. Such sites often con-sist of those occupied by tenants or resident-own-ers; homogeneous ethnic occupants; or homoge-neous economic occupant, and may provide impor-tant artifactual data toward answering questions in-volving tenants, landlords, ethnicity, and socio-eco-nomic issues. Such well-documented sites may alsoserve to provide information about gender and sub-sistence based on historical research and materialculture.

Study Levels

Areas selected for excavation were chosen with sev-eral levels of research in mind, including examina-tion on a household or lot level, a block or neigh-borhood level, and a section of town level. Urbanresidential lots have been compared to “urban farm-steads” in that they originally began as discretespaces with known boundaries in which to organizecultural activities; were somewhat self-sufficient;and contained discrete areas for living and leisure(Stewart-Abernathy 1986:14). Excavation of anyresidential lot provided data on the households ofpeople who used that lot, particularly if all the “pre-modern” features of the lot are excavated entirely.The excavation of all pre-modern features on eachresidential lot was recommended for the 2nd Avenueproject, as this has proven to be an effective way toarrive at a clearer understanding of life on the lot.Excavation of all such features lessens the chance ofignoring a feature critical to providing the amountand kind of information necessary to the compre-hension of resident behavior (Garrow 1996:18). Theexcavation of individual house lots examined thelot and its entirety, including spatial layout, func-tion, changes through time, organization, loci of ac-tivity, outbuildings, and modifications in an effortto learn the rationale behind the results. While cer-

tain lots were selected for excavation based on ageand historical documentation available, they alsoreflect information about the ethnicity, socio-eco-nomic status, gender-related activities, and food-ways - in short, the culture of the family, neighbor-hood and section of town in which they existed.

The archaeology of the neighborhood was examinedin the 2nd Avenue project. The settlement of neigh-borhoods and cities has been studied along socio-economic lines (Wall 1987). Rothschild examinedparts of New York on a neighborhood level, study-ing attributes such as defining characteristics, dis-tinction between neighborhood sub-units, bound-aries, resident perceptions, occupant use, andplanned or unplanned development (Rothschild1987:29). Artifacts of individual house lots and his-torical information about individual residents formpatterns constituting attributes of specific neighbor-hoods. Such attributes are discoverable in the his-torical documentation and archaeological excava-tion of lots and blocks within the 2nd Avenue projectarea. City directories, census records, and newspa-per advertisements provided historical informationregarding the ethnic makeup of individual families,blocks, and neighborhoods. This information wasused in determining which lots to excavate andwhether any artifact patterns (ceramic, faunal, ac-tivities, etc.) are attributable to particular ethnicgroups.

While archaeologists examined the project area onhouse lot, block/neighborhood, and part of townlevels, several methods assisted in melding thesedata into meaningful interpretations of life along allthese levels. Analyzing artifact patterns and com-paring or contrasting functional artifact groups be-tween the various study levels allowed archaeolo-gists to see patterns of behavior. Ceramic statuscategory comparisons were performed on sherds;however, recent work by archaeologists demon-strates various degrees of success with this method.Some have found it not useful for early nineteenthcentury ceramics (Castille et al. 1986) while othershave found such analysis best for upper-income, post1840s households (Garrow 1984).


9


Research Questions

Ethnicity

Recent studies have tied some ethnic groups withparticular types of material culture and faunal re-mains. For instance excavations at a site in Wash-ington, D.C. revealed that when controlling for socio-economic facts, distinctive ethnic material cultureisolates could be discovered. African-Americanhouseholds within that project were evident in food-ways such as the preponderance of pig’s feet, opos-sum, and greens; a lower variety of glassware forms;and a greater frequency of buttons (Cheek and Fried-lander 1990:56). In another example, research onsites in New Orleans revealed that those occupiedby German immigrants contained lower status ce-ramics than Irish immigrant households. Likewise,the preference for particular alcoholic beveragetypes varied according to ethnic group (Castille etal. 1986). Excavations of portions of Sacramento’sChinatown revealed that Chinese merchants contin-ued to sell Chinese export items in California, in ad-dition to Euro-American products that did not con-flict with established Chinese values (Praetzellis,Praetzellis and Brown 1987:41).

A number of research questions were formulatedfor the 2nd Avenue project. For example, what eth-nic households and neighborhoods are present inthe project area? Are certain types of ceramics,bottles, faunal remains and ethnobotanical remainsrepresentative of particular households, neighbor-hoods, or ethnic groups? Can patterns for these geo-graphic and ethnic divisions be applied to othersites, or do they solely represent unique, individualhouseholds? Do commercial establishments withinparticular areas or neighborhoods of the projectarea reflect the same artifact assemblages of a par-ticular ethnic group? If so, are the commercial es-tablishments reflecting consumerism based on lackof choice or availability? Is segregation or integra-tion of ethnic groups present at the household/lotlevel (i.e. boarders, servants, slaves); the block level;and the neighborhood level? How is this representedin the material culture? Ethnicity within the house-hold, block, and neighborhood level may best beidentified through historical documentation (asmentioned earlier) and analyzed and interpretedthrough archaeological remains. Investigationswithin the project area, therefore, attempted to iden-

tify ethnic individuals and groups through the docu-mentary record and discover whether the materialculture of one ethnic group differs from another bothsynchronically and diachronically.

Socio-Economics

Other questions focus on socio-economic issues. Forexample, is segregation or integration of socio-eco-nomic groups present at the household/lot level (i.e.boarders, servants, slaves); the block level; and theneighborhood level? How is this represented in thematerial culture? Did this segregation or integra-tion in various blocks or neighborhoods changethrough time? Can the faunal assemblages be rankedby cost (cf Rothschild and Balkwill 1993:80) andapplied to various groups based on occupation orethnicity? Can socio-economic status be assignedto various tenants and resident-owners based on ce-ramics, bottles, subsistence artifacts, or other as-pects of material culture? Can socio-economic sta-tus be assigned based on the size of the domesticstructure, method of construction, or number andtypes of outbuildings? Several means were used indetermining socio-economic status. The documen-tary record reflected status in city directories,deeds, census records, and wills which indicate ten-ant/landlord status, occupations, property values,and estate values. The archaeological record pro-vided additional information that sometimes sup-ported and sometimes refuted the documents. Thematerial culture information provided cost indicesof ceramic types and vessel forms, types of glass-ware present, ratio of glass to ceramics, types of sub-sistence enjoyed, amounts of imported artifacts,amounts of leisure activity artifacts, and appearanceof functional items (such as whether a button is in-expensive iron or expensive silver).

Gender

Gender issues were addressed using the 2nd Avenueproject data. Questions include: can a differentia-tion in gender roles be observed in artifact assem-blages? Can gender roles be determined in localizedareas of activity within back yards of lots? Can gen-der differentiation be determined from artifactualremains at various commercial and industrial lots?Are gender differences determinable in social, rec-reational, or religious activities, and can these dif-ferences be discovered in the archaeological record?


10


In order to discover whether gender roles play adifference in artifact assemblages one must first dis-cover sites, or particular areas of sites that are gen-der-specific. This discovery is best made throughhistorical documents including city directories, cen-sus records, chain-of-title searches, and site-con-temporary newspapers. Once gender-specific areasare delineated, gender issues can be addressedthrough the archaeological record and patterns canemerge or not.

Subsistence

The 2nd Avenue project yielded substantial amountsof food debris, which is indicative of past food-ways,and these remains were used to address a number ofresearch questions. Did immigrant groups continueto eat the same types of food familiar to them fromtheir mother country or place of origin? Did theyattempt to grow and raise these agricultural andanimal products on their house lot, block, or neigh-borhood? Did they rapidly acculturate to new foods,new ways of food preparation, and new gardencrops? Did they adapt food ways from other neigh-boring immigrant groups, or from other socio-eco-nomic groups? How long a period did project arearesidents subsist on, or supplement their diet with,food stuff produced from their lot? Does this periodof time differ among various ethnic or economicgroups? How do faunal assemblages from this hin-terland project compare with well-known assem-blages studied from coastal areas? What faunal andethnobotanical remains were Native Americangroups in the area using? Do these reflect intensiveutilization of riverine materials? Do sites closer tothe Chattahoochee River contain greater frequen-cies of riverine resources? What environmental dif-ferences existed prehistorically, as indicated by eth-nobotanical remains from the aboriginal context ofsites in the project area? The degree of preservationof faunal and ethnobotanical remains was a key fac-tor in how well these research questions regardingsubsistence were addressed. Traditionally, soils inthe southeastern United States have proven to bepoor stewards of both faunal and ethnobotanicalremains due to high levels of acidity and humidity.Larger amounts of lime in the soil from buildingmortar, along with larger concentrations of featuresusually containing such remains—privies, cisterns,and wells, however, may produce statistically validfaunal and ethnobotanical samples.

Additional research questions based on faunal analy-sis included the following. Do vertebrate subsis-tence strategies in urban Columbus, Georgia changeover time from the early nineteenth century to theearly twentieth century, and, if so, in what way? Doessocioeconomic status have an impact on subsistencewith regard to vertebrate resources? Are there dif-ferences between ethnic groups at Columbus in theuse of vertebrate resources? Of particular impor-tance to answering these research questions is ob-servation of skeletal portion frequencies and butch-ering marks, as well as the use of domesticate vs.wild native and non-native resources. Additionally,a brief study of differential access and use of differ-ent meat cuts was examined with regard to the re-search questions (Pavao-Zuckerman 2002).

Health and Government Regulations

Historical research and archaeological excavationsof privies, wells, and trash pits have provided ar-chaeologists with a great deal of information aboutthe health of site users. Recent research has usedthese same types of information to examine the atti-tude of individuals and groups to governmental regu-lations. Excavations and research at sites in NewYork revealed that mid-nineteenth century munici-pal laws and health ordinances were often ignoredor not followed completely (Geismar 1993:68).Some ordinances, such as whitewashing, were actu-ally detrimental to health when followed (Beaudry1993:98).

When did municipal health ordinances become es-tablished and enforced in the project area? Do theexistence, location, fill, and condition of privies,wells, and trash pits indicate if these laws were fol-lowed? Does the adherence to these laws differ froma landowner and his/her tenants? Were residents ofa certain lot, block, or neighborhood less likely tofollow these laws? How did tenants and/or land-lords escape municipal health ordinances?

Did boarding houses and corporate-owned millhouses offer hygienic domiciles as revealed throughthe historical and archaeological record? Are ratbones and bones gnawed by rats common in resi-dential lots, boarding houses, or mill houses? Dosoil and pollen samples reveal well-tended yards orweedy, ill-kept trampled mud puddles? Was white-washing of fences or structures mandated by local


11


ordinances in the project area? If so, is lead paint,often an ingredient in early whitewash, common onany of the excavated residential lots? Are lead lev-els high enough to have impaired the health of occu-pants? Historical documentation such as local healthordinances, city codes, and newspaper stories andadvertisements can provide the framework for theestablished norms of the day. Archaeological exca-vation of the project area can reveal whether thesenorms were met and the ordinances and codes en-forced. Excavation can also determine who in thearea was abiding by the law and who was breaking it.Follow-up historical research may then reveal whycertain people, or groups, or neighborhoods werebreaking the law.

Consumerism

Historical research has shown that by as early as1820 consumerism and marketing were well estab-lished in North America. Elements such as “propri-etary or brand-name products, unit packages oftenof distinctive character, international trade, statedprices, targeted markets, and prepared foods” werebecoming common (Jones 1993:38). Specific mar-kets were being targeted for new products and in-cluded prepared condiments to save commercialcooks (such as bakers, vendors, tavern cooks) timein the kitchen and while providing food for travelersthat was quickly and easily prepared.

Did individual households, businesses, and indus-try within the project area partake of consumerism?Did the degree of such participation vary accordingto ethnicity, socio-economic status, or occupation?Is participation in consumerism reflected in the fau-nal or ethnobotanical remains in the form of unusualfoods, imported foods, or processed foods? Is thisparticipation reflected in the ceramic and bottleglass remains in the form of bulk containers, largenumbers of uniform containers, or distinctivelymolded or labeled containers? Did merchants in theproject area reflect this global marketing, or did theybuy and sell mostly local products? Did they importitems from the mother countries of the largest im-migrant populations in their neighborhood? Gen-eral elements of consumerism may be visible in his-torical records such as newspaper advertisements,merchants’ inventories, and import-export/ship-

ping records. These may reflect marketing by cer-tain groups or general city wide consumer trends,and are useful in that regard. Specific consumerismon an individual, household, block, or neighborhoodlevel, however, may be ascertained better throughthe excavation of geographic areas related to theselevels and the analysis of recovered artifacts. Spe-cific historical documentation on these levels, suchas estate inventories for particular individuals, or amerchant’s record book for a particular neighbor-hood dry-goods store, may provide addition con-sumer information.

Occupations

What occupations are represented in historicalrecords of the project area? What occupations arerepresented only within the archaeological record?Can these occupations be ranked according to in-come and linked to particular artifact assemblages?Are there any status symbol artifacts particular tospecific occupations? What were the conditions ofmill workers, both at work and in boarding housesor company-owned housing? Were residents of theproject area segregated or integrated (voluntarilyor involuntarily) at the household, block, and neigh-borhood level, according to their occupation? Oc-cupation information can be determined throughcity directories, census records, and industrialrecords (such as employee rosters of mill compa-nies). It is likely that artifactual information wouldonly provide clues to occupations if an individualworked at his place of residence, such as in a cottageindustry or in a specialized craft.

SUMMARY

Data recovery excavations were aimed at uncover-ing enough information to provide answers to asmany of these questions, and additional new ques-tions that would surface with analysis and interpre-tation. Data recovery, therefore, was required to bebroad enough in scope to reveal the patterns of hu-man behavior within the project area, yet specificenough to uncover the detailed stories of individu-als living here through time. The best way to ac-complish this mission within the available budgetwas to excavate several individual lots in as much oftheir entirety as possible.


12


13


Chapter 2. Methodology

RESEARCH METHODS

Archaeologists and historians conducted extensivehistorical research before, during, and after ar-chaeological fieldwork. The research conductedprior to the project provided general backgroundinformation about the large, 10-city block projectarea. Research and field data accumulated duringthe project, particularly chain-of-title informationfor every lot in the project area, helped archaeolo-gists focus on areas requiring more intensive inves-tigation. Research following the final data recoveryphase of excavations allowed archaeologists to fo-cus on specific individuals, stories, and chronologi-cal periods within the huge project area.

Columbus, Georgia

Researchers examined primary and secondarydocuments at local and state repositories. Histori-ans and archaeologists studied the following manu-script collections at the Columbus State UniversitySimon Schwob Memorial Library Archives: Alva C.Smith Collection, Anne Elizabeth Shepherd HomeRecords 1840-1968, Columbus Museum Collection,Daniel Griffin Papers, E.D. Murphy Collection, FrankSchnell Manuscript Collection, Laura Comer Diary,Lifrage Collection, Joseph B. Mahan Jr. Collection,League of Women Voters of Columbus Collection,Peddy Collection, Seaborn Jones and Henry L.Benning Papers 1795-1875, W.C. Woodall Papers,Woodall-McGhee Family Collection, and the FreeKindergarten Association Minutes. Researchers alsostudied the archives’ maps, vertical files, city In-dustrial Indices, and out-of-print books, in additionto other published sources in the stacks and refer-ence areas of the library. Examination includedstudying the library’s Sanborn Fire Insurance Mapholdings.

Archaeologists also consulted the Bradley Memo-rial Library as a local repository. They attempted toexamine pre-1870 microfilmed Columbus newspa-pers on a four-year increment for relevant stories,images, and advertisements. These newspapers in-cluded: Columbus [Daily] Enquirer (1833-1869),Columbus Enquirer Sun (1833-1869), Columbus Sen-tinel and Herald (1841), Columbus Times [weekly](1841-1853), Columbus Times (1853-1865), DailySun (1857-1869), Weekly Sun (1861-1865), andSouthern Confederacy (1861-1865). Many of thepapers were missing various issues and surprisinglyfew contained local stories. The advertisements inthe newspapers proved to be the most useful to thisstudy. Researchers examined all of the City Direc-tories here, beginning with the first extant one in1859 through the early twentieth century. Studyincluded the holdings of the Genealogy and LocalHistory room of the library for sources about localpeople, places and events, in addition to microfilmedcensus records and Muscogiana, the journal of theMuscogee Genealogical Society. Indices for Colum-bus Council Records published in these journals wereespecially helpful in locating relevant informationin the original documents. Archaeologists consultedthe Reference Departments’ map collection and ver-tical files for maps, newspaper clippings, brochures,images, and other unpublished materials. TheChappell File provided more information than mostof the other vertical files and folders consulted. Theyexamined government publications here, such as theColumbus Department of Community Development,Planning Divisions’ Neighborhood Analysis for Co-lumbus, Georgia (1980); the City Plan of Columbus(Nolen 1926); and revised and published city char-ters and ordinances (Howard 1914; n.a. 1898; Will-iams 1879).


14


Researchers visited the Muscogee County Govern-ment Center for information from primary docu-ments. These included deeds, plats, and city mapsin the Superior Court. They examined wills,appraisements and inventories in Probate Court.Archaeologists visited the Clerk of Council Office inthe Courthouse in order to examine the 1828, 1832-1837, 1841-1846, and 1846-1852 Volumes of theMinutes of the Board of Commissioners for the Cityof Columbus. They examined the 1837-1841 Min-utes of the Board of Aldermen. Many of the details inthe history section of this report came from thesevarious minutes.

Researchers contacted other local repositories toinquire about the relevancy of their holdings to the10-block project area. These included the HistoricColumbus Foundation, the Phenix City HistoricalSociety, and local college libraries in the Columbusand Phenix City, Alabama area. Researchers alsostudied the Historic Chattahoochee Commission’sChattahoochee Valley Sources and Resources: AnAnnotated Bibliography (Lupold 1993) for relevantinformation. Archaeologists contacted the CityEngineer’s Office in an effort to locate and study his-torical maps of the city and textual documents re-lating to infrastructure development such as street,sidewalk, and drain construction; the developmentof a potable water supply; and sewerage services.Repeated calls, unfortunately, could locate no oneknowledgeable of any such historical documentshoused in that office or in storage.

Archaeologists contacted the Columbus WaterWorks for information relating to the establishmentand history of city water and sewerage services. Thisentity had produced A Limited History of ColumbusWater Works, which mentioned the establishmentof a piped water system in the city via springs andthe later establishment of a city water service (Co-lumbus Water Works 1998).

An experienced legal assistant conducted intensivechain of title research during the initial survey andtesting phase of the project. This research includedall 10-blocks of the original project area for the pe-riod from the establishment of Columbus in 1828 tothe early twentieth century. This constituted chainsof property ownership for 80 city lots that were of-ten extremely complex and convoluted. Fre-quently, early deeds were not extant in the court-

house and plats were practically non-existent. Thecourthouse fire of 1838 was probably the culpritresponsible for some of the missing records. In spiteof the obstacles of missing deeds and hard to deci-pher documents, research revealed at least partialchains of title on the lots. Archaeologists were ableto take this information, in conjunction with ar-chaeological survey and testing results, and deter-mine which of the 80 lots had potential for contrib-uting important information about our past.

Athens, Georgia

Hargrett Library, University of GeorgiaResearchers visited the University of Georgia’s Li-braries. They worked in the Hargrett Rare Book andManuscript Room, government documents section,and general stacks of the main library. Archaeolo-gists studied several manuscript collections, includ-ing the Robert S. Davis, Jr. Collection and TelamonCuyler Collection. Researchers also examined thecollection’s maps and vertical files for informationrelevant to the project area and Columbus in gen-eral. The stacks provided dissertations and othersecondary sources concerning Columbus, the tex-tile industry in the south and America, and relatedproject topics. Archaeologists visited theuniversity’s Science Library to look for Columbusmaps, atlases and gazetteers.

Archaeologists conducted a search of the known ar-chaeological sites in the project area at the GeorgiaArchaeological Site File in Athens, at the Universityof Georgia. At the beginning of the 2nd AvenueProject, there were nine previously recorded sitesin the Columbus vicinity around the project area.These included: two 19th-20th century sites, 9Ch106recorded by Freer in 1993 and 9Ch173 recorded byEric Duff; and seven twentieth century house sites,9Ch110 and 9Ch111 documented by ThomasGresham in 1994, 9Ch171 and 9Ch172 recorded byDuff in 1996, and 9Ch107, 9Ch108, and 9Ch109 docu-mented by Freer in 1993. There were no previouslyrecorded sites directly in the 10-block project area.Archaeologists also examined the repository’s bib-liography of reports for projects conducted in thegeneral vicinity. These consisted of surveys for theChattahoochee Riverwalk (Wood 1991, 1993) andfor the city’s South Commons area (Ledbetter 1994),a data recovery project for the Riverwalk includingthe Victory Drive Site (Ledbetter 1996), and survey


15


and testing reports for a water reclamation plant(Gresham, Lupold and Wood 1994) and for a newpublic safety headquarters complex (Ledbetter etal. 1994). Data recovery investigations also wereconducted at the proposed public safety buildinglocation (Ledbetter et al. 1997).

Atlanta, Georgia

Historians visited the Georgia Department of Ar-chives and History and the Surveyor General De-partment. In the former they examined manuscriptsand vertical files related to Columbus, includingstate land lottery documents. They looked at theJohn Goff Photographic Collection and the John GoffCollection (loose manuscript notes). In the latter,researchers examined the Plan of the Reserve atCoweta Falls on Chattahoochee 1827 (n.a. 1827) andother maps to locate ones with details about theColumbus area.

Savannah, Georgia

Archaeologists and historians examined the hold-ings of the Georgia Historical Society in Savannah,Georgia. They examined the repositories manu-script collection and finding aids, maps, images,books, and journals. Scrutiny included maps anddocuments such as the Central of Georgia Collec-tion, Thomas Cooper Papers, Acts of the GeneralAssembly of the State of Georgia, journal articles,Savannah newspaper indices, and rare or second-ary sources in the repository’s stacks.

Washington, D.C. and Elsewhere

Researchers examined holdings of the Library ofCongress, (Geography Room and the ManuscriptReading Room) in Washington, D.C. for relevantmaps, text, and image documents. They located lim-ited information in Sanborn Fire Insurance maps,gazetteers, and manuscripts. A search of the findingaid for the Olmstead Plans of private gardens con-tained some information on mid-1920s Columbus,but nothing about the Mott House gardens. Onemanuscript collection, the Raphael Jacob MosesPapers, contained information about 19th centuryColumbus. Researchers located original letters writ-ten in Columbus in the 1840s in the William NorwoodTillinghast Papers at the Rare Book, Manuscript, and

Special Collections, Perkins Library, Duke Univer-sity in Durham, North Carolina.

A variety of Internet searches were conducted.These included consulting web sites such asAncestry.com and USGenweb.com for genealogicaland census information. Researchers examined theLibrary of Congress American Memory web site andonline archives of selected libraries and universi-ties, such as Duke University’s Online Collection, forrelevant images, maps, and text documents. Ar-chaeologists also consulted the Internet for data oncertain artifact types, and for information about ar-tifacts, features, and/or archaeological sites of asimilar functional and/or chronological nature tothe 2nd Avenue project.

FIELD METHODS

Survey and Testing

Preliminary reconnaissance and survey began Sep-tember 3, 1996 by Southern Research for the City ofColumbus. Survey work was intermittent as prop-erty access was acquired and standing structurestorn down or moved by the city. The survey por-tion of the project ended on July 15, 1998. Surveyof some parts of the project area was conducted con-currently or following data recovery on other partsof the project in order to facilitate the constructionschedule. Survey targeted areas that were acces-sible for excavation, that is, areas free of standingstructures and those having landowners grantingaccess. The goals of this portion of the project wereto: locate archaeological sites; examine the strati-graphic sequences in different parts of various blocksof the project area; assess the stratigraphic se-quences in an effort to determine pre-1869 strata;assess the potential for features and other buried,intact deposits; and delineate areas with little or nosignificant archaeological deposits.

An assortment of techniques was used during sur-vey and testing of the project area. This includedbackhoe trenching, shovel testing, a combination ofshovel testing in trenches, and test unit excavation.Archaeologists used a backhoe to dig trenches tosample large, open areas and to cut through mod-ern fill deposits measuring as deep as four meters(13.12 feet) in some areas. A backhoe blade withteeth was used to break through laid asphalt in park-


16


ing lot areas and in very compacted fill in other ar-eas. A smooth-edged backhoe bucket was used inareas without asphalt or compact fill, and in trenchesinitially begun with a toothed-bucket to remove theasphalt cap. Backhoe trenches averaged one bucket-width (approximately 95 cm wide), except in in-stances with deeply buried deposits. Deep trenchesin these areas were benched to two to three timeswider in order to meet Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) safety standards.Backhoe trenches generally were oriented in cardi-nal directions. Trenches were numbered by tax par-cel rather than by city lot or block. Excluding geo-morphological trenches, archaeologists excavateda total of 96 survey trenches in the ten-block projectarea. Figure 4 depicts the locations of these trencheswithin various parcels on a tax map of the projectarea.

During the inital part of the survey archaeologistsexperimented with various techniques. One of theseincluded using the backhoe to excavate modern filldown to what was perceived as the base of late nine-teenth-early twentieth century fill. Archaeologiststhen excavated shovel tests within the trench along10-meter intervals. These shovel tests were treatedlike traditional shovel tests not dug in trench floors.The fill was screened through one-quarter inch hard-ware cloth, the artifacts bagged by provenience, andshovel test forms were completed. Back in the labo-ratory, analysis of the stratigraphic informationfrom this technique indicated that it was not par-ticularly useful. While the shovel tests did providedspecific artifact information, they offered only asmall view of the stratigraphy. In contrast, excava-tion of trenches to subsoil provided a larger andmore complete picture of the frequently erratic na-ture of the urban stratigraphic sequences. For thisreason, the majority of the remaining trenches wereexcavated completely by backhoe and archaeolo-gists excavated no shovel tests within them. Mod-ern features in trenches were truncated by the back-hoe. Features that were not obviously modern werepedestalled, recorded, photographed, documentedon field forms, and sampled. Most posts, post molds,and post holes, however, were not sampled duringtrenching.

Most of the 96 trenches excavated in the projectarea measured 20 m in length. Archaeologists com-pleted trench forms for trenches, took photographs,

and made field notes. They mapped features in thefloor of each trench and recorded trench stratigra-phy, either by drawing five-meter interval strati-graphic columns to scale, or by drawing one or moreof the trench walls to scale. Early survey trencheswere recorded with a transit. Later survey and test-ing investigations, and all data recovery work, em-ployed a laser transit total station and data collec-tor to record horizontal and vertical locations. Thisdata was then downloaded from DSX files, put intoDesignCAD software, and used for the creation ofplanview maps showing features and unit locations,and other cultural landscape items.

A limited number of areas contained no deep de-posits of rubble, overburden, or fill and had no as-phalt or concrete covering the ground surface. Ar-chaeologists excavated shovel tests (with no trench-ing) in these areas. Archaeologists also excavatedlimited amounts of test units ranging in size from1m2 to 1 x 2 m2. These units served to provide addi-tional information about chronology and stratigra-phy based on the artifacts recovered from them.Locations of units and information about them wererecorded in field note and forms, along with photo-graphs and other information. Survey trenching andtest unit excavation located buried, intact depositson nine blocks. Each block with deposits was re-corded as a site. The GASF gave each block a uniquesite number.

Data Recovery Methods

The immense scale of this urban project requiredthe archaeological sampling of the area rather thandata recovery of the entire 46-acre tract. Given thisreality, the area selected for further research had tobe decreased. Archaeologists recommended areasfor data recovery based on several criteria. The re-search design targeted the historic period between1828-1869, the proto-historic period, and the pre-historic period. Recommendations of historic siteswere based on lot boundaries, rather than recom-mending various pieces of different lots, the entirelot was recommended if it met the criteria below.This was done intentionally, so that data would berecovered on an entire lot level and it would be lesslikely that key features associated with a lot wouldbe left out of the study. The criteria for choosinglots on which to conduct data recovery includedthose lots with archaeological deposits that dated



Tr. 8 Tr. 5

Tr. 6

Tr. 7

Tr. 5

Tr. 20

Tr. 19

Tr. 18

Tr. 2 Tr. 3

Tr. 4

Tr. 1

Tr. 23

Tr. 24

Tr. 22Tr. 21

Tr. 4

Tr. 3 Tr. 1

Tr. 7

Tr. 2

Tr. 6Tr. 5

Tr. 12 Tr. 11

Tr. 13

Tr. 2Tr. 1

Tr. 4

Tr. 5

Tr. 3Tr. 2

Tr. 1

Truck Scale

Tr. 12

Tr. 11 Tr. 10

Tr. 9

GeoTr. 13

Geo Geo

Edge of Original Bluff Tr.6

Tr.1

Tr.5

Tr.2TU1

Tr.7

Concrete Block Building

Tr.8

Tr.4 Tr.3

Chainlink Fence

Tr. 4"Open Air"

Tr. 3

Alley

Tr. 1 Tr. 2

Tr. No. #

Tr.16

Tr.15Tr.17

Tr.14Tr.7 F.1

F.2

Tr.6

Tr.11

Tr.1Tr.2

TU 1

Tr.2

Bench

Tr.1

Tr. 7 Tr. 8Tr. 9

Tr. 6Tr. 5

Tr. 8

TU 1

Tr. 10

Blk 15

Blk 3

14th Street

15th Street

18th Street

17th Street

1st A

venu

e

2nd

Ave

nue

Broa

dway

Railroad Street

Chattahoochee R

iver Blk 11

City Mills

Blk 9

Blk 4

Blk 18

Blk 8

Blk 10

Tr. 1 Tr. 2Tr. 3

Tr. 4

Tr. 5

Tr. 6

Tr. 7

Tr. 8

Tr. 9

Tr. 10

Tr. 10

Tr. 11Tr. 12

Tr. 13

Tr. 3

Tr. 4

Tr. 2Tr. 1Tr. 5

16th Street

North Mott

N

Building

Tr.5

Tr.13Tr.4

Tr.18Tr.9

Tr.3Tr.12

Tr.8

Tr.1015 30

0

0

ft

m

9648

Figure 4. Survey Trenches Shown in Black, in Project Area.

17


18



19


to the 1860s or earlier, having associated historicaldocumentation, or those lots containing intact fea-tures and/or stratigraphy from early Columbus orprehistory. The boundaries of prehistoric sites werenot based on later city lot boundaries, but were de-fined by the presence and absence of prehistoricartifacts during survey. Archaeologists recom-mended a total of five lots and two prehistoric sitesfor data recovery (Figure 5). These included Lots 7,191, 194, 200, and 204 involving historic archaeol-ogy and two prehistoric sites on a tract north of theMott House and a tract south of City Mills.

Lots selected for data recovery were capped in ei-ther a layer of asphalt, concrete, or sections of both.Beneath this often lay rubble or fill zones. Archae-ologists monitored the removal of asphalt and con-crete, and then closely monitored an excellent back-hoe operator as he removed thin lenses of overbur-den and fill with a smooth blade bucket (Figure 6).This allowed archaeologists to observe areas of in-tact midden and to terminate backhoe stripping atthe top of intact midden, buried A horizons, and fea-tures. Archaeologists shovel shaved these areas inconjunction with stripping. They flagged featuresand stains with colored pin flags. Archaeologiststhen recorded these features on a feature list, in-cluding the feature number, dimensions, Munsell soilcolor and description, and other comments. Fea-ture perimeters and centerpoints were then shot witha laser transit. Non-post features were then photo-graphed, mapped in detail, and excavated.

Archaeologists maintained a master feature list andmaster post list for each city block. They used con-secutive feature numbers for all city lots within ablock, starting the numbering system over with eachblock. They did the same with post numbers. Forexample, there could be two Feature 300 numbers,but each would have to be on a separate city block.Lots 199 and 194 of Block 15 could not have twofeatures called Feature 300. For ease of site filemanagement, archaeologists completed a GeorgiaArchaeological Site Form for each city block con-taining a site. These were turned in at the end of theproject to the Georgia Archaeological Site File in

Athens, Georgia. The following site numbers wereissued to various city blocks:

Block 3 (City Mills) 9ME1061North Mott 9ME1062Block 4 9ME1064Block 8 9ME1066Block 9 9ME1065Block 10 9ME1067Block 11 9ME1068Block 15 9ME1069Block 18 9ME1063

Archaeologists recorded brick foundations andpiers in a variety of ways. They used the laser tran-sit to map the locations and elevations of these. Inaddition, archaeologists determined that a moredetailed level of documentation might be useful forfuture analysis of structural locations and relativedating of not only structures, but features as well.The extent of the brick foundations and piers, andtheir sprawling and often variable nature made ar-chaeologists reluctant to try to capture the infor-mation with still photography. Not only would suchphotography be time consuming and costly, but itwould not capture the variability among the brick-work. For these reasons, archaeologists capturedthe brick architectural remains on analog video(VHS-C) footage. This allowed the videographer topan down the length of the brickwork, in addition totaking profiles shots and also plan shots on a ladder.Footage included scales and menu boards. The brickwall foundations and brick piers were given BW andBP numbers, rather than feature numbers. Gener-ally, they were not included in the feature totals foreach lot.

Archaeologists took soils samples from most non-post, cultural features. Samples generally includedtwo cups of soil in sealed plastic bags for pollen andphytolith analysis and two liters of soil for ethnobo-tanical study. These were stored until site excava-tion and artifact analysis was complete. Archaeolo-gists then used this information to try and deter-mine which of the samples were suitable forphytolith, pollen, parasite, starch, and macrofloralstudy. Archaeologists also waited until the comple-tion of artifact analysis to select which featureswould undergo faunal analysis. See the section be-low for further details on these analyses.


20


Figure 5. Areas of Survey and Data Recovery.

Blk 15

Blk 3

Blk 10

14th Street

15th Street

16th Street

18th Street

17th Street1s

t A

venu

e

2nd

Ave

nue

Broa

dway

14

15

16

17

18

19

123

4 5 6

789

10

11

12

13

15

16

17 18 19 20

14

1 S

T

A

VE

NU

E

2 N

D

A

VE

3 R

D

A

VE

NU

E19 TH STREET

18 TH STREET

17 TH STREET

RAILROAD STREET

16 TH STREET

14 TH

BR

OA

DW

AY

15 TH STREET

3 R

D

AV

EN

UE

2 N

D

AV

EN

UE

1 S

T

A

VE

NU

E

FR

ON

T S

T.

STREET 85

3.27 AC

WOOLFOLK

GEORGIA POWER CO.

0.266 AC 0.288 AC

(100)

(10)

(23)

(11)

(22)

(12)

(21)

(20)

214 213

212211

210 209

208207

JAIL

SQ

UA

RE

1 2

34

5 6

78

ROW 66

1825

109 113

(108) (107)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2 3

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

71

2

34

5

6

7

8

1

2

8

1400

1407

1411

1413

1417

1423

1431

1437

1441

1445

116

15441528

15241518

15161508

1500

15011509

15151519

15231531

1535

212

111

1 2

34

1

2

1

2

6

7

8

9

101

2

2A

3

4

5

1

2

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213

14

15

16

17

18

1920 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

11

16

17

18

18A

19

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

5

1

1

21

236

51

2

3

16A

4

7

1

13 12

11

10

8

1

Ch

att

ah

oo

ch

ee R

iver

200 feet

Blk 11

Area SurveyedExcavated Archaeological Sites

City Mills

2nd AvenueArchaeological Studies

7


21


The most complex features to excavate from a lo-gistical standpoint were the wells. Archaeologistsdocumented 26 wells in the project area. A total of24 was located in the five data recovery lots. All ofthese were excavated to some degree. Archaeolo-gists excavated most beyond a depth of 1.5 m. Spe-cial measures were enacted to excavate these wellssafely to as much as 7 meters (15 and 22 feet) deep.These measures met the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) requirements.

Archaeologists bisected each well and excavated oneside of it to a depth of 1.5 m. Following the comple-tion of all other work on each data recovery lot (es-pecially feature excavation), a trackhoe operatorwas called to the site. He removed soil around theoutskirts of the well for a distance great enough toallow for an acceptable rise-over-run slope of thesandy banks around the feature (Figure 7). This wasparticularly critical as well excavation progressedto greater depths. After removing these soils, theoperator removed the then-exposed soils of the halfof the well that had not been excavated, after whichtime archaeologists began documenting and remov-ing those sections (Figure 8). He then cut the next1.5 m section of the well in half, removing soils fromone half of it. He removed additional sand around

the well’s exterior to ensure a safe slope in the largehole. Archaeologists then photographed; drewscaled soil profiles; took soil samples for pollen,phytolith, ethnobotanical study; and excavated that1.5 m segment (Figure 9). The trackhoe was called inagain, and the entire process repeated for the nextone-meter vertical section of the well.

Geomorphology Methods and Results

Southern Research contracted with Dr. David Leighto conduct geological studies of the project area.The goal of these studies was to obtain a better un-derstanding of soil and topographic formation pro-cesses and to ascertain the potential, based on ageof the soils, of deeper buried strata to contain evi-dence of human use or occupation. While archae-ologists had documented the presence of buried Ar-chaic sites in the project area, particular emphasiswas placed on discovering whether much deeperstrata was young enough to contain Paleo Indiansites.

Leigh visited the site twice to examine very differ-ent landforms and locations. He used a combina-tion of coring and backhoe and trackhoe trenching

Figure 6. Careful Stripping Uncovers a Cistern and Other Features.


22


Figure 7. Photograph of Removal of Perimeter Soils to AllowSafe Excavation of Wells.

Figure 8. Photograph of Excavation of Three Wells in Progress, as Notedby Red Arrows (One well not in view).


23


to examine buried strata. Southern Research ar-chaeologists worked with him and excavated 40 to50 cm square units in these strata in order to screenthe soil and locate diagnostic cultural materials.These units most often investigated Buried A- andB-horizons as delineated by Leigh. Leigh’s work wasconducted primarily to understand the prehistoriccomponents of the site. For further details see Priceet al. (2005). As his work relates to the historicoccupation of the site, Leigh was able to offer infor-mation about certain areas along the eastern edgeof the site that contained compact red clay rangingonly 10-20 cm below ground surface. Archaeolo-gists had dug deep trenches into the clay to insurethat the clay was not just a “cap” of some kind. Deeptrenching revealed that it was not a cap. Leigh con-firmed the natural soil formation processes here.

He indicated that this eastern portion of the sitewas part of an ancient terrace, Terrace 2. Thevery red clay of the Bt soils here is one indicatorof the terrace’s ancient age. The very westernedge of the site, which includes the Mott houseand lot, rests on the younger Terrace 1. Thisyounger terrace once extended to the north,alongside Terrace 2, but was replaced by theChattahoochee River. The historical structuresof City Mills, the Mott house and other resi-dences were constructed long after the erosionof Terrace 1 occurred. He measured an approxi-mate two-meter difference in elevation of Ter-race 1 and Terrace 2. Leigh’s work also revealedthat the water table in the area located betweenLot 204 and the river was 21 feet below groundsurface in July 1997.

Data Management of Wells

Columns in the database inventory reflect spe-cific sections of excavated wells. The columnheading labeled “Strata” reflects designated four-foot sections of wells, as excavated by archae-ologists aided with a trackhoe as described inthe field methods above. Each four-foot sectionwas numbered in the lab as “Trackhoe Section1”, “Trackhoe Section 2”, or “TS 1”, “TS 2”, etc.The first four foot section excavated by archae-ologists was called “Trackhoe Section 0” since itbegan at the stripped ground surface and didnot require the removal of the surrounding ma-trix with a trackhoe in order to safely excavatedthe entire section. While these Trackhoe Sec-

tion numbers were later designated for ease of com-parison, archaeologists in the field called these four-foot increments either “Trackhoe Section” or merely“Section”, along with the appropriate number. Thecolumn in the database labeled “Zone” reflects indi-vidual soil lenses within trackhoe sections. In thefield, archaeologists gave the zones a variety ofnames ranging from numbers, to letters, to a com-bination of the two such as 1B or TS-2. Tables in theappendices of this report enumerate, by featurenumber, the trackhoe sections, zones, and otherdetails of the excavated wells.

Archaeologists tried to consistently excavate thesame half of the well from beginning (TS 0) throughall trackhoe sections until they terminated excava-tion. This could not always be done, however, due

Figure 9. Photograph of Excavation in Progress ofTwo Bisected Wells.


24


to logistics. Occasionally wells were located on lotsclosest to a city street or adjacent to other wells.The functions of some of these features were not ap-parent in plan view and it was only after archaeolo-gists excavated part of the initial TS 0 section that itbecame apparent that the features were wells. Se-lecting the axis for the initial feature bisection wasoften based on factors involving feature interpreta-tion and viewing, rather than the best axis fortrackhoe bisection of lower levels should the featureturn out to be a well. To maintain continuity in wellprofiles in these particular cases, the Field Directorreversed the profiles on selected graphics. Well pro-files containing reversed profile sections are notedon the graphics within this report. Field graphicsretain their original profile views.

PUBLIC OUTREACH METHODS AND RESULTS

Archaeologists attempted to share the project withthe public in multiple ways. Southern Research madelarge “Archaeology” banners to hang up on-site toattract visitors (Figure 10). Examples of artifactsfrom non-provenienced areas of the sites were placed

on a table next to the banners so that people couldtouch pieces of the past. Archaeologists put up twosigns near the banners. One sign had the answers tothe top ten questions people ask archaeologists. Theother sign consisted of a dry-erase board with abird’s eye view perspective drawing of the projectarea and vinyl questions mounted on it, such as“What happened here in the past? What will we hopeto find? What have we found already? (Figure 11).Archaeologists circled the part of the bird’s eye viewreflecting the lot they were currently excavating.They updated the answers to the signboard daily,and changed the answers when they began excavat-ing a different lot. The banners served to attractvisitors and the signs provided some baseline infor-mation.

Tours offered by archaeologists provided additionalinformation and allowed people to ask questions.Archaeologists offered formal tours at specific timesdaily, but most often one archaeologist usuallyended up talking to visitors that wandered by at vari-ous times during the day. Attempts were made toadvertise these opportunities to the public. Archae-ologists held one press conference. In addition,

Figure 10. Signs Invite the Curious Public.


25


there were three television stories during fieldworkand five newspaper stories during field and lab work.

Groups were invited to the site for special presenta-tions (Figure 12). Two groups of home-schoolers,one group of students from the downtown magnetschool, and two teachers’ workshop classes visitedthe site. The teachers were enrolled in workshops atEmory University in Atlanta and Georgia College andState University in Milledgeville. Various presenta-tions for the groups including flintknapping demon-strations, discussion and examples of excavationtechniques, hands-on examination of artifacts, dis-cussion of lab analysis, curation, reporting, out-reach, preservation, and ethics.

Another outreach project involved collaboratingwith the Columbus Museum on a temporary exhibitabout the site. This project included the exhibit, apublic lecture, an exhibit “walk” guided by an ar-chaeologist, a teachers’ workshop and a workshopfor museum docents. A related part of this projectwas the collaboration on an interactive CD aboutthe site and the archaeology there, entitled “DiggingHistory: The Archaeology of Columbus, Georgia”.

Follow-up outreach hasincluded presentationsand papers at variousvenues. A senior life-long learning group vis-ited the laboratory for atour and slide presenta-tion. Additional presen-tations have been madeat several state and na-tional archaeology con-ferences. One journalarticle coauthored byVegotsky and Elliott hasbeen published. Plansfor future outreach in-clude another journalarticle about the projectand the conversion ofthe slide show into amore dynamic and edu-cational power pointpresentation.

LABORATORY METHODS

Artifact Analysis

Recovered artifacts were brought to the laboratoryfacility of Southern Research, initially in Ellerslie,Georgia and later in Columbus, Georgia, where theywere catalogued by lot number into the cataloguingsystem. The artifacts were then washed, sorted, ana-lyzed, and classified according to a coding systemloosely based on South’s method of artifact classifi-cation (South 1977). This information was then re-corded in a Microsoft Access database under thesupervision of the Lab Director. Artifacts were thenpackaged according to the Federally accepted stan-dards including placement in acid free, 4 mil poly-urethane bags with acid free paper label inserts.Artifacts were re-bagged based on artifact type andclassification, and were arranged by discrete pro-veniences. The artifacts are accompanied by a com-puterized inventory. All of the artifacts were givencode numbers to allow for systematic, comparabledata entry. Prehistoric artifacts were analyzed bysource material, method of manufacture, and arti-fact function.

Figure 11. Daily Updates on the Dry Erase Board Signage.


26


South’s Method and Theory in Historical Archaeol-ogy (1977) uses a categorization system based onthe assumed function of an artifact. His categories(with Southern Research codes in parenthesis) are:Activities (Z), Architecture (A), Arms (R), Clothing(C), Furniture (F), Kitchen (K), Miscellaneous (M),Personal (P), and Tobacco (T). The coding systemused by Southern Research further subdivides eachgeneral artifact category by assigning a unique codenumber to each item within that category. For ex-ample, a brass thimble is coded as CM0320, re-flected its status as a Clothing (C) artifact, made ofmetal (M) and given its own unique number 0320.The coding sheet comments might reflect furtherinformation, such as “embossed flower designs”.Code numbers allow not only for data entry but forease in data manipulation. Code numbers are en-tered into a Microsoft Access software program,which can then be queried for specific questions.

Examples of the Activities and Architecture catego-ries are provided as follows. The Activities categorycontains artifacts representing leisure time, such asmarbles, fish hooks, gaming pieces, and children’stea sets, as well as work-related artifacts such asaxes, harness parts, horseshoes, and plow parts.

Architecture covers abroad range of structuralitems such as brick, mortar,nails, and window glass, toname a few. Because rela-tive amounts of brick, coal,and oyster were noted inthe field and only a samplecollected, these artifacttypes were acknowledgedon the coding sheet aspresent/absent (1/0)rather than being weighedor counted. Select samplesof window glass were mea-sured to the nearest one-tenth of a millimeter so thatwindow glass dating formu-las could be used if enoughglass fragments were re-covered from excavations.Archaeologists have devel-oped and refined window

glass dating over the past three decades (Roenke1978; Brockington 1985; Orser et al. 1987; Elliottand Webb 1992). Steve Webb further refined workby Roenke and Brockington. Webb developed a“Roenke-based quadratic regression formula” toaddress the problem that changes in glass thicknessover time are not a simple linear function (Elliottand Webb 1992: 169-170). Glass thickness fluctu-ates as a result of variable manufacturing methods,recycling, and the lack of local, regional, and na-tional window glass standardization. Webb’s for-mula allows the most reliable window glass analysisto be conducted on sites dating from 1840-1945. Itrequires window glass measurements to the nearesttenths of a millimeter (1.2 mm, 1.3 mm, etc.) and ismost reliable with a minimum of 30 pieces of win-dow glass. Webb’s formula is as follows:

Y=1855.85-43.26X + 23.372X2(F=464.3, P=.000)where Y=year of manufacturex=mean glass thickness

The quadratic component aids in the predictive abil-ity of the formula, since it has a two-tailed t-value of6.735, with a probability of .003 of being a chanceoccurrence (Elliott and Webb 1992:169-170). Win-

Figure 12. Homeschoolers Learn About History and Archaeology.


27


dow glass measurement was done on artifacts fromselected features at the 2nd Avenue project.

Other artifact categories include Arms, Clothing,Furniture, Kitchen, Miscellaneous, Personal, andTobacco. Artifacts in the Arms category include alltypes of weapons and ammunition. Clothing arti-facts consist of various fasteners and apparel relateditems. Furniture artifacts traditionally include hard-ware and Kitchen artifacts involve food preparationand eating. The Miscellaneous category containsartifacts, such as unidentifiable glass, rubber, orrusted iron fragments, that cannot be placed in amore descriptive category since they lack informa-tion regarding their function. The Personal categoryincludes items used primarily by and for an indi-vidual. Artifacts in the Tobacco category tend to bemost prevalent on eighteenth century and oldersites, and decrease in frequency and artifact per-centage on early to mid-nineteenth century sites.Maker’s marks observed on artifacts in any categorywere recorded and attempts were made to researchthem.

The Kitchen category contains the most compre-hensive and detailed classification of artifacts. Bottleglass artifacts within this group are categorizedwhenever possible by method of manufacture, inaddition to color and function. Characteristics in-dicative of various manufacturing methods includemold seams (two and three piece molds, machinemolds), lack of mold seams (blown or turn mold),scars (glass, sand, or metal pontil scars and semi-automatic or automatic machine scars), lip finishes(beaded, blob top, polished, screw-top, sheared),and embossing (panel or full-mold). Color can bediagnostic and it can also be indicative of functionand manufacturing technique. Color, such as dark,medium and light olive green; dark or light green;aqua; amber; amber/olive; amethyst; cobalt blue;milk; and clear was noted during analysis. Specialattention was paid to note olive green, amber, andamber/olive color glass. Bottle function was notedwhen observable and included descriptors such ascanning, medicine, perfume, snuff, and spirit bottles.

Ceramics constitute one of the largest artifact typeswithin the Kitchen category and often one of the larg-est categories of artifacts recovered from sites. Dueto the nature of ceramics, they often break whenused repeatedly and therefore enter the archaeo-

logical record frequently. Once in the archaeologi-cal record, they are durable and survive well in thesoil. Since there are few uses for broken ceramics,they more readily become part of the archaeologi-cal assemblage rather than becoming adapted toanother use.

South’s (1977) classification for ceramics has beenshown to work effectively on eighteenth centurysites. This classification uses distinctions in glazeand paste to determine ceramic types and resultantperiods of manufacture. Changes in the pottery in-dustry accelerated, however, during the late eigh-teenth and early nineteenth centuries. Thesechanges reflected a dynamic industry in which pot-ters and pottery manufacturers sought to producebetter, stronger, and/or fancier wares to a largermarket. Leading potters experimented with ever-changing formulas for glazes and pastes. They triedto make imitation porcelains that could be sold at alower cost to a larger market. They experimentedwith new techniques of surface decoration. Thesimple porcelains, stonewares, and earthenwares ofthe eighteenth century were quickly engulfed bynumerous variations within each category, such aspearlwares, creamwares, whitewares, ironstones,and a multitude of decorative techniques from trans-fer print to decals. Competing potteries sought tobe the industry leader in inventing new ceramicwares and cornering the market on their sales. Thisdynamic evolution of the ceramic industry has re-sulted in immeasurable headaches for archaeolo-gists. Historic archaeologists continue to attemptto categorize ceramics into recognizable groups inspite of the fact that many of the potters of the daywould have been hard-pressed to agree on a classifi-cation system of their own.

George Miller has been perhaps the most successfulmodern scholar to attempt to categorize the ceram-ics of the late eighteenth and early to mid nineteenthcenturies. Miller argues for a change in ceramicanalysis from a focus on paste and glaze to a focuson surface treatment (Miller 1980). Miller’s studieshave revealed that certain surface treatments suchas slip/glaze color, hand painting, transfer printing,polychrome colors, monochrome colors, and em-bossed designs are the best indicators of ceramictypes, periods of manufacture, and economic scal-ing. Such elements are incorporated in the codingand analysis procedure at Southern Research’s lab.


28


Ceramic analysis also included the morphologicalidentification of sherds by rim, base, or body. Ar-chaeologists noted vessel form of the sherd when-ever possible and recorded descriptors such asbowl, saucer, plate, etc. in an effort to determinevessel types and tableware sets. When these deter-minations could not be made, archaeologists at-tempted to note if the sherd was from a hollowwareor flatware vessel. Maker’s marks on ceramics wererecorded and researched in laboratory referencebooks. The following sources were consulted:Burrison (1995), Coysh and Henrywood (1982),DeBolt (1994), Gates and Ormerod (1982), Godden(1996), Greer (1982), Kovel and Kovel (1986, 1995),and Willett and Brackner (1983).

Other problems archaeologists face when analyz-ing post-American Revolution period ceramics inthe southeastern United States involves not onlythe changing wares available, but the fact that manyof these wares were being produced for long peri-ods of time. Whitewares are prime examples of ce-ramics that were manufactured throughout thenineteenth century and are still being made today.Ceramics with these long dates of manufacture andparticularly with “current” end dates, present seri-ous problems to archaeologists trying to obtainMean Ceramic Dates (MCD). Archaeologists ranMCD calculations on the same features using vari-ous ceramics and various end-date ranges in an at-tempt to detemine which ceramics and dates wouldprovide the most reliable MCD. For example, theMCD was calculated without using ceramics that arebeing manufacture into the present (various iron-stones, cc or cream-colored ware, alkaline glazedstonewares). Then the MCDs were calculated usingthese ceramics with their present end-date. Finally,MCD calculations were run on all diagnostic ceram-ics using an arbitrary end date of 1900 for the prob-lematic ceramics. Unfortunately, none of the MCDcalculations seem ideal; however, the author chosethe last method above since it seemed to producethe most accurate dates, as supported by historicaldocuments, other artifacts, stratigraphy and con-text. All MCDs were then calculated using this onemethod. Mean Ceramic Dates were calculated forfeatures, certain stratum within features, excava-tion units, and levels within units. Ceramics andthe date ranges used for MCD analysis are depictedin Table 1.

Cross Mends, Minimum Vessel Counts, and CC(Cream-Colored Ware) Index Values

Determining cross mends was one of the first stepsof secondary ceramic analysis. Lab techniciansnumbered all individual ceramics except residualsherds by project and accession number. Archae-ologists then examined the ceramics on a city lotlevel. All the ceramics from all proveniences of aparticular city lot (i.e. Lot 191, 194, etc.) were thenplaced together on lab tables and put into like piles.Ceramics from City Lots 191 and 194 were exam-ined simultaneously, since these lots were adjacentand the lot designation of certain features along thevariable lot boundary could not always be deter-mined. Cross mending was seen as a way to helpdetermine lot location of such problematic featuresin addition to providing significant informationabout what features were contemporaneous. A groupof eight to 10 archaeologists worked at various timesto determine which sherds mended (Figure 13).Mends were usually secured with a non-permanentadhesive. Archaeologists then recorded mends onspecific Ceramic Vessel Cross-Mend Forms thatdocumented which sherds mended, along with thenumber of their city block location, feature prove-nience, accession number, number of mends andcomments.

Once cross mending was completed, archaeologistsconducted minimum vessel counts, or minimumnumber of vessels (MNV) analysis. Archaeologistscompleted Minimum Vessel Count analyses for alllots except Lot 194, due to budget restrictions. Dueto the large number of sherds, only rims were se-lected for MNV counts in order to make the analysismanageable. Technicians pulled all ceramic rimsfor each of the data recovery lots and labeled themindividually with provenience numbers. They at-tempted to mend as many as possible. The rimsherds were sorted by ceramic type and decorationand measured on a concentric circle chart to deter-mine their original vessel diameter. All rims thatcould have come from the same vessel, as deter-mined by shape, ceramic type, decoration, or sizewere counted as one vessel. Archaeologists notedwhenever rims from two different vessels appearedto come from the same service or set of dishes. Ar-chaeologists completed Minimum Vessel CountForms for each of the lots analyzed. These formsrecorded the City Block and Lot, vessel, accession,


29


Table 1. Ceramics Used in Mean Ceramic Date Calculations and Their Dates.

DATES CODE DESCRIPTION START MEAN END KC0101 Porcelain, Chinese export overglaze enameled polychrome h.p. 1660 1730 1800 KC0102 Porcelain, blue h.p. 1660 1730 1800 KC0205 Stoneware, refined brown salt glazed body (British brown) 1690 1732.5 1775 KC0206 Stoneware, Nottingham 1700 1755 1810 KC0222 Stoneware, blue and gray Rhenish rim 1700 1737.5 1775 KC0230 Stoneware, slip dipped white salt glazed rim 1715 1745 1775 KC0231 Stoneware, molded white salt glazed rim 1740 1752.5 1765 KC0232 Stoneware, white salt glazed 1740 1757.5 1775 KC0233 Stoneware, scratch blue salt glazed 1744 1759.5 1775 KC0236 Stoneware, debased scratch blue salt glazed 1765 1780 1790 KC0245 Stoneware, brown glazed refined 1700 1737.5 1775 KC0250 Black basalt 1750 1798 1846 KC0302 Stoneware, plain gray salt glazed 1700 1737.5 1775 KC0303 Stoneware, brown salt glazed 1690 1732.5 1775 KC0305 Stoneware, Albany slipped 1805 1847.5 1900 KC0306 Stoneware, Alkaline glazed 1800 1855 1910 KC0311 Stoneware, Bristol Slip 1850 1890 1930 KC0397 Stoneware, uid light gray/brown salt glazed 1690 1732.5 1775 KC0501 Plain Blue Tinted Stone China (Ironstone) 1815 1827.5 1840 KC0502 Blue Tinted Stone China, Decorated (Ironstone) 1815 1822.5 1830 KC0503 White Granite/Ironstone, plain 1840 1856.5 1900 KC0504 White Granite, molded/embossed 1840 1856.5 1900 KC0509 Ironstone, plain rim 1813 1856.5 1900 KC0510 Ironstone 1813 1856.5 1900 KC0601 Whieldon ware 1740 1755 1770 KC0602 Creamware, Littlers blue 1750 1757.5 1765 KC0603 Creamware, green glazed molded 1759 1767 1775 KC0605 Creamware, plain 1762 1796 1830 KC0606 Pearlware, plain 1774 1802 1830 KC0607 Cream Colored (C.C.) Ware, plain 1820 1860 1900 KC0608 Pearlware, uid decorated 1774 1802 1830 KC0609 Pearlware, underglaze blue h.p. 1774 1802 1830 KC0610 Pearlware, overglaze decorated on rim 1774 1802 1830 KC0611 Creamware, molded 1762 1796 1830 KC0612 Creamware, hand painted 1762 1796 1830 KC0702 Edgeware, Underglazed green 1780 1810 1840 KC0703 Edgeware, Underglazed blue 1780 1820 1860 KC0704 Edgeware, Scalloped rim impressed curved 1802 1817 1832 KC0705 Edgeware, Scalloped rim impressed straight 1809 1820 1831 KC0707 Edgeware, Embossed patterns 1823 1829 1835 KC0708 Edgeware, Unscalloped impressed rim 1841 1849 1857 KC0709 Edgeware, Unscalloped/unmolded rim 1874 1879 1884 KC0711 Edgeware, Unpainted, unscalloped impressed 1841 1849 1857 KC0712 Edgeware, Scalloped, unimpressed blue 1826 1853 1880 KC0799 Edgeware, uid 1780 1820 1860 KC0801 Spattered ware on white body 1780 1815 1850


30


DATES CODE DESCRIPTION START MEAN END

KC0802 Spattered ware with Pea Fowl 1780 1815 1850 KC0803 Sponged ware on white body 1840 1855 1870 KC0804 Sponged ware with painted design 1840 1855 1870 KC0805 Sponged ware on yellow ware body 1830 1885 1940 KC0806 Sponged ware with painted design on yellow ware 1830 1885 1940 KC0901 Dipped ware, tan, rust, brown, olive, or ochre 1790 1815 1840 KC0902 Blue and simple banded dipped ware 1790 1845 1900 KC0903 Mocha on white body 1795 1815 1835 KC0904 Mocha mug on white body 1795 1815 1835 KC0905 Mocha on yellow ware 1830 1865 1900 KC0906 Dipped on yellow ware 1826 1863 1900 KC0908 Annularware, whiteware 1830 1855 1880 KC0909 Annularware, pearlware 1790 1810 1830 KC1101 Slipware, Plain clear glaze 1670 1732.5 1795 KC1102 Slipware, Combed clear glaze 1670 1732.5 1795 KC1103 Slipware, Trailed clear glaze 1670 1732.5 1795 KC1107 Refined earthenware, Clear glaze buff bodied 1670 1732.5 1795 KC1194 Slipware, Purple slip on yellow 1670 1732.5 1795 KC1195 Slipware, Molded yellow floral 1670 1732.5 1795 KC1196 Slipware, Combed and dotted 1670 1732.5 1795 KC1197 Slipware, Dotted and trailed 1670 1732.5 1795 KC1198 Slipware, Dotted 1670 1732.5 1795 KC1203 Metropolitan-like ware 1630 1645 1660 KC1312 Redware, White slipped, clear glazed 1725 1738 1750 KC1313 Redware, White slipped, clear glazed, hand painted 1725 1738 1750 KC1401 Redware, Astbury refined 1725 1738 1750 KC1402 Refined agateware 1740 1758 1775 KC1403 Jackfield 1740 1760 1780 KC1503 Delft, Apothecary monochrome 1620 1698 1775 KC2101 Creamware, Over and underglaze lined 1770 1801.5 1833 KC2102 Green underglaze band and line ware 1875 1912.5 1950 KC2103 Brown line wares (over or underglaze) 1774 1803.5 1833 KC2201 Polychrome overglaze enameled h.p. creamware body 1765 1777.5 1790 KC2203 Polychrome painted, early 1795 1812.5 1830 KC2204 Blue floral 1820 1825 1830 KC2205 Polychrome painted, late 1830 1845 1860 KC2206 Lg. Floral polychrome painted 1830 1855 1880 KC2207 Flow painted (blue, black, or purple) 1840 1860 1880 KC2209 Fingerpainted 1790 1805 1870 KC2210 Pearlware, Handpainted (Not Blue) 1795 1805 1815 KC2211 C.C. Ware (Whiteware), Handpainted 1830 1845 1860 KC2214 Ironstone, Handpainted 1813 1856.5 1900 KC2300 Willow pattern on Pearlware 1795 1812.5 1830 KC2301 Creamware, Overglaze transfer printed 1756 1769.5 1783 KC2302 Willow ware 1830 1865 1900 KC2303 UID underglaze linear Trans. Pr. 1756 1781.5 1807 KC2304 Chinoiserie underglaze linear Trans. Pr. 1756 1783 1810 KC2305 Landscape underglaze stippled tr.pr. 1810 1820 1830 KC2306 Romantic underglaze stippled Trans. Pr. 1820 1835 1850 KC2307 Blue underglaze stippled Trans. Pr. 1818 1824 1830

Table 1 - continued


31


Figure 13. Mending Some of the Thousands of Historic SherdsFrom the City Lots.

Table 1. continued,

DATES CODE DESCRIPTION START MEAN END KC2308 Dark blue underglaze stippled Trans. Pr. 1818 1824 1830 KC2309 Brown underglaze stippled Trans. Pr. 1809 1827 1845 KC2310 Miscellaneous colors u/g stippled tr. pr. 1829 1839.5 1850 KC2311 Flowing colors underglaze stippled Tr. Pr. 1840 1855 1870 KC2312 Japanese brown on ivory body Tr. Pr. 1870 1877.5 1885 KC2315 Dark Blue Underglaze Transfer Print 1795 1818 1840 KC2316 Light Blue Underglaze Transfer Print 1830 1845 1860 KC2317 Chinoiserie, Underglaze stippled Tr.Pr. 1800 1807.5 1815 KC2320 Black underglaze stippled Tr. Pr. 1829 1839.5 1850 KC2321 Blue Transfer print and painted Whiteware 1840 1850 1860 KC2372 UD Printed makers mark with "Published by" 1830 1835 1840 KC2373 UD Printed makers mark with diamond shape registration marks 1842 1862.5 1883 KC2404 Fiesta ware/Harlequin 1936 1952.5 1969 KC2501 Porcelain, Early gold banded 1723 1779 1835 KC2603 Porcelain, UID 18th c. English 1740 1767.5 1795 KC2607 Porcelain, Canton 1800 1815 1830 KC2608 Jasperware 1763 1769 1775 KC2701 Decal on ironstone 1902 1926 1950 KC2801 Yellow ware, plain 1830 1885 1940 KC2802 Yellow ware, Rockingham/Bennington 1830 1870 1910 KC2803 Yellow ware, Clouded green/Rockingham 1830 1870 1910 KC2805 Yellow ware, embossed/ molded 1830 1885 1940 KC2806 Stoneware, Refined, white salt glazed, drug pot 1740 1757.5 1775 KC2807 Yellowware, Slip Banded Annularware 1826 1863 1900


32


and feature numbers, while recording vessel form(when identifiable), ceramic type, rim shape, rimdiameter, and comments. Specific notes were madeabout fluting, underglaze and overglaze painting,the presence or absence of teacup handles and otherdetails. Often, however, the small size of the sherdsmade determining such characteristics difficult orimpossible. For example, on one lot only the rimsof two cups were complete enough to determine thatthey were made without handles. The index num-bers for handleless-cups also were used for the re-maining unidentifiable cups; however, as Millerstates, “The great majority of cups were unhandleduntil the second half of the 19th century” (Miller1991:15). The MNV data was compared and con-trasted between lots and used to help interpreteconomies and consumerism on a lot-to-lot basis.The information collected during the MNV analysisallowed archaeologists to enter the data in a spread-sheet as needed for the analysis of certain prove-niences, and sort by various characteristics such asvessel form or ceramic type. Spreadsheets wereexpanded to include columns for conversions ofvessel diameter from metric to inches and to in-clude potters terms for ceramic decoration (suchas painted, enameled, printed) and vessel type (suchas teas, twiffler, muffin) as listed by Miller (1991).This information was sorted and used to create asummary table for selected data recovery lots andspecific assemblages within those lots (such asCreek-Euro features on Lot 200). This allowed ar-chaeologists to compare and contrast ceramic data.Data useful for determining MNV was included inthe spreadsheets even if it did not contribute to de-termining CCI values (See discussion below). Thisincludes items such as vessels whose shape or sizewas indeterminate, or those that were not repre-sented in the CCI table by vessel shape or type. Ar-chaeologists examined ceramic counts by type(earthenware, semi-vitreous, stoneware, and por-celain), decorative treatment (annular/dipped,edgeware, transfer print, painted, and other), andvessel shape (cups, plates, bowls, platters, pitch-ers, crocks/jars/jugs, and other/unidentifiable).Archaeologists then were able to determine the per-centages of cups, plates, and bowls in each assem-blage along with percentages of decorated and plainceramics and percentages of various ceramic types.

George Miller devised a method of using plaincreamware, which evolved into lighter coloredcream colored or CC ware, as an index for deter-

mining the values of other decorated ceramic types(Miller 1980; 1991). Miller realized that since CCware “...remained the cheapest type available forover a century, it makes an excellent bench mark togauge the cost of other wares in terms of its price”(Miller 1991:1). He researched prices in numerousprice fixing lists and agreements of various historicpotteries and published an index in 1980. His ex-amination of discount and tariff information fromthat period, along with addition pottery lists, ledhim to revise the index in 1991 (Miller 1991:1).Miller’s revised CCI values were used in the analysisof the 2nd Avenue project.

The idea of using pottery price fixing lists and re-lated historical documentation for determining pot-tery price values and ascertaining economic infor-mation about occupants of an archaeological site iswell founded. Archaeologists encountered severalchallenges, however, in actually using Miller’s CCIon the ceramics from the 2nd Avenue project. Miller’sindex requires knowing other characteristics thatare often difficult to recover from fragmentarysherds taken from archaeological context. As notedabove, the question of teacups with or withouthandles was difficult to resolve. Other questionsarose during analysis. Miller lists muffins as being3-7 inch plates, yet the index values for muffins donot go below the five-inch range. What do we dowith the three and four inch muffins? Likewise, plat-ters (termed “dishes” by nineteenth century pot-ters) could range from 10-20 inches, yet the indexvalues include only 10, 12, and 14-inch vessels. Andeven if there were values associated with the largersizes, how does one measure the diameter of a smallsherd from an octagon shaped platter? While it wasvirtually impossible to determine whether the re-covered cup fragments were London-size or Irish,analysis was based on Miller’s observation that theLondon type was most widely used in America(Miller 1991:15). For the purpose of the CCI analy-sis for this project, therefore, all teas (tea cups andsaucers) were assumed to be London size teas. Millernotes that the price of bowls was the same for apotter’s dozen regardless of the size. The potter’sdozen was defined as whatever number of bowlscould fit on a standard six foot drying board (Miller1991:21) Thus, the smaller the bowl, the greater thenumber of bowls would fit on the drying board andbe counted as a potter’s dozen. A smaller number ofbowls in a potter’s dozen meant that the bowls werelarger. Surely people did not purchase an entire


33


potter’s dozen of bowls if they only needed one. Sohow does one measure the price of one bowl versusthe price of all the bowls purchased in the potter’sdozen? Since the CCI values do not contain bowldiameter measurements, each MNV gets its own CCIvalue, even though the sherd represents either verylittle or almost all of a potter’s dozen of bowls. Inspite of these questions, archaeologists gave eachunique bowl rim sherd the most suitable CCI bowlvalue based on ceramic type and the most appro-priate scaling date of the artifact’s provenience.

Finally, Miller warns against comparing CC indexvalues from one period to values from another(1780-1814, 1816-1830, 1832-1842, and 1844-1859) without considering the declining prices andchanging tariff rates (Miller 1991:3-4). But how doesone do that? He gives the various discounts andtariffs for each period, but it is unclear how one cor-relates these with the CCI values for each period,and in turn, relates these to the various sherd to-tals. Miller urges archaeologists to use assemblagesdating to the same period, rather than combiningtwenty years of features into one assemblage. If onetakes a set of features dating to roughly the sametime period (based on MCDs) how can that data beconverted to CCI values? Does one use the medianyear as the year to select in Miller’s index for ratingcups, bowls, and plates? Does one get CCI values foreach feature, based on the MCD of that feature (andnot the MCD range of the entire assemblage)? It ap-pears that no matter how you do it, the arbitrari-ness would dilute the small differences in price val-ues per year in the CCI. For example, some archae-ologists have tried to make the data fit Miller’s indi-ces by averaging CCI values for proveniences en-compassing a wide chronological span (Beaudry andMrozowski 1989:100).

In spite of the many frustrating challenges in tryingto make sherds and residual rims recovered from anarchaeological site fit into an index based on com-plete, unadulterated vessels, a small amount ofmeaningful data was wrenched from this excruciat-ing exercise. Archaeologists attempted to obtainCCI numbers for various assemblages in Lot 191, inaddition to CCI index for contemporaneous featureswithin Lot 204. They sorted the MNV data intoMiller’s categories of cups, plates, and bowls, butwere unable to put most of the information into hisspecific categories due to many of the problems

stated above. After many exhaustive attempts, ar-chaeologists decided to abandon the effort for otherlot data in order to complete the report. They feelfairly confident, however, that the CCI data for theCreek-Euro features on Lot 200 is reliable. The smallnumber of sherds, older decorative types, and fewervarieties of vessels and decoration made this assem-blage the easiest to put into Miller’s CCI categoriesin order to derive CCI values.

Other Date Ranges and Indices

Archaeologists attempted to use other analyses tech-niques to determine artifact chronology. This in-cluded identifying the manufacturing technique ofnails and then determining the ratio of cut to wirenails, to produce a “nail range date” for specific as-semblages. This range is based on Orser et al. (1987)and results in four periods: pre-1855; 1855-1875;1875-1895; and post 1900. Changes in nail analy-ses suggested by Adams (2002) were examined butnot used. The nail date ranges helped further refinedates of features, including ones without reliableMCDs.Archaeologists tallied and recorded ratios of olivegreen glass to amber glass in various assemblages,including city lots. This was done in an effort toderive some chronological and status informationfrom these artifact types. Daniel Elliott (Elliott et al.1999:22-23) proposed a relationship to chronologyand olive to amber glass ratios. He noted such a re-lationship on six sites located on Fort Benning ArmyInstallation, situated immediately south of Colum-bus, Georgia. Archaeologists conducted Phase IItesting on these six sites, which dated from the lateeighteenth through early twentieth centuries. Elliottobtained a ratio (index value number) by dividingthe total count of amber bottle glass by the totalcount of olive bottle glass. He then ranked the sixsites by chronological order based on MCD infor-mation. Elliott found a strong correlation betweenthe olive glass index value and the MCD. This corre-lation held for four of the six sites. The two sites thatdid not follow the pattern exactly had either no am-ber glass or only two percent amber glass. Thesesites dated to 1817 and 1779, respectively. Elliotttheorizes that the amber to olive glass ratio reflectschanges in drinking habits from drinking wines, gins,beer, and other foreign spirits stored in olive greenbottles to drinking domestic whiskey, rye, beer, andlocally distilled spirits out of amber bottles (Elliott


34


et al. 1999:24). The presence of amber and olivegreen glass on city lots within the 2nd Avenue projectarea, the lack of definitive MCD data for certain as-semblages, and the site’s geographical proximity tothe Fort Benning base area, provided three goodreasons to examine the glass ratios generated bynineteenth century Columbus residents.

Conservation

Conservation treatments were appropriate to theartifact’s material and its condition, and the treat-ment reflects the best current standards in meth-odology and materials. All treatments were car-ried out by or under the supervision of an ad-equately trained professional and were fully docu-mented (SHA 1993). Southern Research Lab Direc-tor, Debra Wells, conducted artifact treatments.This included limited electrolysis on selected metalartifacts, stabilization of selected wood samplesfrom wells, and cross mending of rims and selectedceramics.

The Second Avenue Project generated a large vol-ume of artifacts, many of which required specialconservation measures for their stabilization andlong-term survival. These included metal items,organic materials, and small fragile items. Repre-sentative examples of all artifact classes that re-quired conservation and stabilization were pre-served. Special conservation measures includedchemical cleaning, electrolysis, protective coat-ings, and protective storage packaging. Completestabilization of all examples of some artifact types,including nails, was not economically feasible. Allartifacts were cleaned and labeled in such a way thatthe site and intra-site provenience data were re-trievable. Labeling was done in a permanent andarchivally stable manner (SHA 1993). The curationstandards for the project meet those outlined in 36CFR Part 79: Curation of Federally-Owned and Ad-ministered Archaeological Collections.

Faunal Analysis

A one-quarter inch screen mesh was used to recoverfaunal materials during excavation.Zooarchaeological materials from five Lots on threecity blocks in downtown Columbus, Georgia are ex-amined. Faunal samples from 37 features were ana-lyzed under the direction of Barnet Pavao-

Zuckerman at the Zooarchaeology Laboratory at theGeorgia Museum of Natural History, University ofGeorgia, Athens (Pavao-Zuckerman 2002). Thesematerials were divided into ten analytical units. Thelarge number of analytical units used in this reportreflects the large size of the project area. The Slave/Servant Quarter assemblage was excavated from Lot194 in Block 15. The materials were collected fromseveral test units and features located in and arounda multi-room structure that was located behind thelarge main house on Lot 194. The Creek Indian fea-ture assemblage includes material from 7 featuresassociated with Creek ceramics in Lots 200 and 204on Block 10. The Coweta Mills Tenement assem-blage includes four features on Lot 191, Block 15that were deposited between approximately 1840and 1860. The Lot 194 ca. 1829-1850 assemblageconsists of materials from three features located inLot 194 on Block 15. Two features located on thesame lot dating to ca. 1830 to 1860 are grouped intoa fifth analytical unit. The Lot 200 1840-1860 as-semblage includes two features excavated from Lot200 in Block 10. All materials from Feature 11 areassigned to the Lot 204 1850-1870 assemblage. Theca. 1880-1920 assemblage is the latest deposit stud-ied here and consists of eight features. Three postand pit features from Lot 194 on Block 15 are placedin the Post/Pit Features assemblage. The last as-semblage is comprised of trench samples from sev-eral oyster shell trenches located on Lot 7 in Block11. In addition to the 10 analytical units,zooarchaeological remains from a single feature iden-tified as either a pit or cellar on Lot 194 (Block 15)are briefly reported below. A list of the samplesreported here by time period can be found in theAppendices.

Vertebrate remains were identified using standardzooarchaeological methods. All identifications weremade by Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman using the com-parative skeletal collection of the ZooarchaeologyLaboratory, Georgia Museum of Natural History, atthe University of Georgia. A number of primary dataclasses are recorded. Specimens are identified interms of elements represented, the portion recov-ered, and symmetry. The Number of Identified Speci-mens (NISP) is determined. Those specimens thatcross-mend are counted as single specimens. Ex-ceptions to this rule include the Vertebrata category.Here the specimens are not counted due to their frag-mented condition. For the same reason, fish scale


35


fragments and bird eggshell fragments are notcounted. All specimens are weighed to provide ad-ditional information about the relative abundanceof the taxa identified. Indicators for sex, age at death,and modifications are noted where observed. TheMinimum Number of Individuals (MNI) is estimatedbased on paired elements and age. Some molluscanfragments are present in the samples studied, butMNI was not estimated for these.

While MNI is a standard zooarchaeological quantifi-cation method, the measure has several well-knownbiases. For example, MNI emphasizes small speciesover larger ones. This can be demonstrated in ahypothetical sample consisting of 20 squirrels andone cow. Although the presence of 20 squirrels in-dicates emphasis on the exploitation of squirrels,one cow would, in fact, supply more meat. Further,some elements are more readily identifiable thanother elements. The taxa represented by these ele-ments may therefore be incorrectly perceived asmore significant to the diet than animals with lessdistinctive elements. Pig teeth, readily identifiedfrom very small fragments, exemplify this situation.Conversely, some taxa represented by large num-bers of specimens may present few paired elementsand hence the number of individuals for these spe-cies may be underestimated. Turtles are good ex-amples of this last problem. MNI for these animalswill usually be underestimated relative to the num-ber of specimens. Basic to MNI is the assumptionthat the entire individual was utilized at the site.From ethnographic evidence, it is known that this isnot always true (Perkins and Daly 1968). This is par-ticularly the case for larger individuals, animals usedfor special purposes, and where food exchange is animportant economic activity (Thomas 1971; White1953).

In addition to these primary biases, MNI is also sub-ject to secondary bias introduced by the way samplesare aggregated during analysis. The aggregation ofarchaeological samples into analytical units(Grayson 1973) allows for a conservative estimateof MNI, while the “maximum distinction” method,applied when analysis discerns discrete sample units,results in a much larger MNI. In estimating MNI forthe Columbus assemblage, faunal remains are ag-gregated primarily based on time period and cityblock.

Biomass estimates attempt to compensate for someof the problems encountered with MNI. Biomassrefers to the quantity of tissue that a specified taxonmight have supplied. Predictions of biomass arebased on the allometric principle that the propor-tions of body mass, skeletal mass, and skeletal di-mensions change with increasing body size. Thisscale effect results from a need to compensate forweakness in the basic structural material, in this casebones and teeth. The relationship between bodyweight and skeletal weight is described by the allo-metric equation: Y = aXb

(Simpson, Roe, and Lewontin 1960:397). In thisequation, X is specimen weight, Y is the biomass, bis the constant of allometry (the slope of the line),and a is the Yintercept for a loglog plot using themethod of least squares regression and the best fitline (Casteel 1978; Reitz and Cordier 1983; Reitz etal.. 1987; Wing and Brown 1979). Many biologicalphenomena show allometry described by this for-mula (Gould 1966, 1971) so that a given quantity ofskeletal material or a specific skeletal dimension rep-resents a predictable amount of tissue or body lengthdue to the effects of allometric growth. Values for aand b are derived from calculations based on data atthe Florida Museum of Natural History, Universityof Florida, and the Georgia Museum of Natural His-tory, University of Georgia. Allometric formulaefor biomass estimates are not currently availablefor amphibians or lizards so biomass is not estimatedfor these groups. The allometric formulae used hereare presented in the appendix of this report (Ap-pendix, Faunal Table 1).

The species identified from Columbus are summa-rized in faunal categories based on vertebrate class.This summary contrasts the percentage of variousgroups of taxa in the collection. These categoriesare Fish, Turtle, Wild Bird, Domestic Bird, Wild Mam-mal, Domestic Mammal, and Commensal. In orderto make comparisons of MNI and biomass estimatespossible the summary tables include biomass esti-mates only for those taxa for which MNI is estimated.

Taxa tentatively classified as commensal are toad(Bufo sp.), spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrookii),Common flicker (Colaptes auratus), perching bird(Passeriformes), American robin (Turdusmigratorius), house mouse (Mus musculus), and OldWorld rat (Rattus sp.). While commensal animals


36


might be consumed, they are commonly found inclose association with humans and their built envi-ronment and most are too small in size to have con-tributed substantially to the diet if they were con-sumed. The presence of these animals in or nearhuman habitation areas was likely either discour-aged or merely tolerated by humans. Both opos-sum (Didelphis virginiana), and squirrel (Sciurussp.) might also be commensal but are not put intothis category because their large body size may havemade them an attractive and available food re-source. It should also be pointed out that the place-ment of taxa in the Commensal category does notexclude the possibility that these organisms wereconsumed.

The presence or absence of elements in an archaeo-logical assemblage provides data on animal use suchas butchering practices and transportation behav-ior. The Artiodactyl elements identified at Colum-bus are summarized into categories by body parts.The Head category includes only skull fragments,including antlers and teeth. The atlas and axis, alongwith other vertebrae and ribs, are placed into theVertebra/Rib category. It is likely the Head andVertebra/Rib categories are under-represented be-cause of recovery and identification difficulties.Vertebrae and ribs of deer-sized animals cannot beidentified as deer, pig, or caprine unless distinctivemorphological features support such identifications.Usually they do not, and specimens from these ele-ments are classified as Mammalia because a numberof non-artiodactyls fall into the size-range of thesemedium-sized ungulates. Forequarter includes thescapula, humerus, radius, and ulna. Carpal andmetacarpal specimens are presented in the Forefootcategory. Metapodiae and podiae which could notbe identified as belonging to either the forefoot orhindfoot categories, as well as sesamoids and pha-langes are assigned to the Foot category. TheHindfoot category includes tarsal and metatarsalspecimens. The Hindquarter category includes theinnominate, sacrum, femur, and tibia.

The archaeological pig element data for several ana-lytical units are also compared to a standard deerusing a ratio diagram (Reitz and Zierden 1991;Simpson 1941). Described by George Simpson (1941;Simpson, et al.. 1960), the formula is as follows:

d = logeX logeY or d = loge(X/Y)

where d is the logged ratio, X is the percentage ofeach element category in the archaeological collec-tions, and Y is the same percentage of this categoryin the standard pig. It does not matter to what basethe measurements are converted, though oneshould be consistent in order to maintain compara-bility. As Simpson (1941:23) describes this ap-proach:

The basic purpose of the diagram isto represent each of a number ofanalogous observations by a singleentry and to plot them in such a waythat the horizontal distance betweenany two of them will represent theratio of either one of those two tothe other.

The standard pig is based on the number of elementspresent in an unmodified pig skeleton. In order tocompare the archaeological data with the standardpig, the percentages of each element category forthe standard pig are converted into logarithms, sub-tracted from the logged value of the same elementcategory for the archaeological percentages, andplotted against the standard pig represented by thehorizontal “0” line, as shown in the accompanyingfigure in the Faunal Appendix of this report. Al-though the archaeological values are specimencounts and the values for the standard pig are wholeelements, the relationships in the ratio diagrams aresimilar to those found in unmodified histograms.

The elements identified for pigs and cattle from thefour largest analytical units are presented visuallyto illustrate their number and location in a carcass.Loose teeth, some skull fragments, and sesamoidsare not illustrated. Although the atlas and axis frag-ments are accurately depicted, other cervical, tho-racic, lumbar, caudal vertabrae and ribs are placedapproximately on the illustration. The last lumbarlocation is used to illustrate the vertebrae that wereidentified only as vertebrae. Specimens identifiedonly as metapodiae, podials or phalanges are illus-trated on the right hindfoot.

Relative ages of the Artiodactyls identified are esti-mated based on observations of the degree of epi-physeal fusion for diagnostic elements. When ani-mals are young their elements are not fully formed.The area of growth along the shaft and the end of the


37


element, the epiphysis, is not fused. When growth iscomplete the shaft and the epiphysis fuse. Whileenvironmental factors influence the actual age atwhich fusion is complete (Watson 1978), elementsfuse in a regular temporal sequence (Gilbert 1973;Purdue 1983; Schmid 1972). During analysis, speci-mens are recorded as either fused or unfused andplaced into one of three categories based on the agein which fusion generally occurs. Unfused elementsin the early-fusing category are interpreted as evi-dence for juveniles; unfused elements in the middle-fusing and late-fusing categories are usually inter-preted as evidence for subadults, though sometimescharacteristics of the specimen may suggest a juve-nile. Fused specimens in the late-fusing group pro-vide evidence for adults. Fused specimens in theearly- and middle-fusing groups are indeterminate.Clearly fusion is more informative for unfused ele-ments which fuse early in the maturation sequenceand for fused elements which complete fusion latein the maturation process than it is for other ele-ments. An early-fusing element that is fused couldbe from an animal that died immediately after fu-sion was complete or many years later. The ambi-guity inherent in age grouping is somewhat reducedby recording each element under the oldest categorypossible. Tooth eruption data (Severinghaus 1949)are also recorded.

While avian skeletal elements do not, as a rule, un-dergo epiphyseal fusion, bird skeletons do undergoa process of ossification during the growth of theanimal when cartilage is replaced by bone. The stateof fusion in bird elements is observable and record-able as either “fused” or “unfused” based on the tex-ture and morphology of the bone. Elemental fusionrates for chicken were not available at the time ofthe writing of this report. It is not likely that theconstruction of age profiles based on the fusion ratesof modern chickens would be relevant for pre-in-dustrial assemblages given extensive recent humanmanipulation of development and growth in chick-ens. However, observations of modern chicken skel-etal material in the zooarchaeology comparativecollection at the University of Georgia, indicate thatall skeletal elements across an individual chicken’sskeleton fuse simultaneously, regardless of age atfusion. From these observations, it is unlikely thatfused and unfused elements could belong to the sameindividual. So, although absolute ages of chickenscould not be determined, the presence of fused

chicken elements is considered evidence for thepresence of “mature” individuals, and the presenceof unfused elements is interpreted as indicating thepresence of “immature” chicken individuals. Thetotal MNI of the chicken assemblage is estimated byadding together the MNI estimates for the “imma-ture” and “mature” assemblages.

The sex of animals is an important indication of ani-mal use; however, there are few definitive indica-tors of sex. Males are indicated by the presence ofspurs on the tarsometatarsus of turkeys and antlerson deer. Male turtles are indicated by a depressionon the plastron to accommodate the female duringmating. Females are recognized by the absence ofthese features. Female birds may also be identifiedby the presence of medullary bone (Rick 1975).Another approach is to compare measurements ofidentified specimens for evidence of elements thatfall into the male or female range, though there rarelyare sufficient numbers of measurements to reliablyindicate sex.

Modifications can indicate butchering methods aswell as site formation processes. Modifications areclassified as cut, hacked, sawn, calcined, burned,carnivore-gnawed, rodent-gnawed, worked, metal-stained, and pathological. While the NISP for speci-mens identified as Vertebrata is not included in thespecies lists, modified Vertebrata specimens are in-cluded in the modification tables. Cuts are smallincisions across the surface of specimens. Thesemarks were probably made by knives as meat wasremoved before or after the meat was cooked. Cutsmay also be left on specimens if attempts are madeto disarticulate the carcass at joints. Some marksthat appear to be made by human tools may actu-ally be abrasions inflicted after the specimens werediscarded, but distinguishing this source of smallcuts requires access to higher powered magnifica-tion than is currently available (Shipman and Rose1983). Hack marks are evidence that some largerinstrument, such as a cleaver, was used. Presum-ably, a cleaver, hatchet, or ax would have been em-ployed as the carcass was being dismembered, ratherthat after the meat was cooked. Saw marks are leftbehind by cutting tools that use repetitive motionto cut though the bone. It is generally only possibleto distinguish saw marks from cuts when the bone issevered through cortical tissue. When the bone min-eral is dense enough it is possible to see the parallel


38


striations that characterize saw marks. Sawing is atechnique used primarily in the initial butchering oflarge taxa in commercial contexts.

Calcined bones are the result of two possible pro-cesses. Burning at extreme temperatures can causecalcification and is usually indicated by blue-graydiscoloration. However, calcification can also oc-cur by leaching of calcite from shell deposits. Bothtypes of calcification may have occurred in this as-semblage, but no attempt was made to distinguishbetween them. Burned specimens may result fromexposure to fire when a cut of meat is roasted. Burnsmay also occur if specimens are burned intention-ally or unintentionally after discard.

Gnawing by rodents and carnivores indicate thatspecimens were not immediately buried after dis-posal. While burial would not insure an absence ofgnawing, exposure of specimens for any length oftime might result in gnawing. Gnawing by carni-vores and rodents would result in loss of an unknownquantity of discarded material. Kent (1981) dem-onstrates that some bone gnawed by carnivores suchas dogs may not necessarily leave any visible sign ofsuch gnawing and yet the specimens would quiteprobably be removed from their original context.Carnivores include such animals as dogs and rac-coons. Dogs and other carnivores gnaw on bone toextract bone marrow and other soft tissues. Ro-dents, including mice, rats and squirrels, gnaw onbone in order to file and sharpen their incisors thatwould otherwise continue to lengthen throughoutthe animal’s lifetime.

Worked specimens, such as grooved and snapped,flaked, or polished, include those which show evi-dence of human modification for reasons probablynot associated with butchery. Metal-staining is evi-denced by discoloration (usually green) of the bonesurface that results from contact with oxidizingmetal in situ. Pathologies were also noted in thecollection. Pathologies occur when bone has beenexposed to trauma, either biological or physical.Biological trauma includes disease or infection.Physical trauma includes broken bones. When thesebroken bones heal, a swollen area of additional bone,a traumatic osteoma, is present on the bone (Bakerand Brothwell 1980; Greig 1931). Although thereare many forms of identifiable pathologies, no at-tempt was made to identify them. Any pathologyencountered was simply recorded.

Specimen count, MNI, biomass, and other derivedmeasures are subject to several common biases(Casteel 1978; Grayson 1979, 1981; Wing and Brown1979). In general, samples of at least 200 individu-als or 1,400 specimens are needed for reliable in-terpretations. Smaller samples frequently will gen-erate a short species list with undue emphasis onone species in relation to others. It is not possibleto determine the nature or the extent of the bias, orcorrect for it, until the sample is made larger throughadditional work.

Soil Analysis

Southern Research submitted 54 soil samples foranalysis to the Paleo Research Institute, Golden,Colorado, for pollen, parasite, starch, andmacrofloral analyses. These samples came from 10features within three specific city lots. Soil samplessent from Lot 200 on Block 10 included a midden(F. 193), possible Creek-Euro trash pit (F. 228),greenhouse (F. 230), possible Creek-Euro pit (F.233), privy (F. 252), and possible Creek-Euro roast-ing pit (F. 254). Archaeologists sent soil samplesfrom a privy and drain (F. 229) on lot 191, Block 15.The remaining soil samples analyzed were from Lot194, Block 15. Samples came from three test unitsplaced over the midden of a slave/servant quarters(Test Units 8, 9, and 13); a privy (F. 303); and a trashpit (F. 377). The methodology of soil analyses (de-scribed below) and the feature discussions concern-ing soil analyses are taken directly from Cummingsand Puseman’s report (Cummings and Puseman etal.. 2003).

Pollen

A chemical extraction technique based on flotationis the standard preparation technique used in thePaleo Research Institute laboratory for the removalof the pollen from the large volume of sand, silt, andclay with which they are mixed. This particular pro-cess was developed for extraction of pollen fromsoils where preservation has been less than idealand pollen density is low.

Hydrochloric acid (10%) was used to remove cal-cium carbonates present in the soil, after which thesamples were screened through 150 micron mesh.The samples were rinsed until neutral by addingwater, letting the samples stand for 2 hours, then


39


pouring off the supernatant. A small quantity of so-dium hexametaphosphate was added to each sampleonce it reached neutrality, then the beaker was againfilled with water and allowed to stand for 2 hours.The samples were again rinsed until neutral, fillingthe beakers only with water. This step was added toremove clay prior to heavy liquid separation. Atthis time the samples are dried then gently pulver-ized. Sodium polytungstate (density 2.1) was usedfor the flotation process. The samples were mixedwith sodium polytungstate and centrifuged at 2000rpm for 5 minutes to separate organic from inor-ganic remains. The supernatant containing pollenand organic remains is decanted. Sodiumpolytungstate is again added to the inorganic frac-tion to repeat the separation process. The superna-tant is decanted into the same tube as the superna-tant from the first separation. This supernatant isthen centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 5 minutes to allowany silica remaining to be separated from the or-ganics. Following this, the supernatant is decantedinto a 50 ml conical tube and diluted with distilledwater. These samples are centrifuged at 3000 rpmto concentrate the organic fraction in the bottom ofthe tube. After rinsing the pollen-rich organic frac-tion obtained by this separation, all samples receiveda short (10-15 minute) treatment in hot hydrofluo-ric acid to remove any remaining inorganic par-ticles. The samples were then acetolated for 3 min-utes to remove any extraneous organic matter.

A light microscope was used to count the pollen to atotal of 101 to 201 pollen grains at a magnificationof 600x. Pollen preservation in these samples var-ied from good to poor. Comparative reference ma-terial collected at the Intermountain Herbarium atUtah State University and the University of Colo-rado Herbarium was used to identify the pollen tothe family, genus, and species level, where possible.

Pollen aggregates were recorded during identifica-tion of the pollen. Aggregates are clumps of a singletype of pollen, and may be interpreted to representpollen dispersal over short distances, or the intro-duction of portions of the plant represented into anarchaeological setting. Aggre-gates were includedin the pollen counts as single grains, as is custom-ary. The presence of aggregates is noted by an “A”next to the pollen frequency on the pollen diagram.A plus (+) on the pollen diagram indicates that thepollen type was observed outside the regular count

while scanning the remainder of the microscopeslide. Pollen diagrams are produced using Tilia,which was developed by Dr. Eric Grimm of the Illi-nois State Museum. Pollen concentrations are cal-culated in Tilia using the quantity of sample pro-cessed (cc), the quantity of exotics (spores) addedto the sample, the quantity of exotics counted, andthe total pollen counted.

Indeterminate pollen includes pollen grains that arefolded, mutilated, and otherwise distorted beyondrecognition. These grains are included in the totalpollen count, as they are part of the pollen record.

Phytoliths

Extraction of phytoliths from these sediments alsowas based on heavy liquid floatation. Sodium hy-pochlorite (bleach) was first used to destroy the or-ganic fraction from 50 ml of sediment. Once thisreaction was complete, sodium hexametaphosphatewas added to the mixture to suspend the clays. Thesample was rinsed thoroughly with distilled waterto remove the clays, allowing the samples to settleby gravity. Once most of the clays were removed,the silt and sand size fraction was dried. The driedsilts and sands were then mixed with sodiumpolytungstate (density 2.3) and centrifuged to sepa-rate the phytoliths, which will float, from the othersilica, which will not. Phytoliths, in the broadersense, may include opal phytoliths and calcium ox-alate crystals. Calcium oxalate crystals are formedby Opuntia (prickly pear cactus) and other plantsincluding Yucca, and are separated, rather than de-stroyed, using this extraction technique, if theseforms have survived in the sediments. Any remain-ing clay is floated with the phytoliths, and is furtherremoved by mixing with sodiumhexametaphosphate and distilled water. Thesamples are then rinsed with distilled water, thenalcohols to remove the water. After several alcoholrinses, the samples are mounted in cinnamaldehydefor counting with a light microscope at a magnifica-tion of 500x. Phytolith diagrams are produced us-ing Tilia.

Macrofloral

The macrofloral samples were floated using a modi-fication of the procedures outlined by Matthews(1979). Each sample was added to approximately 3


40


gallons of water, then stirred until a strong vortexformed. The floating material (light fraction) waspoured through a 150 micron mesh sieve. Addi-tional water was added and the process repeateduntil all floating material was removed from thesample (a minimum of 5 times). The material, whichremained in the bottom (heavy fraction), was pouredthrough a 0.5 mm mesh screen. The floated por-tions were allowed to dry.

The light fractions were weighed, then passedthrough a series of graduated screens (US StandardSieves with 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.5 mm and 0.25 mm open-ings) to separate charcoal debris and to initially sortthe remains. The contents of each screen then wereexa-mined. Charcoal pieces larger than 2 mm, 1 mm,or 0.5 mm in diameter were separated from the restof the light fraction and the total charcoal weighed.A representative sample of these charcoal pieceswas broken to expose a fresh cross-section and ex-amined under a binocular microscope at a magnifi-cation of 70x. The weights of each charcoal typewithin the representative sample also were re-corded. The material which remained in the 2 mm,1 mm, 0.5 mm, and 0.25 mm sieves was scannedunder a binocular stereo microscope at a magnifi-cation of 10x, with some identifications requiringmagnifications of up to 70x. The material whichpassed through the 0.25 mm screen was not exam-ined. The heavy fractions were scanned at a magni-fication of 2x for the presence of botanic remains.Remains from the light and heavy fractions wererecorded as charred and/or uncharred, whole and/or fragments. The term “seed” is used to representseeds, achenes, caryopses, and other disseminules.Macrofloral remains are identified using manuals(Martin and Barkley 1961; Musil 1963; Schopmeyer1974) and by comparison with modern and archaeo-logical references.

Schulze Digestion

A charred tissue fragment recovered from one ofthe macrofloral samples was pulverized in a centri-fuge tube using a teflon rod. Schulze solution wasused to dissolve the charred material and releasetrapped starches and/or phytoliths that would aidin identification of the tissue. Schulze solution is amixture of strong nitric acid (75%) and potassium(or sodium) chlorate. Oxidation is rapid and anypollen remaining in these charred fragments is ex-

pected to be oxidized by this solution. Samples wererinsed with dilute potassium hydroxide (KOH) toremove humates, then distilled water followingcompletion of the digestion with Schulze solution.Microscope slides were made with glycerine for ex-amination with a binocular microscope at magnifi-cations ranging from 400x to 600x.

REPORT METHODOLOGY

An effort has been made to streamline this reportinto a product that is as user-friendly as possible,while containing the amounts and types of data nec-essary to contribute to current and future research.The amount of data in terms of artifacts and featuresmade this particularly challenging. The author hastaken the following steps in an effort to meet thischallenge. All artifact data is present in Appendix5. Feature and excavation unit discussions in thebody of the report, therefore, provide artifact sum-maries with only the details necessary in facilitatingthe discussion at hand. For example, the appendixmight list a feature with 15 different types of nails,based on method of manufacture, length, and stateof preservation. This contrasts with the discussionfound in the text about that feature, which mighttotal all nails, or mention the numbers of cut andwire nails, depending on the topic of study. Like-wise, the text contains MCDs and summaries of ce-ramic counts, while the actual specific ceramic typescan be found in the Appendix.

Feature discussions may mention general soil typesas it relates to the topic at hand. Specific Munsellchart colors and soil texture descriptions are inten-tionally left out of the text in order to facilitate theflow of the report. These are described, however, inone or more of the following places: profile draw-ings, plan drawings, or feature tables. The reportcontains detailed descriptions of selected featureswith many having associated figures consisting ofplans, profiles, or photographs. Feature tables arelocated in the appendices. There were 2,716 fea-tures recorded during the data recovery phase ofthe project. The author selected features to discussin the report based on a variety of considerationsincluding feature chronology, geographic location,state of preservation, relationship to other features,relationship to specific assemblage types, and abil-ity to answer research questions. Appendix 3 alsocontains transit plan maps of each data recovery lot


41


showing all stains that were documented. (Many ofthe modern stains and intrusions were excluded fromthe data recovery maps within the body of the re-port to facilitate comprehension.)

This report is divided into 11 chapters based on thefollowing organization. Chapter 1 provides theproject introduction and background, including theresearch design and research questions. Chapter 2examines the methodology used for the research,fieldwork, laboratory analysis, and reporting. Spe-cific documentary research concerning the historyof Columbus is explored in Chapter 3. The reportfocuses on the history of the project area in Chapter4. Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 examine the history,excavation results, and interpretation of specificdata recovery lots, including City Lots 200, 204, 7,

191, and 194, respectively. Chapter 10 summarizesthe overall results of the project and interprets re-search question themes based on the archaeologi-cal data. A synopsis of the project and recommen-dations can be found in Chapter 11.

There are seven appendices. Appendix 1 is the Chainof Title for Block 10. Appendix 2 is a summary of thesurvey trenches. Appendix 3 contains transit mapsof data recovery lots showing all features, includingrecent and natural distrubances. Appendix 4 sum-marizes features on data recovery lots on Blocks 10and 15. Appendices 5, 6, and 7 are on CD. Appendix5 is the artifact inventory for the project. Appendix6 is the complete faunal report and Appendix 7 isthe complete soil analysis report.


42


43


Chapter 3. Columbus History

PRE-COLUMBUS

The area that would become Columbus containedsome sparse European settlement even prior to thelayout of the town in 1828. John Martin reportedstructures located along the old Federal Road nearthe ferry crossing (south of the study area) consist-ing of “...some small log houses, some board housesor tents, and some Indian houses” (Martin 1874:3).Commercial establishments included a hotel and“three or four stores, whose principal trade was withthe Indians” (Martin 1874:3). The anticipation ofthe establishment of Columbus may have spurredsettlers to come illegally to the Chattahoochee RiverValley prior to the city’s official establishment. Therelatively large number of stores in such a smallarea indicates that the Euro-Native American tradewas strong. The main players in this area includedthe Creek Indians and traders, the latter of whichwere often of mixed Scottish or other European an-cestry and Native American ethnicity (Figure 14).Some of the domiciles reported by Martin may havehoused the owners of these businesses. The opera-tion of the hotel and stores suggests that these busi-nesses had been catering for a while to travelersalong the old Federal Road, particularly traders andNative Americans.

Adventurous travelers, many of whom were Brit-ish, wrote accounts of their journeys through Co-lumbus and the Chattahoochee River Valley duringthe early decades of the nineteenth century. Theseaccounts provide graphic images of the natural andcultural environment during this period. A jour-ney of 35 or 40 miles often took nine hours or moreof dusty, bumpy, stagecoach travel frequently re-quiring passengers to walk, or wade, in the roadduring times when riding in the coach would causeit to sink irretrievably into the mud. Stagecoachestraveled through Columbus and into Alabama’s

Creek territory on a road that turned at times into avine-covered path, a series of cavernous ruts, a cor-duroy log road, a creaky wooden bridge, a floodedriver, or an endless swamp. Such grueling travelwas usually rewarded at day’s end (which could bein the evening, at mid-night, or in the wee hours ofthe morning) with a stay at a filthy, leaky, noisy,bug-infested tavern or inn where the food was oftenreprehensible (Benton 1998).

The area in and around what would become Colum-bus already served as a river crossing and was likelya popular spot among travelers, traders, and Na-tive Americans. S.M. Ingersoll had the rights to runa ferry in 1827, and possibly earlier (Ingersoll1828). He rented property adjacent to theChattahoochee River and was the proprietor on theAlabama Territory side. Ingersoll was also grantedthe right to relocate the ferry slightly further up-stream, north of the cross streets of Columbus, oncethe town was surveyed and established. The ferryappears to have been a lucrative business becauseIngersoll was willing to pay another $500 permitfee if necessary.

CREEK AND EURO-AMERICAN INTERACTION

By the time Columbus was firmly established, theculture of the Native American population in thearea was already in serious decline. In spite of this,settlers remained nervous about the threat of at-tack by Creek Indians. Indian attacks on isolatedhomesteads along Georgia’s western frontier and ontowns such as Irwinton, south of Columbus, servedto increase these fears. In an effort to allay whitefears, the Columbus Enquirer newspaper printed anarticle in its June 1828 issue outlining a conversa-tion newspaper staff had with Benjamin Marshall, aEuro-Creek whose land reserve included propertyacross the Chattahoochee River from Columbus. The


44


article reported that, “The public were alarmed dur-ing the sitting of this Council, by a persons in theemployment of Col. Brearly of their eminent dan-ger-that the Chiefs and Warriors to the number of7000 were assembled in secret conclave-that a for-mal declaration of war had already been announced-that the War Whoop had been sounded, and that thetomahawk and scalping nife were ready to do theiroffice on the unoffending and unprotected citizensof Columbus” (Columbus Enquirer Vol.1, No.IV,1828:3). The writer contradicted this story by say-ing that he believed it was unfounded and that “hewas informed by some of the Chiefs that the councilwas to be held, as is common with them, to transactlocal business of the nation.” The article went on tosay that “...Benjamin Marshall, an intelligent andrespectable Coweta Indian...expressed his surpriseand astonishment at the article contained in theEnquirer, and pronounced it wholly destitute of foun-dation.” (Columbus Enquirer Vol.1, No.IV, 1828: 3).The writer went on to say that he thought there wasno opposition to Indian emigration and that severalwomen have enrolled their names as emigrants, in-cluding the wife of a prinicpal Chief.

In an effort to decrease the Indian response to theintrusion by white settlers, the General Assembly ofGeorgia passed numerous regulations aimed at re-ducing the rights of Native Americans. In 1828 thelegislature passed, “An Act to Protect the FrontierSettlements of this State from the Intrusion of the

Indians of the Creek Nation” (Georgia General As-sembly 1829:87). This act made it illegal for “...anyIndian or descendant of an Indian, belonging to theCreek nation of Indians, to cross the riverChattahoochee, and enter upon the territory of saidstate, under any pretext whatever, except they haveand can shew [sic] a written permit from the UnitedState’s Agent of said nation, specifying their particu-lar business; which permit shall not exceed ten daysduration” (Georgia General Assembly 1829:1887).Those caught without a permit could be jailed for upto 10 days. The same act further reduced Creekrights by declaring, “that no Indian, or descendantof Indian, residing within the Creek or Cherokee na-tions of Indians, shall be deemed a competent wit-ness, or a party to any suit, in any court created bythe constitution, or laws of this state, to which awhite man may be a party” (Georgia General Assem-bly 1829:89). This latter section was altered the fol-lowing year when legislators took the above state-ment, “...to which a white man may be a party” andadded, “except such white person resides within thesaid nation” (Georgia General Assembly 1830:101).This change suggests two things. First, that thosewhites living within the boundaries of the Indiannations were given the same second-class status asthe Indians. Secondly, it alludes that enough whiteswere living within the Indian territories to result inthe creation and passage of legislative acts regulat-ing their activities.

Figure 14. Creek Indian Leaders in the Columbus Area (Swanton 1979).


45


Acts of the General Assembly also served to encour-age the emigration of Native Americans and the ced-ing of their lands to Georgia. The 1829 legislaturepassed sections of an act aimed at Cherokee Indiansin northern Georgia; however, it carried implica-tions for Native Americans throughout the state. TheGeneral Assembly made it illegal for anyone to in-terfere with the emigration of any Cherokee Indiansor the selling and ceding of Cherokee lands. Thestate’s ambition to gain all the Indian territory wasso great that it enacted the penalty of death by hang-ing to anyone who interfered with land treaty ces-sion meetings by killing Cherokees involved in suchtreaties (Georgia General Assembly 1830:100). Kill-ing Indians for any other reason invoked no suchpenalties. Ironically, the General Assembly passedan act only three years later paying for the GeorgiaGuard, which was organized “...for the protection ofthe Indians within the limits of this state, for andduring the year 1833...” (Georgia General Assembly1834:25). The actual protection afforded the Indi-ans by this act is somewhat dubious, at best.

Enough Native Americans successfully attemptedto acculturate to Euro-American society that thestate assembly was required to pass legislation deal-ing with the results of such activities. Senators andRepresentatives enacted a law involving lotterylands containing Indian improvements. Such lots,if awarded fraudulently to white settlers, were re-turned to the Governor and reissued “after the In-dian right of occupancy shall have been extin-guished” (Georgia General Assembly 1834:118). There-issue consisted of half of the lot being awarded tothe “informer” of the fraud and half becoming theproperty of the state.

The interaction with Euro-Americans caused NativeAmericans abundant cultural, social, economic, andhealth problems, which worsened with the height-ened settlement of the new urban area of Columbus.Travelers frequently referred to seeing inebriatedIndians in Columbus, and Indians living on the out-skirts of town and in the Alabama territory weredescribed as being in extremely destitute condition.Traveler Tyrone Power reported in 1834, “Numer-ous parties of Indians,—Creeks and Choctaws,—roamed about from place to place, mostly drunk, orseeking to become so as quickly as possible: witheach party of the natives I observed a negro-man,the slave of some one present, but commonly well

dressed in the European manner, having an air ofsuperior intelligence to his masters, and evidentlyexercising over them the power and influence de-rived from superior knowledge; the negroes, in fact,appeared the masters, and the red-men the slaves”(Benton 1998:88).

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CITY OF COLUMBUS

The establishment of Columbus was only possibledue to the historical events preceding it and associ-ated with land cessions by the Indians and ultimatelyremoval. The first several decades of the nineteenthcentury saw numerous skirmishes, raids, land ces-sions and treaties in this area. The western frontierof Georgia was still a very risky place to live for bothNative Americans and non-native settlers due to thevolatile situation. The series of slaughters and at-tacks during the Creek War by both the US and theCreeks, particularly that Creek faction known as theRed Sticks, ended in Creek defeat. This defeat re-sulted in the Creeks loosing one third of its propertyto the United States. This included most of southernGeorgia.

Late in the eighteenth century, during the Age ofEnlightenment and a period of strong protestantmovements, statesmen such as George Washington,Thomas Jefferson and others, as well as several reli-gious and northern philanthropic groups, began topromote the Plan Of Civilization. The idea was toassimulate the Indians into western/American cul-ture. By the 1820s a large faction of Creek Indianshad successfully adopted American culture throughtheir own efforts and the help of Creek Indian agentssent to demonstrate Euro-American cultural prac-tices involving plow farming, farmstead arrange-ment, architectural styles, social dress and customs,and the adoption of Christianity. Most southernerssaw this acculturation as impeding their acquisitionof Indian lands. Westward expansion was the eco-nomic force driving not only the south but all of theU.S. Some say that western expansion was cloakedin the civilization plan to soften the Indian’s resolveon keeping their lands east of the Mississippi River(Ethridge 2003:15). In 1823 the incoming Gover-nor of Georgia, George Troup, represented a largefaction of Georgia citizens intent on ridding the In-dian lands that bordered western Georgia of Indians(Figure 15 depicts the Lower Creeks lands in 1823).In 1825 Troup convinced his first


46


cousin William McIntosh, a Scots-Creek leader of oneof many Creek factions, to sign the Treaty of IndianSprings on February 12, 1825. This treaty ceded allof the remaining Lower Creek lands west of theChattahoochee River to Georgia. McIntosh did notrepresent all the Creeks and was soon murdered forhis betrayal to the Creeks.

Congress ratified the Treaty of Indian Springs andTroup was re-elected as Governor in 1825. He be-gan to forcibly remove Creeks from their propertyand redistribute the ceded land through the GeorgiaLand Lottery Act signed by the Georgia General As-sembly in June of 1825. This act divided the cededland into five sections. Section 2 was the one thatincluded the land to become the City of Columbus.This section was defined as, “...All that part of saidterritory which lies north of the line aforeseaid, andsouth of the line commencing on Flint River, oppo-site where the original line dividing the counties ofMonroe and Houseton, and running due west to theChattahoochee River...” (Georgia General Assembly

1825). Meanwhile, President John Quincy Adamsargued that the treaty was invalid and he negoti-ated a new treaty in 1826 known as the Treaty ofWashington, in which a small portion of land lyingalong the border of Georgia and the Alabama terri-tory would remain in Creek hands. Troup ignoredthe new treaty and Adams’ threats. Adams refusedto take a hard stand on the issue and allowed Troupto continue his blatant removal of Creeks duringthe next several years. Troup was unable to keepCreeks from living in the Alabama territory, andmany of them moved there across theChattahoochee River from Georgia.

In 1827 the Georgia General Assembly passed anact to “lay out a trading town and to dispose of allthe lands reserved for the use of the state near theCoweta Falls on the Chattahoochee River...” (Geor-gia General Assembly 1827:183). The location wasstrategic to using the river in multiple ways, includ-ing as a power source for mills and as a means oftransporting goods via steamboat. The elevation ofthe town was 60 feet above the river during ordi-nary flow (Smith 1855:444). Steamboats having afive-foot draft or less could navigate theChattahoochee River except during droughts. Itwas at this time that the General Assembly namedthe town “Columbus”. The legislature decided thisarea should consist of a rectangle measuring 1,200acres and divided into 500 building lots of one-halfacre each. The town was to include “...an appropri-ate number of streets, alleys, and a suitable numberof reserved squares for public buildings...” (Geor-gia General Assembly 1827:184). The five newlyappointed commissioners were authorized to hirea surveyor and axe-men to lay out the town.

Edward L. Thomas surveyed the woods and clear-ings on the east bank of the Chattahoochee begin-ning in January of 1828, laying out the town lotsand commons totaling 1,200 acres that would be-come the City of Columbus (Clerk of Council1828:13). The plan consisted of eight uniform lotsper block, except on certain blocks where the curvesof the Chattahoochee River prevented the estab-lishment of all eight lots. Each square lot measured147’ along each of its sides. Thomas’ proposed planalso included squares for churches and a court-house. Figure 16 reveals this plan in and around aportion of the project area. The commissioners paidThomas five dollars a day for his skills, and a maxi-mum of two dollars a day to the chain carriers and

Figure 15. Columbus Would Be Established in WhatWas the Heart of Lower Creek Country in 1823,

Between the Former Creek Towns of Coweta andCusseta (Finley 1824).


47


Figure 16. Part of Original Columbus Town Plan, Note the Blank Blocks on Washington StreetReserved for a Courthouse (Phelan and Stratton 1927).


48


axe-men who cleared the forest that was to becomeColumbus (Georgia General Assembly 1827:186).Thomas completed the survey, but not before hisoldest son who had been a chain bearer for theproject, caught pneumonia and died. Thomas bur-ied his son in the newly laid out town cemetery (Goff1962:113). In July of 1828 the Board of Commis-sioners for the town released the land for sale by thefollowing proclamation: “Resolved that the build-ing, gardening and planting lots in the town of Co-lumbus and the reserve at the Coweta falls shall beexposed to public sale from the window in the housefurnished by W.D. Lucas for the use of the commis-sions” (Clerk of Council 1828:17, 58).

By the winter of 1828, the legislature incorporatedColumbus. This incorporation provided for the es-tablishment of city officials, namely an Intendant(rather than a mayor) and six Commissioners. Citi-zens elected these officials every January for a one-year term (Georgia General Assembly 1829:153).The election of officials allowed Columbus residentsto begin the detailed process of creating a city withregulations and development.

In 1828 a traveler named Captain Basil Hall made ajourney that happened to take him through the newlyestablished town of Columbus. Fortuitously, he kepta diary of his observations there. Hall passed

through the surveyor’s transects cut among the oaksand came upon:

...Huts made partly of planks, partly of bark, and atlast reached the principal cluster of houses, veryfew of which were above two or three week old.These buildings were of all sizes, from a six-feet boxor cube, to a house with half-a-dozen windows infront. There were three hotels, the sign belonging toone of which, I could observe was nailed to a treestill growing untouched in the middle of the street.Another had glazed windows, but the panes of glasswere fixed in their places merely for the time, by alittle piece of putty at each corner. Everything indi-cated hurry.... As none of the city lots were yet sold,of course no one was sure that the spot upon whichhe had pitched his house would eventually becomehis own. ...it being understood that forty days afterthe sale would be allowed ...to remove...propertyfrom the ground on which it stood...In consequenceof this understanding, many of the houses were builton trucks...(Hall 1830:284-5)

Figure 17 shows the new town of Columbus emerg-ing out of the forest (Hall 1830). Hall saw a frenzy ofactivity all about him as future residents scurried tobe in the most advantageous position the minutetown lots were auctioned. Craftsmen and merchantsrushed to seize the opportunity of business pros-pects. The state General Assembly encouraged this

Figure 17. The Very Beginning of Columbus, Georgia Documented by Basil Hall in1828 (Hall 1830, Courtesy of Yale Library).


49


development by offering protection to master car-penters and masons constructing buildings in town.These craftsmen were given the authority to place alien on buildings by retaining possession of the struc-tures they built until they were paid what was owedthem by their clients (Georgia General Assembly1829:125). The only exception to this was that thereby no “agreement securing the amount to be paid”and that the buildings were constructed as con-tracted. Such legal protection undoubtedly encour-aged construction in Columbus. Hall described “Atleast sixty frames of houses...lying in piles on theground, and got up by the carpenters on specula-tion, ready to answer the call of futurepurchasers...Anvils were heard ringing away mer-rily at every corner; while saws, axes, and hammerswere seen flashing amongst the woods allround...Grocery stores and bakeries were scatteredabout in great plenty-and over several doors waswritten, ‘Attorney at Law’” (Hall 1830:285). Hallwas told that there were over nine hundred peoplein Columbus then and there were still four moremonths until the city lots would be auctioned. Manyof these resorted to camping in the forest or livinginside their wagons.

This speculation soon gave way to a fairly prosper-ous Columbus by the mid-1830s. Irish travelerTyrone Power reported that Columbus was a“...thriving frontier town...” and “...the stores werewell supplied, the warehouses filled with cotton, andin all quarters were groups of the neighbouring [sic]planters busied in looking after the sale of their pro-duce, and making such purchases as their familiesrequired” (Benton 1998:88). Power continued withthis description, “Along the river-front of the town,a situation wildly beautiful, I observed several dwell-ings of mansion-like proportions, and others of asimilar character in progress” (Benton 1998:88).British traveler Harriet Martineau independentlyconfirmed the appearance of Columbus in 1835. Shesaid, “It bears the appearance of being a thriving,spacious, handsome village, well worth stopping tosee....Some pretty bits of greensward are left, hereand there, with a church, or a detached house uponeach—village-like...The stores looked crediblystocked; and a great many gentlemanly men were tobe seen in the streets” (Benton 1998:124). Martineauestimated that the town contained a population ofover 2,000 at that time, and included “...some goodhouses..” and five hotels (Benton 1998:124).

By March of 1837 some city lots needed re-survey-ing. It is likely that the corner posts and surveymarks established by Edward Thomas four yearsearlier were eradicated with the passage of time, thetumultuous frenzy occurring during the city’s ini-tial lot auction, and the common practice of salvag-ing wood and other materials from vacant areas. Thecity council appointed a committee to determinewhich vacant lots needed re-surveying.

In spite of the apparent early success of Columbus,residents were still very much aware that they wereliving on the frontier. The first half of the 1830sfound many of them in a state of unease. News aboutunrest among the Creek Indians made them addi-tionally anxious of their safety and that of their pos-sessions.

SECOND SEMINOLE WAR

By the 1830s hostilities by some segments of theCreek and Seminoles against encroaching white set-tlers were increasing. An 1836 account of an Indianattack in the Creek nation in neighboring Alabamaterritory sent a chill of fear among Columbus resi-dents. The account is as follows:

“A little before ten o’clock we proceeded down theroad by Gen’l Woodwards, intending to go in the di-rection of Collins. As we passed Woodward’s housea man motioned to us to come in that direction whoproved to be Alfred Williams, a stage driver, whowas so exausted that he could not reach the house.It appears from his relation thus on Monday about 1o’clock the ...Co. Stages were coming on from Co-lumbus when at the house just behond Thorn’s theydiscovered a party of Indians firing the houses – theycame on to Thorns and were attacked by Indiansfrom both sides of the road at the same time twoballs were at the first fire shot through the coach.The drivers & passengers aft the stage immediately– some Indians bured to get the horses, & some at-tempted to escape in any manner possibly. Mr. Wil-liams says he jumped from the stage & run off intothe reed brake just by Thorn in which he concealedhimself - & has been from Monday 1 o’clock until today just before Eleven getting to Woodwards. Hesays a short time after he left the state he heard avoice cry out ‘O Lord, O Lord’ and immediatelysucceding he heard the war hoofs of the Indians –repeated several times – He supposed there were


50


between 25 or 30 Indians all painted. He has notseen any of the company that was with him nor canhe tell any thing about them. He fully believes someif not all of them have been murdered and no doubtsuch has been the case or they wouild have got in bythis time. Mr. Williams also informs us that anotherstage which had preceded them with which he wascoming had been taken before & burnt before theygot to this place so that now there are three stagescaptured by the Indians...” (USGENweb 2001c).

In 1835 Columbus residents convened at the court-house for a meeting to discuss ways to prevent fu-ture Indian attacks. The meeting was, “In conse-quence of the present hostile attitude of the CreekIndians of Alabama, their numerous aggressionsupon the property of citizens of Georgia, and theirinhuman massacre of several unoffending individu-als...” (USGENweb2001b). Ultimately, the residentsformed militia companies to patrol the Columbusarea and to “...protect from threatened violation theperson and property of the inhabitants of Columbusand the territory in Georgia, adjacent to the Creektribe of Indians” (USGENweb2001b). The commit-tee convened at the courthouse was also instructedto correspond with the governors of Georgia andAlabama in order to request assistance.

Edie Dennis was an enslaved woman living in Co-lumbus in the 1830s in the household of Judge HinesHolt. In a Works Progress Administration interviewshe recalled the fear of Indian attacks prevalent inearly Columbus. The interviewer detailed Edie’saccount as follows “No event in those early yearsimpressed itself more vividly upon Aunt Edie’s mindthan the Indian War, in the thirties. She was at thehome of one of the Indians when she first heard ofthe uprising against the whites, and she frankly saysthat she was frightened almost to death when shelistened to the cold-blooded plots to exterminatethe white people. Not much attention was paid toher on account of her being a Negro” (Library ofCongress 2004). Not only did Edie’s account showhow fearful residents were of an attack, but it alsosuggests details about Indian-black relationships.Edie was in the house of an Indian. She was not takenthere by her owner or other white person, since thefact that the conversation about exterminatingwhites would not have occurred if whites werepresent, rather than only blacks and other Indians.

If she was not taken there on some errand by herowner, then the account suggests that slaves andIndians were able to interact without oversight bywhites. It is also interesting to note that Edie saysthe Indians generally ignored her, as if her low sta-tus as a slave was recognized by the Indians.

Columbus depended on local militia consisting oftowns men to defend Columbus should the needarise. The city’s defences were supplied with armsand ammunition during the Creek War by severalindividuals, including a T.R. Gold. In the fall of 1837suppliers such as Gold petitioned the city council tobe reimbursed for the supplies. The councilpromptly appointed a committee to confer with thepetitioners at “the next Legislature or Congress”(Clerk of Council 1837- 1841:43).

INDIAN REMOVAL FROM ALABAMA

The Creek Indians gave up all of their land east ofthe Mississippi River through the Treaty of Cussetain 1832. The US government designed the treaty toremove the threat of Indian attack on Georgia’s fron-tier and to open up lands in the Alabama territoryfor non-native settlement. The treaty resulted inthe forced removal of Creeks living in eastern Ala-bama, including those directly across theChattahoochee River from Columbus. One such largeland holding near Columbus was the Marshall Re-serve (Broadnax and Neahley 1834). (Figure 18). Thereserve was located in the Alabama territory on thewest bank of the Chattahoochee River across fromthe town of Columbus (LaTourrette 1833) (Figure19). Benjamin Marshall was of mixed Creek and Eu-ropean ethnicity. The treaty specifically mentionsMarshall’s reserve in Article VI. This article states,“Twenty-nine sections in addition to the foregoingmay be located, and patents for the same shall thenissue to those persons, being Creeks, to whom thesame may be assigned by the Creek tribe. But when-ever the grantees of thee tracts possess improve-ments, such tracts shall be so located as to includethe improvements, and as near as may be in the cen-tre. And there shall also be granted by patent toBenjamin Marshall, one section of land, to includehis improvements on the Chattahoochee River, tobe bounded for one mile in a direct line along thesaid river, and to run back for quantity” (Kappler1904:342).


51


Figure 18. Redrawing of a Plat of Marshall’s Reserve (Broadmax and Neahley 1834).

Figure 19. Marshall’s Reserve Was Directly Across theRiver from Columbus (LaTourrette 1833).


52


Marshall sold the reserve in 1832 to four ownerswho held it until 1836. He was not the only Creek orpart-Creek to sell property, however, as the Treatyof Cusseta forced the Creeks to relinquish their Ala-bama lands. The treaty gave Creeks five years to selltheir holdings and leave. By 1837 many of the Creekreserves had been auctioned to the public. In 1846traveler and geologist Charles Lyell arrived in Co-lumbus only one week after, “the last detachment ofIndians, a party of no less than 500, quitted Colum-bus ...for Arkansas” (Benton 1998:145). By 1848the U.S. War Department was making a concertedeffort to auction the remaining Creek reserves in thearea (U.S. House of Representatives 1848).

SUBSISTENCE LEVEL URBAN RESIDENTS

Euro-Americans

Columbus appears to have had no organized chari-table program for the indigent during the its earlyyears. While the poor could go to the pest house ifthey were ill, there was little in the way of financialsupport or job opportunities for the indigent.Records indicate that paupers had to rely solely ontheir luck and the kindness of strangers. The chari-table givers would often petition the Board of Com-missioners for reimbursements for the costs of car-ing for the destitute. On December 23, 1836 severalpetitions came before the board. Henry Matthewspetitioned and received $3.75 for clothes he gaveto a pauper. “Kitty, a colored woman” was reim-bursed $25.50 for board of a sick pauper. JohnWhitesides garnered $10.00 for a pauper coffin(Clerk of Council 1832-1837:242-3).

While poverty was always present in Columbus andother towns, it may have been most acute duringthe Civil War and post-war years. One woman livinga few miles outside Columbus illustrates the trials oftrying to make a living during the Civil War. Newly-wed Martha Wells recalled being home with her par-ents from 1861-1865. Her parents were unable tosupport themselves while their sons were away atwar serving in the army. Martha remembers work-ing for two years to help support her family by sew-ing clothing for Confederate soldiers. She said, “Iwalked from my home to Columbus and there Iwould get shirts from the tailors shop, read cut andtake them home with me to do the sewing. 10 suitswas the limit and I would take them all home with

me at one trip. And ten days was the limit as to thetime I was allowed to keep the suits at my homewhether finished or unfinished. $45.00 was whatthey paid me for the 10 suits and it was just $45.00to pay for one ‘block of thread’”...(USGenweb 2001a).

Economic hardships during and after Reconstruc-tion caused political impotence among many resi-dents of Columbus. In 1877 the city passed an ordi-nance aimed at disenfranchising the economic lowerclass within the city (Jensen 1991:172). This ordi-nance required all non-property owners registeringto vote for a member of the city council or the mayorto pay a tax of two dollars. Within the State of Geor-gia, this ordinance was unique to the City of Colum-bus, and targeted freed African-Americans, millworkers, and other property-less classes.

Residents living at a subsistence level had to workvery hard to climb out of poverty during Recon-struction. James William Howard was an excellentexample of such determination. James was a whiteman who was born in Tennessee to parents fromNorth Carolina (USBC Population 1880:26). Jamesreturned to Columbus following his ordeal as a Con-federate soldier. Here he faced new challenges asthe city, along with the rest of the south, struggledto regain a viable economy in the wake of physicaldevastation and the release of the slave work-force.

James’ story is particularly interesting because itrevolves around several lots in the project area. Bythe 1870s he owned Lot 197 on Block 15. His diarydocuments his many attempts to earn enoughmoney to support himself and his family. He wassuccessful eventually with the help of relatives andhis own diligence. He relates this success as follows:

I went out looking for work and went up on FirstAvenue and Fifteenth Street to my brother-in-law’s,John Mehaffey, place of business [sic]. He gave mea job making feed boxes in his wagon yard. I madeten dollars before Christmas. My little family and Ihad the most pleasant Christmas we ever had. Wehad enough money left from what we had when weleft Arkansas to buy some cheap furniture to beginhousekeeping on. After buying what we did we hada twenty dollar gold piece left and I gave that to mywife and she kept it to buy a cow with. In ‘85 (1885)bought a cow with that gold piece (Howard n.d.:61).


53


James’ hard work was again rewarded when hisbrother-in-law promoted him to driver of the rag-wagon, where he made one dollar per day (Howardn.d.:61). He worked hard at his new job. “Day afterday I drove up and down the streets looking intoevery cotton wagon I met to see if they had a hide orsome rags. I would go on regular rounds to all thesewing shops and streets and even houses buying allthe rags and hides I could” (Howard n.d.). The ragsthat James collected were made into paper. His firstplace of employment, at the shop of his brother inlaw, John Mehaffey, was located in the project areaon Block 15, Lot 197 (Figure 20). His job as a boxmaker would have been in the wagon yard on Lot197. A Mr. R. Kunsberg, resident of Columbus since1869 and former City Market master, recalled thatthere was a popular wagon yard located on 1st Av-enue between 14th and 15th Streets that also servedas a holding pen for animals brought to market priorto being sold and weighed (Jones n.d.:2).

James Howard, his wife, and his children rented aroom from John Duncan for $2.50 a month after hestarted his rag wagon job. Mehaffey purchased thetwo-thirds of the northern part of that lot around1870 for his paper mill machinery. At about thesame time he bought the middle strip of Lot 197from John Duncan (MCSC Deed Book R:195).Howard’s reference to renting lodging from John

Duncan likely refers to a structure located on thesouthern half of Lot 197. John Duncan purchasedthe southern half of Lot 197 in 1868 (MCSC DeedBook R:542). This is probably the part of the lot thatJames lived on when he rented Duncan’s basement.In 1870 Duncan sold the middle strip of Lot 197 toMehaffey. Duncan continued to reside on the south-ern half of the lot until the year after the Howardfamily moved out of the basement. In 1881 he fi-nally sold the southern half of the property. Thebasement room the Howards rented was undoubt-edly crowded and may have flooded periodically.

By January 1872, the Howard family saved enoughmoney to move into a two-room cottage style housebuilt of rough lumber. The warped planking leftcracks in the house walls and there was no ceiling(Howard n.d.:62) The house was one of several rent-als on 1st Avenue belonging to James’ brother-in-law, John Mehaffey. James industriously became alandlord, too, and immediately rented out one ofhis two rooms to his wife’s brother and his family for$2.00, which paid half of the monthly rent total(Howard n.d.:62).

James Howard enjoyed steady employmentthroughout the late-nineteenth century; however,low wages and rising inflation kept his family nearpoverty. In 1872 he was supporting a family of fouron one dollar per day. By the end of the year histhrifty wife surprised him with fifty dollars she man-aged to frugally save from his earnings. (Howardn.d.:62). The Howard family paid cash for every-thing and avoided buying on credit and going intodebt. In 1873 James’ hard work was rewarded witha raise to $1.50 per day, which allowed his wife tosave a little more. The economic panic of 1873, how-ever, caused spiraling inflation, with bulk meatprices rising to two pennies a pound and fifty poundsof flour costing $2.50 (Howard n.d.:63).The familyate biscuits only on Sundays.

James’ brother-in-law sold the business to a “junk”man who opened his store on the corner of 10th andFront streets. James continued his employment withthe new business and moved his family over the junkstore in December of 1876. By October of 1878James left his job for a partnership in a rag businesswith a Mr. Gammon, located at the corner of 1st Av-enue and 15th streets. James “...moved in a housejust across the avenue and paid $5.00 per month”

Figure 20. Mehaffey’s Company,Located in the Project Area,

Employed Area Workers(Haddock 1873).


54


(Howard n.d.:64). Three of the four corners locatedat the intersection of 1st Avenue and 15th Street arewithin the project area, therefore minimally eitherJames’ rag company or his rental house has to bewithin the project area. It is possible that both arelocated in the project boundaries. Gammon mayhave occupied the former location of Mehaffey’sbusiness on Lot 197.

One year later James’ partner wanted to sell his in-terest and James took the opportunity to buy himout after securing a private loan for $500 along withhis $100 cash. Howard worked hard and paid offthe loan in ten months, at one percent interest(Howard n.d.:64). Howard’s purchase of the busi-ness and subsequent hard work helped him escapepoverty. By 1880, 48 year old James was officiallylisted as the shop proprietor detailed as, “KeepsJunk Shop”. His wife Jane was also 48. They hadfour children at home with them, three of whom were12 year old Frances, 11 year old Alex S., and 3 yearold William. Frances and Alex attended school whileJane stayed home to care for William. James’ sisterin law, Elizabeth Hendricks, who was 24 years old,was also a member of the household. Jane was bornin Georgia (USBC Population 1880:26).

By 1883 James was purchasing city lots as invest-ments, including a lot somewhere on 16 th Street(Howard n.d:65). By the fall of 1885 he bought a lotand his first home on the corner of 19th Street and 1st

Avenue, which would have been located near thenorthern edge of the project area. By 1890 Jamesproclaimed his monetary worth at ten thousand dol-lars (Howard n.d.:65). The Howard family was oneof the nineteenth century success stories despitethe effects of the Civil War and reconstruction.James Howard went from unemployment, to lowwage jobs, to business partner, to business owner,to land speculator and homeowner. His daughter,Fidella Howard Odom graduated from medicalschools in Atlanta and Tulane and became the firstfemale physician in Columbus (Howard n.d.: relatednotes in folder). James Howard’s story of economichardship was typical following the Civil War. Whatmakes his story somewhat unique is its very suc-cessful outcome.

Freedmen and Freedwomen

The freed slave community in Columbus was alwayssmall prior to Reconstruction. The 1837 city cen-

sus taken by the city clerk reported only ten freemales and seven free females “of color” residing intown (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:44).

Freed men and women faced numerous obstacles intheir daily lives. While all city residents had to paytaxes on themselves, their family, and on any slavesthey might own, freed slaves faced an enormous taxburden. The tax on white males between 16 and 60years old was $1.00 for the city and 46 cents for thecorporation. In sharp contrast, every free personof color was taxed $25.00 by the city and $6.00(for those over 20 years old) by the corporation(Clerk of Council 1837-1841:23,27-28). Financialburdens were only part of the freed community’sproblems. In March 1837, as part of the city’s fearof slave revolts, the city council passed an ordinancerequiring freed men and women to reside on thesame city lot as his or her guardian (Clerk of Council1837-1841:26). This ordinance served to limit thefreedman’s movements, to treat him as a child re-quiring a guardian, and to force him to find some-one to act in the role of a benevolent guardian.

By 1865 the plight of the newly freed men and womenin the Columbus area was in a precarious state. Wellover 100 freed persons made a personal request toMajor General Steadman, imploring his aid. Theirletter stated:

“We the undersigned Freedmen, having learned thatthe Federal Soldiers are soon to be withdrawn fromColumbus, feel constrained most respectfully andrequest in the name of the Lord, to implore you notto leave us unprotected by Federal troops. Wefirmly believe that the Almighty has ordained ourfreedom; but at the same time, we wish to informyou that if the Federal Soldiers are withdrawn fromus, we will be left in a most gloomy and helpless con-dition. A number of Freedmen have already beenkilled in this section of the country; and from ex-pressions uttered by prominent men in this com-munity in civil life, we have every reason to fearthat others will share a similar fate. We think ourcommander here might do better than he does. Andwe don know that there are men here who wouldprotect us if they had the power. We therefore mosthumbly and earnestly pray you General, not to leaveus to the tender mercy of our enemies-unprotected”(Freedmen’s Bureau 1865-1869).


55


Enslaved African-Americans and PublicHands

The public hands were generally enslaved African-Americans hired out by their owners to the city. InAugust of 1833, James Holland was paid almost$64.00 for boarding the public hands and feedingthe public mules from August to September (Clerkof Council 1832-1837:53). Apparently large plan-tation owners profited quite well when hiring theirslaves to work as public hands. Edward Deloneywas paid $500.00 for the use of his two slaves, An-drew and Henry for the year 1837. The public handswere not always treated well and faced both work-related dangers and ill treatment. In 1844 a publichand named Bradon was killed accidentally whileemployed by the city through his owner (Clerk ofCouncil 1841-1846:306). All public hands were “fur-nished with the usual clothes” by the city (Clerk ofCouncil 1837-1841:12). There seems to have beenoccasional exceptions, however, to this policy. Apublic hand named Jack lit the street lamps for 25Sundays and holidays but was not given his winterclothing by January of 1839 (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:223). Seven of the twelve councilmen votedagainst reimbursing Jack (or more likely, his owner)or providing suitable winter garments for him. TheBoard of Commissioners passed a motion in Janu-ary of 1837 forming a committee responsible formaking contracts to board the negroes hired by thecouncil as public hands (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:11). The boarding of public hands appears tohave been the responsibility of the marshal prior tothe formation of this committee.

The city allotted $1462.50 for expenses related tofeeding and boarding the twelve public hands foreither the year 1838 or 1839 (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:216-217). These funds purchased 208 poundsof meat per hand annually at a cost of fourteen centsa pound for a total of $349.44 (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:216-217). This averaged slightly more thanone-half pound of meat per hand per day. The handsalso received one bushel of meal per hand per monthtotaling $144.00. Other expenses in this same bud-get covered salt, the rent of a house, the hiring andexpenses of a negro cook and washer woman (freedwoman?), and corn and fodder for the corporationmules (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:216-217).

Enslaved African-Americans constituted 42 percentof the city’s population in 1837, with males num-bering 728 and females 983 (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:44). In 1837 slave owners were taxed fiftycents by the city and forty-six cents by the corpora-tion on each slave between 16 and 60 years old (Clerkof Council 1837-1841:23, 27-28).

By 1837 white residents of Columbus were increas-ingly nervous over the potential for slave uprisings.These concerns resulted from the large urban slavepopulation and the news of slave revolts in Maconand various cities across the south. White anxietywas reflected in the increasing numbers and typesof ordinances passed by the Board of Commission-ers. In March the council mandated that no slavewas allowed to rent his or her own time or servicesin Columbus or live on a different city lot than his/her owner (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:25). In Maythe city ordered a guard of six men to patrol Colum-bus from 8 p.m. until daylight to “keep all negroesand suspicious persons at home” (Clerk of Council1837-1841:35). The city restricted the sale ofspiritous liquor to slaves on May 14, 1838 (Clerk ofCouncil 1837-1841:131).

The slave trade remained strong in Columbus in thelate 1840s. Traveler Tyrone Power journeyed fromMacon to Columbus in 1846 and “...found ourselvesentering the suburbs of Columbus; and the first sightwe saw there was a long line of negroes, men, women,and boys, well dressed and very merry, talking andlaughing, who stopped to look at our coach. On in-quiry, we were told that it was a gang of slaves, prob-ably from Virginia, going to the market to be sold”(Benton 1998).

RACE RELATIONS

Miscegenation appears to have been more accept-able during the early to mid nineteenth century be-tween Native Americans and Euro-Americans thanbetween African-Americans and Euro-Americans.Scottish deerskin traders frequently took Creekwives. Such unions cemented trade relationshipsbetween Creek tribes, provided additional securityand support from the woman’s family, and providedthe trader with assistance in transporting goods, incooking and housekeeping. The Creek wife and herrelatives had access to European trade goods(Braund 1993:182-4). The Grierson family in Au-


56


gusta, Georgia, consisted of three brothers, two ofwhom were traders to the Creeks and one who was amerchant who supplied them with goods to tradefor deerskins. One of the traders was married to aCreek woman and their mixed blood son became atrader upon his father’s death (Braund 1993:183).Numerous historical accounts reflect various rela-tionships between Native and Euro-Americans in theColumbus area. Several historical figures had inter-racial marriages. Chillie MacIntosh, son of Creekchief William MacIntosh, had two wives, in keepingwith the Creek tradition of polygamy. One wife wasa Native American and one was Euro-American. Thetraveler Carl Bernhard gave an account in 1826 aboutChillie’s wives, saying, “They say he [Chillie] had sev-eral wives whom he wished to keep: the white womanhowever, had driven them with scolding and dis-grace out of the house, as she would only submit toone Indian rival” (Benton 1998:28-29). Chillie’sEuro-American wife was reportedly the “...daugh-ter of a planter in Georgia, and tolerably pretty. Shewas attired in the European style, only according tothe Indian fancy in dress, she carried a quantity ofglass beads about her neck. The family is in verygood circumstances and possesses seventy negroes”(Benton 1998:28-29). Alexander McGillivray, an-other principal chief of the Creek, had a father whowas English and a mother who was part Creek. Thesecretary for the Marquis de Lafayette reportedmeeting a Captain Lewis who married the daughterof a Creek chief and lived among the Indians in thearea. His house was “commodious, and was fur-nished with elegance for an Indian cabin” (Benton1998:23).

Intermarriages were not restricted to the elite ofeither culture, however, and historical documentsindicate such marriages also occurred among lowerstatus individuals. The most common pattern amongintermarriages appears to have united a Euro-Ameri-can man in marriage to a Native American woman.Men who married Native Americans were frequentlycolonels, captains, and other members of the UnitedStates military, some of whom ran inns or taverns(1998). Such intermarriages among inn owners werenaturally conducive to the situation in the Creek ter-ritory in the late 1820s, when Euro-American menwere allowed to operate taverns for travelers jour-neying through the Creek Nation. Travelers wroteaccounts of Indian women as servants in taverns, aswell (Benton 1998). Some Euro-American men un-

doubtedly enjoyed the opportunity to practice po-lygamy, by living in the Creek territory and marry-ing Native American wives. One such innkeeper hadthree Native American wives (Benton 1998). Whilemany of these inn keepers lived in relative isolation,there is documentation that some (such as CaptainLewis) lived among small groups of Native Ameri-cans. British traveler George Featherstonhaughobserved in 1835 on the Indian side of theChattahoochee River, “...a great many huts, andsome dwellings apparently belonging to white per-sons. Here I found the lowest stage of drunkennessand debauchery, prevailing to such an extent thatthe settlement had acquired the nickname of Sodomand on my return into Columbus the Street wasswarming with drunken Indians, and young prosti-tutes, both Indian and white...” (Benton 1998:121).

The 1833 Acts of the General Assembly addressedthe Cherokee Indian land issues in northern Geor-gia. It touched on many of the issues related to Euro-American and Native American marriage in general,however, and reflects the prevailing social attitudesof the day. These attitudes can be used to view rela-tions between the Euro-Americans and the CreekIndians, during the 1820s in Georgia, and later inthe 1830s when the Creeks were removed to Ala-bama. White men heading Indian families in Geor-gia in 1833 had “no rights but that of the Indian useand occupation” of the land and in order to retainthese limited rights, these men had to notify, in writ-ing, the clerk of Superior Court in their respectivecounty (Georgia General Assembly 1834:114).

Polygamous relationships were recognized by thestate, and the 1833 Acts of the General Assemblyspecifically mentioned those Indians, mixed-bloodmen, and white men of Indian families, having twoor more wives. Those women and families living onfarms separately and apart from “...the usual abodeof such Indian...” and enrolling for emigration, wereto have “exclusive and absolute control thereof”(Georgia General Assembly 1834:115). Apparently,the state wanted to encourage as many Indians andIndian descendants to emigrate from Georgia aspossible, regardless of any familial ties they mighthave. Once a Cherokee Indian signed up for emigra-tion, he or she could not legally remain in Georgia.

It was illegal for Indians, descendants of Indians,and white men who were heads of Indian households


57


and claiming Indian privileges to “employ any whiteman or slave belonging to a white man, or person ofcolour [sic] other than the descendant of an Indian,as a tenant, cropper, or assistant in agriculture, oras a miller or millwright...” (Georgia General Assem-bly 1834:114). Such an offense resulted in that indi-vidual or family forfeiting the claim to their prop-erty. It only took two respectable witnesses to tes-tify to such an offense, so it is easy to see how thisact inevitably lead to corruption and fraud.

Another type of relationship between Natives, Euro-Americans, and those of mixed blood, involved busi-ness arrangements. The British traveler, AdamHodgson, toured the Chattahoochee Valley area in1820, during which time Hodgson rested during hisjourney at a “stand” or inn kept by “...a young manfrom Philadelphia, whose partner is a half-breed...”(Benton 1998:6). Hodgson also reported staying atthe house of an American licensed trader whose part-ner was a Colonel who was “...a half-breed, and anIndian chief” (Benton 1998:7). Such a business ar-rangement with an Indian chief would have beenespecially helpful to the trader.

Native Americans and African-Americans

Some Native Americans, as discussed above and inprevious sections, owned African or African-Ameri-can slaves. Scottish traveler Thomas Hamilton jour-neyed through the Columbus area in 1831. There hespoke with slaves of a Native American family. Hewas left with these impressions: “The negroes speakEnglish...They are far handsomer than any I had yetseen, partly, perhaps, from being unhabituated [sic]to severe labor, and partly from some slight admix-ture of Indian blood. I conversed with several whodescribed their bondage as light, and spoke of theirmasters and his family with affection. To the lashthey are altogether unaccustomed, and when mar-ried, live in houses of their own, round which theycultivate a patch of ground. The negro and Indianchildren are brought up together on a footing of per-fect equality, and the government of the familyseemed entirely patriarchal” (Benton 1998:73).

The observation that blacks were treated better bymost Native Americans than by most whites is ech-oed in Harriet Martineau’s travel account of 1835.Passing into Creek territory, she saw an Indian settle-ment whose occupants were slave holders.

Martineau reported that, “Negroes are anxious tobe sold to Indians, who give them moderate work,and accommodations as good as their own” (Benton1998:126). This was in sharp contrast to Martineau’searlier observation of companies of slaves beingtransported westward into Alabama by slave trad-ers. These slaves, she reported, has a “...counte-nance so low, so lost, as in the most degraded classof negroes” (Benton 1998:126).

Creeks and individuals of mixed blood often ownedslaves. The renown part Creek-part Scot JackKinnard owned forty black slaves and some Indianslaves (Braund 1993:182). Kinnard did not purchasemost of his slaves, but captured them during theRevolutionary War and in the first decades of thenineteenth century. Slaves often became adoptedby Creeks if they married Creek women. A runawayVirginian slave named George was captured by aCusseta headman and worked for five months forthe Creeks. He “made fences, dug the ground,planted corn, and worked hard”, but in spite of themanual labor, George reported that the Creeks“…were kind to me” (Braund 1993:182)

Braund (1993:183) suggests that Creek-African re-lations were relatively common and often equal dur-ing the early nineteenth century. By the 1830s, how-ever, Creek attitudes began to resemble white atti-tudes regarding African-Americans as subservient.As a case in point, Braund relates the story of theGrierson family. Brothers Robert and ThomasGrierson were traders to the Creeks before theAmerican Revolution. After Thomas’ death, hismixed-blood son who was living with his maternalCreek relatives took over the position of trader tothe Eufaulees. Robert and Thomas were likely sup-plied with trade goods from their brother James,who was an Augusta merchant. After the AmericanRevolution, Robert Grierson was living in the UpperCreek Nation. He and his family, which consisted ofa Creek wife and their five children, increased theirwealth by growing cotton and raising cattle throughthe work of their forty slaves. While the childrenwere raised in the Creek culture, he had his wife anddaughters learn to spin cotton. One of his daughtershad two children through a relationship with a blackman and a son had numerous children after marry-ing one of the family’s black slaves. Braund goes onto report that while such miscegenation was “...oflittle consequence during the early nineteenth cen-


58


tury...” Creek-white descendants as recently as theearly twentieth century saw this as a stain upon thefamily (Braund 1993:183).

Euro-Americans and African-Americans

By 1850 1,884 dwellings stood in Muscogee County.These were occupied by just over 1,900 families.There were almost as many white women (5,081) aswhite men (5,279). Only 29 black males and 33 blackfemales were free, the remaining 8,156 Africans orAfrican-Americans were enslaved (White1854:570). While there were 581 farms in MuscogeeCounty, much of the population was centered in andaround the City of Columbus.

MILL WORKER LIFE

Observations by Visitors and Residents

Textile mills operated in Georgia as early as 1810.In that year Wilkes County, three counties north-west of Augusta, Georgia, boasted a cotton factoryhaving $10,000 worth of capital. While that fac-tory went out of business shortly thereafter, a fewother small factories operated in Athens in the fol-lowing years. The second and third decades of thenineteenth century saw small-scale yarn millsthroughout the State of Georgia operated either bythe proprietors or by large plantation owners whoestablished them as a side business (Shryock1927:111).

Traveler and geologist Sir Charles Lyell discussedthe movement towards textile mills with people hemet on his journey through Georgia. Lyell’s secondtrip occurred in 1846, right after the erection of newcotton mills in Columbus. He reported that, “Themasters of these factories hope, by excludingcoloured [sic] men—or, in other words, slaves—fromall participation in the business, to render it a gen-teel employment for white operatives...” (Benton1998:145). While Lyell noted that “there are num-bers of coloured mechanics in all these SouthernStates very expert at trades requiring much moreskill and knowledge than the functions of ordinarywork-people in factories”, he encountered the sen-timent that slaves “interfere with the fair competi-tion of white mechanics, by whom...could have gotthe work better done” (Benton 1998:145-6). Lyell

encountered New England craftsmen living in Geor-gia who complained that their children could notfollow in their footsteps due to the competition withslave craftsmen. Northerners living in the southalso complained that they were unable to raise rev-enue to build cotton mills in the south because ex-tra money was consistently used by planters to buymore slaves rather than invest in industry. The lackof mills in the south forced planters to send theircotton north to be manufactured and then shippedback south (Benton 1998:146).

While City Mills was established in 1828, it was agrist mill and provided necessary processing to feedthe new town. The establishment of textile mills,however, quickly followed the birth of City Mills.Table 2 enumerates many of the mills operating inColumbus from 1828 through the 1930s. The CowetaFalls Factory was one of the earliest textile mills intown. It was constructed in 1844 and had a directimpact on the project area. Less than ten years fol-lowing its establishment, the company had con-structed tenements in the project area (Block 15,Lot 191) for its operatives. Not all mill operativeslived in company housing. Census records suggestthat they lived in a variety of situations from com-pany tenements and houses to private boardinghouses, to rental houses, or in houses of their ownor houses belonging to family or friends.

Mill construction expanded as enough capital wasraised in the south to support large-scale mill op-erations, particularly in environmentally suitablelocations such as Columbus. Larger cotton facto-ries employing between 50 and 300 operatives dailybecame common in the state. The number of cottonfactories burgeoned from 1845, when five factoriesexisted, to 1850, when over 40 factories were oper-ating and running 60,000 spindles, using 45,000bales of cotton, and employing 2,500 operatives andmechanics (Shryock 1927:124). Columbus’Chattahoochee River soon supported the followingmills: Coweta Falls, Columbus Company, HowardMill, and The Troup Factory (Griffin 1958:371).

In 1853 John Banks purchased the Howard Factoryin Columbus for $3.00. The factory had approxi-mately $40,000 in mortgages and other liabilities(Banks 1936:19). Banks recorded in his diary thatthis action was “...a most ruinous step” (Banks1936:19). Only four years earlier Banks had stock in


59


the company worth $5,000. When the companysold out, however, he lost his stock and apparentlydecided that purchasing the economically troubledfactory would be the only way of retrieving his lostrevenues. The weight of the mortgages he assumednever allowed Banks to enjoy a very profitable re-turn on his investment. Banks spent almost ten yearsselling stock in the factory with receipts totaling$20,000 (Banks 1936:19). The economic panic of1857 further hampered his venture. Throughoutthe nation banks floundered, property values plum-meted, and many people lost their credit. Cottonthat sold originally for fifteen cents dropped to eight

cents. John Banks weathered the panic but sufferedgreat losses associated with the Howard factory andother investments.

Columbus in the mid-nineteenth century was a fac-tory boomtown boasting factories, cotton mills andmachine shops. The city realized more than half amillion dollars capital investments in manufacturesand served as a regional market for agriculture anda broader market for textiles (Griffin 1958:371-2).In 1850 the Howard Manufacturing Company ran5,000 spindles and 103 looms, making it the largestmill in the city. Its capital was listed at $85,000

Table 2. Columbus Mill Chronology.

Date Mill Established

1828 City Mills 1834 Columbus Factory 1838 Clapp Factory? Clapp Stewart & Fontaine (originally Columbus Manufacturing

Co?) burned 1865 rebuilt 1866-67 1844 Coweta Falls Factory 1845 Variety Works 1847 Howard Factory 1850 Eagle Manufacturing 1860 Eagle Manufacturing buys Howard Factory

ca 1860s Palace and Empire Mills 1867 Muscogee Manufacturing Company (on site of Burned Coweta Falls Factory) 1869 Eagle and Phenix Company (on site of original Eagle Manufacturing Company) 1871 Eagle and Phenix Company Mill #2 (on site of original Howard Factory) 1872 A. Clegg & Co. 1878 Eagle and Phenix Company Mill #3 (on site of Palace Mills?) 1882 Swift Manufacturing Company 1882 Muscogee Mills #2 1887 Muscogee Mills #3 1888 Paragon Mills 1892 Paragon Mills becomes Hamburger Cotton Mills 1899 Columbus Manufacturing Company 1900 Bibb Manufacturing Company 1904 Muscogee Mills #4 1906 Swift Spinning Mills

ca 1910 Meritas 1912 Columbus Manufacturing Company Expansion 1915 Muscogee Mills #5 1920 Hamburger Mills becomes Bradley Manufacturing Company 1920 Columbus Manufacturing Company Mill Operative Housing 1927 Georgia Webbing and Tape Company 1937 Muscogee Mills #6 1937 Perkins Hosiery Mills becomes Jordon Mills 1963 Muscogee Mills merges with Fieldcrest Mills 1978 Fieldcrest takes over Eagle and Phenix Mills


60


(White 1854:570). Mill operatives produced 15,000yards of coarse cotton osnaburgs and sheeting aweek, at a wage of between twelve and twenty-fivecents daily (Griffin 1958:372). Supervisors earned$2.50 daily, triple the wages of the skilled opera-tives. The factory superintendent made $900 an-nually. The Coweta Falls Mill had half the operating

capacity of theHoward, with2,500 spindles and44 looms. A total of120 children overtwelve years of agehelped to produce1,800 yards of fab-ric and 1,800pounds of threadevery day (Griffin1958:372). TheCoweta Falls Fac-tory had a capital of$80,000 (White1854:570). Wageswere similar tothose paid by theHoward. Business-men constructedanother mill,Carter’s Factory,during this sameyear and were vyingfor a large share ofthe textile marketby doubling the ca-pacity of theHoward. Designsfor Carter’s Factoryincluded 10,000spindles and 200looms in plant val-ued at $100,000(Griffin 1958:372).It employed 800operatives.

By 1851 the cotton factories in Columbus were em-ploying 560 operatives. A total of 14,636 spindlesand almost 400 looms attracted people and capitalto the area. The capital was invested in the manu-facturing industry to the amount of one million dol-lars (Griffin 1958:372). The cotton industry in Co-

lumbus suffered small-scale crisis, such as the floodof 1853, which closed the mills and threw the opera-tives into destitution. The largest and most devas-tating crisis to hit the mills, however, was the CivilWar, which caused long-term adverse results.

Frederick Law Olmsted traveled through the southin the 1850s and recorded his observations of “theAmerican slave states”, including his brief and ap-parently unpleasant stay in Columbus. His descrip-tion of the state of mills and mill workers at this timeis illuminating. He states:

At Columbus, I spent several days. It is the largestmanufacturing town, south of Richmond, in the SlaveStates. It is situated at the Falls, and the head ofsteamboat navigation of the Chattahoochee, thewestern boundary of Georgia. The water-power issufficient to drive two hundred thousand spindles,with a proportionate number of looms. There are,probably, at present from fifteen to twenty thou-sand spindles running. The operatives in the cot-ton-mills are said to be mainly ‘Cracker girls’ (poorwhites from the country), who earn, in good times,by piece-work, from $8 to $12 a month. There are,besides the cotton-mills, one woolen-mill, one pa-per-mill, a foundry, a cotton-gin factory, a machine-shop, etc. The labourers [sic] in all these are mainlywhites, and they are in such a condition that, if tem-porarily thrown out of employment, great numbersof them are at once reduced to a state of destitution,and are dependent upon credit or charity for theirdaily food. Public entertainments were being heldat the time of my visit, the profits to be applied tothe relief of operatives in mills, which had beenstopped by the effects of a late flood of the river.Yet slavery is constantly boasted to be a perfect safe-guard against such distress (Olmsted 1861:213).

By 1880 mill workers in Columbus earned 25-30cents daily and worked ten to thirteen hours a day.Women and children constituted a total of 67 per-cent of the employment force, with children betweenthe ages of 10-15 totaling over 300 (Jensen1991:170). Only 3.5 percent of the mill operativeswere immigrants during this period. The decade ofthe 1870s saw a national post-war depression whenmill workers were encouraged to accept low wageswithout complaint and feared losing their jobs tolarge numbers of the unemployed. A total of 2,049operatives kept Columbus’ six cotton mills function-

Mill operatives worked 10-12 hours a day and earneda monthly wage of betweenfive to ten dollars for femalesand fifteen to twenty dollarsfor men (Shryock 1927:115;White 1854:570) . Othersources suggest lower wages.Olmstead compared thewages of mill operatives inMassachusetts with those inGeorgia and found theformer to earn as much as$14.75 a month compared tothe southern counterpart ’swages of $7.40. A total ofseventy workers in the Co-lumbus Cotton and Wool Fac-tory averaged slightly higherwages, at $9.00 a month andwere suppl ied with factoryhousing (Gri f f in 1958:371;Shryock 1927:116) . TheCotton Gin Manufactory, op-erated by E .T. Taylor andCompany employed 50 op-eratives in 1850. These em-ployees were lived in a com-pany tenement that was “...alarge house belonging to theestab l ishment” (Whi te1854:570). Piece-work op-portunit ies, or paying mi l lg i r ls by the p iece a l lowedthem to earn between $8.00-$12.00 per month depend-ing on their industriousness.


61


ing in 1880 (Jensen 1991:171). By 1898 seventy-five percent of the operatives in the Eagle and Phenix

mill consisted ofwomen and chil-dren (Huntzinger1992:176)

The lack of anychild-labor legisla-tion in Georgia jus-tifiably made thestate a target forreformers. EdgarGardner Murphypublished theseobservations: “Ihave known mills inwhich for ten andtwelve hours at atime the factoryhands—chi ldrenand all were calledto work before sun-rise and were dis-missed from workonly after sunset,laboring from darkto dark. I have re-peatedly seen themat labor for twelve,thirteen, and evenfourteen hours perday. In the periodof the holidays or atother ‘rush times’ Ihave seen childrenof eight and nineyears of age leavingthe factory as lateas 9:30 o’clock atnight, and findingtheir way with theirown little lanterns,through the un-

lighted streets of the mill village, to their squalidhomes” (Jones 1965:398).

The Chattahoochee Falls Corporation, and invest-ment company formed in 1887 to harness water-power from the river and operate mills, described amill village in its public relations materials. It ap-

pears that the mill village mentioned is probablyBibb City, although it may include the northern partof Phenix City. It quoted a “disinterested” person in1882 describing the property later purchased by thecompany as including, “800 acres of land, most of itheavily wooded. A sufficient space has been clearedand a village erected for the accommodation of theofficers and operatives, who are supplied—each fam-ily—with a house, garden space, and privileges tocut firewood...living is cheap. Factory labor aver-ages 50 cents per day, is abundant, and there is ev-ery economic incentive for settlement and invest-ment” (Chattahoochee Falls Company 1887:4). Thepamphlet went on to say, “...operatives, because ofincidental advantages of location, can be employed25 per cent cheaper than is paid at the neighboringmills in Columbus. The privilege of wood alone is agreat saving to operatives, besides they have largegarden spaces with rental free” (Chattahoochee FallsCompany 1887:4).

Mill employment in Georgia was again under attackin the early twentieth century. A nationally distrib-uted magazine accused Georgia of using the major-ity of the 89,000 child workers between the ages of10 and 15 for employment in the cotton mills of thestate (Textile Industry Folder: 1998). This criticismhit especially close to home in Columbus where thenumerous mills employed a large percentage of thelabor force. This labor came partly from neighbor-ing Alabama, where a child labor inspector chargedColumbus with employing 40-60 children under theage of fifteen. Georgia’s Commissioner of Commerceand Labor refuted these allegations by explainingthat these children crossed the bridge daily fromGirard and Phenix City to come to Columbus for aneducation and not employment (Textile Industry1998).

Mill owners defended the practice of child labor inseveral ways. They claimed that employing chil-dren was actually costly to the mill and employersonly did it at the insistence of parents who neededthe children to be wage earners. In 1900 the cost tothe mill ranged from wages of ten to fifty cents a dayper child contrasted with the 60%-95% dividendsenjoyed by the mills (Jones 1965:396). Other labordefenders claimed that it was the parents’ greed inwanting their children to be employed at the millsthat kept child labor alive. Historical documents,however, record children as young as four years old

Workers in Columbus’ millsinitially were young, rural,white girls lured from thecountryside by the offer ofmaking relatively high wagesthat they could use to pur-chase luxury i tems or tosend back home to supportrelatives trying to make aliving on the farm. Censusrecords tell the bleak storyof young children, and of-ten entire families of youngchildren being employed inthe mills. For instance, in1860 the McKenzie familyconsisted of the 61 year oldfather , John, 48 year o ldIsabella, 25 year old John,21 year old Jane, 20 yearo ld Ef fey , 16 year o ldHarriet, 15 year old Louisa,12 year old William, and 9year old twins Daniel andElizabeth. Under the cen-sus column “Profession, Oc-cupat ion, or Trade” eachwas listed as “Factory Op-erative” (Census 1860:269).Page after page after pagerevea ls the same in the1860 census and censusrecords of other years. In-terestingly, even small chil-dren and babies are listedin this manner, suggestingthat either the children wentto the factory wi th the i rmothers or that the entirefami ly was cons idered a“factory family” whose liveswere controlled by the cor-poration.


62


Figure 21. Young Children Worked in Mills in Columbus,Augusta, and Macon, Georgia (Hines Collection).

working in the factories helping their parents or sib-lings and not receiving wages in return (Jones1965:398). Even the prevailing social values of thetimes assumed that the lower economic class wasby nature of poor character, indolent, and incline tomischief if left to their own devices. This school ofthought supported mill employment and child la-bor as a way of providing a haven for the destitute.While some mill employers tried to provide schoolsand other educational centers for operatives, theirefforts were generally sporadic, inconsistent, andlacked an awareness of the true needs of their em-ployees.

The Victorian mind-set of equating pov-erty with questionable character couldbe seen in labor reform attempts. In 1886a bill introduced to the Georgia legisla-ture would have limited child labor to aten-hour day. The bill failed on thegrounds that “...it would lead to idleness”and be bad for the mill industry (Jones1965:399). When the bill was reintro-duced three years later factory ownersprotested that it was interfering with pri-vate rights. Similar attempts to eliminateemployment of children under thirteenyears of age were defeated by the mill-owner lobby.

The reform movement continued to gainallies from the late nineteenth century tothe early twentieth century. Organiza-tions supporting child labor reform in-cluded the: National Consumers League; AmericanFederation of Labor; Atlanta Federation of Trades;State Federation of Labor; Methodist Ministers’ As-sociation of Atlanta; State Federation of Women’sClubs; and the Child Labor Committee of Georgia(Jones 1965:399-401). The mill-owner lobby con-tinued to stymie these organizations. In 1900 thepresidents of thirty mills personally appeared be-fore legislative committees protesting that: NewEngland competitors were behind the legislation;Georgia would be the only state with such legisla-tion; it would lead to crime and idleness; and itplaced an unfair limit on hours that farmers did nothave to observe (Jones 1965:400). The lobbyistswere successful again.

Activists continued to work for reform. During theyears of 1908-1910 Lewis Hines worked as staff pho-tographer for the national Child Labor Committeeand took thousands of photographs of mills,millworkers, and working conditions throughout thesouth. Many of these Hines photographs were im-ages that became famous focal points leading to theeventual reform of working conditions in mills. Fig-ure 21 shows one such image of child labor in a scenethat was repeated throughout Columbus and othertextile mill cities in Georgia and throughout thesouth.

By 1913 one-fourth of the city’s white populationwere mill workers with approximately 800 school-age children among them (Daniel 1913:n.p.) Oncethese children reached the age of mill employment,less than five per cent remained in school. The lackof any compulsory education law prior to 1913 andthe opportunity to earn a wage created too strongan attraction for most children and their parents toresist.

Mill Housing in Columbus

Mill operatives and their families often lived in ten-ements near their factory. In addition to the CowetaMills tenement in the project area on the northeast-ern corner of the intersection of 14th Street and


63


Broadway, mill operatives also lived in tenementslocated at: the southwestern corner of Tenth Streetand Front Avenue; on Bay Avenue between TenthStreet and Dillingham Street; and the southwesternand northeastern corners of Fourteenth Street andBroadway (Mahan, as cited in Huntzinger 1992:96).Several families lived in the “Old Plank BoardingHouse” in the factory quarter of Front Street(Huntzinger 1992:95). By the turn of the century,critics were labeling tenement houses as squalid.Miss Backus, the principal of the Free Kindergartendisparaged the Front Street tenements as restric-tive, with “...whole families occupying one or tworooms”, and “...every law of neatness, cleanlinessand good living ...finds its direct negative in theirhomes, if one can call such places by that name”(Huntzinger 1992:174). Backus recommended thesubstitution of single homes for tenements.

A variety of observers described mill housing, oftencontradicting each other depending on which millhousing they were describing, the time period, andbiases in their perspectives. For example one de-scription of the period was as follows, “The opera-tives in the mills were evidently saving money, andtheir houses and gardens were models of neatnessand comfort” (King 1875:373). An article publishedin a magazine in 1891 described Columbus’ millhouses as, “Rows of loosely built, weather-stainedframe houses, all of the same ugly pattern and but-tressed by clumsy chimneys...No porch, no door-step, even, admits to these barrack-likequarters...[with] paneless windows, unplasteredwalls, bare floors.” (In Jensen from Clare deGraffenreid “The Georgia Cracker in the Cotton Mills”1891 for Century Magazine).

URBAN LIFE

Drinking Water

An early settler reported numerous springs in theColumbus area. In 1828, “...there were a number ofsprings of excellent water running out of the bluffalong the river. There were as many as ten or twelveof them from the “City Mills’ location down to thewharf, and they afforded plenty of the best water”(Martin 1874:3). In spite of these many springs,Columbus residents dug numerous wells. It may bethat the spring water became polluted with the in-

creasing population of the town and associatedstables, agricultural areas, and industries. Some ofthe springs may have stopped flowing because ofthe increased population and demand for drinkingwater, while others may have been diverted byditches or filled due to perceived “inconvenient” lo-cations. The historical account, in fact, goes on tosay that “...these fine springs have long since ceasedtheir refreshing flow” (Martin 1874:3).

Pollution in the Chattahoochee River is by no meansa modern phenomenon. Some time prior to 1875Columbus resident John H. Martin commented that,“The clear fresh water of the Chattahoochee mustthen have been much more congenial and invitingto these dainty fish [shad] than the turbid stream ofthe present time, muddied by its passage throughhundreds of thousands of acres of cultivated groundand polluted by the sewerage filth of the towns andfactories on the banks” (Martin 1874:3).

The City of Columbus attempted to provide drink-ing water for townspeople as early as January 1837by establishing public wells throughout town. Theplan to use Leonard Spring Water (owned by SeabornJones) in 1844 was considered ill-conceived, as thepine log pipes could not adequately supply theamount of water needed by city residents (Colum-bus Water Works 1998). It appears that the springmay have supplied some water to the city, but thecity decided against actually purchasing the springfrom Jones. Meanwhile, water problems continuedboth in the form of an adequate supply of clean wa-ter and in the method to access the water. The citycouncil appointed a committee “to engage some suit-able person to procure a sufficiency of water for thepublic use by well, pumps, or otherwise and reportto this board...” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:13).This committee was to confer with the newly estab-lished water company that had been incorporatedduring the previous years’ state legislature. Duringthis time the committee also received estimates forpumps from a firm in Macon and paid several indi-viduals who dug city wells (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:24). Between March and May of 1837 the citypaid the following accounts: $14.00 to T.R. Gold fordigging two wells; $14.25 to Alexander Calhoun,guardian of Aaron, for digging a well; and later,$24.00 to Aaron for digging and cleaning wells(Clerk of Council 1837-1841:27, 36-37).


64


In April of 1837 the city hired John Philpot to “fur-nish the city with good water” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:27). Presumably Philpot was responsible foroverseeing the digging of the wells, the installationof pumps, and the cleaning and long-term mainte-nance of both. Not all the public wells had pumps.Residents near wells without pumps often tried toget pumps installed. The residents of Franklin Wardpetitioned the city council in 1838 for a public pumpin the well at the junction of Oglethorpe and Bryanstreets and in Warren Street (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:149,151). Thomas Ward residents made a pumppetition the same year for a well in Crawford Streetnear Front Street (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:154).The pumps appeared to have been very high main-tenance items and the city council repeatedly paidfor their repair. As late as January 1845 the Com-mittee on Pumps and Wells found the pumps “...con-siderable out of repair...” (Clerk of Council 1841-1846:310). Earlier, during a period of less than amonth, the council paid James Montgomery $30.00to repair city pumps and the firm of Clapp and Chan-dler part of $187.00 for the same (Clerk of Council1837-1841:39-40). The council hired Montgomeryseveral more times for repairs to pumps on BroadStreet and other locations in town. The board ofcommissioners actually voted eight to two not tospend $20.00 to repair the pump in the well at theintersection of Randolph and Oglethorpe streets(Clerk of Council 1837-29 June 1841:140). The boarddid decide at this time to appoint a committee toascertain the cost of “bringing water into the citythrough the medium of wooden pipes” (Clerk ofCouncil 1837-1841:141).

In March of 1840 the Well Committee reported thatthe cost of municipal water was prohibitive for thecity at that time, and recommended that the cityclean the wells for the continued use of the public.The city adopted the committee’s recommendationand reverted to a less technical means of providingwater to residents. Two weeks later the board ofcommissioners requested that the well committee“...prescribe the manner in which buckets shall beused in the public wells and ...advertise for propos-als to remove the pumps and construct the properhouses for the protection of the public wells adaptedto the use of buckets” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:389). In April of 1840 the council authorizedthe committee to “put in order” the following wellsat: Broad and Crawford, Broad and Randolph, Broad

and Bryan, Broad and Warren, Oglethorpe andRandolph; and Oglethorpe and Bryan. The wells wereto be designed according to the following configura-tion: “The foundation to be six feet square; the tim-bers to be of lightwood 8 inches square; the founda-tion to be floored with heart plank one inch thick;the curb to be 7 feet high, 3 feet square, covered bya roof-the same to be dressed(?) air tight. Therealso shall be a conductor to bring the water from thebucket and project it 12 inches on the outside, andwindlass to be on the plan of Col. Banks with theexception of the wheel-this to have a crank and allsaid wells to be kept in good order...” (Clerk of Coun-cil 1837-1841:400). The council apparentlychanged its mind again, and on May 9, 1840 adopteda resolution allowing contractors’ the authorizationto “...put pumps in place of buckets and windlass...”and secure proposals “...for the walling of said wellsif suitable brick can be obtained” (Clerk of Council1837-1841:403).

Archaeological excavation of the wells indicates thatthe sandy soil caused the walls of the wells, particu-larly near the water table, to collapse frequently.Such cave-ins are documented in the historicalrecord. In 1836 Frederick Augustus Alping was in-jured “...by the caving of a well curb upon him”(Clerk of Council 1832-1837:229). Well cave-instypically resulted in sediment-filled well-water thatundoubtedly clogged the pumps and caused theirfrequent failure. The Board of Commissioners real-ized this and decided that as long as pumps wereused, they should line the well walls with brick in aneffort to prevent future problems. An 1840 pro-posal presented to the city council “for furnishingmaterials and walling the city wells” totaled $12.00and the price included the cost of bricks at $6.00per thousand, 75 cents worth of lime per well, 50cents worth of sand, $3.75 per thousand [bricks]for laying the brick, and $1.00 for an illegible ser-vice (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:405). The price of$12.00 covered the cost of walling a well with 1,000bricks. The documents do not indicate whether thisamount of brick was standard for wells of the pe-riod, or whether this amount was selected solely forthe purpose of providing a workable estimate forconstruction, for each one thousand bricks requiredin the project. Many of the wells excavated in theproject area on residential lots, however, were onlypartially lined with brick. Residents, and the city aswell, may have felt that the most cost-efficient way


65


to reduce the problem of wall cave-ins was to lineonly the sections at and near the water table.

Wells on residential lots also presented the city withother types of problems. Lots vacated by ownersand no longer lived on resulted in wells containing“...water in a putrid and unhealthy condition” (Clerkof Council 1837-1841:129). Several lots immedi-ately across the street from the project area werefound by the Health Committee to be in this situa-tion in 1838. On May 12 of that year the committeereported the following abandon, open, stagnantwells: “One on Lot 207 [at the] corner of Bridge andOglethorpe streets; one on Lot 210 same block; oneon ditto 206; one in the center of the street at theintersection of Jackson and Bridge streets (Clerk ofCouncil 1837-1841:129). The committee recom-mended the immediate filling of these wells and thecouncil ordered that action taken. It is unclear fromthe records what role the lot owners had in this ac-tion. It may be that the council charged them forthe fill and labor involved, or it may be that some ofthe lots were truly abandoned or had absentee own-ers living a great distance away from Columbus.

The city continued to experience a water supplyproblem as late as the early 1880s when the Colum-bus Water Supply Company, a private firm,breached a contract to supply quality water to thecity. By 1903 the bankrupt company left the Boardof Water Commissioners in search of an adequatewater supply. By 1912 the board selected theChattahoochee River. It is unclear when city sewer-age services were available to Columbus residents.Raw sewage was deposited in the ChattahoocheeRiver until 1964 (Columbus Water Works 1998).

Subsistence

During the early years in Columbus many people,particularly poor whites and enslaved African-Americans, supplemented their diet, or lived whollyon what they could garner from hunting and fishing.Harriet Martineau reported this scene during hertravels through Columbus, “On this footbridge [overthe Chattahoochee River] I stood, and saw a fishcaught in a net laid among the eddies. A dark fisher-man stood on each little promontory; and a groupwas assembled about some canoes in a creek on theopposite Alabama shore, where the steepness of thehills seemed scarcely to allow a foothold between

the rushing water and the ascent” (Benton 1998:124).Economically challenged residents of the country-side around Columbus made attempts to be equallyresourceful, but with limited success. In 1834 trav-eler Tyrone Power ate breakfast in a “solitary logcabin” in Alabama territory about 20 miles fromFort Mitchell where he was informed by the lady ofthe house that “...the means they could commandfor the mere necessaries of living were very limited;that butcher’s meat was only attainable at Colum-bus, and that any attempt to rear a stock of poultrywas ridiculous, as the Indians of the country invari-ably stole every feather” (Benton 1998:91).

Mr. A.O. Blackmar recalled a nineteenth-centuryColumbus fed in part by the Chattahoochee River.The river supplied “Hickory shad, trout, rock fish,sturgeon, and channel cats...caught by trot lines,dip nets, and traps” (Peddy May 8, 1921). Fisher-men delivered the fish door-to-door, or residentscould select live purchases directly from thefishermen’s shacks along the riverbank. (Archae-ologists found that the 2nd Avenue residents wereeating numerous freshwater fish, including sunfish,spotted sucker, bass, and freshwater drum and cat-fish.) Blackmar attributed the eventual decline infish variety and amounts to the damming of the riverwithout leaving fish passages and “other causes”(probably agriculturally related silting and urbanpollution). As early as 1846, Lyell reported that“the clearing away of woods...has caused the soil,previously level and unbroken, to be cut into bytorrents, so that deep gullies may everywhere beseen; and I am assured that a large proportion of thefish, formerly so abundant in the Chatahoochie [sic],have been stifled by the mud” (Benton 1998:145).

The diet of town residents included a variety of foodsin addition to fish. Residents living in Columbus inthe first few decades supplemented their diets withproduce planted in gardens on their city lots. Theyhad access to an assortment of seeds available fromColumbus merchants. In 1832 merchant George W.Dillingham advertised a list of seeds from 76 differ-ent plants (Columbus Enquirer Vol. 5, No 1 1832:5)(Figure 22). The seeds were harvested by the ShakerSocieties of Enfield and Lebanon and included anamazing assortment ranging from New ZealandSpinage [sic] to nasturtion [sic] to parsnips to nut-meg-melon. Columbusites were also buying and sell-ing food at the city market. The 1828 commercial


66


wholesale prices of selected groceries and luxuriesin Columbus were advertised in an article in the lo-cal newspaper (Columbus Enquirer Vol. 1, No. IV1828:3) (Figure 23). Market items also included:butter; eggs; meal; meat such as beef, goat, mutton,pork, and poultry; and potatoes to name a few (Clerkof Council 1837-1841:42, 265,266). The state penalcode of 1833 provided for fines or imprisonment forbutchers and others “...selling the flesh of a diseasedanimal, or other unwholesome provisions...” and for“any baker, brewer, distiller, merchant, grocer, or

other person, [knowingly] selling unwholesomebread, drink, or pernicious and adulterated liquors”(Georgia General Assembly 1834:156). Meatbrought to market was inspected by the Clerk ofMarket for wholesomeness. Hogs appear to havebeen a major source of meat during the town’s earlyhistory. City residents were allowed to keep as manyas ten hogs on their lots in 1838. Residents wishingto raise more than ten were required to pay a $5.00per head fee (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:120). By1914 sugar, flour, and meal sold in Columbus’ storeshad to be examined by the Sanitary Inspector(Howard 1914:94).

Privies, Sewerage, and Plumbing

The disposal of sewerage presented chronic prob-lems for early Columbus, as it has for most growingurban areas. Even when the city’s population wasrelatively low, compared with later growth, residen-tial privies proved problematic. The Health Com-mittee for each city ward reported such problems.For example, one committee found “the lot on whichThomas McCarty lives, belonging to GeneralHoward, in bad order, such for a privy, being en-tirely exposed” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837: 14).

In 1888 the city adopted a code that was officiallyapproved two years later. The code regarding priv-ies was amended and the phrase, “No person shallbuild, have, or keep any privy in the business part ofthe city, without a pit or sink” was stricken (City ofColumbus 1898). Most cities in the eastern UnitedStates, including Columbus, put in city seweragepipes in the late nineteenth century. The 1880s and1890s saw indoor plumbing becoming increasinglyprevalent in urban areas, although many towns orsections of towns did not have access to such con-veniences until the twentieth century. The city didnot have its first waste water treatment plant, treat-ing sewerage, until 1964. Prior to 1964 there was asanitary sewer system in the city, but this appar-ently did not treat and purify wastewater (Colum-bus Water Works 2004).

General Sanitation

By 1833 Board of Health officials were making rec-ommendations to apply greater sanitary measuresto the city. Officials ordered the marshal be “re-quired to examine all privies within said [city] lim-its, and when found in an unwholsom [sic] condi-

Figure 22. A Wide Range of Vegetable SeedsWere Available to Columbusites in 1832

(Columbus Enquirer Vol 5, No 1, 1832:5).


67


tion, to notify the owner or owners to cleanse them,and upon failure to do so by said owners, to have itdone himself and enforce the ordinance upon all de-linquents” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:38). Respon-sibility for city cleanliness was not limited to themarshal, however, as city officials clearly stated that,“It shall be the duty of all lot holders or owners oflots in said town to keep them clean and to cleanse,ventilate and lime their cellars and privies withinone week from this time under penalty of fifty dol-lars for every offense” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:39). The council reiterated the need for cleancellars throughout the 1830s. In June of 1838 andAugust of 1839 the council passed ordinances re-quiring “...all persons who occupy or own housesunder which there is a cellar that the same shall bethoroughly cleansed...” “...and white washed withlime” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:147,302).

Board of Health commit-tees were formed foreach ward of the cityand routinely made in-spections within theirjurisdiction. They re-ported problems such asstagnant water, drain-age problems, cellarsand privies “in bad or-der”, “filth in thestreets”, and other po-tential health problems.A Health Officer for theupper ward reportedproblems such as“standing water and de-caying vegetable mat-ter” in the rear of A.L.Hine’s building underconstruction on BroadStreet, in the rear of salthouses owned individu-ally by J(?) S. Calhounand William P. Malone,and behind WilliamRogers’ privy house(Clerk of Council 1832-1837:224). Frequentlythe marshal was or-dered by the HealthCommittee to investi-gate problems, such asin the summer of 1835when complaints weremade about “the stableand the filth in thestreets in front of Bot-toms and Bedell andWalker” (Minutes of theBoard of Commission-ers, Vol. 1, 1832-1837:140). The firm of James and Howard had astable yard containing “...a large quantity of stag-nant water and filth” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:144). Stables within the city limits were fre-quent hygiene culprits, and the marshal was in-structed to tell “all the owners of the public stables,and taverns, not to throw any manure in the street”(Clerk of Council 1832-1837:150).

Figure 23. An Example of Prices inColumbus in 1828 (Columbus Enquirer

Vol. 1, No. IV 1828:3).

An advertisement in the1896/97 Columbus CityDirectory suggests thatindoor plumbing was stilla novelty at this t ime.The advertisement pro-motes toilet paper thatis safe for indoor plumb-ing. I ts tone of con-sumer education impliesthat many people weresti l l unaware of indoorplumbing and i ts pos-sible problems (F igure24) . “ . . .Toi let Paper-Don’ t Use the WrongKind. Thick Paper clogsa drain; a clogged draincauses impure air ; im-pure air causes ill health;ill health causes suffer-ing-and Doctors’ bills.”And if the threat of i l lhealth was not enough toget the reader to pur-chase the “right” kind oftoi let paper, there wasalways the fact that, “StiffPaper c logs a drain; Aclogged drain cannot beused and thereforecauses inconvenience; APlumber must clean thedra in, and P lumbers ’work is expens ive”(Walsh 1897:17). “Fac-tories, Hotels and otherLarge Consumers” weregiven corporate rates .Interestingly, the printerof the Ci ty Directory ,Thomas Gilbert, was alsothe toilet paper manu-facturer.


68


The marshal often bore the responsibility of clean-ing the town in the form of either notifying miscre-ants or physically removing the nuisance person-ally. Problems associated with open cellars, alleys,and salt houses appear to have kept the marshal quitebusy. He was instructed to “...have all the nuisancesremoved and cleared out of the alleys on each sideof the salt houses immediately west of this room”(Clerk of Council 1837-1841:67). One of the HealthCommittees also reported that, “The alley leadinginto the backyard at the Insurance Bank is filled withtrash and filth” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:144).The city council frequently directed the marshal torectify problems, such as notifying Albert G.Beckham to fill in his salt house in the rear of hisstore. Other public health problems included theoccasional unkept blacksmith shop, and the moreunusual lot full of “putrid cheese (?)”. The healthcommittee recommended that the contents of the

latter be “thrown into the river” (Clerk of Council1832-1837:141). He was directed to “...remove allthe filth and deposits of every kind from the easternbank of the Chattahoochee River within the corpo-rate limits of the city and also to clear away the un-dergrowth and make such other improvements asmay be deemed advisable...”(Clerk of Council 1837-1841:40).

Occasionally committees would investigate com-plaints brought to them by residents of their wards.On July 13, 1836, Mary Robertson brought a peti-tion before the Board of Commissioners for the abate-ment of a nuisance near her dwelling coming fromthe stable of James R. Lyons (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:211). Her petition was referred to the HealthCommittee for her ward. The following year the citycouncil encouraged any residents “...who may beannoyed by the filthyness [sic] of their neighbors’premises” to turn in the non-law abiding neighborsand the Health Committee shall have the causes re-moved (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:20). Sanitationproblems did not seem to be solely an issue of theunderclass, as prominent citizens such as SeabornJones and Judge Colquitt were reported for healthviolations. The Health Committee for JudgeColquitt’s ward found his backyard “in a very filthycondition” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:144). Mer-chants were particularly susceptible to violationsincluding standing water. Cellars under the storesof Boon and Walker, and W. Wilhilm were cited forthis offense (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:144).

Early Columbus was much more agricultural thanone can almost imagine today. Animal butcheringhad been as common a practice “downtown” as itwas on the rural farmsteads and plantations in thesurrounding areas. By 1835, however, the Board ofCommissioners realized that it was neither a hygienicnor an urban practice, and asked, “that the marshalinstruct Mr. Grieves to remove the slaughter penunder the bluff, (opposite Mr. Stewarts) after he getsthrough killing the hogs now in the pen” (Clerk ofCouncil 1832-1837:150). As much as a year laterresidents remained out of compliance and a Mr. A.Turner was arraigned for operating a slaughter penwithin the city limits. His plea of ignorance was ac-cepted and he was released (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:238).

Some of Columbus’ earliest garbage service was op-erating in 1832. In August of that year the Board of

Figure 24. Novel Indoor Plumbingin Columbus Brought With It New

Issues in the 1890s(Walsh 1897:17).


69


Commissioners “ordered that the marshal send oneof the public carts around the town once per week,and oftener if necessary for the purpose of remov-ing litter and other things which may be thrown fromthe lots of the inhabitants; and that he request thecitizens to deposit such matter before their doorson some specific day” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:4). The following summer the marshal was orderedto “proceed further with the public hands and cartsto remove all filth and litter from the streets andlots within the city limits and deposit said matterout of the City...” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837: 38).(The public hands were slaves hired out to the cityby various plantation owners.) In the summer of1839 the council ordained that everyone within thecorporate limits clean all trash and debris from theirlots and buildings and place such matter in thestreets “...on Wednesday and Saturday mornings ofeach week by 8 o’clock a.m.” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:302). The Committee of Health recommendedthe cleaning and burning of offal deposited by pub-lic hands near the river bank “which greatly marsthe beauty of the river promenade [and] would seri-ously affect the health” and advised the selection ofa more remote location for depositing garbage (Clerkof Council 1837-1841:306).

The historical documentation suggests that, becausegarbage pick-up was regularly supplied by the cityat a very early date, the amount of artifacts inten-tionally disposed of by residents on their lots (i.e.their garbage) should be very small. The documentsalso suggest that there was an old dump or landfillbeyond the city limits. The hypothesis can be testedby examining the amounts and kinds of artifacts (orgarbage) found within the residential lots. In thespring of 1839 the marshal again was instructed toclean the city and “...to have all the filth, rubbage[sic], etc. collected in the city thrown into the riverand not into the sewers and that ...what has beenalready thrown into the upper sewer be immedi-ately covered with dirt” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:255).

Architecture

City officials were given the authorization to “...pulldown and destroy as nuisance all obstructions inthe streets of said town, and all dwelling and otherhouses on the common an unsold lots within thecorporate limits of said town, which shall embrace

the town and common belonging thereto” (GeneralAssembly of Georgia 1828:154).

The Board of Health in Columbus requested, “...thatthe marshal shall notify persons owning cellars intown to have them lime washed [white-washed] ByThursday next, and if they fail to do so that he willhave it done at the owners’ expense” (Clerk of Coun-cil 1832-1837:4). In spite of the frequent referencesto fining residents in violation of the health ordi-nances, the health committees for the city wardsonly occasionally recommended that city officialsenforce “...the ordinances in regard to the cleansingof different cellars in their districts” (Clerk of Coun-cil 1832-1837:141). Some cellars were in such foulshape that the Health Committees recommendedthat they be completely filled. Other cellar prob-lems led to the committees recommending fines andcleaning, such as the case with Dr. Thornton, below.

“Ordered that Dr. Thornton be and he is hereby finedfifty dollars for failing to cleanse, ventilate, and limehis cellar on Broad Street” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:40). “Dr. Thornton appeared...to ask for re-mission of the fine against him for failing to lime hiscellar. He stated he had done every thing in hispower to comply with the ordinance-that circum-stances beyond his control had prevented his ear-lier complyance [sic] and that the cellar is now ingood condition...” The committee found Dr.Thornton’s cellar “wholsome” [sic] and the fine wasrescinded (Clerk of Council 1832-1837: 44-5).

Certain citizens were routinely cited for Board ofHealth violations. Seaborn Jones appeared fre-quently in notices like this one: “You are herebyrequired to remove, within forty eight hours fromthe morning of this day 25th inst, the nuisance inyour cellar on Oglethorpe Street, reported by theBoard of Health. April 28, 1836” (Clerk of Council1832-1837:210). Jones apparently was given threedays to clean up his cellar, but failed to take the no-tice seriously. Nine days later, on May 7, he wasfined $120, or $20 for every day he defaulted fol-lowing the grace period. Jones again fell out of fa-vor with the Board of Commissioners less than twomonths later, when he was ordered to remove thestanding water from the same cellar (Clerk of Coun-cil 1832-1837:218). In March, Jones was cited forthe condition of the cellars under the buildings atthe corner of Oglethorpe and Bryan Streets. In May


70


of the same year the city admonished that “...thecellar and back yard attached to the unfinishedbuilding belonging to Col. S. Jones [is] in a very filthycondition and unless they are shortly cleaned willbe the prolific source of musketos [sic] (mosquitoes)and will generate disease in our city” (Clerk of Coun-cil 1837-1841:131). Jones’ cellar problems were lesslikely the result of slovenly habits and more prob-ably the result of inhabiting a low-lying, poorlydrained city lot. Other city residents were repri-manded for having water in their cellars. Mr. S.K.Hodges was required to remove his cellar nuisancewith the admonition, “Fail not under penalty of theordinance” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837: 211). Com-missioners were not entirely inflexible and showeda willingness to partially pardon those willing towork with them. When Mr. A. L. Hine removed partof the nuisance on his lot, he was fined only $5.00 aday (Clerk of Council 1832-1837: 207).

Applying lime and/or whitewash to cellars was acommonly accepted method of cleaning them inColumbus. In fact, the delinquent Seaborn Joneswas charged for “2 barrels of lime at $5.00 per bar-rel” used by order of the mayor in 1839 for cleans-ing the cellars under Jones’ tenements on OglethorpeStreet (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:415).

Early residents of Columbus often made fencing ahigh priority on their agenda. Fencing was neces-sary in securing livestock, protecting gardens, anddemarcating lot boundaries. The need for fencingwas especially critical during the town’s early yearswhen animals freely roamed the dirt streets andtrampled yards with relative impunity. Construc-tion of enclosures in certain areas near the street,however, was regulated by city ordinances ratherthan individual desires. In the spring of 1834 a Mr.Stewart petitioned the Board of Commissioners re-garding the “...enclosures of such ground in front ofhis house as will prevent danger from droves ofhorses going to water” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:80). He was granted permission “...to placesuch fixtures in front of his residence as will preventhorses from passing within —[illegible] feet from thefence along the front of his residence” (Clerk of Coun-cil 1832-1837: 81).

Nine years following the establishment of Colum-bus, hogs still ran the streets. In January of 1837the Board of Commissioners recommended the fol-

lowing, “The marshal be instructed to build a poundforthwith on the lot set apart for city purposes andafter the first day of February next to secure all hogsrunning in the streets and put them in said pound -and sell them for the benefit of the corporation un-less the owners claim them in twenty-four hours foreach head” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:258). Theresolution was voted on and lost. Several commis-sioners persevered and brought the motion up againat the next meeting, where it passed, however a pe-tition was circulated by residents asking for a repealof the hog ordinance. The council appealed it butreintroduced a similar motion the following month.

Residents and city council members appeared tohave stirred up one of the biggest controversies incity history with this “hog issue”. The issue appearedagain before the Board of Commissioners in 1838.Between April 1838 and August 1839 the issue wasresurrected nine times. The point of contentionarose over whether hogs should be allowed to runfree in the city streets and commons. The anti-freeroaming contingent was in favor of capturing loosehogs and selling them with the proceeds going to thecity. This did happen in May of 1838, when the Mar-shal reported selling 58 head at $136.75 and allow-ing 26 hogs to be redeemed by their owners (Clerkof Council 1837-1841:132). This document suggeststhat 84 hogs were running the streets of Columbusin the spring of 1838. No wonder some townspeoplesupported ordinances against free-roaming hogs! ByAugust of 1839, however, the council again repealedthe ordinance (by a margin of one vote) and hogswere free to roam.

Public Safety

Town residents answered to the commissioners ifcharged with poor conduct. Residents were oftencharged with “keeping a disorderly house” and wererequired to explain their activities to the board.Daniel Revel and Fontaine Blakey were arraigned inthe winter of 1836 for keeping an unquiet and disor-derly house and each fined $25 and bound over toSuperior Court to be tried for “keeping a gamblinghouse”. Their retail license was then declared nulland void (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:236, 238).Mrs. Burton was charged with being a nuisance andkeeping a disorderly house on Lots 184 and 185,which would have been on the southeastern cornerof the block across Franklin Street from the Coweta


71


Tenements (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:155). Timo-thy Collins and Nancy Darnell were charged withbeing a nuisance by their actions of “...living in astate of open adultery and fornication...” on Lot 318and ordered to appear before the Mayor and CityCouncil in 1836 (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:231).

Townspeople’s behaviors were often regulated bythe consequences of poor conduct. Mr. A.O.Blackmar reminisced about an incident in 1835 in-volving a peeping Tom who was caught and broughtto the whipping post at the foot of Broad Street andgiven “the conventional thirty-nine lashes and re-quired him to leave town in an hour” (Peddy Collec-tion July 10, 1921). Such a punishment may haveawaited the person or persons who broke the streetand bridge lamps on April 24, 1839. A lucrative$50 reward made it likely that the vandal would getreported (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:255). Cityordinances also attempted to regulate urban behav-iors. In the spring of 1839 it became illegal for towns-people to have their front doors and windows open,retailing “spiritous or fermented liquors” after nineo’clock in the evening (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:260).

State laws also affected behavior in Columbus andallowed city officials to apply prescribed penaltiesfor particular offenses. The Penal Code of 1833stated that, “Any person wandering or strollingabout, or leading an idle, immoral, profligate courseof life, who has no property to support him, and whois able to work, or otherwise to support himself in arespectable way, shall be deemed and considered avagrant, and may be arrested by a warrant issuedby any justice of the peace, mayor or alderman, andbound in sufficient security for his good behaviourand future industry for one year; and upon his re-fusal or failure to give such security, he shall be com-mitted and indicted as a vagrant, and on conviction,shall be punished by confinement and labour [sic]in the Penitentiary for any term not less than twoyears, nor longer than four years” (Georgia GeneralAssembly 1834:187).

Fire constantly threatened early residents of town.The preponderance of wooden structures, theirproximity to each other, and the lack of a reliablefire department made fire an acute danger. The FireCommittee lamented that citizens did not take thisthreat seriously enough since few large-scale con-

flagrations blazed in Columbus. A less common, butequally real problem involved arson. The court-house fire of 1838 and the house fire of JamesLovelace, of the fourth ward, are two such examples(Clerk of Council 1837-1841:374). The arson wasaddressed by offering rewards of several hundreddollars for the apprehension and conviction of theguilty. The lack of a suitable fire department wasaddressed, as well. In 1838 the council instructedthe Mayor pro-tem to proceed to examine all stovesand fireplaces in Columbus (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:175). The Fire Committee made a series of rec-ommendations in 1838 including: the constructionof a water works; the acquisition of two or more fireengines with hose; the construction of a powdermagazine; the passing of laws prohibiting more thantwo kegs of powder in any one building; the placingof powder in metal canisters; the formation of firecompanies furnished with “such implements as arenecessary and for supplying torpedoes and powderfor blowing up buildings, and also 20 leather firebuckets to be kept at the Market house” (Clerk ofCouncil 1837-1841:317). The city chose this timeto establish a Board of Fire Wardens.

In spite of efforts to create a fire-safe town, a fewblazes did damage early Columbus. A.O. Blackmarrecalls the fire of 1845 which “swept nearly everybuilding off the block” between 12th and 13th Street(Peddy Collection July 31, 1921). He may have meantthe “Great Fire” that destroyed almost six blocks ofBroad Street on October 8, 1846 (Emens andMcGinnis 1990:5). It was preceded by a March 15,1842 fire that burned a portion of the city on thewestern side of Broad Street resulting in $100,000in damages. The largest conflagration prior to theCivil War began in the King, Allen & Camak cottonwarehouse on June 8, 1859. It destroyed $500,000-$600,000 worth of property (Emens and McGinnis1990:5).

Streets and Drainage

The Board of Commissioners officially adapted theproposed town plan of Columbus in February 1828and named the streets, which were later renamed.The original names with their later names in paren-thesis are as follows. Original streets oriented north-south included, “Bay, Front, Broad, Oglethorpe (1st

Avenue), Jackson (2nd Avenue), Troup (3rd Avenue),Forsyth (4th Avenue), and McIntosh (5th Avenue).


72


Streets oriented east-west were christened, “Bridge(15th Street), Franklin (14th Street), Bryan (13th

Street), Randolph (12th Street), Saint Clair (11th

Street), Crawford (10th Street), and Thomas (9th

Street). The plan called for all streets running north-south to be 132 feet wide except Broad, which wasappropriately widened to 165 feet. Streets alongthe east-west axis were 99 feet. City blocks con-tained four acres of land divided into eight, half-acrelots (Clerk of Council 1828:17, 25). While the sur-veyor laid numerous streets running north-southand east-west, by 1835 British traveler HarrietMartineau observed “...three principal streets in Co-lumbus, with many smaller, branching out into theforest” (Benton 1998:124). It took a few more yearsof growth before Columbus’ streets were fully uti-lized.

On April 17, 1837 city council members called aspecial council meeting where they received a peti-tion from the following people: H.S. Smith, JonathonWarren, I. Grigsby, and E. Thomas, Esquire. Thepetitions reported that they recently “...opened adiagonal street, leading from Broad Street, justabove the dwelling house of H.S. Smith Esq. ToOgelthorpe Street, just above the house at presentoccupied by Thomas I. Shivers (?) Which has beenchristened ‘Warren Street’, 60 feet wide, and intend-ing to make it permanent.” (Clerk of Council 1837-29 June 1841:28). The men requested that the citycouncil receive the road as a public street and keepit in good condition. Warren Street is a city streettoday, so apparently at some point the city agreedto this request, in spite of a legislative act passednine years previously that stated, “...the Intendantand Commissioners shall in nowise [sic] have powerto alter the plan of said town by shutting up streets,or otherwise...” (Georgia General Assembly1829:154). Historians suggest that the men openedWarren Street in an effort to funnel traffic cominginto the city directly downtown to Broad Street. Mr.A.O. Blackman felt that the opening of Warren Streetrestored traffic to Broad Street merchants at theexpense of those housed on Oglethorpe Street (now1st Avenue) (Peddy Collection July 31, 1921).

Adequate drainage of some city lots and even entiresections of town was a chronic problem forColumbusites since the founding of the city. Recol-lections made in 1874 of early Columbus describedwhat is now the western side of the project area as

high ground and the eastern section as low. JohnMartin, in his early history, described the following:“Between Oglethorpe Street and the river the landwas generally high and dry, interspersed with prettygroves of fine shade trees. But east of OglethorpeStreet and all south was mostly wet swamp land”(Martin 1874:3). Officials made repeated attemptsto eliminate these problems by digging ditchesthroughout the city with limited success.

As early as 1833 ditch committees were appointedperiodically for the purpose of examining existingditches, addressing grievances, and determining thelocation of ditches. This committee examined “...theditch lately cut at the upper Common [this wordscratched through on the original document] end ofthe town and through Mr. Robenson’s land and as-sess the damages sustained Mr. Robenson” (Clerk ofCouncil 1832-1837:52). The city’s attempts to drainlow-lying areas often met with resistance, as ditcheswere authorized across lots without the approval orconsent of lot owners. Some owners responded tothese attempts as Mr. Grinago did, by stopping upthe ditch running through his lot. A newly appointedcommittee examined it, designated a rout for a newditch and had the marshal order Grinago “to removethe obstacles in the present ditch and let off the wa-ter” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:54). Apparentlythe good of the many outweighed individual con-cerns, particularly regarding ordinances aimed atprotecting the health of an entire urban population.The benevolent attempts of the ditch committeeswere not always grounded in any engineering knowl-edge, however, and their recommendations for ditchlocations often proved fallible. One of many suchcases involved filling a previously dug ditch leadingfrom St. Clair Street (now 11th Street) to the riverand digging a new ditch through the lots of JohnFontaine, Young and Company, and others, “...toconduct the water to the ditch which empties justbelow the bridge [Dillingham Bridge]” (Clerk of Coun-cil 1832-1837:220). Old ditches were filled and newones dug through the labor of paid hands workingunder the direction of a supervisor. Often contractswere posted and bids accepted for projects such as,“tunnelling [sic] the ditch in Front Street, or otherstreet repair” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:44).

The city sought professional help for their street anddrainage problems in 1837 by hiring a Mr. McGuire.This man appears to have been an engineer and was


73


hired at $70.00 per month for a term of two months“...for the purpose of graduating and otherwise im-proving the streets of the city...”(Clerk of Council1837-1841:14). In March Mr. McGuire was directedby the council to examine the ponds in the lowerend of the city and remove the nuisances there. Mr.McGuire’s tenure was not renewed, apparently, andin the same month the city appointed a committeeto ask an engineer named James Clark to survey thecity for the purposes of leveling the streets and drain-ing stagnant water. They requested elevation infor-mation on a street-by-street basis and practicablemethods for the proper filling and draining of thestreets. Clarke was agreeable, and was hired as acivil engineer at $500.00 for completion of theproject (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:21-22). One ofthe first things he did, on his leisure time, was pre-pare a large scale map that would replace the “in-complete” and “much defaced” original town map,and would include the latest improvements to thecity (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:24).

Low spots and poorly drained areas were either in-tentionally drained or filled with soil, debris, andvegetation. In 1835 James Holland was authorizedto haul timber from Alabama “...to fill up CrawfordStreet” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:138). Some ar-eas of town suffered from such chronic and long-term drainage problems that residents eventuallynamed the stagnant pools. The area on the northside of town, and east of the project area, containedone such pool known as Boykin Pond. The Commit-tee of Health recommended that an 18-inch diam-eter ditch be dug in the center of Bridge Street fromthe pond to the flat area between Jackson andOglethorpe streets, where the water could then natu-rally drain into the Franklin Street sewer. Thiswould involve a 550 ft long drain planked with two-inch thick heart pine and buried 4.5 feet below theground at a cost of $800.00 (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:129).

At about the same time the city laid its first stormsewer line (Peddy Collection July 10, 1921). Theline was put on 9th Street, but proved inadequate tothe demand of heavy rains and resulted in the flood-ing of both 9th and Broad Streets.

On April 25, 1837, the council appointed the StreetCommittee to accept proposals for constructing andlaying two brick storm sewers, one of which was lo-

cated at the intersection of Thomas and Oglethorpestreets and one at the intersection of Franklin andOglethorpe streets (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:36,38,40). The committee accepted the bid ofWilliam B. Robinson and Company at a rate of $10.50per thousand (laid bricks, it is assumed) with acompletion time of seven months (Clerk of Council1837-1841:37). Construction began almost imme-diately and the City Council authorized the StreetCommittee to employ as many extra hands (prob-ably referring to the public hands), carts, and mulesas necessary to finish the sewer excavations. ByFebruary of 1838 workers had laid over 160,000bricks (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:82). Late winterrains threatened the work, however, and the StreetCommittee reported that “... unless immediate mea-sures are applied to fill up the excavation in whichthe sewer is built, great and irreparable injury mustresult to the work...extreme liability of the wholesewer to ruin in its present exposed and precariouscondition” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:83).

The sewer Robinson installed at the intersection ofFranklin and Oglethorpe streets ran along the south-ern border of the project area, in the road adjacentto the mill workers’ tenement on Lot 191, and Lot192 on Block 15. This sewer was constructed in 1837of hand burned brick and the “strongest lime mor-tar” with a 2 1/4 feet interior diameter (Clerk of Coun-cil 1837-1841:38). At each street [intersection?] thesewer connected to a circular well that measured 2½ feet interior diameter. Several features locatedarchaeologically on Lot 191 are undoubtedly asso-ciated with this early-nineteenth century sewer run-ning along Franklin Street.

The council decided to modify the “lower” sewer (atthe intersection of Thomas and Troup streets) bychanging its construction from brick to wood, ap-parently to save money. In February of 1838 Will-iam B. Robinson and Company agreed to the change,stipulating that the lower sewer was to be built ofwood “three feet broad and three and 4— [illegible]feet deep in the clear. That it be constructed withheart pine timbers. The string pieces to be six inchessquare, the balance of the frames be six by threeinches, the plank to be two and half inches thick andwell secured with spikes five inches long” (Clerk ofCouncil 1837-1841:95).


74


The city commissioners tried to maintain accessi-bility of streets to pedestrians as well as buggies,wagons, and horses. Between late 1836 and early1837 an ordinance was passed “that all owners ofhouses and lots in the business part of Columbus becompelled to have their side walks paved by the ex-piration of three months or it be done by order ofthe mayor and council at the expense of the owners(Clerk of Council 1832-1837:255). This ordinancedid not impact residents of the project area, but onlywhat was considered the “business part of Colum-bus” at this time (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:255-261).

The lack of sidewalks was not the only hindrance topedestrians trying to navigate the alternating muddyto dusty, rut-filled streets. Many businesses andsome lot residents encroached on sidewalk andstreet areas by placing merchandise and buildingstructures in these areas. Colonel Jones was giventwo weeks to remove “...all impediments to a freefoot and carriage passage near his brick building atthe corner of St. Clair (11th Street) and Broad Streets,and upon failure, to be subject to a penalty of fivedollars for each day’s default” (Clerk of Council1832-1837:28). The commissioners tried to makethe city streets more accessible by installing streetsigns. In December of 1836 they advertised “forproposals for painting and putting up sign boardsdesignating the names of the several streets in thecity” and several weeks later received the followingbids for seventy sign boards: John W. Reas at $2.10per sign; Bradford and Snow’s at $1.75; Nevil Bird at$1.43; and George W. Penhorn at $1.00 per sign(Clerk of Council 1832-1837: 237, 243). Penhorn’slowest bid won him the contract.

The city streets of Columbus were made easier touse at night through the addition of street lamps. In1834 the commissioners paid $47.00 for the pur-chase of “6 lamps, wicks, ropes, etc. and 10 gallonsof oil for the bridge [Dillingham Street bridge]” to belit nightly by the bridge-keeper (Clerk of Council1832-1837:81, 86). The bridge-keeper used about agallon of oil a month and was supplied with $31worth of additional lamp oil in January 1835 (Clerkof Council 1832-1837:122). Following the installa-tion of bridge lamps in 1834, the city installed streetlamps early in 1836 (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:170).

Flooding and Land Alteration

Chronic and large-scale modifications of Columbus’landscape are evident in both historical documentsand archaeological excavations. Such modifica-tions are typical of urban landscapes, as people tryto alter their environment in efforts to satisfyhealth, agricultural, construction, domestic, occu-pational, aesthetic, cultural, and space require-ments. The residents of Columbus were no excep-tion. From the initial survey of the town in 1828 tothe construction of the Total Systems Services’ cor-porate campus, the urban landscape has enduredstripping, infilling, ditching, terracing and othermodifications. Hills, high spots, and natural ter-races and levees were often scraped away andpushed, or carried to low-lying areas. In May of1840 the council authorized the Committee on CityImprovements to “designate a spot on the Com-mons from which the proprietor may take dirt tofill [Lot No. 216]” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:401).

City commissioners constantly ordered the con-struction of drainage ditches throughout the cityduring the nineteenth century. Streets were laidout then modified and re-constructed. Several ex-amples of such modifications include the creationof Warren Street to funnel traffic to selected down-town areas and changes to the median along BroadStreet. Columbusites used natural debris and man-made garbage to help fill low-lying areas. Residentsand businesses even created land by dumping tonsof fill dirt and debris along the eastern bank of theChattahoochee River. Archaeologists discoveredexamples of such infilling along the banks of theriver just south of City Mills. In spite of the cre-ation of new land and the raising of the ground sur-face by the addition of fill, flooding was still a prob-lem on rare occasions. Local lore states that duringthe Harrison freshet of 1840, the ChattahoocheeRiver flooded the Mott House to a depth of eightfeet in the first story rooms (Holstead 1906:3). TheMuscogee Manufacturing Company illustrated an-other example of land creation on the north end ofFront Avenue in a 1942 letter stating, “There is notmuch land there and what is there was mostly madeby our filling it in from the dirt excavations fromthe filter plant lot” (Muscogee Manufacturing Com-pany letter, March 6, 1942). The rapid spread ofindustrialization and the changes in mechanizedtechnology have accelerated landscape modifica-tions in urban areas such as Columbus.


75


Other land modifications involved rocks, minerals,and the Chattahoochee River. Apparently some resi-dents were in the habit of removing large amountsof rock from the head of the river inside the citylimits, even resorting to blowing up areas to obtainloose rock. The Board of Commissioners was con-cerned about the potential injury to the city’s bridgeand the corporation’s fishing industry and enacteda heavy fine of $1,000 for anyone damaging eitherthrough the removal of rock (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:167). This ordinance was waived, however,for Asa Bates, who was allowed to removed rocksfrom the shoals of the river in order to make a break-water at Woolfolk’s sand bar as long as he did notinjure city property while doing so (Clerk of Council1837-1841:168). The council gave other specialprivileges regarding natural resources. In the springof 1838 council members granted S.M. Ingersoll theright to wash “...the loose sand in the Chattahoocheefor gold for two years...”(Clerk of Council 1837-1841:109). The lack of a Columbus gold rush sug-gests that Ingersoll was unsuccessful in his search.

Commons

Four public areas known as the north, east, south,and west commons surrounded the city. These landswere owned by the city and used for different pur-poses. The intended function of these areas appearsalways to have been poorly defined. The state legis-lature did restrict usage of the commons in 1828 byenacting a regulation against the construction ofdwelling houses or buildings there (Georgia GeneralAssembly 1829:154). This regulation, along withthe mass descent of settlers descending upon thearea and eager to bid on a town lot may have playeda role in the commissioners stating on February 6,1828, that, “No one be permitted to erect any houseor buildings of any description or to run any fenceor enclosure by nails, plank pailing or otherwise, onthe land reserved for the Town of Columbus, betweenthe upper and lower lines within one mile of the bankof the river until the lines of the town and commonsand the streets ad lots shall have been laid out”(Clerk of Council 1828:11).

The city’s major concerns between 1832-1836 seemto have been protecting the trees on the commons.The original ordinance passed in June of 1832 statedthat, “...no person should be allowed to fell any treeon the commons, included in the swamp within the

corporate city limits...” and instituted a fine of notless than $5.00 per offence (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:2). A Mr. E. Featherstone was fined $10.00for cutting a tree on the river Common on Bay Streetbut “rendered an excuse” and the fine was excused.Even the marshal was accused of tree cutting withinthe commons. In 1833 a sexton reported that themarshal was cutting down trees in the burial ground.The marshal appeared before the Board of Commis-sioners and offered an acceptable excuse and wasnot fined. An occasional permit was given to a peti-tioner to cut trees within the commons, such as theprivilege given to James Lyons in 1833, on the con-dition that he remove the entire tree. Apparentlythere was a great deal of demand for firewood withinthe growing city and by January, 1834, “all lawsregulating the cutting and hauling of wood from thecommons be and the same are hereby repeald [sic]provided that no person shall have leave to cutdown any tree upon Bay or any other street in town”(Clerk of Council 1832-1837:71). By the fall of 1836,the commissioners were again showing concern forthe trees growing in the commons. This time, how-ever, they were trying to protect young trees inten-tionally planted. The commissioners hired GeorgeRoss to “take charge of the young grove of trees onNorth and North East Common [sic], and preventpersons from trespassing or camping themselves orvehicles in said grove, or so near thereto as to in-jure the growth thereof...” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:235). By 1839 no one was allowed to camp onthe commons, within the corporate limits of Colum-bus, or in the streets.

The city’s commons eventually housed an assort-ment of activities. A burial ground was mentionedin the commons in 1833. A year later a second onewas added at “...the request of the colored peoplefor the privilege of fencing in two (?) acres of groundof the town commons for a burial ground which wasgranted” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:108). The cityalso made use of the commons through leasing ar-rangements, which was allowed through the Gen-eral Assembly Act of 1828 (Georgia General Assem-bly 1829:154). Some land in the commons wasrented to Thomas Gordon for the construction of atemporary stable area feed house (Minutes of theBoard of Commissioners, Vol. 1, 1832-1837:194).In 1837 Judge Hitchcock petitioned the council toallow him to use the commons ground near his brick-yard (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:24). Hitchcock’s


76


petition does not explain whether he wanted thecommons area as a staging ground for making bricksor if he wanted to mine the clay out of the ground.Five years earlier Hitchcock specifically requestedthe right to use the clay from the commons for brickmaking and also for drying and burning brick (Clerkof Council 1832-1837:13-14, 32). Occasionally thecity obtained soil from the commons to use as fill inother locations of the city. The Street Committeewas to determine whether Hitchcock’s planned usewould “injure the commons”. Other uses for thecommons included activities relating to city main-tenance and safety. The city council advertised acontract for the construction of “a Deputy Marshal’shouse, negro house [for the public hands], mealhouses, stables [for the public mules] and cribs onsome suitable situation on the commons lot” (Clerkof Council 1837-1841:64-65). In the winter of 1840the marshal was ordered to “...burn or bury all ani-mals dieing [sic] in the city-at some convenient placeupon the city Commons...” and be paid $1.00 by theanimal’s owner (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:366).

By June of 1838 the Commons Committee reportedthat “...there are about 800 acres of commons lyingwaste and useless about the city...[We] recommendthat these said commons be laid off into lots of suit-able size and leased for purposes of cultivation...Itwould increase the revenue and substitute usefulvegetables for the worthless scrubby pines, improveour market, drain off and remove the prolific sourceof disease and greatly adorn and beautify our city..”(Clerk of Council 1837-1841:147-148). The resolu-tion to divide the commons into lots for three-yearrentals for agricultural purposes was met with dis-agreement by many. Six months after the resolu-tion passed a committee appealed the decision basedon the following logic: The Commons are intendedfor the convenience and comfort of all our citizens.The rich and poor are entitled alike to its benefits. Itcontributes to the beauty and health of our city aswell as to the convenience and comfort of the citi-zens when kept in a neat and cleanly condition.Therefore to convert our Commons into a cornfieldand thus fence up and curtail its privileges, is notauthorized by our sense of duty or the interest ofthe community” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:202).This passionate appeal to the newly appointed boardof commissioners was successful.

West Commons

On November 15, 1837 the city council appointed acommittee to prepare a document to give the statelegislature requesting the right to lay out and auc-tion lots in the West Commons (Clerk of Council1837-1841:47). Less than five months later, SigurneyNorton promoted the idea that “...the river bankmight be made a beautiful promenade and pleasureground” and rallied considerable “public spirit” be-hind his plan to beautify the west commons’riverbank (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:114). Unfor-tunately, the council decided that more pressingpublic works needed attention. Norton did manageto begin the project prior to the council’s fundingrejection, however, and the board agreed to allowthe Marshal and public hands to “...raise those partsof the work immediately on the river bank subjectto be injured on account of being dug too low”(Clerkof Council 1837-1841:114). It would be almost 170years later before Columbus would see her Riverwalkconstructed.

East Commons

In 1834 two acres of the East Commons was rentedfor a slaughter pen to Mr. Buchkler (?) and Mr. Terryfor three years. Five months later a Benjamin Sell-ers located his butcher pen on the East Commons.By the fall of 1835 city officials agreed to hire a sur-veyor to divide the eastern town commons into lotsto be used as agricultural rental properties (Clerk ofCouncil 1832-1837:148). By the winter of that yearresidents were renting areas of the commons fromthe city. Rental privileges were awarded to the high-est bidder, and in that year rents for the East Com-mons ranged from $2.50 to $0.09 per acre (Clerk ofCouncil 1832-1837:154). The wide range in pricesuggests that some parts of the commons were muchbetter suited to agriculture than other. The renterswere obligated to drain their lots (if required) underthe direction of city officials. The commissionersalso stated that, “The lots [on East Commons] are tobe well fenced in accordance to the plan of the sur-vey, and cleaned up, and cultivated...” (Clerk ofCouncil 1832-1837:154). Apparently petitionersobtained permission to fire brick on the commons,because documents indicate that the council di-rected the marshal to fill in the brick kilns located inthe East Commons, presumably to eliminate stag-nant water and/or weedy overgrowth (Clerk of Coun-cil 1837-1841:152).


77


South Commons

In spite of numerous stagnant ponds within theSouth Commons, the drier areas were used for sev-eral purposes. It contained a racetrack in 1836.During this time all the land near the judge’s stand atthe track was rented by William L. Wynn at $3.00per acre per year for a total of 6 years (Clerk of Coun-cil 1832-1837:194). Other activities within the SouthCommons involved the lease of land to JohnDillingham in July of 1836 for use as a boatyard.Dillingham leased the property for three years at anannual rate of $100.00 (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:217). In 1840, Mrs. Ann McGeehee was keeperof the hospital and she began cultivating the part ofthe commons fenced in between the race groundand the river (Clerk of Council 1837-29 June1841:368). During the same year the Committee ofPublic Improvements recommended that the Ne-gro burying ground on the South Commons be “...en-closed with a plain but substantial fence” (Clerk ofCouncil 1837-1841:405). The year 1845 found theSouth Commons overcome with several encroach-ments, including sheds constructed for shelteringbricks made in the brickyard, and the wagons of nu-merous campers (Clerk of Council 1841-1846:329).Wagon campers were a particular bane to nearbyresidents. The latter reported that the campers setup within a few feet of their domicile and used theirmilk cows, hogs, and other stock without permis-sion.

North Commons

Eleven years following the establishment of Colum-bus, the city was still calling for the removal ofstumps and obstructions along roads and the NorthCommons (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:278). Ap-parently by 1840 some citizens of Columbus or thesurrounding area erected numerous structures onthe North Commons. The Board of Commissionersannounced in the fall of that year that anyone withbuildings or enclosures on the North Commons hadto remove them or the marshal would tear themdown (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:425).

Market Place

The first city market house was located on BroadStreet and was constructed by the summer of 1832,if not earlier. When it burned a second one was con-

structed at Broad and Eleventh Streets. This onealso burned and a third was built at Broad and TenthStreets (Peddy Collection July 10,1921). The struc-ture was a wooden painted building with interiorstalls for vendors. It was rebuilt less than a yearlater, “precisely as it was” except for the addition ofa ceiling (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:33). A cupolawith windows and blinds, along with a large bell,completed the building. The bell served to notifytownspeople of the opening and closing of the mar-ket as well as special events. The Clerk to the Marketwas instructed to commence bell-ringing preciselyat 9:00 p.m. and continue for several minutes (Clerkof Council 1832-1837:108). The bell undoubtedlyacted as an attractive nuisance and one can imaginechildren unable to resist the lure of ringing it. By1834 the Board of Commissioners “ordered that Mr.Kilgore be requested to make some fixtures at themarket House to prevent persons from ringing thebell” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:57). By 1838 theboard of commissioners approved the mayor to con-tract “...for a sufficient number of pillars to supportthe central part of the second story of the markethouse and [install] suitable gutters...) (Clerk of Coun-cil 1837-1841:181).

The Clerk of Market’s duties included activities otherthan bell-ringing. He was responsible for: reportingto the city commissioners those vendors attempt-ing to sell unwholesome meat; appearing before thecity council to press such charges against those ven-dors; enforcing ordinances applicable to vendorsoccupying market stalls; collecting nine-month stallrental fees; collecting fees from market vendors notrenting stalls; maintaining an account/record book;insuring that the market was swept and the stallswashed by the individual stall vendors; maintainingorder in the market; and keeping the wagons andcarts “properly arranged” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:8,55,105; Clerk of Council 1837-1841:264).Vendors declining to rent a stall for an entire nine-month period could sell meat by paying a fee basedon each animal they sold. Such fees consisted of 50cents for each beef, hog or sheep weighing more than50 pounds, and 12.5 cents for those weighing lessthan 50 pounds (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:105).

The Clerk of the Market worked closely with butch-ers to maintain market regulations. Butchers wereresponsible for showing animal carcasses to theclerk, providing a description of the animal, and giv-


78


ing the clerk a description of the marks and brandson the animal (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:267).Butchers were required to “...scrap and clean theirstalls, blocks, and benches” after the market closedand “remove the feet of all animals and all otherparts-unfit-for use...” This ordinance is particularlyuseful to archaeological interpretation. In caseswhere archaeologists have excavated and identifiedfeet of animals, they can surmise that the carcassclearly was not purchased whole at the city market,but raised and butchered on the city lot where theanimal feet were excavated. Finally, butcherswere to wear “...a decent apron or frock...”(Clerkof Council 1837-1841:267). Figure 25 depicts atypical butcher stall in the Columbus Market (Had-dock 1873).

City commissioners tried unsuccessfully to hire areliable Clerk of Market in the summer of 1832.The clerk failed to appear before the board of com-missioners to press charges against a vendor whomhe had reported for selling rotten meat. Follow-ing the clerk’s first absence before the board, hewas charged $1.00. When he failed to show upagain, the board fined him $2.00 and dropped thecharges against the vendor due to lack of evidence(Clerk of Council 1832-1837:8,9). By Novemberof that year the Board had grown tired of the un-dependable clerk and dispensed of the Clerk of theMarket position. The vendors were told to per-form the clerk’s duties and they were not chargedfor items they sold. City commissioners found anew clerk within seven months (Clerk of Council1832-1837:45).

Health and Medicine, Hospital,and Epidemics

City officials hoping settlers would migrate to Co-lumbus in large numbers, faced obstacles from thephysical environment as well as from peoples’ per-ceptions of the frontier. On March 26, 1832, Mr.Thomas Cooper of Eatonton, Georgia, wrote hisdaughter, Mrs. Emmily Branham the following let-ter:

Dear Daughter...I am glad the Dr. [Emmily’s husband, possibly ei-ther Edward V. or Henry R. Branham (Davis1987:309)] has not determined to settle in Colum-bus; because, from the best information I can get,

there is great reason to fear the place will not behealthy; and would not by any means have you andthe family to risk it one season. I have no doubt thata life of considerable activity is necessary for yourhealth, and shall be pleased to hear the Dr. has madearrangements for a permanent settlement; and shallbe most pleased if it should be his interest, ad incli-nation, to settle here [Eatonton]. It appears to me,that it will be unsafe for you and the children to riskColumbus longer than the latter part of May...YourAffectionate Father, Th. L. Cooper (Cooper 1832).

The fact that Mr. Cooper resided in Eatonton, andwished his daughter to live there as well, may haveaffected his opinion of the healthiness of the Colum-bus environment. Whether correctly or incorrectlyviewed, it was these public opinions that the citycommissioners tried hard to change. In June of 1833officials resolved, “That the Board of Health be re-quested to publish in the next Enquirer a statementof the general health of the town and such othermatters as they may deem best, to quit public ex-citement both in the town and country (Clerk ofCouncil 1832-1837:40). Their rhetoric was backed

Figure 25. A Variety of Meat Was Available at StallNo. 2 and Other Stalls in the City Market

(Haddock 1873).


79


up with action two years later when the Board ofHealth divided the city into thirds to appoint healthcommittees to inspect each ward.

On January 8, 1836 a case of smallpox arrived inColumbus (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:162). Out-breaks of smallpox and malaria were greatly fearedin Columbus, as in most urban areas where epidem-ics were able to spread rapidly and kill large num-bers of people. In May 1837 the city council paidElizabeth Hammand $129.25 for nursing small poxpatients in the hospital (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:39). The outbreak of small pox that year maynot have been too pandemic, however, as the coun-cil sought the return of part of a cash advance givento Dr. Boswell specifically for the treatment of thatdisease (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:15). (Docu-ments suggest that Dr. Boswell may have been re-luctant to return the unspent money, as the councilwas prepared to notify a collections officer “in caseof refusal to pay”). Residents were susceptible to avariety of illnesses in addition to small pox, includ-ing scarlet fever, diarrhea, intemperance, and acci-dents (Clerk of Council 1846-January 2, 1852).

The first three months of 1837 saw 19 deaths in thecity, 13 of which were adults (Minutes of the Boardof Aldermen, 9 January 1837-29 June 1841:26). In1844 a total of 75 Columbusites died, including: 21men; 16 boys; 14 women, 11 girls, and 13 children(Clerk of Council 1841-1846:328). Only 9 of thesedeaths occurred in January, February, and March.

The Board of Commissioners remained vigilantagainst the spread of disease. In August of 1838 thecouncil recommended that the Marshall cut downand remove from the streets and vacant groundsweeds and other matter to prevent the possibility ofdisease (Clerk of Council 1837-29 1841:159). Thecouncil also was fully aware of the dangers of stag-nant water, if they did not completely understandthe differences between mosquito borne diseasesand miasmas. The Committee of Health recom-mended the draining of Boykin Pond, on the northside of town, because of its deleterious effect on pub-lic health. They claimed the pond bred “...swarmsof mosquitoes who seize our dwelling as tenants, atwill [they] suck our blood and can only be ejectedby the chilling blast of winter” (Clerk of Council 1837-29 June 1841:128-129).

Several widespread smallpox epidemics did hit Co-lumbus, including one in 1880. The Pest House wasconstructed for the sick and was a “stark frame build-ing on the banks of the Chattahoochee” (Deaton andHudson n.d.:1). The city often paid for the care ofthe sick and dying who were brought to the PestHouse. These patients probably represented Colum-bus’ economic lower class who could not afford doc-tors’ home visits, and who undoubtedly did not haverelatives who could afford to stay home and lookafter them rather than going to work in the mills orin other occupations. By 1886 the Pest House wasdilapidated but it was not closed until 1922. Ironi-cally, smallpox cases were reported in Columbus inthat year and the city health officer instituted man-datory vaccinations against the deadly disease(Deaton and Hudson n.d.:3).

Smallpox and other epidemics were pandemic in thestate and resulted in the passage of legislation andsteep penalties aimed at halting the spread of dis-ease. In 1833 the General Assembly stated in thePenal Code that, “Any physician, surgeon or otherperson, wilfully endeavouring [sic] to spread thesmall pox, without inoculation, or by inoculationwith matter of the small pox, or using any other in-oculation than that called vaccination, unless byspecial commission or authority from the inferiorcourt of the county where the small pox shall makeits appearance, shall by indicated, and on convic-tion fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dol-lars, and be imprisoned in the common jail at thediscretion of the court” (Georgia General Assembly1834:187).

Residents of Columbus used whatever medical treat-ments were available to them. When James Howardreturn from fighting in the Civil War people said helooked so sick as though “out on furlough from thegrave and would soon have to go back”. He went onto say “I had to wear smoked glasses as my eyeswere so weak and had been for five years” (Howardn.d.) Howard was destitute and jobless, yet sought acure for his eye malady. He traveled to Phenix Cityand purchased a twenty-five cent bottle of eye wa-ter that a woman named Mrs. Fol Buchanan made.Howard declared his eyes cured and he “could readfor the first time since ‘65 [1865] (Howard n.d.). Thesale of such “home remedies” was discouraged bythe state legislature, who enacted laws requiringpeople practicing “physic or surgery” for the cure


80


of diseases, as well as apothecaries mixing medi-cines, be licensed by the Board of Physicians (Geor-gia General Assembly 1834:186). [See later chap-ters of this report for an in-depth analysis of medi-cine bottles excavated at the 2nd Avenue site andColumbus physicians].

Some late-nineteenth century Columbus residentsput less stock in the advice of physicians and morein the medical lore of local remedies. The lack ofparticularly sanitary environments during this pe-riod encouraged the spread of tapeworm and otherparasites. Mrs. James Howard’s tapeworm wastreated by Dr. Stanford with calomel and turpen-tine. Not only was the treatment unsuccessful, butit was reported to have almost killed her (Howardn.d.:62). She tried a folk remedy involving fastingfor a day, and eating a teacup full of pumpkin seedsfollowed by a dose of castor oil. The treatment wassuccessful. A Dr. Tuggle [possibly Thomas S. Tuggle(Davis 1987:313)] came to see Mr. Howard when hefell ill in the spring of 1876 and gave Mr. Howard“...up to die” and told Mrs. Howard “...he had doneall he could” (Howard n.d.:63). Mrs. Howard imme-diately threw away all the medicines the doctor leftand used “simple remedies” to treat her husband.Three days later Mr. Howard reported, “...Dr. Tugglecame to see me as he had not seen my death in thepapers” (Howard n.d.:63). Mrs. Howard refused fur-ther medications from the doctor and nursed herhusband back to health in the ensuing month.

Some residents of Columbus and transients comingthrough the town did not survive bouts with epi-demics or other contagions. Columbus planned forcontingencies in dealing with this matter as early as1833, when the commissioners appointed a com-mittee to “examine a vehicle belonging to Mr.Dillingham and if thought to be suitable, to purchaseit for the use of the corporation [of Columbus] as ahearse” (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:45). Carpen-ters and carpentry companies were routinely reim-bursed by the Board of Commissioners for makingcoffins for indigent burials. The firm of Clapp & Chan-dlers was paid $191.50 in December of 1836 formaking coffins (Clerk of Council 1832-1837:239).The same firm also supplied fire hooks, ladders, andother necessary items to the city.

A total of 44 bodies were interred at the City Cem-etery (now known as Linwood) by 1839. Almost

half (21) of these burials were of children under theage of ten (Clerk of Council 1837-29 June 1841:325).By 1874 lots in Linwood Cemetery could be pur-chased for $25.00 (Howard n.d.:63).

Trade and Economics

The mill industry was the most prevalent force inthe economy of Columbus from the 1840s until aslate as the late twentieth century. Textile mills domi-nated the economy of fall line towns such as Colum-bus, Macon, and Augusta throughout the nineteenthcentury. Columbus compared favorably to theseother cities harnessing waterpower along Fall Linerivers. For example, in 1840, Muscogee Countyranked third in the state for the number of peopleemployed in manufacturing and trades. The countyhad 400 people in this category, with the majorityof them likely in the textile industry. Only Rich-mond County (home of Augusta) and Clarke County(Athens) outnumbered employees in this category,with 500 and 850, respectively (University of Vir-ginia 2003). Only ten years later Muscogee Countyadvanced to second in the ranking. In that year,1850, there were 720 people employed specificallyin manufacturing, compared to the number oneranked Richmond County with 990 employees (Uni-versity of Virginia 2003). By 1860 Muscogee Countywas the number one employer in the state of femalesin the field of manufacturing. Females constituted43% of the workforce. Approximately 415 womenand girls worked in the mills of Columbus and thesurrounding areas (University of Virginia 2003).The next largest employer of females, Cobb County,fell far short of that, employing only 255. AlthoughMuscogee employed the largest number of femalesin 1860 in the mills, it was fourth in the number ofmales employed, at 540. Macon and greater BibbCounty claimed 720 males in the manufacturing in-dustry there. The total number of textile mill work-ers in Muscogee County in 1860 was 955 (Univer-sity of Virginia 2003).

The river and its related industries of trade and ship-ping offered a boon to the Columbus economy. Priorto 1850, Columbus’ dependence on theChattahoochee involved receiving freight shipmentsfrom New Orleans of agricultural implements, bag-ging, furniture, rope, sugar, syrup, whiskey and ve-hicles. Columbus shipped up to 1,500 bales of cot-ton downstream and 3,000 barrels upstream (Peddy


81


Collection May 8, 1921). Increasing consumerismduring the mid to late nineteenth century broughtproducts into Columbus and textiles and other ma-terials out of the city first by steamboat and laterrail, fueling the economy.

Industrial development continued. While the tex-tile industry dominated the economy, other servicesand businesses flourished as well. Advertisementsin the city’s Industrial Index illustrate some of themany industries and businesses located in Colum-bus during the late nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies. These included Berry’s Brick Yard, BuckIce, Ice and Cold Storage Company, City Mills Com-pany, Dimon Court Apartments, and Central Rail-road of Georgia rates to name a few.

Bricks were produced in Columbus by the mid-nine-teenth century, if not earlier. Certainly, some peoplewere using bricks in house and well constructionand the city’s Board of Commissioners was purchas-ing brick for urban improvement projects (Clerk ofCouncil 1837-1841:405). It is not clear if this brickwas manufactured locally at this time in the 1830s-40s, but it is quite likely. The Berry Brick Companywas located on 9th Street (where the Lummus CottonGin Company was later constructed) (Agee 1955:21).The brick company was established by William W.Berry, but perhaps more widely associated with hisson, George Oliver Berry. Archaeologists foundbricks stamped Geo. O. Berry within the project area.

Schools

Independent, unregulated schools were typical ofthe early-to-mid-nineteenth century avenues ofeducation available. The curricula of such schoolswere entirely at the whim of the instructor, whosecredentials may or may not have been impeccable.A total of twenty-seven male and female teachersadvertised such schools in 1859 (Huntzinger1992:18). These schools were often advertised inthe local newspaper. For example, in the nineteenthcentury Miss Carrie Birdsong announced the estab-lishment of a primary school near the courthouse,at the residence of Miss Coleman on OglethorpeStreet (1st Avenue) (Mahan and Woodall 1977:57).Women began to play a greater role in educationbetween 1860 and 1870, both in Columbus andacross the south, particularly as the consequencesof the Civil War left them in dire economic straits.

During this decade the number of female teachersrose from 43 to 78 percent (Huntzinger 1992:23).Between 1860 and 1908 approximately twentyschools operated for various lengths of time withinColumbus.

The following schools were located in the city: SladeAcademy 1840s-1890; Antebellum Female Acad-emy 1860s; St. Joseph’s Academy and Convent1862; Old Presbyterian Church, the Boys School1867; Claflin Academy 1868; School No. 2, FactorySchool 1868-1872; Select School for Boys, Private1870s; Miss Mitchell’s School for Girls, Private1870s; Temperance Hall, First Black School 1872-1875; Mercer Street School (formerly African Meth-odist Church) 1875; Columbus Female College, Pri-vate 1877-1884; Tenth Street School, 1888; Twenty-Eighth Street School 1880s-1910s; Rose Hill School1887-1900; The Night School (Head, Hand andHeart) 1890s; Columbus High School 1898; PrimaryIndustrial School circa 1901-1904; Seventh StreetSchool 1902; East Highland’s School 1904 and theFifth Avenue School 1908 (Huntzinger 1992:13).

The schools were typically segregated by race, gen-der and economic class. Private academies cateredto white families of moderate to high incomes, whileprivate charitable schools served the stigmatizedwhite poor, and northern missionary schools wereonly attended by freed African-Americans. Fundsprovided by the state in the mid-nineteenth cen-tury for public schooling of the city’s more than 700white, indigent children were given to a city acad-emy, instead (Huntzinger 1992:19). This fundingamounted to $1,200.00 annually and only servedone-seventh of the white, indigent school-age popu-lation. The state eliminated the academy subsidiesin 1864 because of the war.

Students able to attend the white public schoolsfaced annual fees ranging from three to six dollarsto purchase paper supplies, books, and heating andlighting fuel (Huntzinger 1992:99). Many familiescould not afford such fees for one, much less all oftheir children, and were obligated to keep them outof school. Children of single mothers were particu-larly forced to work in factory jobs rather than at-tend school. A total of thirty-five percent of thestudents who dropped out of school had fathers whowere dead, unable to work, or absent from the home(Huntzinger 1992:173). The number of children in


82


this situation that never attended school would raisethis percentage rate. Schools established by someof the mill companies took up the reins of privatelysponsored public education in an effort to make itmore affordable to the indigent. The Eagle Manu-facturing Company’s establishment of the privatelyowned and administered Columbus Free Schoolserved the indigent through charitable contributionsfrom the city and individuals. In 1895 the privateFree Kindergarten Association established a publickindergarten in Columbus, which was the first suchprogram in the state (Free Kindergarten Associa-tion Minutes 1895-99). It was not until 1905 thatthe city took over the work of the Free KindergartenAssociation and provided programs for black andwhite children.

A limited education was available to freed African-Americans in Columbus prior to the 1860s. Minis-ters of the two churches serving the freed black com-munity provided some education during Sundayschools. Schools for black students were establishedimmediately following the Civil War by the actionsof the Freedman’s Bureau and northern missionar-ies. Schools for African-Americans between 1868-1908 included Claflin Academy, Mercer StreetSchool, Temperance Hall, Twenty-Eighth StreetSchool, Primary Industrial School and Fifth AvenueSchool.

By the mid-nineteenth century educators realizedthat the children of mill families were receiving little,if any, formal education. The Eagle ManufacturingCompany used some of the huge profits from pro-ducing war supplies to open the Columbus FreeSchool in 1864 for the children of soldiers and thepoor. The school was designed to educate its stu-dents not only academically, but also morally, inthe established nineteenth-century concept of pa-ternalism for the economic lower class. This pater-nalism was fueled by an increasing breakdown insociety resulting from the war. A school for the lowerclasses would help reduce the use of snuff, tobacco,alcohol, and profanity on the increase among boysand girls during the war years. Enrollment in theColumbus Free School in the spring of 1864 con-sisted of 97 girls and 120 boys. The economic pro-file of these more than two hundred students in-cluded: 60 children of mill workers; 45 children ofwidows (including those widows associated with thefactories); 42 children of soldiers currently enlisted;

36 children of dead soldiers and 35 children “of citi-zens” (Huntzinger 1992:28). The company rebuiltthe Columbus school across the river in Alabamaafter Federal troops burned the structure in 1864.

The second public school the City of Columbusopened (No. 2- “The Factory School”) was estab-lished in 1867, specifically for the children of milloperatives. City officials organized this school toreplace the mill-sponsored schools, which no longeroperated in Columbus. School No. 2 was located atthe corner of Randolph Street (now 12th Street) andFront Avenue where it was convenient to mill tene-ment residents. The factory school suffered poorattendance and unstable enrollment as a result ofshifting demographics when large numbers of millworkers moved to mill housing in Phenix City, Ala-bama; the employment of children at increasinglyyounger ages; the inadequate school facilities; andthe indifference of parents (Huntzinger 1992:97).The mills in operation during this period refused tosupport the school and it was closed in the fall of1872. The Night School was another attempt to edu-cate the children of mill families. It catered to juve-nile mill workers wishing to further their limitededucation at night, after completing their twelve-hour mill shift. Students at the Night School did notattend regularly, either, in part because of economicand social factors, and the fact that many were un-doubtedly exhausted after completing chores athome and a long shift at the factory. The Night Schoolclosed in 1868, but reopened periodically duringthe second half of the nineteenth century.

In 1901 a public school uniquely designed for thechildren of mill operatives was established by thecity. The board of education relocated the school in1904 after purchasing the colonial Kimbell home onin the North Highlands area (Daniel 1913:n.p.;Huntzinger 1992:184-5). The new school was largerand closer to the mill worker population. Schoolboard members created a curricula and unique hourssolely to accommodate mill operatives. The cur-ricula included four hours of academic study withparticular emphasis on arithmetic, writing, and read-ing in an effort to teach the fundamentals before thechildren quit school for mill jobs. Students partici-pated in practical work such as woodworking, gar-dening, and sewing for one and a half hours a day.Students attended school from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00a.m. and then from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Daniel


83


1913:n.p.). The two-hour lunch break was not re-ally a break at all for most of the children, who car-ried lunches to their relatives or other workers atthe mill over a mile away. The “dinner toters” asthey called themselves often earned twenty-fivecents per person per week for their food and service(Daniel 1913:n.p.). Many children carried lunchesfor several employees. Less than one percent of themill school students completed the seven-year pro-gram (Daniel 1913:n.p.).

This image-evoking description was penned by asocial worker in 1908:

The early twentieth century found Columbusitesrecognizing the need for public education of the Af-rican-American population, and designed industrialand vocational schools for them. The goals of suchschooling reflected the prevailing misconceptionsand attitudes of the day. “The main purpose in thework for the negroes is to prepare them for the linesof industrial work open to them. No attempt is madeto give them training in the use of high-grademachinery...It is often the case that one of these boysis able to earn $2.00 a day at the age of 17, when hisfather, without such preparation, receives $1.25 forunskilled labor” (Daniel 1913:n.p.). Students spentfive hours a day for five years learning skills in theblacksmith shop, wood-working shop, sewing de-partment, kitchen, and laundry room. The Board ofEducation claimed that students completing the vo-cational training program received twice the amountof wages earned by their untrained counterparts(Daniel 1913:n.p.).

Social and Cultural Events

Itinerant entertainers frequently included Colum-bus on their circuit. These performers were usuallyrequired to pay a fee or secure a license to stage apublic show within the city. In 1838 “showmen, jug-glers, caravans of animals, exhibitions of wax fig-ures, circuses, and theatrical amusements” werecharged $25.00 per day city taxes (Clerk of Council1837-1841:95). This license fee must have beenmuch too expensive, because the tax was loweredto $10.00 in 1839. Occasionally some performerswere unwilling to pay the reduced fee and success-fully prevailed on the city council for a reduced fee.

Mr. A.O. Blackmar recalls “the first circus” comingto town around 1835. Dan Rice and his circus per-formed in a tent at the southwest corner of the court-house square (the courthouse standing in 1921)(Peddy Collection July 10, 1921). In the winter of1837 Columbusites could see Mr. Barnum and hisScientific Theatre. If that did not suit the fancy ofColumbus residents, then the following month they

could attend the gymnastic performances of SignorW. Diavolo Antonio (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:21).The city was appropriately patriotic on Indepen-dence Day and set aside funding for “firing salutes”on the fourth of July (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:283).

Residents of Columbus found more permanent typesof entertainment in town including nine pin andother pin alleys, billiard tables and taverns. Law-makers evidently felt that pin alleys were big busi-ness and set the 1838 city tax at $100.00 for pinalleys (excluding nine pins). This tax fluctuated andwas reduced to $10.00 the following year and raisedto $20.00 in 1840 (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:95,255,384). Billiard halls provided the nexthighest entertainment revenues in the city, with taxlicenses costing $37.50 in 1838 and rising to $50.00the following year (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:95,255). Liquor licenses were only $15.00 in1838 but jumped to $50.00 a year later.

...Just before the lunch hour strikes,hundreds of children gather outside themill gates with their dinner baskets ontheir arms or in little wagons ready to‘tote’ them in to the workers the mo-ment the gates open. In one day 386white children were counted coming tothree mills. In the baskets are warmdinners , meats and vegetables , inheavy d ishes , neat ly put up, wi thsometimes a fringe of white napkinspeeping out. A little child 8 or 9 yearsold will often be seen carrying 3 din-ner baskets on his arms...The childrenmust wait until the dinners are eaten,and take the baskets home (Huntzinger1992:177) (Figure 26).


84


Regional Perspective

Civil War

For those Columbusites left at home during the CivilWar, hardships included economic deprivations inaddition to the constant and often realized threat oflosing one’s relatives, real estate, and personal pos-sessions. The Panic of 1857 had caused Georgiabanks to eliminate specie payment and they did notresume it during the Civil War. The lack of coins incirculation during this time resulted in the use of“change bills” usually made in $5.00 denominations.While it was illegal for change bills to be issued byprivate companies, the illegality had little effect andby 1862 unofficial bills known as “shinplasters” wereprevalent (Bass 1942:220). Even R.L. Mott issued

shinplasters on the Palace Cotton Mills assets in thefall of 1861, “but the straits of the times and his highintegrity and patriotism were considered extenuat-ing circumstances” (Bass 1942:220).

The mills in Columbus and the rest of the state con-tinued to produce textiles during the war, but at anaccelerated rate. The mills tried desperately to sup-ply the clothing and other textiles needed for theConfederate army. By 1861 the state’s mills weremanufacturing weekly “473,500 yards of shirtings,sheetings, osnaburgs, stripes, drills, and denims” and50,000 yards of woolens (Griffin 1958:373). TheGeorgian mills produced enough knapsacks, tents,and uniforms for 250,000 soldiers in that year (Grif-fin 1958:373). Columbus mills contributed their partto the war effort. Three mills, the Eagle Oilcloth Fac-

Figure 26. “Dinner Toters” Were Children Who Brought Lunch to RelativesWorking in Columbus’s Mills (Hines Collection).


85


tory, Howard Oilcloth Factory, and Grant OilclothFactory, produced almost 11,000 yards of fabricdaily (US Naval War Records 1865:487). This in-cluded jeans and osnaburgs. The accelerated paceof manufacturing wore out mill equipment and didnot alleviate clothing shortages, particularly amongthe civilian population.

The Columbus Enquirer reported on the rampantinflation in April of 1864. An article published onthe seventeenth of that month examined the priceof several food items on that day as contrasted topre-war days. Barrel flour selling for ten dollarsbefore the war sold for $350 in 1864. Likewise, 16pounds of bacon once costing $2 later sold for $64.If you purchased 10 pounds of sugar in the 1850syou would have spent $1 compared to the war priceof $80. One dollar would have also bought you 6pounds of coffee, unless you purchased it in 1864when it would have cost $120. A bushel of mealincreased from $1 to $10 dollars. The Columbusgrocery list totaling $15 would have spiraledthrough uncontrolled inflation to an inconceivable$624 (Columbus Enquirer April 17, 1864). Reliefcommittees formed throughout Georgia during thewar and included the City of Columbus. In 1863 theColumbus City Relief Association raised $100,000from various sources. A supper and benefit pro-gram netted the ladies of the association $3,000for their relief effort (Bass 1942:224).

Brevet Major-General J. H. Wilson and his troopstook Phenix City, Alabama on April 16, 1865.Wilson’s Raiders continued their attack by crossingthe Chattahoochee and capturing Columbus. Asworn deposition made in 1880 by F.G. Wilkins(mayor of Columbus in 1865) states that Wilkinspleaded with Union General Wilson not to burn thewarehouses, grist mills, and manufacturing estab-lishments in the city. Wilkins stated in the deposi-tion that Wilson, “...was determined to burn themall, including the property known as the City Mills.Said City Mills belonged at that time to the minorheirs of Seaborn Jones, deceased” (State of Georgia1880). Wilson kept his word, burning all exceptUnionist R.L. Mott’s Palace Mills and G.W.Woodruff’s gin factory.

Wilson made the following report to his superiorson the morning of April 17: “General Winslow isburning navy-yard, foundries, arsenals, factories,armory, railroad stock, depots, and cotton ware-

houses today” (Jones 1976:142). The raid resultedin the burning of numerous buildings in downtownColumbus, in and near the current project area.Structures torched or destroyed included the Foun-tain Warehouse, Alabama Warehouse, three un-named warehouses, naval armory, Navy yard,McElhaney & Porter’s Foundry, Niter-Works,Muscogee Iron Works, C.S. Arsenal, two powdermagazines, Eagle Oilcloth Factory, Howard OilclothFactory, Grant Oilcloth Factory, Haiman’s IronFoundry, Rock Island Paper Mill, Columbus IronWorks, Haiman’s Pistol Factory, Daniel Hughes &Company Warehouse, the newspaper offices, and allthe Chattahoochee River bridges. The fires also setoff explosions of gunpowder and other hazardousmaterials stored and used by the Confederates inthe war effort. Historians report that, “Loud explo-sions were constant and ‘vast columns of smoke,black and suphurous’ hung over the city (Jones1976:142). “…The value in Confederate currency ofproperty destroyed cannot be estimated”(US NavalWar Records 1865:383). Brevet Brigadier-GeneralE.F.Winslow, under Wilson’s command, reportedthat, “No private buildings in Columbus were de-stroyed, and no buildings fired except by order andwith proper authority” (US Naval War Records1865:487). Such activities easily may have resultedin the unintentional burning of other structures fromflying sparks and cinders.

Structures in or near the project area were likelytargets for Union arsonists. These included Hyman’s(Haiman’s) Pistol Factory, Hyman’s (Haiman’s)Sword and Bayonet Factory, Barrenger & Moten’sGun Foundry and Caison Works, Keath’s Sword Fac-tory, the Franklin Street Bridge, and the RailroadBridge. Union troops also located the Confederatequartermaster stores and passed out supplies eitherto their own troops or newly-freed slaves, or burnedthe goods. These supplies included:

4,500 suits of Confederate uniform; 5,890 yardsarmy jeans; 1,000 yards osnaburgs; 8,820 pairs ofshoes; 4,750 pairs of cotton drawers; 1,700 grayjackets; 4,700 pairs of pants; 2,000 pairs of socks;4,000 tin cups; 2,000 tin plates; 960 wooden buck-ets; 20 telegraphic instruments; 400 shirts; 375hatchets; 650 gray caps; 33 tin pans; 6 coils rope; 15boxes carpenter’s tools; 400 wall-tents and flies;1,000 axes and helves; 1,000 picks and helves; 400spades and shovels (US Naval War Records1865:487).


86


The raid also resulted in the capture and loss of rawmaterials owned by individuals and the Confed-eracy. This included 13 thousand bales of Confed-erate States of America cotton in warehouses;15,000 pounds of brass at the naval armory;20,000 sacks of corn, 100 barrels and 100 hogs-heads of sugar, and 100 boxes of tobacco in a depotand warehouse (US Naval War Records 1865:485-7).

The violence and destruction of Wilson’s raid wasamplified among the city’s inhabitants. Winslow re-ported that “...thousands of almost pauper citizensand negroes, whose rapacity under the circum-stances of our occupation, and in consequence ofsuch extensive destruction of property, was seem-ingly insatiable. The citizens and Negroes formedone vast mob, which seized upon and carried offalmost everything movable…” (US Naval WarRecords 1865:383).

Historians estimate that the Civil War caused Geor-gia to lose three-quarters of her pre-war wealth andresulted in the devaluation of property by one-quar-ter. Statewide, public debt increased to$18,035,775 (Bass 1942:224). Approximately2,000 acres of this property was decimated and one-quarter of all railroad rails within the state de-stroyed. The emancipation of enslaved African-Americans further reduced Georgia’s wealth by$272,000,000 (Bass 1942:224).

Columbus, like other parts of Georgia, also faredpoorly. The mass destruction of Confederate sup-plies and the eradication of the source of future sup-plies - the mills and factories - dealt yet anotherblow to the Confederacy. Brevet Brigadier-GeneralWinslow participated in the capture of Columbusand reported that “More than 5,000 employees arethrown upon the community for other support” af-ter Union troops burned the mills and factories. TheUnion actions in Columbus seriously threatened thesocial and economic fabric of the ChattahoocheeValley. In addition, the war had ruined the town’sinfrastructure, including its railroad and fourbridges crossing the Chattahoochee River (US Na-val War Records 1865:485-7). The damage to thesocial, economic, and physical framework of Colum-bus took a definite toll on its inhabitants and the

region. The turmoil of Reconstruction eventuallygave way to some measure of economic recoveryand prosperity in the last quarter of the nineteenthcentury.

In 1887 an investment group named theChattahoochee Falls Company incorporated. It pur-chased the water rights on the Chattahoochee River,“...with the right and power to utilize, improve andoperate water power...by controlling the waters ofsaid Chattahoochee River with locks, dams, and suchother means and devices as may be necessary toenable the said Corporation to supply water powerfor manufacturing purposes to such Mills and Ma-chinery as may be thereon located, and which maybe hereafter purchased and erected by saidCorporation...(Chattachoochee Falls Company1887:1). The property was formerly owned by theColumbus Factory and the Columbus Manufactur-ing Company. The Chattahoochee Falls Corpora-tion purchase included 830 acres of land, the 1867cotton mill, and the right to harness and sell elec-tricity. It appears to have included City Mills’ gristmill and the mill village (probably Bibb City) hous-ing the operatives.

National Perspective

The mid-1990s found Georgia accounting for almostone-sixth of the textile employee population of thenation. In 1994, 113,303 textile workers called Geor-gia home while neighboring Alabama’s textile work-ers numbered 43,400 (Molis 1995). The 113,303Georgians constituted approximately 17% of thenation’s 669,000 textile workers (Molis 1995). Co-lumbus and other mill towns would soon face theclosure of many of its textile mills and the downsizingof many others, as a result in part, of the enactmentof the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA). Many mills in Columbus and throughoutthe country found it cheaper to outsource the jobsto countries where labor costs were far lower. Evenmills that did not outsource were affected indirectlyby industries who did outsource and had, as a re-sult, lower overhead. By the twenty-first century,Columbus found itself intentionally moving awayfrom mill industries and attempting to turn to hightechnical and business employers.

8 7


Chapter 4. Focus Within the Project Area: Commu- nity Life In and Around the Excavated City Lots

COMMUNITY LIFE

Lots neighboring those selected for intensive datarecovery excavations by archaeologists are men-tioned in the discussions below. A complete chainof title for Block 10 can be found in Appendix 1. Thepurpose of the discussion below is to illuminate ac-tual residents of neighborhoods (rather than merelyabsentee lot owners) in order to understand thegeneral character of neighborhoods in the projectarea. The lots surrounding the excavated proper-ties also are included in later summary discussionsand interpretations about life in Columbus at a blockand neighborhood level. The lots that archaeolo-gists excavated intensively for data recovery (Lot200 and 204 on Block 10; Lot 7 on Block 11; and Lot191 and 194 on Block 15) are not detailed below, butrather discussed later in greater detail as separatechapters (Chapters 5-9). Figures in this chapter in-clude portions of the town map shaded in yellow.The shading indicates where neighborhood resi-dents discussed in that part of the report text mayhave lived, based on the city directory information(which at that time did not list specific addresses,but only general street area locations). Figure 27depicts the geographic arrangement of the blockscontaining the five data recovery lots. Archaeolo-gists also conducted data recovery excavations onBlock 3 (just south of City Mills), and on the MottHouse block area (see Price et al. 2005). The focusof both excavations was the prehistoric people uti-lizing these areas, and relatively little historical in-formation was uncovered. The discussions belowfocus on the neighborhoods surrounding the fivecity lots excavated by archaeologists.

Block 10

Blocks 10 and 11 sit side-by-side, separated by 1st

Avenue running north-south. The northern part of

Block 10 includes Lots 206 and 203 on the westernside and Lots 205 and 204 on the eastern side (Fig-ure 28). Historical information about residents inthis area is sketchy. Table 3 lists confirmed resi-dents of the block, as indicated by property deed orcity directory listing. The table also indicates if theresident was a renter or property owner, if deter-minable. By 1872 Blocks 10 and 11 were boundedon the north by unoccupied land bisected by therailroad track (Ruger 1872) (Figure 29). Block 10 atthat time had a large area of what appears to be un-occupied greenspace in the area of Lot 203. Thisarea remained unoccupied in 1886 (Wellge 1886)(Figure 30). By this time, however, the unoccupiedstrip of land between the railroad track and the north-ern edge of Block 10 had over a dozen houses, mostlyshot-gun style, packed into it. Lot 206 is the north-western corner of Block 10 and Lot 205 is the south-eastern corner of Block 10. Ratenzy V. Pearce re-sided on either Lot 205 and/or Lot 206 sometimeafter 1873 when her father, Ptolemeus J. Biggerspurchased both lots (MCSC Deed Bk U:407). She mayhave rented the tracts prior to her purchase of themin 1881 from her father for a pittance of $5 each. Lot204 was a data recovery lot and is discussed ingreater detail later in this report. Lot 203 extendedwest all the way to the Chattahoochee River in 1878.The southern half of Block 10 contained Lots 202and 201, in addition to Lot 199 on the southwesterncorner, and Lot 200 on the southeastern corner.

The earliest known resident of Lot 202 was HenryMims, who owned the lot and lived there, minimallyfrom 1836-1838 (MCSC Deed Bk B:243-244). Mimssold the northern half of the property in 1838 andlost the southern half in 1839 through a sheriff’s sale(MCSC Deed Bk A:111). The next documented resi-

8 8


Chapter 4. Focus Within the Project Area: Community Life In and Around the Excavated City Lots

Figure 27. City Blocks in Areas of Archaeological Data Recovery (Phelan and Stratton 1927).

Project Area

Block 15

Mott Lot

Block 10

Block 11

Lot7

0 90 180

meters


89


(15th Street)

(16th Street)

(1st Avenue)

(Broadw

ay)

0 45 90

meters

Chattahoochee

River

Figure 28. Block 10Included City Lots 199Through 206. Yellowis Area of Occupation

Discussed in Text.(Modified from Phelan

and Stratton 1927).

Table 3. Block 10 Residents (Confirmed).

Name Years Lot Deed Directory Owns Rents

Thomas Morris 1836-1842 199 X X John Warren 1842-1849; -1856? 199 X X Milledge G. McKinnie and Louisiana Frances McKinnie

1856-pre 1859? 199 X X X X

Peter Preer 1870-1884; -1897? 199 X X X Martha Preer 1884?-ca 1907 199 X X Dr. Edwin Huson Sims pre 1900-ca 1936? 199 X X X Felder Pou 1906-1925 199 X X Lewis Durr 1849-1854; ca 1872? 200 X X X Thomas K. Wynne ca 1854?; ca 1872-

1886 200 X X X X

Lewis Durr pre-1841-pre-1848 201 X X X George Lively pre-1848 201 X X Ogletree pre-1853 201 X X Edwin (?)S. McEachern pre-1873-pre-1928 201 X X X X Henry Mims 1836-1838 202 X X William Austin/William Alston 1857-1862 202 X X X Ratenzy V. Pearce post 1873-pre-1881 205/206 X X X ?

9 0



Figure 29. A Bird’s Eye View of Block 10 in 1872, Facing Northeast (Ruger 1872).

Figure 30. A Bird’s Eye View of Block 10 in 1886, Facing Northeast (Wellge 1886).


91


dent of the area, and most likely of Lot 202, wasWilliam Alston. Alston was a slave dealer in 1859(Mears 1859:10). There is a William Austin listed inthe 1860 population schedule. [See paragraph be-low and Chapter 7 on Lot 7 discussion of WilliamAlston/William Austin]. His occupation was listedas “Negro Trader”. The 53 year old Austin appearedto be living alone. His real estate was valued at$1,500 contrasted with a large personal estate of$5,500 (USBC Population 1860:171). Much of thelatter undoubtedly represented his slave holdings.Austin’s immediate neighbor was Randolph Mott.Six doors down lived Edward Barnard and his fam-ily. Five doors away the Grimes family resided.

Census takers often go from house to house in logi-cal progression. So while the census document con-tains no addresses, the order of names and relativelocations of neighbors often can suggest the areawhere someone resides. William Austin and Will-iam Alston are both listed in the 1860 slave sched-ule. The 1860 slave schedule records Col. Wm H.Alston, Lewis Livingston, Mrs. Wacasser, Wm FitsonG(?), Mrs. E. G. Foster, Mrs. Clash, A.G. Bedell, JohnB. Wright, M.L. Patterson, Jefferson Holbrook,George W. Dillingham, O(?) Dibble, Edward Bernard,Mrs. Grimes, Wm. A. Bedell, B.T. Chapman, L.K.Hodges, Wm. Austin, R.L. Mott, Edward Smith, Rev-erend M. Woodruff” (USBC Slave 1860:444). Will-iam Austin owned four slaves (USBC Population1860:444). This included two females, ages 27 and14, and two males ages 3 and 40. The 27 year oldwoman was listed as mulatto and appears to havelived alone in a slave house. The other three arelisted as black and resided together in another slavehouse.

Residents of Lot 201 included Lewis Durr, who livedthere from sometime before 1841 until sometimebefore 1848. Durr was extremely elusive in the his-torical documents and could not be located in anyof the census records, including those dating to 1840and 1850. He is discussed in more detail in the sec-tion of the report concerning Lot 200, since heowned and lived on Lots 201 and 200. By 1848George Lively was living on the northern half of Lot201 as a renter. His landlord was Issac T. Robinson.By 1853 a new owner and new renter were associ-ated with the northern half of the lot. A residentnamed Ogletree paid rent to I. Rhodes Brown (MCSCDeed Bk F:372). The length of Ogletree’s occupation

was not determined, but by 1873 EdwardMcEachern had become both the tract’s occupantand owner (MCSC Deed Bk Z:264).

The remaining two lots on Block 10 include Lot 200and Lot 199. Lot 200 is discussed in Chapter 5 as adata recovery lot. Residents of Lot 199 were fairlywell-documented. Thomas Morris purchased thelot in 1836 and lived there until 1842. This is dis-cussed further in the section detailing Lot 200.Morris sold the tract to John Warren in 1842. War-ren lives on the lot until at least 1849 and possiblyas late as 1856 or later. Warren gave the lot to M.G.McKinnie, in trust for Warren’s daughter LouisianaFrances, who was McKinnie’s wife. The 1856 deedstates that McKinnie resided in “the dwelling houseon Broad”. Lot 199 was fronted by Broad, so it islikely that Warren’s daughter and son-in-law wereliving on Lot 199 at this time. McKinnie sold the lotin 1870 and the next resident was Peter Preer. In1870 Peter was a 41 year old white male. He ran asuccessful wholesale and retail grocery. His realestate was valued at $4,500 and he had a personalestate of $1,000 (USBC Pop1870:2). Peter was mar-ried to 35 year old Martha. Both were from Georgia,but they appear to have lived in Alabama and movedback to Georgia sometime around 1869-70 as sug-gested by the place of birth (Alabama) listed for allbut their last child. Old cellophane tape on the origi-nal census document has obscured some informa-tion about the Preer family. We do know that in1870 they had five children ages 8, 6, 4, 2, and 2months. Amazingly, as many black domestic work-ers served the family. These included 36 year oldJane Dillard who was from Kentucky. The remain-ing domestic servants were born in Georgia. Theyincluded 18 year old Lilla Stanford, 14 year oldRachael Moses, 11 year old Benjamin Walker, and 8year old Eliza Dillard. By 1873 Peter owned or co-owned at least two businesses, “Preer, Illges & Co.”and “Allen, Preer & Illges” (Haddock 1873). PeterPreer lived on the lot until 1884. At that time hesold it to Sallie Preer Epping.

The Preer family eventually divided the lot into vari-ous tracts between 1884 and 1897. Deeds indicatethat by 1901 Martha Preer was living in the PreerHome Place until at least 1907. Other twentieth cen-tury occupants of part of Lot 199 include Dr. EdwinHuson Sims and Felder Pou.

9 2



Another occupant of Block 10 included F.G. Wilkins,the mayor of Columbus in 1872 and in 1881 (1872birdseye; n.a. 1889:343). Other residents of Block10, or the immediately adjacent Block 11, includedthe Reverend H.P. Robinson, Mrs. Mary A. Smith (awidow), and carpenter J. B. Wright.

Intersection of 1st Avenue and 15th Street(Portions of Blocks 10, 11, and 15

The intersection of 1st Avenue and 15th Street boundsthe southern part of Lots 10 and 11, and the north-ern part of Lots 15 and the lot across 1st Avenue,respectively, into neighborly contact (Figure 31).In 1859 the lots surrounding this intersection andalong 15th Street were occupied by two tailors (one

with a business on Broad Street), a weaver for theHoward Factory, a cotton shipper, a teacher, a rail-road engineer (who boarded here), a grocer whoworked on Broad Street, two cabinet makers (whoboarded here), several unmarried women, a dry

goods merchant, male boarders, a boot maker, awidow, a laborer, several carriage makers/trim-mers, a machinist, and a foreman and a operator atthe Carter Factory (Mears 1859). The Grimes familyrepresented one of the longer lot occupancies in thearea. Deeds show that Sterling Grimes lived on Lot198, located on the northwestern corner of Block15, by at least 1845 (MCSC Deed Bk C:340). Sterlingwas a 44 year old merchant when he died in 1856(n.a. 1889:343). His wife, Sarah Bowdre Grimes,gained ownership of the lot (MCSC Deed Bk F:545).In 1860 Sara Y.(?) Grimes was the 43 year old headof the household. She had no occupation outside ofthe home, but had real estate valued at $5,400 andpersonal estate worth almost $3,500 (USBC Popu-lation 1860:171[23]). Sarah came from a wealthyplanter family, which may account for some of herestate (n.a. 1889:343). She was the matriarch of afamily, which included two sons; 18 year old CliffordB. and 11 year old Fontain L.; and three daughters,16 year old Anna A., 14 year old Epsey M., and 12year old Alberta B. Clifford Grimes probably workedas a note clerk at the banking house of John King(Mears 1859). He apparently left this job to enrollin Emory College (then located in Oxford, Georgia)in 1859. His college career halted when he leftschool to join the army at the beginning of the CivilWar (n.a. 1889:343). During this time Mrs. Grimesis recorded as owning four black female slaves, whichprobably accounted for a large part of her personalestate value. The enslaved African-Americans wereaged 58, 35, 30, and 14 years old (USBC Population1860:444). They resided together in one slave house.

By the 1870s Clifford Grimes had returned home toLot 198 and continued to live there with his motherand other relatives. In 1870 he was a bookkeeper ata local bank. He entered politics, serving as alder-man until defeating F.G. Wilkins in several mayoralelections (n.a. 1889:343). Clifford was mayor of Co-lumbus for six years. In 1870 Sarah was a 52 yearold white widow owning $5,500 of real estate and$500 worth of personal holdings (USBC Population1870:17[573]). The Grimes’ household at this timeappears to have consisted of an extended family,possibly through intermarriage with the Pope fam-ily. All were born in Georgia. Pope and Grimesfamily members included 26 year old Annie Pope,who did not have a job outside the home and 29year old Robert Pope, who was a boot and shoe re-tail merchant (USBC Population 1870:17[573]). In

(15th Street)

(16th Street)

(1st Avenue)

(Broadw

ay)

(2nd Avenue)

(14th Street)0 45 90

meters

Chattahoochee

River

(Oglethorpe S

treet)

Figure 31. Clockwise fromBottom Left Are Blocks 15, 10, 11,

and a Block Outside the ProjectArea. Yellow is Area of Occupa-tion Discussed in Text. (Modifiedfrom Phelan and Stratton 1927).


93


addition, 23 year old Eppie Grimes and 22 year oldBerta Grimes stayed at home. Fontano (?) Pope wasa 20 year old dry-goods clerk. Clifford G. Pope waslikely named for Clifford Grimes, who may have beenhis uncle. Little Clifford was five. Robert Pope wasprobably Clifford’s one year old brother. The Grimesand Popes were listed as white residents. A total offour domestic servants lived on Lot 198. CharitySanders was a 35 year old mulatto servant workingin the household. She worked along side ElizaBrooks, who was five years’ her senior. The Grimesalso employed a 16 year old girl named GeorgieBeasley. Finally, a 69 year old lady named Barnett(?) Granger lived with the domestic help but was ap-parently unable to work. All but Charity were listedas black servants. The domestic staff presented thegreatest diversity in place of origin, and likely rep-resents elements of the slave trade. Eliza was bornin Virginia, Georgie in Alabama, and Barnett camefrom Ohio. The staff was illiterate, except Georgiewho was reported as having the ability to read, butnot write (USBC Population 1870:17[573]).

By 1873, many of the young adults in the Grimesand Pope families on Lot 198 were gainfully em-ployed. Sarah’s son, Fontain (Font) was 24 years oldand was a conductor for the N&S Railroad (Haddock1873). He continued to reside at the family homeplace on Lot 198. As mentioned, Clifford was likelyworking as a note clerk in the banking house of JohnDing and entered politics in 1873. Meanwhile, 32year old Robert Pope (the elder) operated his bootand shoe store on Broad Street while residing withthe family on Lot 198. Clifford Grimes continued tohave an ownership interest in Lot 198 as late as 1892,when he and his wife, Lucy Barnett Grimes, mort-gaged a partial interest in the lot (MCSC Deed BkFF:395; n.a. 1889:343).

Heading north from the eastern half of Block 15,through the intersection of Bridge (15th Street) andOglethorpe (1st Avenue), and into the southern partsof Block 10 and 11, the neighborhood trended tomore blue-collar residents and their related busi-nesses. This included John Mehaffey’s shop, locatedon “Bridge (15th Street), corner Oglethorpe” (1st Av-enue) (Haddock 1873). Mehaffey was the one whogave his brother-in-law, James Howard, a job he wasso desperately in need of following the Civil War.James collected rags for Mehaffey’s paper business.Mehaffey listed “rags, paper, paperstock, metals &

hides” next to his listing in the City Directory (Had-dock 1873). Mehaffey employed a porter who ap-pears to have lived at the business location. Otherarea neighbors included factory hands, a grocer, abrick mason and contractor, and cattle dealers em-ployed at the local wagon yard (Haddock 1873).

The neighborhood in 1873 appears to have been pre-dominantly white. The directory lists a few excep-tions. Frank Redd was a “colored porter” employedby John Mehaffey’s paper company. In the samearea, Lucius R. Weaver was a “colored porter” forthe post office. Primus Henry was listed as colored.Henry was a green grocer who lived on “Broad, be-tween Bridge and Franklin” (14th Street) (Haddock1873).

Mehaffey, himself, was the white owner of the papercompany and described himself as a “Rag Dealer”(USBC Population 1870:15[572]). Mehaffey was a35 year old South Carolinian who had just purchasedthe northern one-third of Lot 197, on Block 15, in1870. At that time his household included fourother individuals. One was likely his wife, MargaretMahaffey, who was a 34 year old Alabamian. Mar-garet did not work outside the home. It appearsthat they had one child at this time. She was a 12year old girl named Amanda M. Mehaffey who at-tended school. Amanda was born in Alabama, aswell. Nine year old John Flemming was born in Vir-ginia and lived in the household. His relationship tothe others in the household is unclear. William P.Kavanagh was a 31 year old day laborer from SouthCarolina who probably rented a room from theMehaffey family. All members of the household werewhite. Mehaffey’s entire real estate was valued at$2,900 and his personal estate at $500 (USBC Popu-lation 1870:15[572]).

Mehaffey lived one house away from John Duncanin 1870. Duncan lived on the southern half of Lot197 in 1873, and possibly from 1868-1881 (Had-dock 1873). Duncan was either 35 or 55 years old(the writing is unclear) that year and was retiredfrom the grocery store business. Like Mehaffey,Duncan also was born in South Carolina. As a mer-chant Duncan had accumulated $3,500 in real es-tate and $500 in personal property (USBC Popula-tion 1870:15[572]. Duncan’s household includedthree others. All members of the household werewhite. The oldest female was a 24 year old (first

9 4



name illegible) Duncan who kept house. John T.Duncan appears to have been the one year old sonof John. Both Duncans were born in Georgia. DanielDuncan also resided in the house and was a 33 yearold cotton carder from South Carolina.

Block 15, Western Half

Table 4 lists confirmed residents of the entire Block15, as indicated by property deed or city directorylisting. The table also indicates if the resident was arenter or property owner, if determinable. Imme-diately south of the Grimes family corner lot was the

property of EdwardBarnard (Figure 32).Barnard was livingon Lot 195 by 1859,and most likely be-gan residence theresometime between1850-1853 when hefirst purchased it.He may have livedon the property un-til 1865. Barnardwas a grocer whoran his store onBroad Street. He ap-pears to have been avery successful mer-chant. His 1860 realestate was valued at

$9,500 and he enjoyed a personal estate worth$5,800 (USBC Population 1860:171 [23]. At thistime Edward was 47. Thirty nine year old Lucy ap-pears to have been his wife. Children included 19year old Mary, 14 year old Lucy, 12 year old Ed-ward, 10 year old Catharine, 9 year old Buck, and 7year old Sally. The 10-19 year olds attended school.In 1860 there were four African-Americans underhis ownership (USBC Population 1860:444). Thesewere four females, two were age 40, and the othertwo were 18 and 9. The 18 year old was listed as amulatto and the others were recorded as black. Theylived in one slave house owned by Barnard. Barnard

sold Lot 195 in 1865. Five years after Edward soldLot 195, he retired with $5,200 worth of real estate(USBC Population 1870:4). Even though Barnardsold the property, he appears to have maintainedsome connection with it through his company. In1873 his partner, Lloyd R. Hoopes, “of E. Barnard &Co.” appears to have been living on the lot (Had-dock 1873).

Barnard’s neighbor to the south was GeorgeDillingham, who lived on data recovery Lot 194 andis discussed in greater detail later in this report. In1859 Dillingham was a co-partner in a furniture storeon Broad Street (Mears 1859:32). By 1873 he hadrelocated from Lot 194 and was a cashier and trea-surer for a bank and insurance company. While liv-ing on Lot 194, Dillingham had many neighbors sincehe lived next to the mill operators’ tenement house.

(15th Street)

(1st Avenue)

(Broadw

ay)


meters

Figure 32. The Western Halfof Block 15. Yellow is Areaof Occupation Discussed in

Text. (Modified from Phelanand Stratton 1927).

Table 4. Block 15 Residents (Confirmed).

Name Years Lot Deed Directory Census Owns Rents Reference

Adolphus Ford 1859-1860 191 X

John D. Arnold 1859-1860 192 X

L. Deaton 1859-1860 192 X X?

James Britton 1860s-1870s? 192 X X? X?

John Hamilton 1860s-1870s? 192 X X?

Matt McCook 1860s-1870s 192 X X?

Lewis Livingston 1850-1862; 1864 193 X X X

Henry King 1842-1849 194 X X X (B:466; C:737;E:237)

George Dillingham 1858-1866 194 X X X (K:211; M:284; City Dir 1859)

Mrs. Carnes 1859 194 X X (K:263)

Henry Benning 1866/7; 1868-1874 194 X X X (N:356; R:412)

Edward Barnard 1852-1853?;1859-1860 195 X X

Lloyd R. Hoopes 1873 195 X X? X?

John Duncan 1868-1881?; 1873-1874 197 X X

Sterling Grimes;Grimes Fmly. 1845-1870s 198 X X X

Sarah and Robert Pope 1870s 198 X X


95


The walk towards the southern end of Block 15 tookone past the financially secure single-residencehouses and the Mott House lot (the latter discussedin more detail below). The lots around the Broadand 14th Street intersection reveal subtle changes inthe character of the neighborhood observable to asharp eye. Residents continued to be blue-collarworkers, but there was less diversity among theirjobs and the number of women increased in this area.

Intersection of Broad and 15th Street (Por-tions of Mott Block, Block 10, and Block 15)

Several residents listed in the various city directo-ries in the second half of the nineteenth century wererecorded as living at non-specified locations alongthe intersection of Broad and Bridge streets (Figure33). The majority of residents in the tri-block areaof Mott Block, 10, and 15, (particularly in the tene-ments of Lot 191 and across the street from them),were associated with the mills. There were somenon-mill operatives scattered across Block 10 andthroughout the vicinity of Blocks 10, 15, and 3.

These in-cluded a ci-gar maker,a conduc-tor for therailroad, alaborer, agreen gro-cer, a shoedealer whoworked onB r o a dStreet, andan attorney( H e n r yBenning onLot 194).

Textile millemployeesdominatedthis tri-block area.The major-ity of resi-dents in thisarea associ-ated with

the textile mills held factory jobs such as cloth trim-mer, dress tender, wool carder, workman, ruler,buncher, spinner, and spooler-tender. It is likelythat many of them resided in the mill tenements onBlock 15 Lot 191, but due to the vagueness of theaddresses listed in the City Directory, this cannot bestated with certainty.

Dozens of mills operated during the nineteenth andtwentieth centuries in Columbus. Mill workers liv-ing around the tri-block area of Blocks 10, 15, andthe Mott Block would most likely have been em-ployed by the Coweta Falls Factory, Howard Fac-tory, and Eagle Manufacturing before the Civil War.The Coweta Falls Factory was responsible for theinitial construction of the operatives’ tenements onLot 191. Following the war, area operatives wouldhave been employed by the Muscogee Manufactur-ing Company, which was constructed on the site ofthe burned Coweta Falls Factory. Lot 191 was a datarecovery lot and is discussed in more detail later inthis report.

Area operatives may have worked at the Eagle andPhenix, Swift, Columbus Manufacturing, and othermills following the war. Many of the mill workers inthe project area vicinity were employed by GrantMills, which was located on Front Street. Four ofthese factory workers were women, three of whomwere unmarried and the fourth a widow. Three otherwidows also lived in this vicinity. Other occupationsincluded a policeman, a partner in a firm, a laborer,two clerks, and a blacksmith. An overseer for GrantMills also lived here among the workers, as did thepresident of the Muscogee Railroad. Not surpris-ingly, the greatest concentration of laborers, milloperatives, and tenement houses associated with thetextile industry was clustered around the mills.

Intersection of Broad and 14th Street (Por-tions of Block 15 and Blocks Outside the

Project Area)

The area around the intersection of Franklin (14th

Street) and Broad streets encompassed the south-ern half of Blocks 15 and the Mott House area in theproject area, and the northern part of two blocksoutside the project area (Figure 34). This part of theneighborhood maintained strong ties with the tex-tile industry. Residents in this area included a mixof blue and white-collar workers. Cotton merchants,bookkeepers, cashiers, and clerks lived near uphol-

(15th Street)

(16th Street)(1st A

venue)

(Broadw

ay)


meters

Chattahoochee

River

Figure 33. Clockwise from BottomLeft is the Mott Block, Block 10 and

Block 15. Yellow is Area of Occupa-tion Discussed in Text. (Modifiedfrom Phelan and Stratton 1927).

9 6



sterers, carriage makers, mattress makers, tailors,millers, and a mill owner (Haddock 1873).

Block 15, Eastern Half andNearby Environs

The area of the eastern half of Block 15 and immedi-ately across Oglethorpe Street (1st Street) on thewestern half of Block 14, appears to have had fewmill operatives (Figure 35). The only resident listedin the 1873-74 city directory as being directly as-sociated with any of the mills was William Gorton.He was not an operative, but rather the Superinten-dent of Muscogee Mills. Gorton’s residence “onOglethorpe Street between Bridge and Franklin” waswithin easy walking distance to the Mill and alsoallowed him to keep a paternalistic eye on mill op-eratives living one street away from him (Haddock1873).

Research has uncovered several residents of theeastern half of Block 15. The southeastern corner of

the Block, Lot 192 was home for various grocery in-terests during the 1860s and 1870s, including indi-vidual grocers, the McCook Family Grocery, and theHamilton Grocery (Mears 1859; Haddock 1873). Thelatter sold retail and wholesale. Grocers associatedwith this lot include: John D. Arnold, James Britton,L. Deaton, John Duncan, John Hamilton, and MattMcCook. Some, such as Arnold, Deaton, and McCooklived on the same lot as the business. Others lived onresidential lots. John Duncan lived on Block 15 threelots north of the grocery, on Lot 197.

Lewis Livingston lived directly north of the grocerystores, on Lot 193. Livingston was renting a houseon the northern half of the lot by 1852, if not earlier(MCSC Deed Bk F:236). Eight years later he purchasedLot 193. At that time, in 1860, Livingston owned 10enslaved African-Americans who lived in two slavehouses (USBC Slave 1860:444). They ranged in agefrom seven to 55 years old, with the majority beingin the mid-twenties to mid-thirties. He sold the south-ern half of the lot in 1862 and the northern half in1864. By 1866 John Ryan was an absentee landlordof Lot 193 and had a manufactory there by at least1873 (Haddock 1873). From 1887-1892 SethJordon resided in what may have been Livingston’sold house on the northern half of the lot.

James Howard, whose detailed diary was mentionedpreviously in this report, lived on “Oglethorpe (1st

Avenue), below Bridge (15th Street)”, near his placeof employment at Mehaffey’s (Haddock 1873).

(15th Street)

(13th Street)

(1st Avenue)

(Broadw

ay)

(2nd Avenue)

(14th Street)

0 45 90

meters

Chatt

ahoo

chee

River

Project Area

Figure 34. The Mott Block is Top Leftand Block 15 is T0p Right. Yellow is

Area of Occupation Discussed in Text.(Modified from Phelan and Stratton

1927).

(15th Street)

(1st Avenue)

(Broadw

ay)

(14th Street)

(2nd Avenue)

Project Area0 45 90

meters

Figure 35. Block 15 is on the Left.Yellow is Area of Occupation Discussed

in Text. (Modified from Phelan andStratton 1927).


97


Howard was listed as a clerk there in 1873. His neigh-bors included another clerk with a different form,an agent for the manufacturer of stoves and hollow-ware, a physician, grocers, carpenters, and a milli-ner (Haddock 1873). The milliner, Mrs. CatherineM. Beck, was one of only two women listed in thecity directory in that area. She had a millinery shopand sold “fancy goods” in addition to hats. The otherwoman listed was Mrs. Mary E. Alderman. No otherinformation was provided about Alderman.

Mott House and Surroundings

The house later to be known as the “Mott House”was constructed at the north end of Front Street,west of Broad Street (Figure 36). Its location nestledon the bank of the Chattahoochee River served as aprominent focal point for its renown gardens,“Mott’s Green”. James Calhoun reportedly con-structed the house in 1828 or 1830. The twelve-room house was constructed on one acre and con-tained “rooms twenty feet square, immense windowsand heavy doors” (Holstead 1906:3). The groundscontained brick servants’ quarters and outhouses,surrounded by several large old magnolias (Holstead1906:3). Calhoun was an honor graduate ofPrinceton and brought his wealth and impressivecredentials to Columbus. He participated in the

Mexican War (1846-1848), and was appointed thefirst governor of the New Mexico Territory by Presi-dent Filmore. Calhoun allegedly built the house forhis wife, the former Miss Anna Vivian Howard, whowas a sister to the wife of Seaborn Jones (Holstead1906:3).

In circa 1849 Daniel Griffin purchased the house for$8,000. That steep price for the times appears tohave included city lot numbers 35, 36, 37, and 38(Figure 37). It was Griffin who landscaped thegrounds, constructed brick walls, and created gar-dens (National Register of Historic Places 1974). Asketch of his gardens survives today and reveals theintricacy of the paths, flowerbeds, and possible box-wood parterres typical of mid-nineteenth centurygardens of the elite (Griffin n.d.). He laid out “...asunken garden, terraces, serpentine walks borderedwith exquisite flowers and shaded by elms and oaks”(Holstead 1906:3). A later plan of the gardens showssome of these features (Figure 38). Broad stone stepsled to terraces and the east entrance steps were“guarded by two gray hounds carved from whitemarble” (Holstead 1906:3). Unfortunately themarble hounds were taken off the property in 1856and were given to a Mr. Cecil Grabbet of Savannah.Griffin’s plan was modeled after an Irish garden heonce saw. Griffin must have been very successful in

Figure 36. Modifications to the Mott House Gave It This Appearance by 1900 (Muscogee Manufacturing Company 1900).

9 8



Figure 38. Daniel Griffin’s Garden Plan of WhatWould Become Mott’s Green (Mahan n.d.).

(Broadw

ay)


meters

Chatt

ahoo

chee

River

Figure 37. City Lots onthe Mott Block IncludedNumbers 35 Through 38.Yellow is Area of Occupa-

tion Discussed in Text.(Modified from Phelan

and Stratton 1927).


99


his job as an Irish civil engineer and furnished thehouse with expensive mahogany furniture and finesilver (National Register of Historic Places 1974).

Statistics for the Griffin family in 1860 provide aglimpse of what his status would have been a fewyears earlier while residing on the project area lot.In 1860, in addition to having a substantial and or-nate home, Griffin had a personal estate that includedeleven enslaved African-Americans (USBC Slave1860:441). This included seven males and four fe-males. Unlike the demographics of many of the en-slaved owned by residents of the project area,Griffin’s slaves were mostly adults. Two of the elevenwere children and were ages four and 12. The re-maining were men and women aged 21-41 years old.Four of the group were listed as black and the otherseven were mulatto. These eleven African-Ameri-cans lived in two slave houses and an undeterminedlocation or locations (USBC Slave 1860:441). Grif-fin only owned the house and grounds for aboutseven years before selling it and moving to Wash-ington, D.C. His $8,000 investment reaped $20,000when he sold it to Colonel Randolph Mott in Janu-ary of 1856.

It was Mott’s name that became permanently at-tached to the house and gardens. Mott added a man-sard roof to the house and obtained special permis-sion from the Board of Commissioners to erect aniron fence in the front yard that would run west andcross Front Street and stop at the river embankment(Holstead 1906:3). Permission was granted underthe condition that he leave the fence’s double irongates open for traffic passage. During Mott’s resi-dence there, the interior of the house is described asfollows:

Two flights of granite steps approached the stoop,which opened into a large and beautiful hall withimmense rooms on either side. The rooms measure20 feet square. The stairway ascended on the rightand the left sides of the hall, meeting about half wayup, on a platform lighted by a stained glass windowfrom above. From this platform a single broad flightof steps reached the second floor and a similar one,the third (Holstead 1906:3).

In 1860 Randolph Mott was a 60 year old planteroriginally from Virginia. He and his 50 year old wife,Mary A., lived in town with their sons, 19 year old

John B. and 17 year old Frank J. Both had attendedschool that year. It is likely that other children werealready grown and residing elsewhere. The Mottfamily was wealthy. Randolph owned $44,050worth of real estate and $19,900 in personal prop-erty (USBC Population 1860:171 [23].

Mott enjoyed a wealthy lifestyle that was shown inhis house and immediate surroundings. It was alsoevident by his ownership in 1860 of 22 enslavedAfrican-Americans (USBC Slave 1860:444). Theyranged in age from eight to 60 years old. Most fell inthe 12-40 year old range. This African-Americancommunity included eight males and 14 females. An18 and an eight year old were mulatto and the re-mainder were listed as black. It is unclear how manyof these individuals lived on the Mott House grounds.They resided in four different slave quarters.

Mott lived there without incident until the tumultu-ous years of the Civil War during which time he foundhis loyalties torn. He firmly supported the Unionand when Major-General James H. Wilson andWilson’s Raiders captured Columbus in April of1865, he offered the Mott House to be used as Fed-eral headquarters. Mott’s son, however, firmly en-trenched himself on the Confederate side by becom-ing Adjutant on General Henry L. Benning’s staff.Mott died on July 19, 1881 (Mitchell 1946:6).

The Mott House and property was sold to MuscogeeManufacturing Company in 1881 and it was used forapproximately 80 years by this corporation. By1900 Mott’s Green was similar to a public park inthe minds of many Columbusites. The Departmentof Recreation listed “Mott’s Green” playground asbeing enjoyed by 1,554 children in the month of No-vember 1924 (Alva C. Smith Collection 1924). Therecord is unclear as to the exact location of the play-ground. As late as 1914 some of Daniel Griffin’s ca-mellia were cared for and cultivated by Lindsay Neill,of Muscogee Manufacturing. He even propagated anew variety of camellia there, the Lindsay Neill(Lupold and Schnell 1991:72). In 1963 MuscogeeManufacturing sold the structure and property toFieldcrest Mills (National Register of Historic Places1974). Employees at Fieldcrest Mills produced ap-proximately 1.3 million pounds of towels and linensweekly in the 1990s (Molis 1995). Fieldcrest usedthe Mott House as their main office until they relo-cated to a new factory in Phenix City in 1995.

100



The block was also the location of Muscogee Millsand the Carnegie Library. The Muscogee Manufac-turing Company constructed its first mill in 1869. Itexpanded over the years to include five additionalmills, built in 1882, 1887, 1903, 1916, and 1926,followed by construction of Mill No. 6 (IndustrialIndex 1926:7).

The block once housed one of the impressiveCarnegie Libraries constructed there in 1907(McGinnis 1996:8). Interestingly, Columbus had li-braries as early as 1831; however, only citizens whocould afford the subscription or membership rateswere able to enjoy such services. The nineteenth-century libraries were predominantly private lend-ing libraries with a very limited number of volumesavailable, by today’s standards. In 1832 E.S. Nortonadvertised in the Columbus Enquirer a private li-brary available for use at a subscription price thatwas “...lowered from what it has stood last year”(Storey 1979:1). A few residents of Columbus of-fered their personal libraries to family, friends, andoccasionally the public. These libraries were usu-ally meager compared with the offerings of modernpublic libraries. In 1881 individuals chartered theColumbus Public Library Association, which was notactually free but charged a twenty-five cent permonth subscription fee (Storey 1979:3). The libraryestablished rented headquarters on 11th Street andboasted a relatively large 6,000 volume collection(Storey 1979:3). The library suffered chronic fund-ing problems and in 1899 the association sold itssecond headquarters on 1st Avenue to the bank whenit was unable to pay the mortgage. The library thenaccepted an offer from the Superintendent of Edu-cation to relocate to the Columbus High School on11th Street (Storey 1979:6). The truly public, freelibrary in Columbus today falls under the jurisdic-tion of the Board of Education.

By the first decade of the twentieth centuryColumbusite Nina Holstead personally applied to theCarnegie Corporation for a grant to fund a publiclibrary in the city. Holstead was very familiar withAndrew Carnegie’s reputation for funding librariesacross the country. In fact the philanthropist wouldpay for the construction of 1,679 libraries between1889 and 1923 (McGinnis 1996:8). The CarnegieCorporation provided funds for thirty libraries inthe State of Georgia from 1902 to 1921, includingthe Columbus Library built in 1907 (McGinnis

1996:8). It was Columbus’ first public, free library.Carnegie’s gift of $25,000 was later increased to$30,000 with the agreement that the city wouldmaintain the library and staff at a cost of $3,000annually.

In 1905 the library committee recommended lo-cating the library on the public ground between theFirst Baptist Church and St. Luke Methodist Church,near the YMCA (Woodall 1965:2). The churchesdemurred and Mayor L.H. Chappell suggested thatthe library be located at Mott’s Green. This secondlocation was approved and architectural firms be-gan bidding on the project in the summer of 1906.It was during this bidding process that the librarycommittee realized the $25,000 would be inad-equate and Holstead approached Carnegie for anadditional $5,000, which was approved. In spite ofthis additional funding, bids averaged $36,000. TheAtlanta building firm of Allen and Hall bid $30,000to construct the library based on in-house plans andspecifications. On March 12, 1907, however, thecontract for $30,000 was awarded to the Atlantafirm of W.T. Hadlow Company, with modificationsto the original plans and specifications (Woodall1965:2). Construction was completed and theCarnegie Library opened on October 15, 1907(Storey 1979:9). It was located on Broadway, onthe bank of the Chattahoochee River and just southof 15th Street.

The library’s early 20th century character was vis-ible throughout its exterior facade and staircase andcontinued within the structure’s 150 person audito-rium, large windows, high ceilings, ornate wood-work, and other architectural features so typical ofthe period (McGinnis 1996:8). The grand structurewas used by residents of Columbus and Phenix City,including the children of the many mill operativesin both towns. Carnegie’s Columbus Library servedarea residents for over forty years until city leadersdecided the building was too small to continue func-tioning effectively. By 1948 some Columbusitestalked of building a new library elsewhere in the city.

The relocation of the Columbus Library appears tohave been a traumatic event for many in town. TheLeague of Women Voters were firmly opposed toremoving the library from the downtown area, andfelt that if the Carnegie Library had to be closed then


101


the new library should be built somewhere down-town within walking distance of city residents. TheLeague of Women voters contacted the CarnegieCorporation in 1948 with a request to learn whetherthere were any restrictions concerning the sale orremoval of a Carnegie Library. The Carnegie Foun-dation replied that no stipulations or restrictionsexisted as long as more adequate facilities were con-structed. The foundation did request that the newlibrary contain a plaque stating that the earlier li-brary was “made possible by generosity of AndrewCarnegie” (League of Women Voters n.d.a). TheLeague of Women Voters circulated a petition sup-porting the location of the new library in the down-town area. The effort failed, however, and theCarnegie Library and Mott’s Green was sold for$100,000 to Muscogee Manufacturing Company(League of Women Voters n.d.b; McGinnis 1996:8).Heirs of Columbus’ Bradley family gave $125,000for the new library and on October 31, 1950 the Bra-dley Memorial Library was officially opened adja-cent to the Columbus Museum. As of the spring of1998, there were 24 Carnegie Library buildings re-maining in Georgia (McGinnis 1996:8). A total ofeighteen of these are on the National Register of His-toric Places, as was the Columbus Library, prior toits demolition in the winter of 1997-98 for the con-struction of the Total Systems Services corporatecampus.

Block 11, Court House Block

Information about residents living on Block 11, spe-cifically along 1st Avenue and at the intersection of15th Street and 1st Avenue, is included in discussionsabove (Figure 39). The early history of the block,however, was dominated by its intended role as apublic area rather than a residential one. The blockwas originally set aside for construction of a court-house.

Historical primary and secondary documents men-tion as many as four courthouses throughout Co-lumbus’ history. The number of courthouses andthe historical discussions of a county courthouseand a city government house, both to be constructedin Columbus further confuse the issue. Initial plan-ning records from 1828 indicate that the city wasrequired to allocate property within the corporatelimits for a county courthouse, in keeping a prioragreement made with the State of Georgia. Clearly,

an area of town was formally dedicated for a court-house during the planning of the city. In Februaryof 1828 the Board of Commissioners described theplan for the layout of Columbus which included “...Asquare of ground containing ten acres within the lim-its of the Town Commons of Columbus for use of thecounty of Muscogee...tender it to the Justices of theSuperior Court of Muscogee...as a site for the erec-tion of a Court House and Jail for said county” (Clerkof Council 1828:27).

By December of 1828 the state General Assemblypassed an act giving Muscogee County one half ofthe state-owned town square for the erection of a“town house”, or a county courthouse. The legisla-ture stipulated that the Inferior county court had tonotify city officials of their intention to construct acounty courthouse within the ensuing year. Also,the inferior court and the commissioners of thecourt house and jail were not allowed to sell or dis-pose of any part of the square reserved for this pur-pose (Georgia General Assembly 1829:167). Thisland is apparently not the same property as the tenacres mentioned previously, because the act goeson to authorize the Inferior county court to “...sellor dispose of, in any manner, they may deem proper;the ten acres of land, heretofore laid off, and appro-priated for county purposes, in the town of Colum-bus...” (Georgia General Assembly 1829:167). Thelocation of this first courthouse is unclear since it isdifficult to determine if the property at 15th Street

(15th Street)

(16th Street)

(1st Avenue)

(Broadw

ay)

(2nd Avenue)

0 45 90

meters

Chattahoochee

River

Figure 39. Originally, Block 11 WasNot Divided into City Lots, but

Reserved for Courthouse. Yellow isArea of Occupation Discussed inText. (Modified from Phelan and

Stratton 1927).

102



and 1st Avenue represents the original ten acres withno courthouse ever built on it, or if it was the sec-ond ten acres containing a courthouse. Primary andsecondary sources differ as to the location of theoriginal courthouse.

Once source is the memoirs of Mr. A.O. Blackmar.He came to Columbus in 1835 at the age of 6 yearsand recorded his memories of the town in 1921 whenhe reached his nineties. He recalled that, “The firstcourt house here, a large frame building, was locatedin the northwest corner of the present court housesquare. This was burnt in 1838; supposed to havebeen fired by an incendiary. Several arrests weremade but the real criminal was never discovered”(Peddy Collection April 10, 1921). This account sug-gests that the area originally laid out for the court-house square near the North Commons was neverused for its intended purpose. It alludes that thecity block bordered by Crawford, Thomas,Oglethorpe, and Jackson, which definitely housedthe remaining courthouses built in 1838/40, 1896,and 1972, also housed the original wooden court-house. A secondary source, however, suggests thatthe original wooden courthouse was located on theblock bounded by 15th Street and 1st Avenue, as sug-gested on early maps (Carl Vinson Institute 2004).

While there was a county courthouse in 1837 and1838, there was no existing city government build-ing at this time. The city councilmen passed theresolution “that the room over the store of C.W.Buckley and Company be rented forthwith for theuse of the Mayor and councilmen and offices andthat the rent of $300 be given for the same...” (Clerkof Council 1837-1841:11). This search for meetingquarters, offices, and a place to keep the city’sweights, measures and seals, was interminable andit is unlikely that the council would have searchedand selected new rental locations every year andpaid such high rents if they had courthouse facilitiesavailable to them. The search for a facility typicallyinvolved examining several possibilities and thewinter of 1837 was no exception. By February ofthat year the council decided to rent a room overT.G. Gordon and Company’s store (Clerk of Council1837-1841:15).

By the spring of 1837, the idea to merge the countycourthouse and the city government within onebuilding gained popularity. The city council re-

solved that the “committee appointed on part ofthe board to confer with the committee appointedby the Honorable Inferior Courts of the county ofMuscogee to take into consideration the expediencyof building a courthouse and city hall in conjunc-tion” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:26). The loca-tion selected was the block encompassed by 9th and10th streets and 1st and 2nd avenues. By the winterof 1837 the two committees were conferring on thefencing of the courthouse square and the InferiorCourt agreed to pay for the fence. The committeesalso discussed in January of 1838 construction costsof the courthouse building. The Inferior Court waswilling to pay $15,000 if the city would do the same,or if the city could only provide $10,000, the Ma-sonic Fraternity offered to pay $5,000 towards con-struction costs in return for the use of the building’sthird story (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:86). By April1838 the committee received several plans for acourthouse and City Hall. Mr. N.N. Clark of Clarkand Morton won $100 for submitting the plans cho-sen by the committee (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:111,123). The committee awarded a $30,000construction contract to the reputable Godwin firm,of covered bridge fame.

Meanwhile, apparently in the middle of plans to con-struct a new courthouse, the extant one was burned.Historical documentation records the event of anarsonist burning a courthouse in 1838 to which Mr.Blackmar referred. On October 16, 1838 the council“resolved that his Honor the Mayor be authorised[sic] to offer a reward for the discovery and convic-tion of the person or persons who fired the court-house and clerks office of the Superior and Inferiorcourts on the morning of the 15th inst. of five hun-dred dollars in addition to any reward which maybe offered by the Inferior court” (Clerk of Council1837-1841:170). Three months later B. Harris pe-titioned the city council for a loan “for the appre-hension of Jacob Cunningham, the person sus-pected of the crime of arson in burning the Court-house and Clerks Office...on the morning of the thirdMonday of October last...” (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:222). The council loaned Harris $150, butensuing council minutes do not indicate thatCunningham was ever apprehended.

Preparation for the construction of the new court-house began in the winter of 1839. Apparently therewas disagreement or lack of clarity between city


103


and county officials as to the location of the court-house within the city block. One committee wantedthe structure to be built in the center of the blockwhile the other committee opted for an off-centerconstruction. This confusion resulted in costly er-rors of time and money as construction of the base-ment had already begun. This basement was filledin by the public hands at additional cost and the cityrequested the Inferior Court committee to pay twothirds of the price (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:279).On October 2, 1840 the eminent architect andbuilder, John Godwin officially notified the city coun-cil that the courthouse was completed (Clerk of Coun-cil 1837-1841:423).

By 1896 Columbus felt the need for a larger court-house. A new, expanded building was constructedand the 1840 courthouse torn down. The court-house was a red brick and granite, domed structurecontaining white marble steps and porches, columnsand porticoes (Rothwell 1945). The semi-fireproofbuilding was decorated with friezes along the top ofthe exterior walls. History repeated itself again in1971 when Columbus’ current ten-story rectangu-lar courthouse building was constructed. The his-toric domed 1896 building was demolished uponcompletion of the modern building.

104



105


Chapter 5. History, Results and Interpretations of

Lot 200, Block 10

HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY

Lot 200• Recorded as Site 9Me1067• Bounded by 15th Street & 1st Avenue• 1830s and earlier Creek-Euro component• Twentieth century location of car dealer-

ship

This lot is located on the northwestern corner of15th Street and 1st Avenue (Figure 40). If you stoodon this lot today and looked southeast, diagonallyacross the intersection, you would see the Down-town Magnet Elementary School. The lot is nowhome to a parking lot of one of the large office build-ings of Total System Services, Inc. Lot 200 was oneof the lots on which archaeologists conducted in-tensive data recovery excavations.

Lot 200 was laid out in 1828 during the originalsurvey for the town of Columbus. Figure 41 shows areconstructed chain of title for Lot 200 on Block10. Citations for deed transactions discussed beloware detailed on this chain of title schematic ratherthan in the text to promote story continuity. Theearliest extant record of the lot occurs from a trans-action when the State of Georgia sold Lot 200 toThomas T. Gamage on April 25, 1832 (n.a., n.d.).The first surviving deed to this lot dates to 1845,when a Thomas Morris sold it. It is possible thatMorris purchased the lot directly from Gamage, orthere may have been other transactions occurringbetween these two periods of ownership. Both Mor-ris and Gamage owned several lots in Columbus atthis time. From at least 1836 and through 1842,Morris owned both Lots 199 and 200. He chose tolive on Lot 199 located adjacent to and immediatelywest of Lot 200, although he used at least the west-ern edge of Lot 200, if not the entire lot, as part of

his yard. In fact, Morris’ Lot 199 extended over 22feet into the southwestern corner of Lot 200 andfive feet along the remaining edge of Lot 200.

This encroachment was not an issue while Morrisowned both lots, but later it would result in an un-usual boundary line when the lots were sold indi-vidually. Figure 42 is a plan view drawing of thefeatures archaeologists uncovered in this area. (Thereader is referred to this figure for all feature loca-tions on Lot 200 in regard to feature discussionsthroughout this chapter.) The brick foundation lo-cated along the eastern edge of Lot 199 may be partof a foundation for the carriage house mentioned inthe deed references. It appears to lie parallel to aformer lot line, judging by the pattern of posts. Ar-chaeologists uncovered these stains that were cre-ated by rotting fence posts, revealing a linear postpattern five feet east of this foundation. ApparentlyMorris extended the eastern boundary of Lot 199 byfive feet to include this structure when he sold Lot199 in 1842. The 22 ft by 24 ft lot extension at thesouthern end of the fence line likely encompassedthe stable mentioned in the deeds and included insubsequent sales of Lot 199. Archaeologists uncov-ered additional post molds in this area that suggestsan outline of a square or rectangular structure, or afence going around such a structure. The ephemeralnature of the stable left little other archaeologicalevidence. While Morris sold Lot 199 in 1842, he didnot sell neighboring Lot 200 until 1845.

In 1845, Morris sold Lot 200 to Buckner Beasley for$1,580. Buckner held Lot 200 for over four yearsbefore selling it to Lewis M. Durr. Durr had beenrenting part of the neighboring lot (Lot 201) before1841. In 1841 he purchased two-thirds of the north-ern half of Lot 201 and lived there until sometimebefore 1848. It was in 1849 that he moved to Lot200 and lived there five years. He appears to have

Chapter 5. History, Results and Interpretations of Lot 200, Block 10

106


Figure 40. Location of Lot 200.

Blk 10

14th Street

15th Street

16th Street

18th Street

17th Street

1st A

venu

e

2nd

Ave

nue

Broa

dway

14

15

16

17

18

19

123

4 5 6

789

10

11

12

13

15

16

17 18 19 20

14

1 S

T

A

VE

NU

E

2 N

D

A

VE

3 R

D

A

VE

NU

E19 TH STREET

18 TH STREET

17 TH STREET

RAILROAD STREET

16 TH STREET

14 TH

BR

OA

DW

AY

15 TH STREET

3 R

D

AV

EN

UE

2 N

D

AV

EN

UE

1 S

T

A

VE

NU

E

FR

ON

T S

T.

STREET 85

3.27 AC

WOOLFOLK

GEORGIA POWER CO.

0.266 AC 0.288 AC

(100)

(10)

(23)

(11)

(22)

(12)

(21)

(20)

214 213

212211

210 209

208207

JAIL

SQ

UA

RE

1 2

34

5 6

78

ROW 66

1825

109 113

(108) (107)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2 3

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

71

2

34

5

6

7

8

1

2

8

1400

1407

1411

1413

1417

1423

1431

1437

1441

1445

116

15441528

15241518

15161508

1500

15011509

15151519

15231531

1535

212

111

1 2

34

1

2

1

2

6

7

8

9

101

2

2A

3

4

5

1

2

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213

14

15

16

17

18

1920 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

11

16

17

18

18A

19

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

5

1

1

21

236

51

2

3

16A

4

7

1

13 12

11

10

8

1

Riv

er

Ch

att

ah

oo

ch

ee

200 feet

City Mills



107


Figure 41. Chain of Title for Lot 200.

Thomas Morris4-18-1845

$1580BkE:206

Buckner Beasley8-17-1849

$1200BkE:207

Lewis M. Durr5-20-1854

$5000 security deedBkG:84

Thomas Ragland(Durr mortgaged prop.

to Ragland & lost it.)

T.W. Tinsley, adm. for Thomas Ragland

4-6-1877$1830BkT:502

Jacob G. Burruss, Sheriff (FeFi)5-4-1886

$1300BkY:634

Thomas K. Wynne

Susie Wynne Burrus(aka Susie W. Dismukes)

5-8-1906$6350 (part of L200)

BkYY:203

Elisha P. Dismukes

Elisha P. Dismukes, Jr.;Robert Ernest Dismukes, Trust. for Elisha

Dismukes estate5-31-1926$16,800Bk55:316

Cliff M. Averett & W.T. Heard

Helena M. Dismukes3-26-1926

$17000 (north part of L200)

Bk64:494

Continued at top of page.

Continued from bottom of page.

Peter Preer5-28-1884

for love & affection (w1/3 of L200 & part of L199)

BkX:438

Sallie Preer Epping7-18-1892

security deedBkFF:219

Columbus Investment Corporation

Mamie Bussey

Sallie Preer Epping6-1-1899

$3500BkLL:225

Figure 41. Block 10, Lot 200.


108


Figure 42. Features Archaeologists Uncovered on Lot 200.

F. 241 F. 243

F. 232

F. 222

F. 316

F. 339

N860

N880

N900

E960 E980 E1000

15th Street

1st A

venu

e

F. 255

F. 256

F.198

F. 203

F. 204

F. 215

F. 216

F. 224F. 223

F. 218

F. 220

F. 234

F. 236

F. 237

F. 239

F. 240

F. 242

F. 244F .245

F. 247250

F. 251

F. 253

F. 202F.205

F. 210

F. 217

F. 267

268

F. 258

F. 259F. 260

F. 261

273F. 274

262 F. 263

F. 264

F. 265

F. 266F. 269

F. 270

F. 276

F. 277

F. 279

F. 280

F. 281

F. 283

F. 284

F.286

F. 287

F.289

F. 290 F. 212

F. 213

F. 317

F. 238

F. 211

F. 207

F. 194

196

F. 197

F. 221

F. 226

F. 195

F. 227

F. 228

F. 230

F. 229F. 246

F. 231

F. 193

F. 201

F. 233

F. 254

F. 285

F. 252

Cistern

Midden

Drainage TroughCellar

Post/Post ClustersPrivy Rock Cluster

Animal BurialBuilder's TrenchCooking Pit

Greenhouse

Pit

Brick Pier/Wall

Lot Boundary Line

10

0 16

0

ft

m

32

5

N870

N890

E970 E990 E1010

Postmold

F.F.

F.F.

Well

249 340F.

F.F.


109


purchased the southern half of Lot 201 sometimeafter 1851. This would have expanded Lot 200 to anorth-south length of 220 feet, or one and a halflots. In 1854 Durr used Lot 200 as collateral for a$5,000 mortgage from Thomas Ragland. Durr wasunable to make the payments on his mortgage andhe lost the property to Ragland. Lot 200 remainedin Ragland’s possession until his death in 1877.There is no record of Ragland living on the lot, and itis likely that he lived elsewhere in town. ThomasRagland came from a family that had some moneyand land. In 1847 his mother, Sarah Ragland, wasliving on the family plantation, had four slaves (agirl named Mary, 14 year old Jane, 50 year old Dick,and 17 year old Lucy), owned livestock (one mule,two cows and calves, aand a flock of fowl), had per-sonal possessions (a blue chest, walnut table, sideboard, blacksmith tools, two ovens, two pots, onepair of andirons), and had a viable crop (Ragland1847). Thomas Ragland was not ingratiated to hismother and received little from her estate. Fortu-nately for him, however, he appears to have madehis own living independently. Part of this living wasderived from rental properties. For example, herented Lot 200 to Thomas K. Wynne (aka Wynn)sometime between 1854 and 1877.

Some details are known about Thomas Wynne. Priorto his rent and subsequent purchase of Lot 200,Wynne lived elsewhere in Columbus. In 1850 hewas listed as a white, 28 year old merchant livingamong and near other merchants (USBC Population1850:622). He appears to have been roommateswith a 26 year old merchant named Isaac C. Chan-dler who was from New Jersey. Wynne, was himself,a non-native Georgian emigrating from North Caro-lina. Wynne and Chandler were listed as residing inthe dwelling occupied by a 30 year old merchantJohn Mulford and a 21 year old clerk named SamuelAsburn. Both Mulford and Asburn were from NewYork. It is likely that Wynne moved from this rentalto a more singular arrangement of renting a houseon Lot 200.

By 1870 Thomas K. Wynne was 48 years old and theproprietor of a printing office. It is likely that Wynnerented this lot sometime prior to 1870, since by thatyear he was recorded as holding $5,000 worth ofreal estate and $500 in personal estate. It seemsunlikely that he would rent when he owned such realestate, unless his property was located outside of

town. Wynne hailed from North Carolina and hiswife, 32 year old Mary L. Wynne, was from Kentucky.Interestingly, Mary’s real estate value was also listedin the 1870 census. This was somewhat atypical formost wives who were not heads-of-household. Herreal estate value totaled $2,700. This may havebeen a second marriage for both Mary and Thomas,as suggested by the independent real estate value,the ages of Mary and Thomas, and by the childrenlisted in the household. These included two chil-dren with the last name of Waddell who were born inAlabama. George Waddell was 15 years old and Salliewas 13. In contrast, the Wynne children, Susan andEzekiel, were ages four and two (USBC Population1870:18). Both George and Sallie attended school.The family enjoyed the labor of three domestic ser-vants. Richard Mitchum was a 50 year old gardenerfrom North Carolina. His wife, Melissa was also fromthat state. She was 48. Melissa was a domestic ser-vant along with Rachael Landers (?), a 19 year oldGeorgian (USBC Population 1870:18). All three ser-vants were listed as black in the census.

In 1877 Thomas Wynne purchased Lot 200 afterRagland’s death from the estate executor for $1,830.Wynne remained on Lot 200 as a resident-owner until1886 when he lost possession of the lot through aFieri Ficias. The sheriff auctioned Lot 200 in May of1886. The highest bidder was Susie Wynne Burrus,at $1,300. Susie Wynne Burrus (aka Susie W.Dismukes) was not Thomas’ daughter, Susie, as shewould have been only eleven years old when the auc-tion occurred. Susie Wynne Burrus may have beenThomas’ sister, who married a Burrus and then re-married a Dismukes. Thomas may have named hisdaughter Susie, after his sister. Researchers, how-ever, did not follow documentary sources to sup-port or negate this conjecture. Susie Wynne BurrusDismukes sold part of Lot 200 approximately 20years later to Elisha P. Dismukes for $6,350. WhenDismukes died, the property was divided among hisheirs, who all sold their portions to Cliff M. Averettand W.T. Heard in 1926 for a total of $33,800. It wasthe Averett-Heard partnership that was responsiblefor the construction of the Dodge Dealership on thelot. Between 1926-1928 demolition of residences onthe lot were underway and construction of the cardealership had begun (Figure 43).

The oldest extant deed reference for Lot 200 is 1836(MCSC Deed Bk B:243). The archaeology indicates


110


that the lot was occupied very early in the town’shistory and perhaps even prior to the town’s estab-lishment. Some of the project’s oldest historic fea-tures discovered by archaeologists were on this lot.An 1830s and earlier midden and trash pits contain-ing Creek and European artifacts were located on Lot200.

LATE 18TH TO EARLY 19TH CENTURY

ACTIVITIES ON LOT 200

Some of the oldest buildings that once stood on Lot200 predate structures that have left visible evi-dence of foundations, such as the brick foundationsof Structure 1 (discussed below) and may have beenless durable structures associated with Creek Indi-ans or temporary shelters built during the town’sinitial lot auction and establishment. While thesestructures were difficult to define, the presence of

specific types of features with certain diagnostic ar-tifacts points to the clear presence of houses thatdate to before and during the establishment of thetown of Columbus. These features suggest a Creek-Euro occupation. The main Stage Road, locatednorth of the Federal Road, came directly throughthis area and connected to the Upatoi Indian Trail,as depicted on reproduced maps (Columbus LedgerEnquirer 1990). The features, and the nearby pres-ence of the Stage Road and Indian Trail, stronglysuggest that European traders, along with Creek In-dians, occupied what would later become Lot 200.

Creek-Euro Features

The following features on this lot contained Creekartifacts: Features 193, 194, 202, 203, 223, 228,233, 244, 252, and 254 (Figure 44). Cross mendsbetween features and within features are detailed in

Figure 43. Two Houses Were Demolished Prior to this Early Twentieth Century CarDealership Construction on Lot 200 (Woodall 1926).


111


Figure 44. Shaded Features Were Associated with a Creek-Euro Occupation.

860N

880N

900N

960E 980E 1000E

F.244

15th Street

1st Avenue

F.203

F.223

F.202F. 194

F. 228

F. 193

F. 233

F.254

F.252

Creek-Euro Features

10

0 16

0

ft

m

32

5


112


the feature discussions below. Features containingdefinite Historic Creek pottery, includingChattahoochee Brushed and Kasita Red Filmed, in-cluded Features 202, 203, 221, and 276. Features223, 227, and 233 contained incised and simplestamped sherds. Other features contained a mix-ture of sherds that offer diagnostic challenges, in-cluding burnished sherds, plain sherds, and uniden-tifiable sherds. Features 193, 194, 201, 203, 221,233, and 317 contained burnished pottery, whichmay be Creek or African inspired. Figure 45 is agraph of the various sherds in each feature. Plainsherds were present in Features 35, 193, 202, 221,224, 228, 230, 233, 244, 254, 256, and 278. Uni-dentifiable sherds were recorded in Features 22, 145,193, 207, 221, 230, 232, 250, and 254. Chapter 10offers a discussion of Historic Indian and Africanpottery, and the possibilities of separating the two

types from each other in assemblages such as thosefound on the 2nd Avenue project.

Cross Mends

Archaeologists observed cross mends among a totalof seven features on Lot 200. Table 5 lists the fea-tures with cross mend relationships. The table alsoreflects seven features having internal cross mendswithin their own stratigraphy. Figure 46 is a graphicrepresentation of which features mend with eachother. These relationships are examined within thediscussions of individual features, below.

Roasting Pit (Feature 254)Archaeologists interpret this feature lying near thenortheastern corner of Lot 200 as a roasting pit.The gently sloping pit with a relatively flat base mea-

Figure 45. Various Creek Pottery Types by Feature, Lot 200.

Features

75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Creek Ceramics Lot 200

Burnished CeramicChattahoochee Brushed

IncisedKasita Red FilmedPlain non-European ceramic


113


Table 5. Crossmends, Block 10, Lot 200.

Between Features

Feature Provenience Number

of Mended Vessels

Mends With: Feature Provenience Number

of Mended Vessels

F. 193 Zone D, F 1 mends with: F. 194 All 1 F. 207 TS 1, (Sec. 0,

selective) 1 mends with: F. 221 TS 0 (Zone G, 140-150);

TS 1 (Sec.1,TS 1B) 1

F. 233 Level 1 1 mends with: F. 254 Strata 2, 3; L.2 1 F. 244 Zone 6 1 mends with: F. 254 Level 1 1

Within Features

Feature Provenience Mends With: Provenience

Number of Mended

Vessels

F. 193 Surface mends with: Zone C 4 Surface mends with: Zone D 1 Zone B mends with: Zone C 2 Zone B mends with: Zone C and D 1

F. 221 TS 0, Zone A, L.1 mends with: TS 0, Zone D 1 TS 0, Zone B mends with: TS 0, Zone D 1 TS 0, Zone E mends with: TS 0, Zone F, 100-140cmbs 1 TS 0, Zone E mends with: TS 0, Zone F, 100-140cmbs 1 TS 0, Zone F, 100-14cmbs mends with: TS 0, Zone G, 140-150cmbs 1 TS 1, Sec. 1, TS 1B mends with: TS 1, Sec. 1, TS 2 1 TS 1, Sec. 1, TS 1B mends with: TS 0, Zone G, 140-150cmbs 1 TS 1, Sec. 1, TS 1B mends with: TS 1, Sec. 1, TS 3 1

F. 228 Level 1 mends with: Level 2 4 F. 230 0-10 cm mends with: Level 2 1 F. 252 Level 1 mends with: Level 2 1 F. 254 Strata 2, 3 mends with: Level 2 1

Level 1 mends with: Level 2 1 F. 317 Zone G mends with: Zone H 1


114


Figure 46. Ceramic Crossmends Between Features on Lot 200 Are Depicted by Similar Shading.

860N

880N

900N

960E 980E 1000E

15th Street

1st Avenue

F.244

F. 194

F. 221

F. 193

F. 233

F.254

F.207

10

0 16

0

ft

m

32

5


115


sured 1.95 m north-south by 2.83 m east-west. Itappeared somewhat circular in plan (Figure 47).Feature 254 contained four extremely interestingstrata that terminated at a depth of 41 cm below thebackhoe stripped surface. Archaeologists exca-vated the northern half of the feature in two naturallevels. The feature profile, however, contained fournatural levels. Archaeologists excavated these fourlevels separately in the southern half of the feature(Figure 48).

The first stratum at the top of the feature consistedof a sandy loam with charcoal flecks overlying yel-lowish-red loamy sand. Level 1 of the southern halfof Feature 254 measured 19 cm thick in the middleand contained a kaolin pipe bowl, 1 window glassfragment, 5 cut and 30 unidentifiable nails, onespike, 2 unidentifiable brick, two chert flakes, andoyster shell. Level 1 in the northern half of the fea-ture contained many more artifacts. This may partlyresult from archaeologists excavating this level moredeeply in the northern half, before soil profiles re-vealed four natural stratigraphic layers. Artifactsin Level 1 of the northern half of the feature included9 window glass fragments, 10 cut and 60 unidentifi-able nails, animal bone, charcoal, fire cracked rockand a river cobble. This level contained a variety ofceramics including 11 pearlware fragments (5 plain,2 green scalloped rim impressed, curved edgeware,2 roulette annularware, 1 polychrome hand-painted, and 1 hand-painted sherds). Other ceram-ics included 5 hand-painted whiteware, 5 plain bur-nished Creek sherds, 4 underglaze stippled transferprint (3 blue, one miscellaneous colors), 3 unidenti-fiable white-bodied burned sherds, 1 unidentifiableburned sherd, and 1 plain cream colored ware sherd.Glass artifacts included 25 pieces of lead glass, 8unidentifiable burned/melted, 8 clear curved table-ware, 5 clear, 3 aqua, and 1 clear thin globe or medi-cine bottle fragment.

A thin layer of charcoal separated Level 1 and 2. Ayellowish red loamy sand lens, with layers of ashand charcoal, constituted Level 2. This level on thesouthern side of the feature was a thin lens that mea-sured 5-8 cm and contained similar types of arti-facts as described above, but in a lower density.These artifacts included three unidentifiable brickfragments, 5 cut and 48 unidentifiable nails, animalbone, and the following ceramics: 5 hand-paintedwhiteware, 4 annularware strap handle sherds, 2

plain cream colored ware, 1 blue underglaze stippledtransfer print of “The Cowman” pattern, 1 scallopedrim impressed curved edgeware, and 1 unidentifi-able white bodied ceramic. Four of the sherds andtwo of the nails were burned. Level 2 on the north-ern side of the feature included the remaining fea-ture fill, accounting for a higher artifact density thanLevel 2 on the southern side of the feature. Level 2on the northern side of the feature contained 1 pieceof daub, 1 window glass fragment, 11 cut and 34 uni-dentifiable nails, 2 wire nails, a brass button with aneye and no foot stamped “Best Quality”, animal boneand charcoal. Kitchen artifacts included ceramicsand bottle glass. A total of 7 ironstone, 4 green scal-loped rim impressed curved edgeware, 1 burnedannularware, 3 hand-painted whiteware, 4 blue un-derglaze transfer print (1 stippled), and 2 NativeAmerican sherds (1 plain sand tempered and 1 uni-dentifiable burned sherd) were recovered. Bottleglass fragments consisted of 2 clear; 2 very thin clearglobe or medicine bottle; and 6 melted pieces.

The wire nails may have become deposited in thefeature at a later period, either through the distur-bance that is Feature 288 on the northeastern edgeof the feature, or as the result of natural deposition.For example, the four distinctive strata in Feature254 all extend to the top of the stripped surface atsome point. Both the feature plan view and profileillustrate this natural deposition in which fill isthrown into a pit and covers the bottom and sides ofthe pit. Each successive layer of fill does the samething until the final zone fills the centermost por-tion of the pit. The fact that all zones in Feature 254extend to the same highest elevation make it likelythat secondary material post-dating the pit fill cameto be included in the uppermost edges of these strata.The wire nails may have come to be included in thelower stratum in this manner.

Level 3 consisted of black charred organics includ-ing twigs, burned grass, pine needles, and wood chipsproduced by using an ax or hatchet. Archaeologistsexcavated Level 3 as a separate zone on the south-ern side of Feature 254. This level measured 15 cmat its maximum thickness. Level 3 contained 1 uni-dentifiable brick fragment, 11 cut and 29 unidentifi-able nails, a fragment of loose-weave cloth, animalbone, charcoal, a corn-cob pipe, 1 piece of unidenti-fiable lead, 1 fire cracked rock, 1 heat-treated cobble,and a variety of ceramics. These ceramics included


116


Figure 47. Feature 254, Plan View, Lot 200.

F.288

Black (10YR 2/1) charred botanical remains.

1. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silty sand mottled with dark brown

(10YR 3/3) with chunks and flecks of charcoal.

2. Yellowish red (5YR 4/6) loamy sand mottled with very dark gray (10YR 3/1)loamy sand and flecked with charcoal.

3. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sand.

x

N 892.87E 1003.64Elv. 99.79

xN 892.98E 1007.20

cm

500

Feature 254, Block 10, Lot 200

Plan View

1

2

2

3

4

4

Con

cret

e

4. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand.

Figure 48. Feature 254, Profile, Lot 200.

1. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam with charcoal, andyellowish brown and pale brown mottles of sand.

2. Yellowish red (5YR 4/6) loamy sand lens with a thin layer of charcoal.

3. Black (10YR 2/1) charcoal layer with assorted sticks, wood chips, twigs,

brick fragments, and bone.

4. Brown (10YR 4/3) sand mottled with light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) sand and darkyellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy clay.

5. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy clay.

1

2 34

5

Feature 254, Block 10, Lot 200South Profile

Level Line

cm

500

BrickElv 99.94 m


117


3 white roulette annular ware, 3 hand paintedwhiteware, 2 green scalloped rim impressed straightedgeware, 1 hand-painted annular pearlware, 1 pieceof hand painted hotelware, 1 burned ironstone, 1molded cream colored ware, 1 blue under glazestippled transfer print, and 1 unidentifiable burnedsherd.

Level 4 contained brown sand mottled with lightyellowish brown sandy clay. This zone was exca-vated separately on the southern side of the feature,where it measured between 3-10 cm thick. Artifactsrecovered included 5 unidentifiable nails, 1 plainironstone rim, 1 blue hand-painted whiteware, and10 pieces of unidentifiable iron or steel.

Analysis of the soil samples from this feature pro-vided the following information from the Paleo Re-search Institute lab. This pit is represented by twopollen samples (662 and 670) collected from Level2 and Level 4 fill. Pollen records are somewhat simi-lar to the other two pits examined. Differences inpollen types representing local trees includeBetulaceae pollen, noted only in sample 670, an el-evated Carya pollen frequency in sample 670, andthe presence of Ulmus pollen in sample 662. Pollenrepresenting herbaceous plants exhibits more vari-ability. Quantities of High-spine Asteraceae andCheno-am pollen are elevated in sample 662 fromLevel 2, possibly representing plants in the sunflowerfamily and Cheno-am group growing in the pit fill asweeds. Poaceae pollen is more abundant in the lowersample (670) than the upper sample (662). Fabaceaepollen is noted in both. This pit exhibits pollen evi-dence of foods that might have been discarded inthis area including Fragaria-type in the uppersample, representing discard of strawberries and Zeamays in the lower sample, representing discard ofcorn. In addition, both samples yielded Hordeum-type starches, indicating that cereal grains, perhapsin the form of flour or baked goods, were discarded.Hordeum-type starches include those from barleyand other cereal grains including wheat and rye.Wheat also exhibits another form of starch that isconsidered more diagnostic for wheat and is absentfrom the assemblage of barley starches.

The phytolith record is similar to that from Features233 and 228. Grasses contribute many differentforms to this record, including short cells from allmajor groups of grasses (cool season, short, and tall

grasses). Buliforms are not particularly abundant,and neither are trichomes. Dicot forms are presentbut do not contribute to our understanding of plantsthat might have been roasted in the pit.

Macrofloral samples 664 and 672 were collectedfrom fill in the south half of the roasting pit. Bothsamples contained an abundance of Pinus charcoalfrom the southern pine group, as well as a smalleramount of Pinus and Quercus charcoal. Local pineand oak wood appear to have been burned as fuel inthe roasting pit. Recovery of numerous charredPinus bark scale fragments from these samples re-flect pine wood that was burned. Sample 664 yieldeda charred Cucurbita exocarp (rind) fragment, sug-gesting that squash/pumpkins were utilized. Thissample also contained several charred probable barkfragments and a few pieces of charred tissue too vit-rified for identification. The presence of a fewburned and unburned bone fragments, as well asthree fish scale fragments, suggest processing of fishand other meat resources. Sample 672 also con-tained a few charred bone fragments. Numeroussmall brick fragments also were present in thissample. Both samples yielded a few fragments ofrusted metal and a few sclerotia.

Feature 254 (all levels) produced a MCD of 1835.02(n=56). Disregarding two wire nails that appear tobe a result of later deposition, the TPQ for the fea-ture is 1830. Cross mends between zones withinFeature 254 suggest that the feature was filled rela-tively quickly. Artifacts within virtually every levelshowed evidence of burning or melting; however,all artifacts did not show these effects. Ceramics fromFeature 254 cross mended with those in Features244 and 233. As stated earlier, a sherd from Fea-ture 254, Level 1mended with one from a post (Zone6) in Feature 244. The post was actually a separatefeature pre-dating Feature 244. Archaeologists dis-covered that the stain labeled Feature 244 actuallyconsisted of a series of post stains along a fence linefull of post molds, holes, and replacement posts anda separate animal burial. Another cross mend oc-curred between Features 254 and 233. These sherdswere located in Level 2 of Feature 254 and L1 ofFeature 233. These various mends show a clear as-sociation and relationship between Features 254and 233. These features were probably constructedby the same person or people, and certainly bothwere filled in by the same person or people.


118


In summary, Feature 254 was used as a pit to roastfood during the earliest years of Columbus’ exist-ence. The presence of chenopodium may have beenthe result of weeds growing in the area; however,lambsquarter, sunflower and other chenopodiumwere traditionally consumed by Native Americansin the southeast. Evidence of traditional agricul-tural crops such as squash/pumpkin, beans/le-gumes, and corn further identifies what was cookedin, or prepared near this roasting pit. The pit’s userappears to have been influenced directly or indi-rectly by Euro-American culture, however, giventhe presence of barley or rye starches in Feature254. The user, possibly a Creek woman living as awife of a white settler, appears to have supplementedthis diet with non-domestic food sources such aswild strawberries and fish. Other bone in the featuresuggests larger animals consumed in the diet. Thepit was used minimally during fall and winter, basedon the presence of cool season grass pollen and itemstypically harvested in the fall and eaten later, suchas corn and squash/pumpkin.

The Feature 254 pit has similarities to the Feature 2pit excavated at the Victory Drive Site (9Me50) onthe south side of Columbus (Ledbetter 1996:244-245). Feature 2 was a Historic Creek pit containinga variety of wood charcoal including pine, oak,hickory, honey locust, and elm. Seeds included che-nopods, squash, persimmon, maypop, maygrass,cultivated gean, peach pit, and maize. Feature 2contained nutshells from hickory, black walnut andacorn. The identifiable faunal material in Feature 2included fish (catfish, bass), frog/toad, turtle (box,cooter/slider, chicken turtle), fowl (wild turkey,chicken, perching birds), squirrel, mouse, whitetailed deer, domestic pig, cow, and freshwater mus-sel (Ledbetter 1996:242).

Pit (Feature 233)This feature was located in the extreme southeast-ern corner of Lot 200. Archaeologists mapped itslocation two meters east-northeast from the edge ofa midden (Feature 194). Feature 233 was a 47 cmthick basin that measured 240 cm east-west by 190cm north-south (Figure 49). It was fairly circular inplan. The feature was truncated near the center by alater trench oriented east-west. After excavatingthe southern, undisturbed portion of Feature 233,archaeologists removed the trench fill to avoid con-tamination when excavating the northern half of the

feature. Figure 50 shows the excavation of thenorthern half of the feature in progress. Soil in thenorthern half, immediately south of the trench wasexcavated separately as provenience Zone A/B toinsure that contaminated fill would not be includedwith the feature fill.

There were two main natural zones (A and D) in thefeature and each was excavated separately. Archae-ologists excavated Zone A as Level 1 (in both thenorthern and southern parts of the feature). Thesmall zone beneath this, Zone D, was removed asLevel 2. Level 1 contained 3 window glass frag-ments, and 136 cut nails/fragments. Handmadebrick and brick fragments constituted over 50 per-cent of the feature fill. Creek sherds dominated theceramic inventory and included 24 burnished and39 plain sand/grit tempered sherds. Euro-Ameri-can sherds included pearlware (3 plain, 1 blue un-derglaze stippled transfer print, 1 scalloped rim im-pressed curved green edgeware, 1 annular poly-chrome hand painted, and 1 polychrome handpainted sherd), other transfer prints (1 brown un-derglaze stippled, and 1 blue transfer print), 1 lustreware, and 1 piece of porcelain. Archaeologists alsorecovered one light green bottle glass fragment, ametal file, animal bone, fish scales, wood and daubfrom this zone. Zone A was 37 cm thick.

Zone D was a small, deeper fill zone located mostlyin the northern half of the feature, near its base. Itwas excavated as Level 2. A total of three animalteeth and one bone fragment were the only artifactswithin this level. This zone was 10 cm thick. Ar-chaeologists discovered a post mold (Post 885) nearthe center of Zone D. Zone D may have been aposthole for that post; however, given the large sizeof Zone D and its irregular edges, it is more likely thebase of the pit. The post was not excavated due totime constraints.

A third and smaller zone, Zone A/B, which containedpotential for later contamination from a trench, didnot have artifacts that were radically different intype or chronology than the other Zones. Zone A/Bartifacts consisted of 16 pieces of window glass, 84cut nails/fragments, 5 Creek burnished sherds, 1plain and 1 incised sand/grit tempered sherd,pearlware (1 plain, 1 hand-painted), 1 blue lusterware, 1 blue underglaze stippled transfer print sherd,


119


Figure 50. Photograph of Pit Feature 233, Excavation in Progress, Lot 200.

Figure 49. Feature 233, Lot 200, Plan View.

1. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy loam mottled with brown (10YR 4/3) and dark yellowish

brown (10YR 4/4) sand with brick and charcoal.

Brick Fragment

Quartz Flake

cm

500 N

1

Trench, Recent DisturbanceN 862.54E 998.05Elv 99.90

N 862.60E 995.60x x

Feature 233, Block 10, Lot 200Plan View

Brick FragmentsPost 867

x 17cmbd x 10 cmbdTrench B


120


2 olive green bottle glass, 1 piece of brass, charcoal,and animal bone.

There were only 11 diagnostic ceramics on which torun a MCD. These sherds produced a MCD of 1810.5.A TPQ of 1818 came from a blue underglaze stippledtransfer print sherd in Zone A/B. The TPQ for thedefinitely undisturbed zones was 1810 for an under-glaze landscape transfer print. This was followedclosely by a TPQ of 1809 for a brown underglazestippled transfer print sherd. The nail date range ofpre-1855 (the oldest possible choice for nail ratiodates) did not conflict with this ceramic date. Mostimportantly, the presence of a large number of Creekpottery sherds, in addition to olive green glass andmetal objects such as a piece of brass and a file sug-gest an older feature associated with Creek usage.Deed records indicate that the site of this feature,Lot 200, was a popular location as early as 1832.Several features, including Features 254 and 233,suggest this area may have been popular even ear-lier.

This trash-filled pit is represented by pollen/phytolith sample 628 and macrofloral sample 630collected from the fill (See Appendix for sample de-tails and for tables related to this and other soil stud-ies throughout this report). Pollen analysis yieldedevidence for a variety of trees, primarily Pinus, withsmaller quantities of Quercus, Anacardiaceae, Alnus,Carya, Juniperus-type, Nyssa-type, Picea, and prob-able Celtis pollen, representing local pines, oak, amember of the cashew family, alder, hickory/pe-can, juniper and related trees, gum trees, longer dis-tance transport of spruce, and hackberry. It is likelythat at least some of the pines and oaks were grow-ing outside the delimited townsite. Weeds and her-baceous plants do not appear to have been particu-larly abundant in the area, as pollen representingplants that might have been considered weedy isnot abundant. Grasses fall into this category, partlyby default. It is difficult to determine whethergrasses were weedy, natural, or part of a manicuredvegetation. Grasses were moderately abundant.Other herbaceous plants possibly growing in the vi-cinity of this feature include Vernonia-type, Low-spine Asteraceae and High-spine Asteraceae, rep-resenting various members of the sunflower family;Cheno-ams; and Cyperaceae (sedges). The pollenrecord does not contain evidence for foods that

might have been discarded as part of the trash inthis pit.

The phytolith record from this feature is dominatedby smooth elongate forms, as are most of the samplesexamined from this project. These forms representgrasses in general. Grass short cells are noted toinclude festucoid, chloridoid, and panicoid forms,indicating the presence of cool season, short, andtall grasses. Recovery of moderate quantities ofshort cells from each of these groups indicates atleast a moderate presence of all three types of grassin the local vegetation. A moderate quantity ofbuliforms and a small quantity of trichomes arenoted, representing cells responsible for leaf rollingin response to drought and silicified hairs on grasses.A few forms representing dicots also were observed.Other than identifying the presence of a variety ofgrasses growing in this area, the phytolith recorddoes not contribute to an understanding of plantsthat might have been discarded in this pit.

Macrofloral sample 630 contained a charredQuercus acorn shell fragment (Appendix FaunalTable 3, Table 4), suggesting that the Historic Creekoccupants of the area utilized acorns. Several frag-ments of charred, vitrified tissue also were present.Vitrified tissue has a shiny, glassy appearance dueto fusion by heat. These tissue fragments might rep-resent charcoal or other plant tissue too vitrifiedfor identification. In addition, the sample containedone charred bark fragment and three fragments ofpossible succulent leaf tissue, possibly from woodsburned as fuel. The charcoal record was dominatedby Pinus, including a member or members of thesouthern pine group. Conifer charcoal that is toovitrified for further identification might representpine wood that was burned while fresh with a highermoisture content. Two small fragments of Quercuscharcoal and one small piece of unidentified hard-wood twig charcoal also were present. Non-floralremains include several uncharred bone fragments,a few brick fragments, and a few insect chitin frag-ments. The sample also yielded a few uncharredrootlets from modern plants and a few sclerotia.

In summary, Feature 233 provides informationabout both the early inhabitants of the area and theenvironment at that time. The initial reason for con-struction of this pit is unclear; however, its final func-tion was for trash disposal. The presence of a very


121


large number of Creek pottery sherds (n= 70)strongly argues that this is a Creek-influenced fea-ture. This feature, like Feature 254, appears to havebeen used primarily by a Creek-Euro household. Infact, both Features 233 and 254 were used by thesame Creek-Euro household, as evidenced by thecross mends between sherds found in both features.The amount of hand-made brick and cut nails withinthe feature suggests that the household had rela-tively abundant and unusual access to these build-ing materials at an early period. This access mayhave been due to the head-of-household’s possibleconnections as a deerskin trader, wealthy settler, orinfluential Creek or settler. The general area aroundthe pit was kept relatively weed-free, perhaps inten-tionally or as the result of constant foot traffic. His-torical sources indicate that Columbus was estab-lished in the woods, requiring deforestation to de-velop the area into town lots. Pollen from Feature233 indicates that some of the trees in the area atthis time were pines, oaks, alder, hickory, pecans,junipers, gums, spruce, hackberry, and members ofthe cashew family.

Pit (Feature 228)Feature 228 was a circular pit located near the north-ern boundary of Lot 204, in the middle of the lot. Itmeasured 110 cm east-west by 130 cm north-south.The basin-shaped pit was 24 cm thick and containedbrown to dark brown sandy loam (Figure 51). Ar-chaeologists uncovered four post molds at the topof the feature, three of which intersected the featureand one just north of it. One post mold was locatedalong the eastern edge of the feature and barely in-tersected the feature fill. The other posts were lo-cated on the northern side of the feature. Post 731was entirely within the feature. Another post moldstain intersected with Post 731 and part of the fea-ture. Either Post 731 or the intersecting stain servedas a replacement post for the other. The fourth postfell outside the feature and may not be related to theothers, as it is small and round rather than largerand rectangular. Archaeologists tried to excavatePost 731 separately from the remainder of the fea-ture.

Archaeologists bisected the feature and excavatedboth sides of it, in two levels. Levels measured be-tween 11 and 12 cm thick. Level 1 and Level 2 arti-facts are summarized in Table 6. All artifacts withinFeature 228 are consistently contemporaneous with

each other,with the ex-ception of 21wire nail frag-ments and apiece of pos-sible con-crete, all ofwhich origi-nated in thenorthern halfof the feature.An iron screwcap was alsor e c o v e r e dfrom the dis-turbed north-ern half of thef e a t u r e .These itemsalmost cer-tainly camefrom the dis-turbed areacontaining apost and re-p l a c e m e n tpost. Wirenails and con-crete are typi-cally associ-ated withfence posts.A r c h a e o l o -gists were un-able to define,clearly, thelimits of thepost and re-p l a c e m e n tpost, so it iseasy to seehow these ar-tifacts be-came included in the general feature fill. Exceptingthese artifacts, however, all others reflect a mucholder feature as discussed below.

Both Levels 1 and 2 contained architectural mate-rial, such as cut nails, window glass, plaster andmortar, and handmade brick fragments. While the

Sclerotia are commonly called “car-bon balls”. These forms originallywere ident i f ied by Dr. Kr ist i inaVogt, Professor of Ecology in theSchool of Forestry and Environmen-tal studies at Yale Univers i ty(McWeeny 1989:229-230; Trappe1962). They are small, black, solidor hol low spheres that can besmooth or lightly sculpted. Theseforms range from 0.5 to 4 mm insize. Sc lerot ia are the rest ingstructures of mycorrhizae fungi,such as Cenococcum franiforme,that have a mutualistic relation-ship with tree roots. Many treesare noted to depend heavily on my-corrhizae and may not be success-ful without them. “The mycelialstrands of these fungi grow intothe roots and take some tof the sug-ary compounds produced by thetree during photosyntheses. How-ever, mycorrhizal fungi benefit thetree because they take in mineralsfrom the soil, which are then usedby the tree” (Kricher and Morrison1988:285). Sclerot ia appear tobe ubiquitous and are found withconiferous and deciduous trees in-cluding Abies (fir), Juniperus com-munis (common juniper) , Lar ix(larch), Picea (spruce), Pinus (pine),Pseudotsuga (Douglas f i r ) , Acerpseudoplatanus (sycamore maple),Alnus (a lder) , Betula (b i rch) ,Carpinus caol iniana (Americanhornbeam), Carya (hickory), Cas-tanea dentata (American chestnut),Corylus (hazelnut) , Crataegusmonogyna (hawthorn) , Fagus(beech), Populus (poplar, cotton-wood, aspen) , Quercus (oak) ,Rhamnus fragula (alder bush), Salix(willow), Sorbus (chokecherry), andTilia (linden).


122


Figure 51. Feature 228, Plan View and Profile, Lot 200.

Line LevelN 899.36 Elv 100.21 mE 985.13

Nail A (Datum)N 899.37E 986.41Nail B2

3

2. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) silt mottled with yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) silt with flecks of charcoal.3. Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) wet silt with mottled charcoal and brick.

XX

BrickCeramic

Post?

Post 731

PostPost

Post

Bone

Feature 228, Block 10, Lot 200Plan and Profile Views

0 20

cm

1. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) silt.

1

2

2

N 899.36E 985.13 X

N

North Profile


123


Table 6. Feature 228, Lot 200, Artifact Summary.

Level Description Sum START Comments Post 731 U.d. bone/horn 1

1 Cut Nails/Fragments 49 1805 1 Concrete 2 1 Plaster 1 1 Mortar 1 1 Bone Button 1 1 Faceted Glass Bead 1 Clear 1 Straight Pin, Brass 2 1 Porcelain 1 1 Stoneware, Alkaline Glazed 2 1800 1 Ironstone 1 1813 1 Pearlware, Plain 5 1774 1 Pearlware, underglaze blue h.p. 2 1774 1 Pearlware, overglze decorated 1 1774 1 White-bodied ceramic, u.d. 4 1762 1 Edgeware, underglazed green 1 1780 Scalloped, impressed 1 Polychrome painted, early 2 1795 1 Pearlware 1 Polychrome painted, late 3 1830 1 Rim, blue/brown 1 Lg. Floral polychrome painted 2 1830 1 Pearlware, yellow, blue, green,

brown 1 Pearlware, handpainted (not blue) 1 1795 Green 1 Blue underglaze stippled transfer

print 10 1818 10 Pearlware

1 Plain ceramic 1 Sand/grit tempered 1 Animal bone 3 1 Animal teeth 2 1 Fish scales 1 1 Egg shell 1 1 Presssed glass 1 1825 1 Clear bottle glass 3 1 Glass bottle stopper 1 Frosted, crossmended w/L.2 1 Very thin clear curved glass, globe or

bottle 10

1 U.D. iron or steel 2 1 U.D. metal, non iron or steel 21 1 English (gray/black) blade gunflint 1 1780 1 Reed stem pipe stem/bowl 1 1820 Burnished 1 Manuport 1 Quartz cobble 1 Flake Fragment >50% cortex 1 Quartz 2 Daub 6 2 Handmade brick 2 2 Window glass 1 2 Cut nails/fragments 6 1805 2 Wire nails/fragments 21 1865 2 Bone button 2 2 Brass button 3 1800 2 Gold/Silver button 1 2 Clothing buckle 1 2 Straight Pin, Brass 1


124


Level Description Sum START Comments

2 Pearlware, plain 7 1774 2 Pearlware, underglaze blue h.p. 1 1774 2 White-bodied ceramic, u.d. 2 1762 2 Edgeware, underglazed green 1 1780 Scalloped, unimpressed 2 Edgeware, underglazed blue 2 1780 Pearlware, curved 2 Edgeware, scalloped rim impressed 1 1802 Pearlware, curved, green

2 Edgeware, scalloped rim impressed 3 1809 1 green

2 Polychrome painted, early 4 1795 3 pearlware 2 Blue floral 3 1820 3 pearlware 2 Lg. Floral polychrome painted 1 1830 2 C.C. ware (whiteware), h.p. 2 1830 2 Landscape underglaze stippled

transfer print 1 1810 Pearlware

2 Misc. colors underglaze stippled transfer print

1 1829 Whiteware, red

2 Plain ceramic, u.d. rim 1 Straight rim, burnished 2 Animal bone 3 2 Animal teeth 3 2 Fish scales 1 2 Oyster shell 1 2 Egg shell 2 2 U.Dd. shell, elliptio. sp. 1 2 Bone untensil handle 1 2 Blowpipe pontil pharma. bottle 1 2 Clear bottle glass 13 2 Light green bottle glass 1 2 Glass bottle stopper 1 2 Screw cap/top 1 2 Charcoal 1 2 Wood 5 2 U.d. iron/steel 5 Iron plate with "C" fasteners one

side 2 Bone comb 1 Lice comb 2 Jewelry part, gold/silver 1 Possible ear bob, silver 2 Gun barrel 1 One end flattened 2 Machine Part 1 Brass 2 Flake fragment 0% cortext 1 Quartz

Table 6 - continued

number of cut nails is moderate in Level 1 (n=49) itis very low in Level 2 (n=6). Likewise, there is onlyone fragment each of window glass, plaster, andmortar, and only two pieces of handmade brick inthe entire feature. A total of six pieces of daub mayrepresent a hearth, chimney chinking, or, less de-finitively, elements from a Creek house. The lowlevels of architectural artifacts suggest that Feature228 was an early feature in-filled when little debrisfrom abandoned houses or other structures wasavailable for discard in trash pits. Other indicators

that the feature is early or pre-Columbus includeartifacts such as an English blade gunflint, a reedstem pipe fragment, a clear faceted glass bead, a sil-ver ear bob, three brass straight pins, and certainclothing items (three brass, three bone, and onegold/silver button, and one clothing buckle).

Ceramic artifacts were numerous in Feature 228 andincluded porcelains, stonewares, pearlwares, iron-stones, transfer printed wares, edgewares, and poly-chrome hand painted wares. Creek pottery was


125


present in the form of one plain sand/grit temperedbody sherd and 1 burnished, straight rim sherd.Other kitchen items included a blown pharmaceuti-cal bottle, two glass bottle stoppers, light green andclear glass bottle fragments, pressed glass, and abone utensil handle. The pit also contained fishscales, eggshells, and animal bone. Clearly much ofthe debris represented food preparation and eatingdiscard. Other items in Feature 228 included a bonelice comb, a metal gun barrel with one end flattened(which may have indicated why it was discarded), abrass machine part, two quartz flake fragments, aquartz manuport, and unidentifiable metal frag-ments.

The overall MCD for Feature 228 was 1820.7 (n=57).Broken down by level, the MCD for Level 1 was1823.58 (n=30) and for Level 2 the MCD was 1817.5(n=27). A total of four sherds cross mended be-tween Levels 1 and 2. This suggests that the pit wasfilled within a relatively short period of time. TheTPQ of artifacts from the undisturbed portions ofthe feature was 1830, based on polychrome paintedsherds found in both levels. This is another olderfeature that dates to very early Columbus. It wasmost likely used during the Creek-Euro occupationof the property, possibly until 1832 when ThomasGamage purchased it or until 1836 when ThomasMorris purchased it and moved in on the adjacentLot 199.

This trash-filled pit in the northern portion of thelot appears to be associated with Historic Creek In-dian occupation. Pollen, starch, and phytolith analy-ses were conducted on sample 588 from the pit fill,while sample 585 from the pit fill was examined formacrofloral remains. The pollen record from thisfeature is very similar to that from Feature 233. Thetotal quantity of arboreal pollen, including prima-rily Pinus pollen, is similar, reflecting the presenceof a variety of trees in the area. Tree pollen noted inthis sample, but not present in sample 628, includeCastanea, Liquidambar-type, Salix-type, and Tilia,representing the presence of chestnut, sweetgum,willow, and basswood. Pollen representing weedyand/or herbaceous plants includes Poaceae, Low-spine Asteraceae, High-spine Asteraceae,Liguliflorae, Cheno-ams, Cyperaceae, andOnagraceae, which represent the presence ofgrasses, various members of the sunflower familyincluding dandelion-type plants, Cheno-ams,

sedges, and a member of the evening primrose fam-ily. A single starch with a centric hilum, probablyrepresenting deterioration of a seed, perhaps a seedfrom the grass family, is noted and provides the onlyevidence of foods that might have been discarded inthis trash pit.

The phytolith record from this pit is very similar tothat from Feature 233 including quantity of smoothelongates, various grass short cells, buliforms, andtrichomes. Dicot forms are present, but not abun-dant. Recovery of a Cyperaceae phytolith repre-sents local growth of sedges. There is no further in-formation concerning plants that might have beendiscarded as part of the trash in this pit.

An abundance of Pinus charcoal from the southernpine group was present in macrofloral sample 585,with a small amount of Pinus and vitrified conifercharcoal present. Pine wood appears to have beencommonly burned as fuel. A moderate amount ofsmall Quercus charcoal fragments reflects oak woodthat was burned. A few charred bone fragments andpossibly a moderate amount of uncharred bone frag-ments suggest meat-processing activities. Thesample also contained several eggshell fragments, amoderate amount of small brick fragments, two clearglass fragments, rusted metal fragments, a nail frag-ments, a possible modern shotgun shot ball, and afew sclerotia.

Pit (Feature 223)This shallow pit was 27 cm deep and measured 85cm in diameter. It was generally circular in planview. The pit was well-defined with vertical sidesand a flat base. The top of the feature was observedat an elevation of 100.14 m. Archaeologists exca-vated the western half of the feature. StratigraphicLevel 1 was brown silty sand with yellow brownmottles. This graded into stratigraphic Level 2 withcharcoal flecks and less mottling. Stratigraphic Level3 was dark brown silty sand overlying an incompletereddish brown clay lens. Strata 1 and 2 were exca-vated as Level 1. Artifacts included one of each ofthe following: window glass, dark blue underglazetransfer print, Chattahoochee Brushed sherd, clearcurved tableware glass and animal bone. Archae-ologists excavated the remainder of the feature asLevel 2 and recovered a greater density of artifactsin this shallower level. Artifacts consisted of 2 hand-made brick fragments, 1 unidentifiable nail, 1 roof-ing slate, 2 cream colored ware, 4 unidentifiable


126


metal fragments, 1 amber bottle glass, 1 meltedbottle glass, and 2 animal bones. The TPQ for thisfeature, 1820, is based on cream colored waresherds. This small pit appears to be part of the as-semblage of Creek-Euro features on Lot 200, basedon the similarity in artifact types, dates, and den-sity.

Midden (Features 193 and 194)Both features are part of a contemporaneous middendiscovered around portions of two brick foundations(Figure 52). The section of the midden archaeolo-gists labeled Feature 193 measured 220 m east-westby 185 m north-south, in roughly a rectangular shapecreated in part by the intrusion of a concrete foot-ing. The other section of midden, Feature 194 wasapproximately 1.5 m in diameter. The two brickfoundations may be part of a structure that predatesStructure 1, or they may be part of an addition orolder outbuilding for Structure 1 that predates the1886 Bird’s Eye view and the earliest area Sanbornmap (1889). Arguments for the former include thefact that one foundation is not aligned with the towngrid or with the foundations of other structures. Ifthe foundation is associated with an older building,however, it is less likely that this building is in turnassociated with the midden because the foundationcuts through the midden, dividing it into two sepa-rate features (F. 193 and 194). If one or both partsof this foundation come from Structure 1 or a build-ing associated with Structure 1, then the foundationmust predate the earliest architectural documenta-tion of the site in 1886. The lack of any privy or wellshafts reveals that the foundations are unlikely tohave belonged to an outhouse or well house. Thetwo sections of brick foundation appear to have pre-served the unassociated midden from later groundsurface scraping as the landscape was modifiedthroughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Archaeologists first noticed Feature 193 duringshovel shaving and monitoring of backhoe strippingof Lot 200. They left this suspected midden area ata higher elevation during backhoe stripping in or-der to investigate it further through shovel shaving.The darker soils in this area (a dark grayish brownsandy loam), the presence of a high density of arti-facts, and the shallow, zoned nature and amorphousedges of the fill revealed that this was a midden de-posit (Figure 53). The relatively large size of sherdsand other artifacts indicated that this midden was

allowed to pile up without being disturbed ortrampled by pedestrian or wagon traffic. Feature193 midden contained mends between sherds in thefollowing strata: the surface and Zone C (four dis-tinctive mends); surface and Zone D (1 mend); ZoneB and Zone C (two mends); Zone D and Zone F (onemend); and Zones B, C, and D (1 mend). Feature 193measured a maximum of 24 cm thick, with the deep-est single zone measuring 18 cm thick. The pres-ence of mends between sherds in most of the sevenzones supports the conclusion that the midden wasdeposited relatively quickly by the same inhabit-ants.

Archaeologists excavated seven distinct zones (A-G) containing historic artifacts in this feature. Fig-ure 52 (excavated feature plan referred to previ-ously) shows the various zones and soil types exca-vated. Soil samples provided supplemental infor-mation about the Feature 193 midden. Ethnobota-nists examined various soil samples from two levelsof fill, Zones B and C.

Samples 540 and 529 represent Zone B in themidden. The pollen record for sample 540 was simi-lar to that from the other midden sample. In fact,Zea mays pollen also was recorded while scanningthis sample, indicating that corn was discarded inthis midden. Quantities of Cheno-am and Cyperaceaepollen are slightly higher in this sample, indicatingthe probability that weedy Cheno-ams and sedgesgrew on this portion of the midden. Once again, noparasite eggs were noted in this sample. Thephytolith record from sample 540, although similarto many others, exhibited a single Cerealia-type den-dritic elongate phytolith, documenting the presenceof cereals in this pit.

The macrofloral record from sample 529 was domi-nated by small fragments of Pinus charcoal, reflect-ing pine wood that was burned. A few pieces ofFraxinus, Quercus, and unidentifiable vitrified char-coal also were present. One charred seed fragmentthat exhibited a coiled, conical perisperm similar toRussian thistle (Salsola) also was present, althoughthis seed fragment represents a seed smaller in sizethan the typical Russian thistle seed. In addition,the sample contained a few charred, vitrified tissuefragments, a few uncharred rootlets from modernplants, and a few sclerotia. Non-floral remains thatrepresent cultural trash include charred and


127


Figure 52. Features 193 and 194, Plan Views, Lot 200.

X

N 860.14E 992.09Elv 100.18

Bisection Line

1x 8 cmbd

2x 16cmbd

3x 12 cmbd

A

A'

6

5

7

1. Yellow (10YR 8/6) decomposing sandy mortar with some mottles of (10YR 3/4) sandy loam, charcoal, and brick pieces. Overlying Zones 2 and 3.

x 26 cmbd

Unexcavated

Wall Continues

3

x8 cmbd

Builder's Trench

Nail B X

N 859.11E 990.12Elv 100.09 m

2. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy loam with charcoal, mortar, shell, brick, bone, and somesmall mottles of yellowish brown (7.5YR 5/8) micaceous silty loam, overlying Zones C and D.

3. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) sandy loam, more homogenous than (2), with some charcoal and bone. Large transfer printed sherds overlying Zone 4. A thin sandy lens sometimes present at the base of this zone (3).

4. Brown (7.5YR 4/4) sand with common small brick fragments, some bone, and occasional glass or ceramics overlying the matrix.

5. Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam with occasional charcoal, brick, shell, and bone. Base of zone is irregular and deeper than other zones.

6. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) sandy loam with large pieces of charcoal, brick, and bone.7. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand with some brick, mortar, and charcoal flecks. Possibly

4

intact matrix soil.8. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silty sand mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty sand.

(Feature 194).

8

3

Coin

Features 193 and 194, Block 10, Lot 200Plan View

0 100

cm

6(8 cmbd)

Bricks

Feature 193

Feature 194Ceramics


128


uncharred bone fragments, numerous small brickfragments, ceramic fragments, several eggshell frag-ments, several fish scale fragments, two clear glassfragments, a round marble made from marble, rustedmetal fragments, a few mollusk shell fragments, anda straight pin.

The lowest layer, Zone C, was a thin layer of darkyellowish brown sandy loam, underlying Zone B.Samples 538 and 527 represent this Zone C lowerfill. The pollen record from sample 538 is similar tothat for Feature 252 in general. Only Zea mays pol-len, noted while scanning the sample, provides in-formation concerning foods that might have beendiscarded in this midden. No parasite eggs werenoted in this sample.

The phytolith record from sample 538 is similar tothat from other features, being dominated by smoothelongate forms. The buliform frequency is elevated,suggesting that grasses represented in this samplegrew under conditions of adequate moisture.

Macrofloral sample 527 contained a few small frag-ments of charred parenchymous tissue. ?Paren-chyma is the botanical term for relatively undiffer-entiated tissue, composed of many similar thin-walled cells...which form a ground tissue that sur-rounds other tissues. Parenchyma occurs in manydifferent plant organs in varying amounts. Largefleshy organs such as ...roots and stems are com-posed largely of parenchyma. ...The vegetative stor-age parenchyma in swollen roots and stems storesstarch and other carbohydrates and sugars ...?(Hather 2000:1). Recovery of charred parenchy-mous tissue might reflect a root or tuber resource,or possibly charred stem tissue. A moderate amountof charred vitrified tissue fragments might reflectcharcoal or other plant tissue too vitrified for iden-tification. The charcoal record was dominated byPinus charcoal, including a member or members ofthe southern pine group. Small pieces of conifercharcoal might also represent pine wood. A smallamount of Acer and Quercus charcoal reflect mapleand oak wood that were burned.

Archaeologists noted that Zone C contained a sandylens that may have formed when surrounding sandwashed or eroded onto the midden layers. This lensfollowed the contour of the base of Zone C, whichsloped downward to the northern part of the fea-ture. Archaeologists uncovered an abundance ofsmall artifacts such as straight pins, lead shot, a bluefaceted bead, brass hooks-and-eyes, and bone orbrass buttons in the sandy lens along this slope. Atthis sandy interface between Zone C and Zone D ar-chaeologists also found a white, sticky plaster resi-due that may have been left over from plasteringthe inside walls of a structure.

Feature Zones A-G contained similar types of arti-facts, in addition to several cross mends. The arti-facts, from all zones, therefore, are summarized to-gether below. Artifacts recovered from Feature 193are listed in the Appendix, but are summarized be-

Figure 53. Large Pieces of Dendritic Mocha,Edgeware, and Other Ceramics Lay in the

Feature 193 Midden.


129


low. Figure 54 shows other selected artifacts fromthe feature. Brick, oyster shell, and mortar wereobserved in limited quantities from each zone. Asample of each was recovered.

There were 132 Architectural class artifacts. Thisnumber was relatively low considering it includednail totals. The total was broken down as follow:brick (n=7), window glass (n=20), cut nails/nail frag-ments (n=92), unidentifiable nails (n=10), plaster(n=1), mortar (n=1), and roofing slate (n=1). TheArchitectural class ranked as the third largest cat-egory in Feature 193, at 25% of the total number ofartifacts (n=525).

Feature fill contained a variety of early ceramics.This included pearlware, stoneware, ironstone, por-celain, and cream colored ware. Decorative tech-niques included polychrome hand painting, scal-loped impressed rims, stippled underglaze transferprinting, mocha, gilding, and banded annularware.Archaeologists recovered a total of 70 Euro-Ameri-can sherds in Feature 193. Creek ceramics consistedof one plain, sand tempered rim and one plain bodysherd, and two burnished body sherds. OtherKitchen class artifacts included olive green bottleblown bottles; a light green blown flask bottle;, nu-merous small, hand blown pharmaceutical bottles;clear and aqua bottle glass; a cork bottle stopper; apewter spoon or fork handled stamped, “Britannia”;eggshell; animal bone; and oyster shell. Of the totalnumber of artifacts within this midden, 39 % (n=205)fell into the Kitchen classification making it the larg-est artifact category.

Clothing items constituted the third largest artifactclassification at 19% of the artifact total. These 102items were made of bone, glass or metal. This in-cluded 18 buttons in the following categories. Therewere nine bone buttons, having one to five holeseach. Metal buttons included three unidentifiablebrass buttons (one with an eye on reverse, one withfour holes, one merely the back of the button), twoiron/steel buttons, and South’s Type 15, 19, and 20,and 32. The date range for button Type 15 is 1726-1776. Types 19 and 20 each have a date range of1800-1830. Type 32 is not identified with a specificdate range. Other clothing artifacts included an ex-tremely decorative brass clothing grommet, brasshooks (n=1) and eyes (n=6), brass/steel (and oftensilvered) straight pins (n=73), one silver thimble,

one faceted blue glass bead, and one brass clothingbuckle.

Miscellaneous artifacts contributed 11% of the arti-fact total. These 58 artifacts included unidentifi-able metal, charcoal, bone, wood, and glass. A totalof 3% (n=16) of the artifacts from Feature 193 con-sisted of items in the Activities classification. Thisincluded fragments of an iron hand saw blade, a claymarble, unidentifiable brass fragments, a small coni-cal brass piece with an eye on the tip, an iron pad-lock, an iron harness part, and a chert flake frag-ment.

Several categories contained less than 1% of the to-tal recovered artifacts. These included the Personal,Arms, and Tobacco classes. The Personal categoryincluded 4 artifacts: 2 steel rings, 1 slate pencil, anda 1790 silver Spanish coin. Arms items consisted offive lead balls/lead shot. Archaeologists recoveredtwo Tobacco artifacts. Both were small, molded,red clay elbow pipes. These may have been used byEuro-Americans or Creeks.

Numerous factors suggest that the midden was cre-ated by a Euro-Creek household prior to or duringthe very beginning of the establishment of Colum-bus. Diagnostic artifacts from Feature 193 provideda MCD of 1834 (n=55) and a TPQ of 1830 based onpolychrome painted whiteware (late colors), fol-lowed by transfer printed wares with a TPQ of 1829.Early European ceramics such as pearlwares andedgewares imply not only an early occupation date,but also accessibility to Euro-American markets.Other artifacts, such as diagnostic buttons and manu-factured goods, suggest the same. The blown flaskbase was likely a commemorative flask. Similar flaskshave been recorded at Fort Benning on Creek sitesin Alabama and Euro-American sites in Georgia(Daniel Elliott, personal communication, May 19,2004). An abundant amount of evidence exists,however, suggesting that this is not solely a Euro-American household. There are four Creek plainand burnished sherds in the midden. In addition, awide assortment of items clearly associated withCreek/Euro-American trade is present in themidden. These include straight pins, a silver thimble,a faceted blue glass bead, brass buttons, hooks andeyes, a mirror, a 1790 Spanish silver coin, and vari-ous brass objects and brass scrap.


130


Figure 54. Selected Artifacts from Midden Feature 193.Scale is 1:1

Descriptions on following page

a bc

de f g

h j

l

m

n

op

k

i


131


Another interesting item located in the midden wasa small creamware footring from a small bowl orcup. The ring was broken off evenly from aroundthe bowl, leaving a true ceramic “ring” measuring 5cm in diameter. While the break is quite clean ratherthan being notched around the edges, it does ap-pear to have been intentionally rather than acci-dentally created. Archaeologists recovered a simi-lar footring, albeit larger, on a Creek site (9Me395)that may have held the council house for the Upatoisettlement, now encompassed by Fort Benning. Inthat case, the interior of the ring was backed withiron and used as a gorget. It was located in a child’sburial (Elliott et al. 1996). The small creamwarefootring recovered from the midden of Feature 193may represent an object crafted to be a piece of jew-elry, or may represent the discarded part, with theinterior disk actually the part that was used as a gor-get. It was most likely made and used by a CreekIndian in the associated household.

Midden (Feature 194)Feature 194 was located just north of Feature 193,and on the other side of a brick foundation segment.Archaeologists numbered this stain separately, butexcavation revealed that it was actually part of theFeature 193 midden that had been truncated by thebrick foundation. Feature 194 was more circular inplan and measured 160 m east-west by 150 m north-south. Feature 194 contained one depositional zonethat measured 7 cm in thickness. There was onemend between a sherd in Feature 194 and a sherd inFeature 193.

Artifacts from the fill of Feature 194 (n=31) weresimilar to those in Feature 193, and included verysmall amounts of brick, cut nails, and window glass.Archaeologists analyzed plain and decoratedpearlwares, and transfer printed wares from the fill.Diagnostic ceramics provided a MCD of 1813 (n=7)and a TPQ of 1829. The small sample size of ceram-

ics probably skews the MCD to a slightly earlier date.There were two burnished Creek sherds in the fea-ture. Other artifacts included low numbers ofstraight pins, clear bottle glass, animal bone, andchert flakes.

Privy (Feature 202)Archaeologists originally thought this feature was awell since it was circular in plan and had verticalwalls. Excavation caused them to reinterpret itsfunction, however, when the feature terminated2.29 m below ground. None of the other wells in theproject area were this shallow. Archaeologists theninterpreted this feature to be a privy. What is prob-lematic, however, is that none of the other featuresinterpreted as privies are this deep. In addition,Feature 202 is less than one meter away from Fea-ture 203, which is definitely a well. Both featuresdate to the same general early period and if inter-preted correctly, it means that a well and privy layside-by-side.

Feature 202 was a circular feature measuring 107cm in diameter and having vertical walls. The shaftextended 2.24 m below the stripped ground surface.In profile, the base of the shaft sloped downward inthe middle an additional 15 cm. The profile, depth,and fill suggest that Feature 202 was a privy. Ar-chaeologists documented eight distinctive strati-graphic zones that they excavated in separate lev-els. Generally, feature fill consisted of variations ofmottled strong brown loamy sands and clays. Thefeature was filled with layers of soil, rather thanrubble, suggesting the feature was not filled quickly.The matrix surrounding the very bottom of the shaftwas mottled by iron and other minerals leaching outof the sand. The privy had no builder’s trench andno lining of any type.

Archaeologists excavated the feature in zones withintwo arbitrary sections. The first section measured

Figure 54 Artifact Description,Left to Right, Top to Bottom

a. Decorative Key, Brass, Zone C, East ½; b. Slate Pencil, Zone B, West ½; c. Silver Thimble, Zone F, West ½;d. Bone Button, Type 19, Zone B, East ½; e. Bone Button, Type 20, Zone B, East ½; f. Bone Disc, Type 15,Zone B, East ½; g. Brass Button, Type 32, Zone B, East ½; h. Faceted Blue Glass Bead, Zone C, East ½; i.Brass Hook and Eye, Zone B, East ½; j. Brass Rivet, Decorative, Zone B, East ½; k. Straight Pins, Zone C, East½; l. Bone Finial, Zone C, West ½; m. Lead Ball, Zone B, East ½; n. Pearlware Bowl Footring, Zone B, East ½;o. Reed Stemmed Pipe Bowl, Zone B, East ½; and p. 1790 Spanish Coin, Silver (both sides), Zone C, East ½.


132


1.24 m and was excavated in five stratigraphic zones.The second section was 1.00 m and contained threestratigraphic zones. The artifact inventory in theAppendix lists artifacts by zone. They are combinedhere by sections. Section 1 artifacts included 15unidentifiable nails, and one each of the following:window glass, roofing slate fragments, flow blue,whiteware, dark blue underglaze transfer print,molded, scalloped rim on a miscellaneous color un-derglaze stippled transfer print. Other artifacts in-cluded 2 Kasita Red Filmed, 2 plain Creek sherds, 1stamped brass button, 1 unidentifiable metal arti-fact, and animal bone. The second and lowest sec-tion of the feature contained fewer artifacts. Theseincluded three unidentifiable nails, animal bone,and one each of the following: flow blue transferprint, cream colored ware, Kasita Red Filmed, and alead ball.

The concept of privies, with an intentionally dughole in the ground surrounded and covered by astructure, is certainly a cultural tradition of non-Native Americans. The Feature 202 privy appearsto have been used by all members of the Creek-Eurohousehold. The presence of three Kasita Red Filmedsherds and two plain sherds suggests that Creekswere using the privy for trash disposal. The argu-ment that historic Creek sherds became depositedin later Euro-American features does not hold onthis project or for this feature. First, with the ex-ception of wells whose fill seems to be mixed and re-deposited, the majority of features within the projectarea contain no Creek artifacts. This indicates thatthe Creek presence in this area was confined to hori-zontally isolated concentrations, such as an areawithin what would become Lot 200. Secondly, vir-tually all the features that contain Creek pottery alsocontain artifacts dating to 1840 or earlier, and mostdate to 1830 or earlier.

Privy (Feature 252)Archaeologists interpreted this feature as a possibleprivy based on its relatively vertical walls in pro-file, a fairly flat base, its greater depth (relative tothe majority of pits in the lot), and the gummy na-ture of two of its fill zones (Figure 55). Soil analysisdoes not provide extremely definitive evidence forthis interpretation, however, as discussed below.This feature is located just north of the Lot 200boundary, on the southern edge of Lot 201, in anarea encased by a brick foundation. It is included in

the Lot 200 discussions because some features, suchas the earliest Creek-Euro features in the Lot 200area were created prior to the establishment of lotboundaries, and because some residents and lotowners, such as Lewis Durr, owned the southern halfof Lot 201 and all of Lot 200 simultaneously.

Feature 252 was a circular stain measuring 1.50 min diameter. Archaeologists excavated the stain 90cm to its base. Archaeologists excavated the fea-ture in natural levels, except for the first zone. Thiszone was 55 cm thick, so archaeologists divided itinto two arbitrary levels labeled Level 1 and Level2. The same types of artifacts and ceramics fromsimilar time periods in both levels, and a mend be-tween two pearlware sherds in these levels, indicatethat there is not time-distinction in the depositionof the top and bottom of this homogenous 55 cmthick stratum. For this reason, artifacts from Levels1 and 2 are recombined in the discussion below.

Levels 1 and 2 contained very dark grayish brownsand full of brick rubble and charcoal. The levelshad a lens of brownish yellow sand, a lens of char-coal, and a lens on the edge of the feature of swirlydark yellowish brown sand. Levels 1 and 2 containednumerous architectural artifacts such as 128 cutnails/nail fragments, 8 unidentifiable nails, 1 pieceof mortar, and 1 window glass. The 25 ceramics weregenerally early, and included 2 porcelain, 4 white-bodied ware; 1 scalloped impressed straight blueedgeware; 1 scalloped impressed underglazed greenedgeware and 1 underglazed blue edgeware; 1 blueunderglaze stippled transfer print; 1 light blue and 1dark blue underglaze transfer print; 2 underglazeblue hand painted pearlware; 1 green handpaintedpearlware; 1 polychrome painted (early) pearlware;1 blue floral pearlware; and 2 miscellaneous colorsunderglaze stippled transfer print pearlware. Lev-els 1 and 2 also contained few bottle glass fragmentsrelative to the number of ceramics. Glass consistedof only two clear and one olive green bottle frag-ments. Other artifacts included a metal eye, a pieceof ground stone, a burnished clay tobacco pipe stem,1 piece of fire cracked rock, animal bone, and char-coal.

Level 3 was thicker on the edges than in the centerand measured between 11-25 cm thick. It was verydark grayish brown silty sand. Archaeologists notedthat this level was much gummier than Levels 1 and


133


2. This thinner level had fewer artifacts. These were7 cut nail fragments, 1 white-bodied ceramic, 1 pieceof unidentifiable metal, 1 piece of horn, and animalbone.

Level 4 was a 5-8 cm thick zone of reddish brownsilty sand. It was slightly less gummy than Level 3.Level 4 was sterile of artifacts.

Level 5 was the deepest level of Feature 252. Thelevel extended only across 30 cm of the middle ofthe feature and was 12 cm thick. Fill consisted ofdark yellowish brown sand. Archaeologists recov-ered one piece of blue underglaze stippled transferprint, two pieces of charcoal, and some burned ani-mal bone in this level at the bottom of the feature.

Archaeologists had soil samples from three levelswithin Feature 252 analyzed for pollen,macrobotanical, phytolith, and parasite remains.Samples 695 and 693 represent fill from the bottomof the possible privy (Level 5). The pollen record atthe base of this feature yielded a moderate abun-

dance of tree pollen, primarily Pinus and Quercuspollen. Pollen representing other trees representedor woody vines include probable Anacardiaceae,Toxicodendron/Rhus-type, Betulaceae, Castanea,Carya, and probable Parthenocissus, indicating thepresence of a member of the sumac family, prob-able poison ivy, a member of the birch family, chest-nut, hickory or pecan, and probable Virginia creeper.Pollen representing weedy or herbaceous plants in-cludes Vernonia-type, Low-spine Asteraceae, High-spine Asteraceae, Liguliflorae, Cheno-am,Cyperaceae, Trifolium repens-type, Lamiaceae,Onagraceae (Gaura-type), Phlox-type, and Poaceae;indicating the presence of vernonia; various mem-bers of the sunflower family including dandelion,Cheno-ams, sedges, red clover, a member of the mintfamily, a member of the evening primrose family,Phlox, and grasses. Most importantly, this sampleyielded Cerealia and Fragaria-type pollen, suggest-ing that cereal grains and strawberries were eatenor discarded. No parasite eggs were noted in thissample.


DatumLine Level

E992.16Elv 99.92 m

0 50

cm

Feature 252, Block 10, Lot 200North Profile

1 2

3

14

567

1. Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sand with brick and charcoal rubble.2. Brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) sand.3. Black (10YR 2/1) charcoal wood rubble.4. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand.5. Very dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand.6. Brown (7.5YR 4/4) loamy silty sand.7. Dark yellow brown (10YR 4/4) sand.

N 904.38Nail A


134


The phytolith record from the lowest part of thisfeature is similar to that in other features and also inupper levels from this feature. Grass forms are abun-dant in this sample, providing the majority of therecord. It is likely that phytoliths recovered fromthis sample represent grasses growing in the area atthe time the sediments accumulated. Dicot formsare present, but could not be identified to family, sosimply represent the presence of non-grasses.

Macrofloral sample 693 contained several frag-ments of Pinus charcoal, including a member ormembers of the southern pine group and vitrifiedcharcoal, as well as a few fragments of Quercus char-coal. Pine and oak wood appear to have been burnedas fuel in a stove or fireplace. A few charred barkfragments reflect wood that was burned. A fewuncharred rootlets from modern plants and a smallamount of rock/gravel complete the record. Theabsence of fruit or vegetable seeds from this sampleis inconsistent with use of this feature as a privy.

Samples 680 and 687 represent Level 4 fill near thebottom of this possible privy. Major portions of thepollen record from sample 680 are similar to thosein sample 695, including most of the pollen repre-senting trees, woody vines, weeds, and herbaceousplants. This sample also yielded Alnus and Liq-uidambar pollen, indicating the presence of alderand sweet gum trees. Pollen representing foods re-covered from this feature includes Cerealia (perhapsground into flour), Vitis-type (grapes), and Zea mays(corn). No parasite eggs were noted.

This phytolith record from sample 680 is even moreheavily dominated by smooth elongate forms. Grassshort cells are present from all three categories ofgrasses, indicating the presence of cool season,short, and tall grasses. Dicot forms are present andmoderately abundant, indicating the presence ofwoody and herbaceous plants.

Macrofloral sample 687 contained fragments ofPinus charcoal from the southern pine group,Quercus charcoal, and charcoal too vitrified for iden-tification. A moderate amount of Pinus bark scalefragments reflect pine wood that was burned. A fewuncharred rootlets from modern plants, a few scle-rotia, and a few insect chitin fragments were the onlyother remains to be recovered. Once again, failureto recover any fruit or vegetable seeds is inconsis-tent with an interpretation of privy for this feature.

Samples 679 and 686 were collected from verygummy deposits exhibiting cut nails and describedas general fill of the possible privy. In sample 679,Pinus pollen has increased slightly in frequency andPoaceae pollen has declined. This sample providesevidence of Galium-type and Geranium-type pol-len, indicating the presence of bedstraw and gerani-ums, either wild or cultivated, in the local vegeta-tion. Pollen evidence for foods is limited to recov-ery of Zea mays pollen while scanning the sample insearch of large pollen that would reflect foods. Noparasite eggs were recovered.

The phytolith record from this layer exhibits an in-crease in chloridoid short cells, indicating an in-crease in short grasses, perhaps in response to hot,dry summer conditions. Otherwise, the phytolithrecord in this sample is similar to that obtained fromother samples in this study.

The macrofloral record from sample 686 containedseveral fragments of Pinus charcoal from the south-ern pine group, as well as smaller amounts of Pinus,Juniperus, vitrified conifer, Quercus, and charcoaltoo vitrified for identification. Charred Pinus barkscale fragments again reflect pine wood that wasburned. A few charred bone fragments suggest thatmeat was eaten, and bones appear to have been dis-carded in this feature. Numerous small brick frag-ments, a small amount of rock/gravel, a fewuncharred rootlets, and a few sclerotia complete therecord.

In general, the pollen, starch, phytolith, andmacrofloral records yielded little to support use ofthis feature as a privy. The macrofloral record wascompletely devoid of fruit or vegetable seeds, anunusual condition for privies. The pollen recordindicates the presence of cereal grains or perhapsground flour, strawberries or strawberry jam, grapesor perhaps wine, and corn. The only possible expla-nation for recovery of pollen representing foods andcomplete lack of seeds representing fruit or veg-etables is that the privy was used during the winterand that no fresh or dried fruits or vegetables con-taining seeds were consumed. The phytolith recordcontained no evidence for the presence of cereals,either in the form of ground flour or baked goods.The macrofloral record yielded pine, oak, and juni-per/red cedar charcoal and burned bark, reflectingwoods possibly burned as fuel in a stove or fireplace.


135


The lack of fruit and vegetable seeds is uncommonfor privy fill. Other factors, however, seem to pointto the feature’s function as a privy. Its vertical walls,flat base, and gummy fill suggest that Feature 252might be a privy. It would not have functioned wellas a root cellar given its width to depth ratio. Onewould have had much easier access to goods storedin a root cellar if the cellar was very wide, yet fairlyshallow instead of very narrow and fairly deep. Eth-nobotanists indicate that a lack of seeds may depictthe season of the year (winter) when the feature wasin-filled. The presence of strawberry and grape pol-len does suggest that fruit was on-site in some formor another. The date of feature in-filling also sug-gests that a variety of fruits and vegetables (otherthan what was available in the wild) would not havebeen common on the Columbus and pre-Columbusfrontier. Corn, of course, was a vegetable Creek In-dians were very knowledgeable of, and the presenceof corn pollen in this feature would support a Creek-Euro connection.

The brick foundation encompassing Feature 252extended across the lot boundary line, suggestingthat the foundation is associated with the Durr resi-dency and ownership of both lots from 1849 untilsometime between 1854 and 1873 or 1877. Thefeature’s location within the foundation may be be-cause they are associated with each other, or maybe coincidental. The MCD of this feature is 1819.72based on 20 diagnostic sherds. The TPQ of 1830 wasprovided by a light blue underglaze transfer printsherd. This was followed closely by a TPQ of 1829by two other ceramic types. Artifacts suggest thatthe feature was constructed and filled a maximumof 19 years prior to Durr’s joint ownership of bothlots. While the feature may have been associatedwith the brick foundation during the first few de-cades of the nineteenth century, it was no longerviable by the time of Durr’s ownership (although thebrick foundation and its superstructure may stillhave been in use during this period). Artifact evi-dence suggests that this feature was created and filledby the Creek-Euro household, presumed to be thatof Thomas Morris and/or his Creek-Euro predeces-sors.

Post (Zone 6, formerly part of F. 244)Archaeologists discovered a post mold and hole(Zone 6) hidden by a sheep/goat burial (F. 244) alongthe northern edge of Lot 200. This post was trun-cated by the burial and also by another post (Zone7). The Zone 6 post, therefore was older than thesheep/goat burial and older than the Zone 7 posts.Archaeologists were able to mend a sherd from theZone 6 post and one from the Creek roasting pit (F.254). This suggests that: the post dates to the pe-riod of Creek-Euro occupation of the property; thatthe Creek-Euro inhabitants likely had a fence aroundtheir yard; that this fencepost was on the northernproperty line of Lot 200 indicating that the Creek-Euro occupation either began or continued into theperiod of the establishment of Columbus town lots;and that the occupants required a fence to keep live-stock in their yard or keep other people’s livestockout of their garden.

This older, Zone 6 post extended to a depth of 41 cmfrom the backhoe stripped ground-surface. It mea-sured 72 cm east-west by 38 cm north-south in theplan shape of a rounded rectangle. The upper 6 cmof post fill was a dark yellowish brown loamy sandwith charcoal flecks. The remaining 35 cm consistedof that soil mottled with both lighter and darkerbrown loamy sand. The post’s profile had verticalwalls and a flat base. Artifacts in this Creek-Europeriod post consisted of 3 unidentifiable brick, 2window glass, 2 cut and 1 unidentifiable nail, 1 creamcolored ware, 1 clear and 2 aqua bottle glass frag-ments, animal bone and oyster shell.

Well (Feature 203)This feature was located in the southeastern cornerof Lot 200, less than a meter west of Feature 202privy, discussed above. The generally circular planof this feature measured 80 cm by 126 cm below thebackhoe stripped ground surface. Profile revealeda vertical shaft that archaeologists excavated to adepth of 3.74 m (12.26 feet) below surface (Figure56). Excavation was terminated here due to safetyconcerns; however, coring of this elevation revealedthat the fill continued for minimally an additional40 cm. Fill became hydric 10 cm above the base ofthis coring. The third section of the well, TrackhoeSection 2 (TS 2), revealed evidence of a wood shaftlining beginning halfway down this section of thewalls. At the base of this section, the wood lining satdirectly on top of a brick ring encircling the well


136


x

x

Pebble

Bone

1

2

345

6

6

7

Bricks

1. Brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam with scattered charcoal, brick, and mortar.

2. Dark brown (10YR 2/3) sandy loam.

3. Strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) sandy loam mottled with brownish yellow (10YR 4/6) sandy loam.

4. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy loam.

5. Strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) sandy loam.

6. Brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam.

7. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy loam mottled with brownish

yellow (10YR 6/6) sandy loam.

8. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) and strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) sand.

9. Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam.

10. Dark brown (10YR 3/3) loamy sand root stain.Pebble

Wood Lining

Remnant

8

11. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) loamy sand mottled with dark

yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) and yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loamy sand.

12

12. Strong brown (7.5Y 4/6) loamy sand mottled with dark yellowish

brown (10YR 4/6) and yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loamy sand.

11

13

13. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) clayey loam.

Brick

Trench

Bis

ectin

g Li

ne

14. Brown (10YR 4/3) sandy loam with charcoal and brick fragments andoccasional mottles of strong brown (7.5Y 5/8) sandy loam.

15. Strong Brown (7.5YR 5/8) sandy loam mottled with brown (10YR 4/3)

Nail

Nail

Line Level

East Profile, TS 0

15

14

Plan View

cm

0 50


Elv 99.87 m

sandy loam.

861.70 N1000.91 EEl. 99.87

8

9

10 Pebble

N

TS0

TS2

TS1

Figure 56. Well Feature 203, Profile and Plan View, Lot 200.


137


shaft. The bricks were not curved well bricks. Theywere straight bricks placed parallel to the wall(rather than perpendicular). The circle of bricks mayhave been placed on a wooden ring, used as a toolfor enabling well diggers to excavate a vertical shaft.Accounts of well diggers describe how a ring of woodwas placed on the ground surface and as soil wasexcavated beneath it, the ring slid deeper into theground, following the straight shaft excavation. Acircle of brick placed on top of this wooden ring mayhave helped keep the wooden shaft lining above it inplace and not allowed it to sink or settle further intothe sand.

Initially archaeologists excavated the western halfof the feature because a trench truncated much ofthe eastern half of the feature in the uppermost el-evations. They excavated four zones in the westernhalf of TS 0 to a depth of 1.35 m. Logistics for deepexcavation of the remainder of this feature and ad-jacent Feature 202 required that archaeologists ex-cavate the northern halves of these features for theremaining two sections, TS 1 and TS 2. These sec-tions are documented by southern profiles of thefeatures.

The first of four zones in TS 0 consisted of yellowishbrown sandy loam with brick rubble at the base. ZoneA was a 50 cm thick level. The fill of this Zone A wasalmost entirely level at the base, unlike the threezones below, which mounded in the center of thefeature. Zone A artifacts included 29 pieces of win-dow glass, 1 handmade brick fragment and 2 frag-ments of unidentified brick (most brick not recov-ered), 1 fragment of machine made brick (fromtrench disturbance), 22 cut nails/fragments, 35 uni-dentifiable nails, 1 porcelain, 1 plain pearlware, 1alkaline glazed stoneware, 5 cream colored ware, 2whiteware, 2 miscellaneous colors underglazestippled transfer print, 3 dark blue underglaze trans-fer print, 1 black underglaze stipple transfer print,and 3 burnished Creek sherds. This zone also con-tained one straight pin and one stamped brass but-ton with a footless eye on the reverse. There were12 fragments of patinated clear glass, 1 cobalt bluebottle glass fragment, and one piece of a mold blown,embossed bottle with at least 4 sides. This handblown, uneven bottle may have held medicine. Otheritems in the fill included 122 unidentifiable iron frag-ments, animal bone, charcoal, and wood.

Zone B consisted of three bands of dark brown, yel-lowish brown sandy, and mottled reddish tan sandyloam. The zone ranged in thickness from 12 cm inthe middle of the feature to 25 cm thick around theedges. Zone B artifacts included 13 window glass frag-ments; 75 cut nails/fragments; 1 porcelain; 2stonewares; 2 ironstones; 2 cream colored wares; 1unidentifiable decorated and 1 blue underglaze handpainted pearlwares; 2 white bodied ceramics; 2 mis-cellaneous colors underglaze stippled transfer prints;1 underglazed, high fired redware rim; and 1 KasitaRed Filmed sherd. Other artifacts included one ironbutton, 2 olive green bottle glass, and animal bone.

Zone C had a band of yellow brown sandy loam nearthe base of its strong brown sandy loam fill. It mea-sured 30 cm in the center and 10-20 cm around theedges. The northeastern edge of this zone and ZoneD, below was mottled and disturbed. Zone C arti-facts were few and included 13 cut nail fragments, 1hand painted whiteware, and animal bone. Zone Dwas a yellowish brown sandy loam mottled with abrownish yellow sandy loam. It was sterile with theexception of one piece of mortar that archaeolo-gists did not recover. Zone D marked the base of TS0.

The second section of well excavation was labeledTS 1. It contained one homogenous zone of yellow-ish brown loamy sand measuring 1.15 m thick, la-beled Stratum 1, Zone 1. There was a very low den-sity of artifacts in this zone, with only 10 unidentifi-able nails, 1 clear curved glass, and one thinningflake present.

The third section of the well was TS 2, and includedZones 1, 2, and 3. Zone 1 was a 28 cm thick continu-ation of the fill in the level above it. Animal bonewas the only item present in this zone. Zone 2 wasdark yellowish brown loamy sand mottled with adark yellowish brown clayey loam. This level aver-aged 95 cm thick and contained a greater number ofartifacts than Section 2. Artifacts included 1 win-dow glass fragment, 26 cut nails/fragments, 42 uni-dentifiable nails, 1 alkaline glazed stoneware, 1 iron-stone, 1 plain pearlware, 1 miscellaneous colorsunderglazed stippled transfer print, and one plainsand tempered aboriginal sherd. Glass artifacts con-sisted of 1 goblet rim, 2 possible tableware frag-ments, one bottle mouth/lip, 1 clear bottle glass,


138


and 1 thin clear curved lamp globe or pharmaceuti-cal bottle glass. Other artifacts included wood, onethinning flake, and 8 small, unworked rocks. Zone 3was a 5-22 cm thick layer directly above the brickring. It was dark yellowish brown loamy sandmottled with a slightly lighter clayey loam. Therewere only two unidentifiable nails and one piece ofwood in this zone.

The MCD for the entire feature was 1840.03, basedon 30 sherds. A glass bottle mouth had an appliedstring, tooled lip. This bottle finish was documentedby at least 1842, providing a TPQ for Feature 203.The presence of early European ceramics, five Creeksherds, early artifacts such as olive green bottle glassand cut nails, and items such as a straight pin, a brassbutton, and a goblet rim suggest that this is likely aCreek-Euro feature. The MCD of 1840 would tie it tothe ownership and occupation of the Thomas Mor-ris household. The location of the Feature 203 wellnext to a privy (F. 202) may not be as distressing asit first appears. The well has a MCD of 1840 whilethe privy has a MCD of 1847. Granted, the latter isbased on an extremely small sample size. It is pos-sible, however, that the well was filled prior to theconstruction and subsequent filling of the privy. Infact, the sterile to low-density artifact zones in thewell may be the result of filling the well with soilremoved from the privy when it was initially dug.

Extensive faunal analysis was conducted on sevenfeatures thought to be of Creek or Creek-Euro origi-nation. This analysis was conducted in terms of a“Creek Assemblage” and included five features onLot 200 and two features on Lot 204. The faunalresults of the entire assemblage are discussed here.

Faunal Material in Creek-Euro Features

Data regarding the faunal material from Creek-Eurofeatures was combined to create a Euro-Creek as-semblage. This included zooarchaeological materi-als from the Euro-Creek features excavated on Lots200 and 204, of Block 10. Seven features are in-cluded in this assemblage, including a trash pit,roasting pit, midden, privy, hearth, and two pits ofunknown purpose. The presence of Creek ceramicsin these features indicates their cultural affiliation.This assemblage was probably deposited in the earlynineteenth-century.

A minimum of twenty-six individuals was identifiedfrom a total of 1,211 identified specimens (Appen-dix-Faunal Table 10). Seven fish individuals wereidentified including six individuals from three fresh-water taxa including spotted sucker (Minytremamelanops), catfish (Ictalurus sp.), and bass(Micropterus sp.). The drum family (Sciaenidae)includes both freshwater and marine taxa. Unfortu-nately, it was not possible to identify the two drumspecimens past the taxonomic level of family. Twoturtle individuals were identified including Easternmud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), and spinysoftshell turtle (Apalone spinifera). Two wild birdtaxa were identified, including duck (Anatinae) andturkey (Meleagris gallopavo). A minimum of threechicken (Gallus gallus) individuals was estimatedfrom forty specimens. Opossum (Didelphisvirginiana) and deer (Odocoileus virginianus) arethe only two wild mammal taxa identified. Domes-tic mammals identified include six pig individuals,two cows (Bos taurus), and a probable goat (cf. Caprahirca). The single Old World rat individual is theonly commensal taxa identified in the Creek featuresassemblage.

Fish and domestic mammals are the most commonvertebrate summary categories in the Creek Fea-tures assemblage, contributing just under 27 per-cent and 35 percent of the total MNI of the assem-blage, respectively (Appendix-Faunal Table 11).Wild taxa contribute 50 percent of the total MNI ofthe assemblage, more than do domesticate animals,but only 5 percent of the total biomass of the assem-blage. Domestic mammals and birds together con-tribute almost 95 percent of the total biomass of theassemblage.

Pig specimens were identified from all areas of theskeleton, with the greatest number of specimensidentified from the Head category (Appendix-Fau-nal Table 12, Figure 3). Almost seventy percent ofthe elements from the Head category are teeth andtooth fragments. All other pig specimens are fairlyevenly distributed between the element distribu-tion categories. The deer assemblage is not largeenough to allow for the observation of relative rep-resentation of skeletal categories. The cow assem-blage is also small, although specimens were recov-ered from all areas of the skeleton except the Head(Appendix-Faunal Figure 4). The caprine assem-


139


blage is insufficient for study of skeletal element dis-tributions.

One pig individual was older than 42 months atdeath, and one pig was less than 24 months old atdeath (Appendix-Faunal Table 13). The deer indi-vidual was greater than 26 months old at death, asevidenced by a fused proximal ulna (Appendix-Fau-nal Table 14). Based on one fused and one unfusedcalcaneus, one cow was at least 36 years old at death,while another was less than 42 months old at death(Appendix-Faunal Table 15). The epiphyseal fusiontable for caprines includes specimens identified onlyto the subfamily Caprinae as well as those identifiedas probable goat (Appendix-Faunal Table 16). Acaprine individual was at least 18 months old atdeath. At least one chicken was juvenile at death,and two chickens were adult.

There is some evidence for gender in the Creek Fea-tures analytical unit. The presence of a large spuron a tarsometatarsus indicates that one turkey indi-vidual was male. The shape of the tooth alveoli forthe canine, or tusk, of a pig indicates that the indi-vidual was female. Modifications by heat are mostcommon in the Creek features assemblage (Appen-dix - Faunal Table 17). Just under thirty percent ofspecimens in this assemblage were burned or cal-cined. Cuts, hacks, and saw marks were found in thisassemblage. Both carnivore gnawing and rodentgnawing were observed in the Creek features assem-blage. One incidence of pathology was observed ona catfish vertebra. It appears that two vertebra be-came fused together, resulting in flattened verte-bral centra.

Lot 200 Summary of Select Early Residents andCreek-Euro Features

Lot 200 contained several Creek-Euro features.These features generally were located in two clus-ters, one on the northern side of the lot and one onthe southern side. They included a roasting pit (F.254), trash-filled pits (F. 228 and 233), midden (F.193 and 194), a privy (F. 202), and a post (Zone 6,formerly of F. 244). These features date to the toearly and pre-Columbus. The TPQ range for the fea-tures is 1818-1840, with 1830 being the most com-mon.

The first white property owner did not purchase thelot from the state until 1832. His name was ThomasGamage. It is unlikely that the Creek-Euro featuresare associated with Gamage, as the 1830 and 1840census records do not list him as a Columbus resi-dent. By 1836 Thomas Morris owned the property,along with the adjacent Lot 199. He resided on adja-cent Lot 199, but held Lot 200, which probablyserved as an extension of his yard. There were 6people listed in the Morris household in 1830, be-fore his purchase of Lot 199. The household includedThomas, and most likely his wife, both age 30-39years, a probable son age 5-9 years and three slaves.Two male slaves were age 36-54 and one female slavewas 24-35 (USBC Population 1830). By 1840, theMorris’ were still living on Lot 199 and still ownedadjacent Lot 200. While the household had grownto 16 people, the expansion does not appear to haveincluded any more family members, but rather ser-vants and slaves. Three of the individuals were freeblacks, including a colored male over the age of 55,and two colored females, one age 24-35, and oneover 55 years old. This is very unusual because onlythree years earlier the city census recorded ten freemales and seven free females “of color” residing intown (Clerk of Council 1837-1841:44). None of theslaves in the 1840 household were slaves in the 1830household. Slaves in the 1840 household includedone male and one female age 0-9 years, three fe-males age 10-23 years, three males 10-24, and twomales age 24-35 (USBC Population 1840:280-281).Morris held Lot 199 until 1842 and Lot 200 until1845. The enslaved living in Morris’ household couldhave easily been of Creek descent as “…the childrenof Creek-black relationships moved into black slavesociety” bringing the traditions of both African andCreek cultures with them (Braund 1993:182). Bythe 1830s and thereafter, society began classifyingmixed blood Creek-black progeny as black. The timeperiod of Morris’ ownership of Lots 199 and 200,the dates of the artifacts within the early features,and the connection of at least one Creek-Euro fea-ture (Post, Zone 6), produces a likely link betweenthe Thomas Morris household and the pre-1845Creek-Euro occupation of the area that would be-come Lot 200.

The area to become Lot 200 would have been primereal estate during the first few decades of the nine-teenth century. Archaeological evidence demon-strates that the area was used by a Creek-Euro house-


140


hold that took advantage of the various economicopportunities presented by living near theChattahoochee River, the Stage Road, and UpatoiTrail. These opportunities would have includedaccess to trade goods, participation in a bartereconomy of deerskins and Euro-American manu-factured materials, and possibly the exchange of innor tavern services for money or goods. A Creek-Euro household occupied this location prior to Mor-ris’ 1836 land purchase and until at least 1840. Fea-ture 202 provides the latest TPQ (1840) of any ofthe Creek-Euro features. This feature, so similar tothe other Creek-Euro features on this lot, in essenceties all the Creek-Euro features on the lot to Morris’ownership. It is possible that Morris, who was afortunate drawer in the 1827 land lottery, settledhere before his official purchase of Lots 199 and 200in 1836. He may have continued to live here whenGamage purchased the property in 1832, and thenbecame the official owner of it in 1836. While Mor-ris’ name did not appear on several 1832 and 1833“List of Claims Against the Creek Nation…” and valu-ation records of the Creeks related to certain trad-ers and Creek Indians in the area, his presence in thearea as early as 1827 indicates that he may havebeen involved on some level in Creek trade rela-tions. Certainly the types of artifacts within the fea-tures on Lot 202 indicate that those people respon-sible for creating and filling the features participatedin the European trade network as well as in Creekculture.

It is possible that his wife, or other members of thehousehold, such as slaves or servants, were Creekor mixed-Creek. Marriage records are inconclu-sive. Research revealed the name of Thomas Morrisfour times during this general period. A ThomasMorris married Sarah Kinnard in 1788 (West 2001).Although the Kinnard name fits into this area withKinnard’s Ferry, the Thomas Morris listed in the1830 census was only 30-39 that year and wouldnot have been born in 1788. The same logic holdstrue for a Thomas Morris listed as marrying a SarahMusgrave in 1789 (West 2001). Two other recordsfit the time line better. In 1827 a Thomas L. Morrismarried Rachel Colclough in Taliaferro County (Dodd1997). In 1835 a Thomas Morris married LidiaSwearingame in Troup County (Dodd 1997). An-other source shows a Thomas Morris marrying aMariah McDaniel in 1842 (West 2001). Either or allof these could be the Thomas Morris living on Lot

200. The 1830 Census lists a man (presumably Tho-mas) and a woman (presumably his wife) each in the30-39 age bracket. Ten years later, the presumedThomas is listed in the 40-49 year old bracket. Theonly free white female on the list, however, is age30-39. Unless there was a mathematical mistake orintentional deceit, this is a different woman who mayrepresent a second wife. This could be Lidia, if Tho-mas married her after Rachel died. If Lidia diedsometime between 1840-1842, Thomas may haveremarried a third time, to Mariah. Thomas Morris isa common name, however, and these may repre-sent different people. The Thomas and Mariah mar-riage was the only one of the three listed as occur-ring in Muscogee County. (There was no locationgiven for the Thomas-Sarah marriage).

LOT 200 STRUCTURES AND RELATED

FEATURES

Structure 1, House (ca. 1849-1928)

Figure 57 is a composite map illustrating featuresand foundations uncovered by archaeologists, andoutlines of structures based on Sanborn maps ofvarious years. The building numbered “Structure1” is located on the southern half of the lot. It likelypost dates earlier structures on the lot occupied bymixed Euro-Creek households. Structure 1 wasprobably constructed in the first half of the nine-teenth century and torn down by 1928 when theDodge Dealership was built. Archaeologists uncov-ered the extensive foundation of Structure 1 and thelater car dealership foundation. The southwesternportion of the foundation was missing as a result ofconstruction of the car dealership and an associ-ated coal cellar. Likewise, when construction work-ers built the car dealership’s foundation in 1926, theytruncated portions of the Structure 1 foundation inthree different places and bisected the top of thecistern (F. 198) associated with Structure 1.

The house may have been constructed by one of thefirst three lot owners Thomas Gamage (1832), Tho-mas Morris (1836-1845), or Buckner Beasley (1845-1849). Structure 1 is almost certainly associatedwith Lewis Durr, however, who purchased Lot 200in 1849 and actually resided on that tract. Sincethere is no evidence of any older, Euro-Americanstructures on the lot (except the brick foundationcutting through Feature 193 that may be an append-


141


Figure 57. Composite Map of Lot 200 Showing Features and Stuctural Footprintsfrom Various Sanborn Maps.

15th Street

1st Avenue

Brick Pier/Wall

1

2

3

2A

2D

1A

2C 2B

1836 Lot Line

Denotes separatebuilding episodes

10

0 16

0

ft

m

32

5

N860

N880

N900

E960 E980 E1000

N870

N890

E970 E990 E1010


142


age of Structure 1), Durr probably would have livedin Structure 1. It is likely that when he defaulted onhis mortgage his creditor, Thomas Ragland, rentedout Durr’s former house to Thomas K. Wynne.Wynne eventually purchased the house and lot in1877. Major additions were made to the house some-time between 1872 and 1886. It is unlikely thatRagland made such extensive additions to a rentalproperty. It is more logical to assume that Wynneprobably made these architectural changes after hepurchased the house in 1877. The 1872 and 1886Bird’s Eye Views show the differences in the struc-ture (Figure 58). In 1872 the wood frame house wasvery narrow and oriented east-west with what ap-pears to be a portico along the north wall. The househad a hipped roof. Wynne’s changes after 1877 wid-ened the house by half, resulting in a larger, morebox-like structure. He appears to have changed theroof to a mansard-like type. The addition included aporch added along the eastern wall of the house.Nine years after purchasing the house, Wynne lost itin 1886 through a lawsuit.

Apparently, after Susie Wynne Burrus/Dismukespurchased the property in 1886 as part of a sale tosettle the lawsuit, she made improvements to thehouse that archaeologists uncovered during exca-vations. One change included an addition she hadconstructed sometime between 1886-1889 on theback, northwestern corner of the house. Figure 59shows the house footprint on the 1889 Sanborn. Thissmall addition snuggly encompassed the existingwell and pump platform (Features 196 and 267), asshown in the structures and features map (see Fig-ure 57). The addition was enlarged by 1907 to in-

clude the large brick cistern (Feature 198). This geo-graphical relationship between the structure and thefeatures suggests that the features date to the pe-riod of the structural additions and are associatedwith it. Artifact dates do not support this relation-ship; however, it is likely that the small diagnosticsherd count is to blame. The well (Feature 196) con-tained only three diagnostic sherds, which produceda MCD of 1839.5. The pump platform (Feature 267)contained 11 sherds dating to 1845.6, with a sup-porting nail date of pre-1855. The small sample fromthe cistern (Feature 198) had a MCD of 1850, basedon 11 sherds. A nail date of 1855-1875 was derivedfrom the cistern fill/trench.

The additions that encompassed the well and cis-tern from the late 1880s to the first few years of thetwentieth century represent a period of transitionwhen the City of Columbus was making additionalefforts to provide a more constant source of citywater to residents. Undoubtedly, this constructionreflects these changes, and may mark an evolution

from using well waterto cistern water to citywater. Such an evolu-tion would have freedthe well and cistern forother logical uses,such as privies and/orc e s s p o o l s / s e p t i ctanks. The construc-tion of the additionaround and over thecistern and well sug-gests that the additionbecame an attachedroom. This additionmay have served thepurpose of a well

house and made access to drinking water easier, orthe room may have served as a water closet. Thecistern or well may have provided water solely forthe water closet, or been used as a place to disposeof gray water and sewerage. The latter would havebeen useful with a cistern only if there was a drain-age outlet added to the cistern.

Two other water-related features associated withthis structure are located between the front of thehouse and 1st Avenue. A shallow brick-lined troughbegins at each corner of the front porch and they

Figure 58. Lot 200 Houses on 1872 and 1886 Perspective Maps, Facing Northeast.

18861872


143


Figure 59. The Redrawn 1889 Sanborn Map Depicts Structures on Lot 200.(Note the Dog-Leg in the Property Line).

D

D

D

15311527

1523

Servants

1523 1/2

Servants1531 1/2

1501

1501 1/2

D

Chattahoochee R

iver

1st Ave

15th Street

Lot 204

Lot 200

20

0 32

0

ft

m

64

10


144


come together in a wide “V” that parallels 1st Av-enue, then runs toward the street. These troughswere uncovered throughout the project area andappear to have been early drain lines that were con-nected to the early-to-mid nineteenth century citystorm drain system. The troughs are lined with onecourse of brick on the sides and bottom and cappedwith one course of loose brick across the top. Theremovable top-course of brick allowed for ease ofcleaning out the drain lines when they becameclogged. In most instances these brick troughs ap-pear to have been used to carry sewerage to stormdrains from later-period privies and from water clos-ets. Such brick-lined trough drains, often coveredwith loose brick or flat stones, have been excavatedon other nineteenth century urban sites, such asthe Dean Street Excavation in Albany, New York(Hartgen 2000). The 2nd Avenue troughs locatedoff Structure 1 on Lot 200, originate near the cor-ners of the porch. This suggests that they funneledrain that ran off the roof into the storm drains. Simi-lar troughs would not have been necessary at theback of the house where the room was added. Waterpipes could have run directly from the overheadroof into the cistern to collect rainwater. Likewise,if the well and cistern were converted into septictanks, then the porous walls of the well would havelet liquids out (in the same manner that it allowedthem in) while the cistern could accommodate a largeamount of wastewater before becoming filled. Thewell, in particular, would have allowed liquid wasteto disperse into the surrounding soils without fearof accumulation and overflow into the house.

Structure 1A, Servants’ Quarters (pre 1889-1895/1907); Shed (post 1895/1907-1928)

Structure 1A was located in the southwestern quad-rant of Lot 200, near the western lot line. This housewas constructed before 1889. The house addresson the 1889 Sanborn map was 1501 ½, which indi-cates that it was clearly associated with Lot 200,rather than the legitimate “dog-leg” extension of Lot199. This residence was contemporary with Struc-ture 1, owned and occupied as discussed above. Theaddress also indicates a subservient role of thisstructure to the main house at 1501, and probablyfunctioned as servants’ quarters or possibly as a ten-ant house. In 1889 it was defined as a 1 ½ storystructure. By 1895 it was delineated on Sanbornmaps as a one story building. By 1907 the building’s

function changed from a residential structure to ashed. Owners added a porch to the southern end ofthe building and enclosed the porch on the north-ern end. Little sub-surface evidence of this buildingremained at the time of archaeological investiga-tions. Features in the area consisted of postholesand molds and one possible pit or post cluster. Thesefollow a predominantly linear pattern and are mostlikely associated with the lot’s rear (western) fenceboundary. Archaeologists uncovered a nearby well(Feature 195) that may be associated with the Struc-ture 2 house. The excavated portion of the fill fromthis well feature, however, contained only brick andconcrete and no diagnostic ceramics or other arti-facts.

Structure 2, House (ca 1889/1895-1928)

Structure 2 was built between 1889 and 1895. Fig-ure 60 illustrates its footprint in 1907. This struc-ture was located on the northern half of Lot 200,very near the centerline boundary that divides thelot in half along an east-west axis. Post patterns re-veal two distinct fence lines dividing the lot in half.These fence lines are approximately two metersapart and probably represent a typical lot. Likemany fence lines throughout the project area, thisboundary fluctuated at least twice through the years,by a margin of 5-6 feet. The northernmost of thetwo fence lines is adjacent to the structure’s south-ern wall. Susie Wynne Burrus/Dismukes may havebuilt that structure with the intent of having a rentalproperty nearby. She sold the southern two-thirdsof Lot 200 containing Structure 1 in 1906 to ElishaDismukes, and retained ownership of the northernone-third containing Structure 2. She may havemoved into the Structure 2 house following this sale.Structure 2 was a two-story dwelling with a frontporch. Archaeologists uncovered the base of a chim-ney with an “I” hearth, which would have served thetwo main rooms on the ground floor. By 1895 thestructure had an asymmetrical footprint, with vari-ous protrusions and several one-story additions.While Structure 1 rested on long, sturdy brick wallfoundations, Structure 2 sat on brick piers and prob-ably some wooden posts. Archaeologists locatedportions of the brick pier foundations, including acorner pier and several interior piers, as well as nu-merous postholes and post molds in the area.


145


Figure 60. The Redrawn 1907 Sanborn Map Reveals Two Houses on Lot 200.

Hen Coops

Coop

Hen House

Wash House

D

High B

ank

D

DServants1527 1/2

1523 1/2Servants

15291527

1523

D

D

Shed

Shed

15051501

Servants1505 1/2

1st Ave

2

Chattahoochee R

iver

15th Street

Lot 204

Lot 200

20

0 32

0

ft

m

64

10


146


Structure 2A, Outbuilding (ca 1889/1895to pre-1907)

This building was probably erected at the same time,or shortly after the construction of Structure 2.Unlike the drawings of outbuildings on other tractsdepicted on the Sanborn maps, Structure 2A carriesno “Servants Quarters” or “Shed” label. Interesting,while the building lies directly on the boundary linedividing Lot 200 into a northern two-thirds and asouthern one-third, there are two different ad-dresses next to it. The northern side of the outbuild-ing is labeled 1505 ½ while the southern side ismarked 1501 1/3. This suggests that the buildingfunctioned as a residence (probably for servants)and that it was probably a duplex with separate frontdoors on either side. Since Susie Wynne Burrus/Dismukes owned both the northern and the south-ern tracts of Lot 200 from 1886-1906, it makes sensethat Structure 2A would be established between bothmain residences (Structures 1 and 2) and serve theneeds of both. Little archaeological evidence ofStructure 2A was located during excavations. A fewsmall pits and post clusters nearby may have beenassociated with the structure. The only evidence ofbrick foundations appeared in the form of one brickpier located at the northwestern corner of the pre-sumed location of the structure. In the same areaarchaeologists found a portion of a drainage trenchthat may have been related to rain run-off from thestructure’s roof, or ground surface run-off. Thisdrainage trench may have served the later Struc-ture 2C.

Structures 2B, 2C, and 2D(1895/1907-1928)

Sometime between 1895 and 1907 Structure 2Achanged shape and dimension to become two sepa-rate outbuildings (designated 2B and 2C). These werelocated in the same general vicinity as the originaloutbuilding. The westernmost outbuilding (2C) re-tained the 1505 ½ address and housed servants forStructure 2. The easternmost outbuilding (2B) isunlabeled on the 1907 Sanborn. A third new out-building (2D) was constructed nearby, along thewestern lot line. Clearly, these buildings were con-structed as dependencies for Structure 2. One yearearlier, in 1906 Susie sold the southern two thirds ofthe lot, making the two tracts distinctively separatein both geography and ownership. When the origi-

nal Servant Quarters was rebuilt (by 1907) therewas no need to share the building between Struc-tures 1 and 2.

Between 1895 and 1907 Susie constructed anotheroutbuilding (2D) in this area. It was a long, one-story shed established on the western lot line, northof the Servants’ Quarters located in the southwest-ern corner of the tract. Any of the three buildings,Structures 2B,C, and D, would have been torn downin 1928, if they were extant at that time. Archaeolo-gists uncovered scant evidence for these three struc-tures, which suggests that the sheds may have beenless permanent structures. Post molds were foundin the vicinity of all three structural locations, butlittle patterning could be discerned when comparedto the structures outlined on the various Sanbornmaps. One would expect the Servants’ Quarters tobe of somewhat more sturdy construction than thesheds. While there were no extant brick founda-tions, several larger post mold clusters and one pitdiscovered may be associated with the Servants’Quarters (Structure 2B). Alternatively, the far north-western portion of the tract contains two distinc-tive areas devoid of artifacts. This white space onthe plan map suggests that features in this area mayhave been obliterated by later land modification, orthat no features were located in this area becausestructures covered the ground surface here. In fact,the white space occurs around Feature 229, whichmay have been a cellar. If this was a cellar, then ithad a structure on top of it in the white space.

Structure 3 House (ca. 1848 to 1854/1877)

This structure may actually be the oldest extant foun-dation remains on the lot, predating Structure 1.Remnants of a brick foundation supporting Struc-ture 3 were located transecting the boundary linebetween Lots 200 and 201. Archaeologists studieddeed records to discover occurrences of ownershipof these two lots by one person through time. Thiswould help determine whether the owner of Lot 201encroached on the neighboring property to the southor whether one owner of both lots legally con-structed the building. The only pre-twentieth cen-tury occurrence of a property owner simultaneouslyholding Lot 200 and the southern portion of Lot201 was documented in 1854. Apparently, some-time between 1838 and at least 1854, Lewis Durrheld both tracts. Durr may have constructed Struc-


147


ture 3 over the boundary line of Lot 201 and Lot200 sometime during his period of ownership ofboth tracts, during the mid-1800s. It is likely thathe purchased the southern half of Lot 201 on or near1848/49, based on his sale of a different section ofLot 201 and his purchase at that time of Lot 200. Hemay have held this southern half of Lot 201 as lateas 1877 or even later. Durr defaulted on a mortgagesometime after 1854 and lost Lot 200 to ThomasRagland.

Ragland became the owner of the lot and a landlordto the house. Ragland rented the house to ThomasWynne who later purchased it. Wynne did not pur-chase the southern half of Lot 201, however, andthe disposition of that tract remains unclear untilthe twentieth century. It was not until 1926 thatownership of both lots by one entity presented theopportunity to construct a building across both lots.A plat of the property in that year shows W.T. Heardas owning Lot 200 and a northern extension intoLot 201. This extension is gone by 1929. Thebuilder’s trench (F. 249) associated with the brickfoundation transected a trash pit (Feature 340) ly-ing along the lot boundary line. The builder’s trench(F. 249) contained ten artifacts including windowglass (2), cut nails (3), unidentifiable (ud) nails (2),and one each of ironstone, black underglazedstippled transfer print, and clear glass. A statisti-cally invalid sample of two diagnostic sherds gave aMCD of 1848. Artifacts gave a TPQ of 1829. Nailssuggest a pre-1855 date range. The building mustbe younger than Feature 249. Feature 249 appearsto date to 1829 or later.

Unfortunately, the lack of one modern artifact inthe trench and/or numerous diagnostic artifacts,make it impossible to determine when the structurewas built across the property line running betweenLots 200 and 201. The lack of modern artifacts inthe excavated portion of the trench suggests thatthe structure is associated with Lewis Durr, whoowned Lot 200 and the southern half of Lot 201 dur-ing the mid-nineteenth century. A plat dating toWilliam Heard’s ownership of the property some-time between 1926 and possibly 1934, however,shows a curious extension in the property line. Thelot line extends into the southern end of Lot 201 fora distance of approximately 39 feet. This extensionoccurs in the center of the lot line, and runs for ap-proximately 45 feet. When overlaid on the map of

features drawn by archaeologists, the irregularityin the property line encompasses the brick founda-tion in that area. This indicates that a structure wascrossing the Lot 200/Lot 201 boundary line. It doesnot detail whether this was an older structure dat-ing to Durr’s ownership in 1849, or a new structurebuilt following Heard’s purchase in 1926. The fewartifacts in the builder’s trench, however, lean to-ward associating the structure with Lewis Durr.

EARLY, NON CREEK-EURO FEATURES

Feature 317 was a small cellar located in the easterncentral part of Lot 200. The feature was truncatedon its northern edge by a modern I-beam used inthe construction of the car dealership during thefirst decade of the twentieth century. The easternpart of the feature extended beneath a brick founda-tion, indicating that the foundation was more re-cent. A narrower brick wall 35 cm south of the fea-ture appeared to be associated with the feature, how-ever, as bricks found within the feature looked likethose in the south wall.

The remains of the feature measured 1.40 m north-south and more than 1.35 m east-west. Feature fillconsisted of various lenses of washed in sand andmidden-like soils. Archaeologists excavated thewestern portion of the feature in natural levels la-beled Zones A-G.

Zone A was a very thin lens of reddish brown mottledsandy clay measuring 1-6 cm thick and containingthree pieces of clear bottle glass and a few discardedbrick fragments. Zone B was an intrusion throughZones A and C. This intrusion was a 1-6 cm lens ofgrayish brown sandy loam mottled with reddishbrown sandy clay and brick fragments. Zone B con-tained 2 cut nail fragments. Zone C ranged in thick-ness from 1-5 cm and consisted of thin lenses of red-dish yellow and grayish brown sand. Archaeolo-gists recovered 1 clear bottle glass, 1 unidentifiablenail, 4 window glass, 1 clear curved tableware, andanimal bone from Zone C. Zone D was a dark grayishbrown sandy loam with occasional brick fragments.Artifacts in Zone D included one burnished Creekpottery sherd, 22 cut nails/fragments, 10 pieces ofclear bottle glass, 1 piece of clear curved tablewareglass, 20 unidentifiable pieces of iron, and one ani-mal tooth. Archaeologists continued excavating the


148


western half of the feature, focusing on the south-western portion. In this area they excavated 12-30cm of soil from the base of Zone D to the base of thefeature as one zone, Zone G/H. In the northwesternportion, they separated these into two distinctivezones, Zone G and Zone H. Two cross mends be-tween Zone G and Zone H, however, indicate thatthe data from these strata can be combined. Thenorthern half of Zone G was sterile except for brick.Zone G consisted of water-lain sands. Archaeolo-gists observed several nails present at the base ofZone G, near the feature’s western edge. Most of theartifacts in Zone H were located at the top of thezone. Zones G and H contained the following arti-facts: 34 cut nails/fragments, 15 unidentifiable nails,4 window glass, 2 blue and 1 dark blue underglazetransfer print pearlware, 4 blue underglaze stippledtransfer print pearlware, 1 piece of thin clear globeor pharmaceutical glass, and 5 unidentifiable iron.

There were only seven diagnostic sherds in Feature317. This was not enough for a statistically validmean ceramic date. The TPQ was 1818 based ontransfer printed pearlware. The presence of cut nailsand pearlware, and the absence of more recent ce-ramics, wire nails, or other later artifacts, suggestthat Feature 317 is a cellar from an early house.While one Creek pottery sherd was recovered fromthe fill, the lack of additional sherds and items oftenassociated with the deerskin trade and historic CreekIndian sites results in the interpretation of Feature317 as a cellar slightly more likely to be associatedwith a Euro-American, rather than a Creek-Eurohousehold. The cellar appears to be associated withthe small segment of brick foundation lying south ofit, and not the larger brick foundations to its northand east.

SELECTED MID-19TH CENTURY AND ACTIVITY

RELATED FEATURES ON LOT 200

Burial (Feature 244)

Feature 244 was one of two animal burials on Lot200. Feature 244 contained a goat or sheep skel-eton (Figure 61). This feature measured 2.50 m east-west by 1.50 m north-south. It was a somewhatamorphous rectangle in plan. The feature was com-plicated by the intrusion of various post holes andmolds, along with a tree stain (originally numberedF. 241) along the northern edge. While the skeleton

was completely articulated, many of the bones, par-ticularly associated with the skull, were crumbly.

Archaeologists excavated the upper portion of Fea-ture 244 to reveal that this upper zone masked aseries of separate postholes and molds, in additionto a sheep or goat burial. Archaeologists recordeda series of 11 postholes and molds that were clearlydefined after archaeologists trowelled the upperportions of Feature 244 (Figure 62). The number ofpost stains is not surprising given the feature’s loca-tion along the boundary line between Lots 200 and201. The overlapping of post holes and molds indi-cates repeated use of the area as posts rotted andwere replaced by new posts and new postholes. Such

Figure 61. Excavated Sheep/Goat Burial,Feature 244, Lot 200.


149


Figure 62. Feature 244, Plan View After Excavation, Lot 200.

40 cmbd41 cmbd

20 cmbd

43 cmbd35 cmbd

2

2

2

2

33

3

1

8 cmbd

8 cmbd

Nail B (Datum)

N 901.55E 983.65

4

567

8

9

10

11

11

12

12

XNail AN 903.26E 983.66


Elv 100.22

1. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) loamy sand mottled with dark gray (10YR 4/1) loamy sand. 2. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loamy sand mottled with dark gray (10YR 4/1) loamy sand. Sheep or

3. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) loamy sand.4. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand.5. Dark brown (10YR 3/3) loamy sand with oyster shell.6. Dark brown (10YR 3/3) loamy sand with oyster shell.7. Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loamy sand mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4)

8. Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loamy sand mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4)

9. Very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loamy sand (POST MOLD).

10. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) loamy sand (POST HOLE).

11. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand with charcoal flecks.

12. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand with charcoal flecks (POST).

loamy sand.

loamy sand.

13. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand with brick and charcoal flecks.

0 50

cm

13

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

goat skeleton.

B

BB

B. Brick

N


150


an extensive clustering of posts along this fence linesuggests several possibilities. The ground surfacehere may have been prone to flooding naturallymaking wooden posts even more likely to rot andneed replacing; it may have been the location of agate and gateposts, with associated heavy foot traf-fic resulting in puddling of water and rotting posts;or the posts may be associated with landscapingalong the fence line.

A gate hypothesis makes the most logical sense. Thepost cluster falls approximately mid-way along theeast-west fence line separating Lot 200 from Lot 201.When Lewis Durr purchased the southern half of Lot201 and all of Lot 200 in the mid-nineteenth cen-tury, it is quite likely that the two tracts were sepa-rated by an existing fence. Durr may have placed agate here in order to conveniently access his houseand adjoining lot, without giving up the lot improve-ment offered by an existing fence. The geographiclocation of Feature 244 in proximity to the founda-tion of Structure 3 offers a tenuous, but possible as-sociation between the two. Also, a piece of gate hard-ware was located in the post mold labeled Zone VII,Feature 244.

One post (Zone 6) uncovered during troweling anddelineation of Feature 244 contained artifacts asso-ciated with a Creek/European occupation. Zone 6was a post associated with a roasting pit (F. 254) onthe eastern side of the lot. The Zone 6 post was trun-cated by both the sheep/goat burial and the Zone 7posts (Figure 63). The Zone 6 post, therefore pre-dated both the other post and the burial. This postis discussed in greater detail in the previous sectionof this chapter examining Creek-Euro features.

The actual burial portion of Feature 244 was denotedas Zone 2 within the feature. It measured 1.49 meast-west by 0.70 m north-south. It was a rectan-gular stain located in the southern half of the fea-ture and contained two distinctive zones. Burial fillconsisted of mottled dark yellowish brown loamysand in the upper 32 cm of the feature. The upperstratum of the Zone 2 burial was Level 1 and con-tained 9 window glass fragments, 25 cut nails/frag-ments, and 6 unidentifiable nails. Ceramics included1 porcelain, 4 cream colored ware, 2 white-bodiedceramic, and one aboriginal sherd. The aboriginalpottery is a very highly burnished residual sherd.The clay used had a very high mica content, but ap-

pears otherwise untempered. A few shallow lineson the interior suggest incising. This appears to be aToulouse Plain sherd. Two clothing artifacts lay inthe upper zone of burial. These included a glass but-ton and a bale seal. Archaeologists recovered anaqua panel bottle and 8 clear (patinated) and 6 olivegreen bottle glass fragments. At least one of thegreen bottle glass fragments was used as a tool. Itshowed definite signs of bifacial reworking (Figure64). This level also contained one goblet base, ani-mal bones, charcoal, unidentifiable metal, and ariver cobble.

Archaeologists removed the deepest 15 cm of thefill in the Zone 2 burial as Level 2. This fill consistedof very dark yellowish brown loamy, terminating atan elevation of 99.79 m, or 40 cm below the definedtop of the burial. Artifacts in this lowest zone in-cluded most of the articulated skeleton, as well as anumber of artifacts. There were 17 unidentifiablebrick fragments, 3 window glass fragments, 24 cutnail/nail fragments and 30 unidentifiable nails. Ce-ramics included 2 alkaline glazed stoneware, 1hotelware, 3 cream colored ware, 1 underglaze bluehand painted pearlware, 1 white-bodied unidentifi-able ceramic, 1 scalloped impressed straightedgeware, 1 unidentifiable edgeware, 1 underglazelinear transfer print, and 1 transfer printed porce-lain. Bottle glass artifacts included 9 clear, 3 olivegreen, and 1 melted fragment. There was one metalutensil handle in this level, as well as five very thinclear globe or pharmaceutical glass fragments. Ar-chaeologists also noted animal bone, oyster shell,and charcoal.

Diagnostic artifacts in the burial suggest an inter-ment relatively early in the history of Lot 200. Ar-tifacts such as the bale seal, worked bottle glass tool,cut nails, pearlware, and green glass suggest an 1830sor 1840s date for this feature. The panel bottle, how-ever, gives it a TPQ of 1867. Given the number ofintrusions into this feature, it is possible that thepanel bottle fragment represents a later deposit. Al-ternatively, it may be that the feature actually datesto the 1860s or later. This seems less likely whenone studies the historical content of Columbus dur-ing this period. Sheep, pigs, and cows commonlyran through town and were kept on city lots duringthe 1830s and 1840s. By the mid 1840s, however,city commissioners ordained a decrease in livestockbeing raised, butchered, and allowed to roam free in


151


Figure 64. Image of a Bottle Glass Tool FromFeature 244, Lot 200.

Scale is 1:1


Unexcavated

Unexcavated

bp

8

9

10

7

6 4 5

1

32

XNail B (Datum) X

(shell)

N 901.55E 983.65Elv 100.22 mNail A

1. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) loamy sand mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand.2. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loamy sand mottled with dark gray (10YR 4/1) loamy sand.3. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/3) loamny sand with flecks of charcoal.4. Brown (10YR 4/3) loamy sand with charcoal flecks and bits of brick. (POST MOLD)5. Brown (10YR 4/3) loamy sand mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) loamy sand. (Post 962)6. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) loamy sand.

7. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) loamy sand mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand and dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) loamy sand.

8. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand with charcoal flecks.9. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loamy sand mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) loamy sand.

10. Dark brown (10YR 3/3) loamy sand with charcoal flecks.

Zone II

Zone VI

Zone VII

Bone

Unexcavated Area

bp

BrickPorcelain

Feature 244, Block 10, Lot 200East Profile View

0 25

cm

Line LevelE 983.66N 903.25


152


town. By the mid to late nineteenth century, Co-lumbus had become much more urbanized and it isunlikely that farm animals were more commonlyraised on city lots. The presence of a post hole andmold intrusive into the burial also indicates thatthe feature was relatively older than many otherfeatures on the lot. A post hole dug through theburial shaft suggests that residents no longer re-membered that something was buried there in thepast and that there was no above-surface sign of theburial by that time.

The animal was complete and articulated, with nosigns of butchering. The fact that the sheep/goatwas not consumed suggests it may have been dis-eased, or much less likely, it may have been a pet.The artifacts in the sheep/goat burial appear to havebeen unintentionally deposited trash with no rela-tionship to the burial itself other than a means to fillthe hole. The fact that the sheep/goat was buriedalong the lot’s fence line suggests a number of pos-sibilities: it may have been diseased and in need ofquick disposal; the sheep/goat may have been oneof a number of animals kept on the lot for dairyproducts, meat, and wool, or less likely, it may havebeen a pet that the owners wished to bury on theirproperty. The residents maximized their yard spaceby burying the animal on the very edge of Lot 200.This kept decaying pollutants closer to the neigh-bor and farther from the resident. It also put anobstacle to future ground use away from the centerof lot activity.

LATE 19TH TO EARLY 20TH CENTURY ACTIVI-TIES ON LOT 200

Greenhouse (Feature 230)

Feature 230 was located in the northwestern cor-ner of Lot 200, just inside the northern boundaryof the lot. This greenhouse/cold frame was a shal-low, cellar-like rectangular pit lined with woodplank flooring (Figure 65). It measured 2.60 m by2.10 m (8.5 x 6.8 feet) and was oriented east-west.It was approximately 30 cm (about one foot) deep,and four fill episodes were visible above the woodflooring. See Figure 66 for a feature plan after ex-cavation and a profile depicting soil strata. Themeasurements of this feature, roughly 8 x 6 ft, and1 foot deep, correspond to a description and in-structions for making a hot bed written by Henry

Ward Beecher in 1859. Beecher states, “After a littlepractice any one can make and manage a simple hot-bed. For a common family one twelve by four feetwill be large enough, and nine by four will answerfor a small family. Frame-The frame should be madeof two-inch stuff (pine or poplar). The back must beas high again as the front, in order to give the rightinclination to the sash...Mark out the ground sixinches larger every way than your frame. Dig it outa foot deep. Take fresh, strong horse-dung...Lay itinto the bed evenly...”(Beecher 1859:175). The de-caying manure served to heat the cold frame. Anentire industry devoted to selling window glass, inaddition to heating and ventilation systems for“greenhouses, conservatories, palm houses, etc.”,which structures became increasingly popular dur-ing the Victorian period (Figure 67, Sargent 1891).

Figure 65. In Situ Wood Lining of GreenhouseFeature 230, Lot 200.


153


Nails

Possible Post

PostPossible Post

12

34

54a

6Unexcavated

N 900.09E 972.74Elv 100.17

N 902.44E 972.80

1. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) mottled with lighter soils and charcoal.2. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) sand with shell, slag, and coal.3. Black (10YR 2/1) charcoal.4. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sand.

4a. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sand, but almost sterile.5. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) silty loamy clay.6. White (7.5YR 8/1) coarse sand.

Wood


West Profile

cm

500

Post Post

Figure 66. Greenhouse Feature 230, Plan View and Profile, Lot 200.


154


The lowest stratum of Feature 230 contained veryfew artifacts, while the upper three strata were arti-fact-rich and probably represented a time periodafter the greenhouse was abandoned. Archaeolo-gists mapped four post stains that were visible in thetop of the feature fill. Posts 777 and 778 clearly cutthrough the feature, therefore dating after featurecreation. Post 790 was recorded on the edge of thefeature and contained the same fill as the zone aroundthe edge of the feature, suggesting that both the posthole and that part of the feature were filled simulta-neously. The fourth post was not numbered andbecame visible in the southern edge of the feature asarchaeologists excavated the feature. This post didnot originate at the base of the feature. It was ob-served near the top of the feature as a coal-filledcircular stain. It probably post-dates most of fea-ture infilling. The extreme northwestern corner ofthe greenhouse/hot cold frame was truncated by

Feature 232, which turned out to be a dog burialalong the lot line (Figure 68).

Archaeologists took soil samples within the green-house and sent several to ethnobotanists for pollen,macrofloral, phytolith, and parasite study. Level 4,a mottled sand fill that yielded metal, flowerpot, andplate window glass fragments on the wooden plank-ing floor of the greenhouse, was represented by soilsamples 618 and 621. The pollen record from sample618 yielded a much larger quantity of pollen repre-senting weedy plants, primarily Cheno-ams andCyperaceae, representing the presence of weedyCheno-ams and sedges. This sample yieldedBrassicaceae, Typha angustifolia-type, and Urticapollen not observed in other samples, indicating lo-cal presence of a member of the mustard family, cat-tails, and nettles. Recovery of a small quantity ofCerealia-type pollen indicates the presence of wheator another closely related cultivated cereal grain orperhaps flour in the greenhouse. In addition, a singlelarge, angular starch was noted, suggesting the pres-ence of cornstarch or corn. No parasite eggs werefound in this sample, suggesting that night soil wasnot used in the greenhouse for fertilizing plants, orthat no one had parasites.

The phytolith record from sample 618 was domi-nated by smooth elongate forms and exhibited manyof the same types of phytoliths as other samples.Quantities of buliforms are reduced, suggesting thatgrasses represented did not receive as much mois-ture as grasses growing in other areas, sincebuliforms represent cells responsible for leaf roll-ing.

Macrofloral sample 621 contained several small frag-ments of Pinus charcoal and wood, including a mem-ber or members of the southern pine group. Vitri-fied conifer charcoal and uncharred conifer woodmight also represent pine wood. In addition, a smallamount of Quercus charcoal was present. Non-flo-ral remains present in this sample include a fewuncharred bone fragments, a few coal fragments, afew eggshell fragments, a clear glass fragment, twometal fragments, and a square-head nail fragment.

Figure 66 shows the profile of the greenhouse andthe debris strata within it. A cross mend betweensherds in the 0-10 cm zone above Level 1 and sherdsin Level 2 indicates that the uppermost zones of thefeature were deposited at one time. For this reason,

Figure 67. Greenhouse Suppliers ofGlass, Heaters, and Other Items WerePopular During the Latter Nineteenth

Century (Sargent 1891).


155


artifacts from the 0-10 cm zone, Level 1 and Level 2are combined here (but are listed separately in theartifact inventory in the Appendix). Artifacts inthese three zones included architectural items. Ar-chaeologists recovered 483 pieces of window glass,66 cut nails, 253 unidentifiable nails, two tacks, onepiece of tile, and five pieces each of brick, plaster,and roofing slate.

These three levels alsocontained a large numberof kitchen artifacts, in-cluding the following ce-ramics: plain, guildedand decal print porcelain(n=23), a variety ofstonewares (n=17), iron-stone (n=27), pearlware(n=3), cream coloredware (n= 22), annularware (n=4), unscallopedimpressed edgeware(n=2), polychrome latepainted ware (n=2), un-derglaze transfer print(n=8), whiteware (n=1),and various burned/uni-dentifiable ceramics

(n=5). There were 30 terracotta flowerpot sherds in thisprovenience. Archaeologistsalso recovered one plain ab-original rim sherd. Otherkitchen items included 70clear, 10 amber, and 10 olivegreen bottle glass fragments.Other bottle artifacts analyzedin the lab were two fragmentshaving mold seams to the neckof the bottle, 2 bottles finishedwith a fine lipping tool, and onepiece of glass with embossedletters. Other glass artifacts in-cluded 2 pieces of pressedglass, 1 piece of milk glass, 16pieces of very thin clear curvedglass representing goblets ormedicine bottles, 3 clear glasstableware, 2 goblet base frag-ments and 1 piece of meltedglass.

Other artifacts within this provenience includedclothing, personal items, and miscellaneous items.Feature fill contained 3 glass buttons and 1 iron but-ton, 1 brass river/eyelet/grommet, and 1 straightpin. Artifacts in the Personal category were a brasspin/clasp and a toy ship model made of white metal(Figure 69). Miscellaneous objects included coal,cinders, clinkers, and wood.

Figure 68. An Intrusive Dog Burial in the Edge of the Greenhouse (Feature 230) Fill.

Figure 69. Part of a Metal Toy Boat Model From Feature 230, Lot 200.Scale is 1:1


156


The MCD for Level 1 only was 1852.05, based on 52sherds. Level 2 diagnostic ceramics produced a MCDof 1850.28. The TPQ dates for Levels 1 and 2 were1841 and 1902, respectively. The 1841 date wasfrom an unscalloped, impressed edgeware rim. The1902 date was derived from a decal decorated por-celain sherd.

Level 3 artifacts consistedof 78 pieces of windowglass, 1 cut and 11 uniden-tifiable nails, 3 coarseearthenware and 1terracotta flowerpotsherd, 1 unglazed stone-ware, 1 gilded porcelain,43 unidentifiable iron frag-ments, 7 unidentifiablemetal fragments, 12pieces of fine coppermesh, a two-piece hingedbottle mold, embossed(“Jno. Wyeth & Bro. Phila-delphia”) (see below), 1clear bottle glass, 2 crownbottle caps, one four-holed milk glass button,oyster shell, animal bone,coal, and wood. Archae-ologists were un-able to deter-mine a MCD dueto a lack of diag-nostic ceramicsin this level. Thetwo crown bottlecaps provided aTPQ of 1892.

Artifacts in Level4 were similar tothose in Level 3,above it. Win-dow glass in-

creased to 209 pieces. There were 11 cutnails and 120 unidentifiable nails in Level4. A greater number of ceramics came fromthis level, including 46 flowerpot fragments.Of these, 40 were terra cotta flowerpots.These pots sported various decorations, in-cluding decorative rims ranging from loz-

enge shape, to roulette or ribbed designs. Severalwere stamped “Meridian Pottery Co.” Figure 70 is aphotograph of a reconstructed Meridian pot. Ef-forts to locate information about this firm were un-successful. Flowerpots described as having a coarseearthenware paste, rather than terracotta, totaled 6sherds. Other ceramics in this level totaled 22 andincluded porcelain (n=2), unglazed stoneware (n=5),ironstone (n=5), cream colored ware (n=1), spallsof an unidentifiable white bodied ware (n=5), brownunderglaze stippled transfer print (n=1), blue un-derglaze stippled transfer print (n=1), blue scalloped,curved impressed edgeware (n=1), and purple lus-ter ware (n=1). Level 4 contained a variety of bottleglass including olive green (n=1), clear (n=2), am-ber (n=1), aqua (n=1), part of a semi-automatic ma-chine made bottle, part of a commercial lead glassbottle, and very thin curved glass (lamp globe orbottle). Other artifacts within this level included aslate pencil, an iron furniture escutcheon, metallids, coal, cinders/clinkers, wood, animal bone, oys-ter shell, unidentifiable metal, and a quartzite thin-ning flake. The MCD of Level 4 was 1845.6 based ona very small sample size of nine sherds. The TPQ ofLevel 4 was 1881 produced by a semi-automatic ma-chine made bottle.

Level 5 was a thin gray to white coarse sand lens inthe western half of the feature below Level 4 and

The Wyeth medic inebottle post-dates 1860.It was in 1860, that JohnWyeth and his brother,Frank, opened a drugstore in Philadelphia sixyears after John gradu-ated from the Philadel-phia Col lege of Phar-macy. As one of the fewpharmacists to have hada col lege educat ion atthis time, John’s servicesappear to have been indemand. In addition toserving the local com-muni ty , he conductedpharmaceutical researchand developed a line ofbetter-tasting elixirs andthe first gelatin capsule.John also produced anextract of malt made bygerminating barley andbaking the seedlings toprovide a palatable andnutritious version of thegrain. Such barley ex-tracts for medicinal pur-poses date to the timeof Hippocrates, when, asin the nineteenth cen-tury, they were reputedto treat fevers and in-f lammation (Wood andBache 1865:447) .Wyeth laboratories op-erate today under thename of American HomeProducts, Inc.

Figure 70. Reconstructed Meridian Flower Pot fromGreenhouse Feature 230, Lot 200.

0 5cm


157


above the wooden plank floor. It contained similarartifacts as other levels, but in lesser quantities. Win-dow glass totaled 30, cut nails 1, and unidentifiablenails 20. There was one each of stoneware, iron-stone, coarse earthenware, and light green bottleglass, and quartz shatter. This level did not provideenough data for a MCD and the TPQ of 1813 was notparticularly useful. The overall MCD of Feature 230(all levels) was 1850.94.

The artifact data and feature construction of Fea-ture 230 clearly explain its function. The recoveryof an enormous amount of window glass fragments(n=800) and flowerpot sherds (n=50) depicts agreenhouse. The semi-subterranean nature of therectangular pit suggests a cold frame. Its built-in“benched” areas and floor all lined with wooden pineplanks reveal tidy shelves for potted plants. Thenumber of nails, 483, both cut (n=79) and unidenti-fiable (n=404) seems somewhat excessive for a su-perstructure that would have been predominantlyglass. These nails may have been used in the joints,roof, and other non-glass parts of the building. Somemay have been stored in the structure. The absenceof any definitive wire nails, and the presence of alarge number of cut nails suggest the greenhousemay have been constructed prior to the 1850s orthat the builders intentionally used square nails at alater date to secure the structure better than wirenails when heat generated inside the greenhousemight cause the wood to alternately swell and con-strict. Evidence of slate (n=5) may indicate a slateroof, or the use of slate for other minor, non-struc-tural purposes within the cold frame. The pre-1850sgreenhouse was abandoned and infilled at the turnof the nineteen and twentieth centuries.

The ethnobotanical evidence was somewhat surpris-ing. Cattails, corn and wheat are not typical green-house fare. Greenhouses, cold frames, and indoorgardens were popular during the Victorian period,and it may be that this 6.5’ x 8.5’ structure containeda small water garden or fountain. More likely, per-haps the structure served to over-winter a few wa-ter garden plants, or pollen cattails growing in wetareas nearby infiltrated the greenhouse on clothingor through the air. Residents may have used thegreenhouse as a place to store garden related mate-rials, such as seed corn, wheat, and other seeds toplant the following spring. The weeds may be in-dicative of a post-greenhouse, dilapidated environ-

ment, although some weeds were probably endemicto potted plants.

Excavation at the proposed Public Safety Buildingin Columbus uncovered an artifact type similar tothat in Feature 230 (Ledbetter et al.:174). Archae-ologists discovered flowerpot sherds constituting19 vessels in a root cellar. There was no indicationthat the cellar had been part of a greenhouse orcoldframe such as Feature 230, above.

Pit (Feature 231)

This feature was a shallow, linear pit with a relativelyflat base. It measured 2.15 m east-west by 1.15 mnorth-south. Its linear, yet irregular appearance inplan view suggest that it may not have been dug in-tentionally as a pit, but may have been created as aresult of some unintentional process such as ero-sion, puddling, or animal modification. The largenumber of artifacts within the feature, however, sug-gests that it was intentionally filled with debris.

Archaeologists excavated the western half of Fea-ture 231 as one level, since the fill was a homog-enous zone of yellowish brown silt mottled with darkgrayish brown silt. Architectural artifacts included3 unidentifiable brick fragments, 6 window glass, 35unidentifiable nails, 1 staple, and a piece of mortar.The feature contained 10 ceramics, including 2 por-celain (1 plain, 1 gilded), 1 alkaline glazed stoneware,4 ironstone, 1 scalloped curved impressededgeware, 1 sponged ware, and 1 dark blue under-glaze transfer print. Other kitchen artifacts includeda variety of bottle glass; included one fragment withembossing, 5 clear glass, 2 light green, and 2 olivegreen fragments. Other glass types included 7 verythin clear, curved lamp globe or pharmaceuticalglass and 1 piece of tableware. Feature fill also con-tained a tiny metal soldier (Figure 71), 3 pieces ofcoal, 1 crown cap, 1 piece of charcoal, and 1 thin-ning flake.

The crown cap gives Feature 231 a TPQ of 1892. Be-tween 1886 and 1906, Susie W [Wynne] Dismukes[apparently formerly Burrus] owned the southerntwo-thirds of the lot, which is where Feature 231was located. The tiny metal soldier is likely from achild living on Lot 200 and playing in the yard northof Structure 1, or later between Structures 1 and 2.


158


water to flow through the walls of the well, whilefiltering out debris and making the well shaft lesslikely to cave in when submerged. The remainingwells were entirely unlined in the excavated por-tion. The sides of one unlined well (Feature 207)apparently did erode somewhat (Figure 72). Theerosion occurred approximately 2½ meters deep(8½ ft), which is a higher elevation (97.75 to 97.2m) than the current water table. It is quite likely,however, that the early to mid nineteenth centurywater table was much higher than today.

Each of the wells appears to have been filled in withdebris after abandonment during multiple fill epi-sodes, generally between two and five episodes. Noevidence of lime deposits (historically used to re-duce odor) was noted in any of the wells. The upper-most stratum in at least three wells consisted of brickand mortar rubble (Features 195, 203, 339). Thedebris was probably added to the wells to finish fill-ing the exposed dangerous holes created by the con-tinual slumping in of previous debris as it decayed.Additional brick and mortar rubble may have beenadded to “top off” these features prior to variousconstruction episodes on the lot. Coal was found inthe uppermost strata of two other wells (Features207 and 221) implying that the final fill episodes ofthose wells occurred in an era when the use of coalwas prevalent, or even no longer in vogue. Fill epi-sodes below the coal-rich strata date would predatethe use of coal and its extravagant disposal.

The wells on Lot 200 were fairly dispersed from eachother. None were located side-by-side, although itat first appeared that Feature 203 and Feature 202were both wells. The later, however, was actually alater privy. Most of the wells on the lot were scat-tered across the central and west-central portion of

POTABLE WATER ON LOT 200

Wells

Six wells were recorded in this lot (Features 195,196, 203, 207, 221, 339). Table 7 summarizes thedata. All of the wells were rounded or oval in initialplan view, with dimensions ranging from 110-190cm in diameter. All had vertical walls. One well wasexcavated to its base, at 18 feet below the strippedground surface. The other wells were excavated tovarious depths, including 2, 4, 4.5, 13, and 15 feet.Two of the wells were partially lined with brick.These bricks were regular rectangular handmadebrick and not the trapezoid capstone-shaped brickfound in some wells within the project area. One ofthe two brick lined wells was also partially lined withwood and partially unlined. The wood-lined wellcontained vertical wooden planks. The well waslined with wood in the upper portions and brick nearthe bottom, though the reason for that arrangementis unclear. Perhaps brick, with its porosity, allowed

Table 7. Lot 200 Well Summary Table. No.of 3-4 ft.

Sections Excavated (incl. TS0)

Depth of Lowest Screened Section*

Total Depth of Well

Linings

*

Brick Shape Wood Grain

Feature Brick Wood Unlined 195 1 1.26m (4.13ft) unknown X

196 1 0.65m (2.13ft) unknown X rectangular 203 3 3.74m (12.30ft) 5.49m

(18.0ft) X X X rectangular vertical

207 4 4.09m (13.42ft) unknown X

221 4 4.58m (15.02ft) unknown X

339 1 1.40m (4.59 ft) unknown

*From top of stripped ground surface.

Figure 71. Small MetalFigure Recovered from

Pit Feature 231,Lot 200.

0 .25 .5 in

0 .5 1 cm


159


1. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) sand with coal, brick chunks,oyster shell, sawed bone, glass, nails, charcoal, and mortar.

2. Strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) micaceous sandy loam with brickcharcoal, ceramics, and nails.

N 894.39E 983.11Elv 100.00 m

3. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) sand mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sand and charcoal flecks.

4. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy loam mottled with dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) micaceous sandy loam with brick and charcoal flecks.

5. Strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) micaeous loamy sand.

6. Brown (7.5YR 5/4) micaceous loamy sand.

7. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) fine sand with charcoal.

8. Dark red (2.5YR 4/6) clayey loam with mottles of brownish

yellow (10YR 6/6) clayey loam.

9. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) fine loamy sand with mottles of

brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sand.

10. Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) lens.

1

2

2

2

4

5

67

3

3

3

889

10

x

charcoal concentration

North Profile Plan View

N

Line Level


cm

500

Unexcavated

3

6 4

Unexcavated

TS0

TS1

TS3

TS2

Figure 72. Well Feature 207, Profile and Plan View, Lot 200.


160


the lot. Feature 203 was closest to any of the lotboundary lines. It was dug in the southeastern cor-ner of the lot. The location of the wells predomi-nantly in the center and western center of the lot,rather than along the traditional back lot line be-hind the house was probably the result of two fac-tors. The first was that locating the wells away fromthe back lot line would lessen the chance of well-water contamination from privies, trash pits, ani-mal carcasses, and other debris often located in thatarea. The second factor was that the location of thewells on Lot 200 were frequently tied to the loca-tion of houses, in that wells were often dug near thehouse or even close enough that a porch or shedaddition could be constructed over the well and at-tached to the house.

Pump Mechanisms

Two platforms were encountered in this lot. Onesmall brick platform appears to be associated witha pipe trench. Its exact function is not clear, thoughit may have been used to shore up the pipe at thecorrect angle to insure drainage. It is located onthewestern lot fence line and may somehow be relatedto the property line. Interestingly, the pipe appearsto be directed to the adjacent lot’s yard. One brickfrom the platform was stamped “COALDALEBLOCK”. The second platform apparently seated apump associated with an adjacent cistern. The plat-form is constructed as a single layer of mortaredbrick and it measures 75 cm (2.5 ft) square.

Cisterns

One cistern (Feature 198) was recorded and it mea-sured 4.55 m in diameter (nearly 15 feet). Thecistern’s depth exceeded 1.5 m (5 feet), though ar-chaeologists only sampled a small portion of thisfeature. The cistern appeared round on the surfaceand beehive-shaped in the upper portion. It wasconstructed with mortared bricks and was filled inquickly with brick rubble and late 19th and early 20th

century artifacts. A brick foundation wall for a cardealership (ca. 1909) bisected the top of the cis-tern, as depicted in the previous map of features inFigure 57. Hence, the cistern dates prior to 1909when the foundation was built, and it may have beenintentionally filled when the dealership construc-tion began. Further supporting this theory is the

fact that the fill appears to date to the 20th century.The cistern was located behind (west of) the Struc-ture 1 house, approximately six meters away fromthe original roofline but also within an enclosed ad-dition.

SANITATION FEATURES AND ISSUES ON LOT

200

Privies

The majority of the privies archaeologists excavatedon Lots 7, 191, 194, 200, and 204 were shallow indepth. Some of this shallowness may be attribut-able to various historic razing and grading of thelandscape. The shallow nature of the privies, how-ever, is not unique to the 2nd Avenue Revitalizationarea. Privy excavations on the Public Safety Com-plex to the southeast documented numerous shal-low privies. Privies on the Tillery Lot, for example,ranged in depth from 10 to 41 cm (Ledbetter et al.1997:239). In the urban deposits of New Orleans,privies ranged from 39 cm to 2.2 meters (Castille etal. 1986:K-10).

Four features (Features 202, 240, 252, and 284) thatarchaeologists interpreted as possible privies wererecorded on Lot 200. Two privies were rectangularin plan view, suggesting these privies had two ormore seats. The other two privies were rounded/oval in plan view. Dimensions in one direction rangedfrom just under one meter (3 ft) to 1½ meters (5 ft),and dimensions in the other direction ranged from50 cm to 1.5 meters (1½ to 5 ft). Because thesefeatures were no deeper than two meters (6.5 ft),archaeologists were able to safely excavate themand determine their depth. Depths of the featuresranged from a shallow 35 cm to just under two meters(1 to 6.5 ft), with an average depth of just under onemeter (3 ft).

Three of the four privies exhibited multiple fill epi-sodes and few artifacts. Multiple fill episodes areexpected in privies because of their continued useover a long period of time. One privy feature, how-ever, was filled quickly and exhibited only one fillepisode. Surprisingly, none of the features con-tained lenses of lime, which was often used histori-cally to keep strong odors at bay. However, one ofthe privies contained a lens of rich organic soil as


161


one might expect in a well-preserved privy feature.The fact that most strata in the privies contained fewartifacts is not surprising, because Columbus ordi-nances required that privies be cleaned out periodi-cally. Such night soil removal was common in nine-teenth century urban areas. Privies on Lot 200 werelocated near each boundary line of the lot. It is notsurprising that residents place privies as far awayfrom their houses and working areas of the yard, aspossible. This, of course, placed the privies closerto the neighbors and placed the neighbors’ priviescloser to adjacent landowners.

Lot 200 contained no cesspools or other large-scaleplumbing apparatus. Such items would not havebeen necessary for the relatively small populationinhabiting the nineteenth century residential lot. Ar-chaeologists did record two sanitation related fea-tures not mentioned in the privy section, above.These features were narrow brick lined troughs bur-ied in the ground and capped with single bricks. The

troughs carried wastewater from Structure 1 via thefront of the house and toward the street (1st Avenue)and probably into city pipes. Archaeologists docu-mented similar troughs throughout the project areaand in other urban areas around the U.S.

Pits

Twenty-four pit features were identified and exca-vated (Table 8). A wide variety of shapes were ob-served in the plan views of the pit features, includ-ing oval, round, rectangular, linear, irregular and“D” shaped. However, the majority of the pits werebasin-shaped in profile. Unfortunately, no specificlink can be made between the shape of most of thesefeatures and their specialized functions, beyond theiruses as pits. One possible exception is the rectangu-lar pits that may actually be root cellars (Features22, 24, 35, 265).

Table 8. Lot 200 Pit Features. Dimensions (cm) Shape

Feature North-South East-WestDepth (max) Plan Profile 227 170 195 30 oval basin 217 45 200 32 oval basin 201 183 174 20 round basin 276 84 85 10 round basin 223 86 85 27 round basin 24 130 77 38 rectangular rectangular 35 118 160 41 rectangular rectangular 265 79 53 41 rectangular rectangular 222 95 115 38 oval basin 236 140 38 30 linear pointed basin 281 76 52 42 irregular irregular 197 90 55 26 irregular basin 226 115 85 36 irregular basin 216 85 165 18 irregular basin 239 150 77.5 10 irregular basin 246 151 140 26 round irregular 228 130 110 24 rectangular irregular 23 150 63 18 rectangular irregular 233 240 81 47 rectangular basin 211 90 86 19 rectangular basin 205 82 50 14 oval basin 243 95 75 50 irregular basin 231 115 215 15 irregular basin 22 140 372 38 D shaped rectangular


162


Nine of the pits (Features 22, 23, 205, 211, 228, 231,233, 243, and 246) were filled with large amounts ofhistoric household refuse and can be referred to astrash-filled pits. (Feature 22 may have been an aban-doned root cellar used as a trash pit). Other pit fea-tures contained fewer artifacts and are simply re-ferred to as pit features. Most of the pit features(two-thirds) were filled in single episodes, while theremaining features were filled in two, three or fourepisodes. Also, the majority of the pits appear tohave been filled quickly, rather than having beenleft open for extensive periods of time. Even the pitfeatures that displayed multiple fill episodes lackedlenses of water-washed sand typically associatedwith features that have lain open and been exposedto rainstorms. Therefore, it is reasonable to assumethat most of the pits were not open longer than theperiod between heavy rains, perhaps several weeksat the most.

Most of the pits contained discarded householditems, food remains, and/or architectural debris.Some pits contained only a few artifacts that mayhave fallen in or been pushed, swept or raked in fromsurrounding midden during episodes of primary dis-posal. However, several pits had notable amountsof concentrated household trash that were probablydeposited in the pits intentionally as primary dis-posal. Yet other pits contained little more thanrubble and architectural debris, suggesting thesepits were filled during some episode of constructionor remodeling on the lot. Several of the pits withcomplex stratigraphy displayed debris only in theuppermost strata, sometimes accompanied by coal.This suggests those particular features may havebeen filled in the early 20th century, perhaps duringthe construction of the car dealership on this lot.

ARCHITECTURE ON LOT 200

Architecture on Lot 200 appears to have taken theform of wooden structures originally. An exteriorfence line of posts on the northern and western sidesof the lot constituted the most definitive post pat-terns. Some post mold and hole remains were lo-cated within the interior of the lot, but to a muchlesser degree than on Lot 204 and other lots. Ar-chaeologists recorded 708 posts along the lotboundary and within the lot, or the second greatestnumber of any of the data recovery lots. Later,wooden structures were built on brick piers and in-

cluded brick chimneys. Structures built later wereconstructed on top of brick foundation walls. Thesestructures were most likely wooden. Glass windowswere used, and to a more limited degree, some slateroofing. Porches and additions kept growing fami-lies sheltered. Structures on Lot 200 included notonly houses, but also quarters for slaves and laterservants. Outbuildings included sheds and a green-house.

Cellars

Two definitive cellar features were recorded on thislot; one was excavated 50% and the other 25%. Bothappeared rectangular in plan view and in profile,and both were quite shallow, measuring roughly 35cm (1 ft) deep. The cellars differ largely in their size.Feature 317 measured less than 1.5 meters square(4½ ft), while Feature 229 was twice as large. Thelatter was nearly three times long as it was wide(roughly 1 m by 3 m, or 4 ft by 12 ft). This muchlarger size indicates greater storage capacity andsuggests that the larger cellar was probably associ-ated with a larger house or associated structure, inwhich one can infer that a larger household used it.The smaller cellar (Feature 317) had been filled inquickly with only one major fill episode, and it had afairly low artifact density. In contrast, the largercellar (Feature 229) had several fill episodes. Thelowest stratum included a fairly large number of ar-tifacts related to the occupation of the house, par-ticularly architectural debris. Several lenses of wa-ter-lain sand overlay that stratum, suggesting thecellar may have lain open during several rainstorms.Alternatively, perhaps poor drainage in the areacaused seepage into the cellar. Finally, several lay-ers of quickly deposited soil and debris fill the up-per portion of the cellar, indicating the remainingportion of the cellar was filled in intentionally. Thepresence of large amounts of architectural debris isoften a trustworthy indicator of swift depositionwithin a feature.

The unusual shape of Feature 229 may be attribut-able to erosional gullies in the walls of the cellar.Two similar strata of sandy loam overlie a thin lensof water-lain sand in the base of the cellar. The wa-ter-lain sand suggests either the cellar was open dur-ing a rainstorm before it was filled in, or leakage ofrainwater into the cellar was a problem when thecellar was in use. There is no further evidence for astructure in this area of the lot. No structure ap-


163


pears in this location on any late 19th or early 20th

century Sanborn maps. The lack of documents de-picting a cellar in this area (particularly during aperiod when documentation would have beenlikely), and the lack of posts, brick piers, and/or abrick foundation encompassing the cellar, may sug-gest an alternate feature function. (This is unlikeFeature 317, which lies inside a brick foundation).It is possible that Feature 229 represents a hole in-tentionally dug to dispose of architectural debris.No backhoe bucket or backhoe bucket tooth markswere observed in the base of the feature, however,to support this theory. Artifacts suggest filling ofthe feature occurred sometime in the first three-quarters of the 19th century. This date range is sup-ported by diagnostic artifacts recovered from thefeature, including: flat glass, cut nails, a straight pin,ironstone, C.C. ware, animal bone, oyster shell, fishscales, bottle glass, tableware glass, charcoal, and apin bearing an Athena coin replica.


164


165


Chapter 6. History, Results and Interpretations of

Lot 204, Block 10

Lot 204• Recorded as Site 9Me1067• Bounded by 15th Street• Creek-Euro component• Most recently contained Depot Pool Hall

HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY

This lot is located in the middle of the block boundedto the south by 15th Street and to the north by 16th

Street. The block is bounded on the east by 1st Av-enue and on the west by the Chattahoochee Riverat the foot of Broad Street. Lot 204 lies on the east-ern side of the block and is bounded directly on theeast by 1st Avenue (Figure 73). The last buildingsstanding on and near this lot prior to this projectwere an auto parts store and the Depot Pool Hall.This lot is located across the street from whereNathan’s Feed and Seed once stood. It now housesone of the large office buildings of Total System Ser-vices, Inc.

The deed record is silent about the early history ofLot 204. The oldest deed that has survived in thecourthouse dates to 1873, although archaeologistshave discovered evidence that people were livingin a house on the lot by at least the mid-nineteenthcentury. Figure 74 provides an overview of thereconstructed chain of title. Citations for deedtransactions discussed below are detailed on thischain of title schematic in this figure rather than inthe text to promote story continuity. Interest-ingly, no listings in the nineteenth century City Di-rectories could be found for individuals definitelyliving on Lot 204. (Some of the directories, how-ever, do not provide specific addresses but onlygeneral location information that cannot always betied to a specific city lot.) A few residents listed inthe City Directories as being in the general area of

Lot 204 and having the same surnames as Lot 204owners may have lived on the site.

Figure 75 is a visual representation of the changingproperty boundaries of Lot 204 over time. The firstextant deed for Lot 204 dated to 1873 when TheresaWarr sold the northern half of Lot 204 to P.J. Biggersfor $1,000. This transaction included the northernhalf of Lot 203, as well, combining to form a longnarrow piece of property that ran from 1st Avenueand probably all the way to the Chattahoochee River.The northern halves of Lots 204 and 203 remainedbound together as one tract for several more trans-actions. Biggers held the property until at least 1890.Sometime between that time and 1918, Lucy IrvinYoung and Estelle Lavender Young came into pos-session of the tract. They sold it to Henry Odom in1918 for $2,000. The tract then came into the pos-session of Inez Jamieson Odom, who sold it to R.E.Dismukes in 1923.

Meanwhile, in 1878 Clarissa Wright sold a 35 footwide strip of Lot 204 to George Pearce for $250.This parcel ran along the northern part of the south-ern half of the lot. Clarissa may have come into pos-session of the southern half of Lot 204 through JohnB. Wright, who was listed in the 1873-74 City Direc-tory as a carpenter. At this time John lived “onOglethorpe, above Bridge Street” (Haddock 1873).This description fits Lots 200, 201, 204, and 205.Given the fact that Clarissa Wright owned the south-ern parts of Lot 204 from at least 1878 to 1886, it ispossible that John Wright lived somewhere on thissouthern half of the lot prior to, and/or during,Clarissa’s ownership of it. He was not a boarder, buta “resident”. If John did own Lot 204, the deedrecord confirming this does not appear to have sur-vived. George Pearce’s executors awarded his por-tion of Lot 204 to Minnie Flournoy in 1939.Flournoy’s portion of Lot 204 went to the Seaboard


166


Figure 73. Location of Lot 204.

Blk 10

14th Street

15th Street

16th Street

18th Street

17th Street

1st A

venu

e

2nd

Ave

nue

Broa

dway

14

15

16

17

18

19

123

4 5 6

789

10

11

12

13

15

16

17 18 19 20

14

1 S

T

A

VE

NU

E

2 N

D

A

VE

3 R

D

A

VE

NU

E19 TH STREET

18 TH STREET

17 TH STREET

RAILROAD STREET

16 TH STREET

14 TH

BR

OA

DW

AY

15 TH STREET

3 R

D

AV

EN

UE

2 N

D

AV

EN

UE

1 S

T

A

VE

NU

E

FR

ON

T S

T.

STREET 85

3.27 AC

WOOLFOLK

GEORGIA POWER CO.

0.266 AC 0.288 AC

(100)

(10)

(23)

(11)

(22)

(12)

(21)

(20)

214 213

212211

210 209

208207

JAIL

SQ

UA

RE

1 2

34

5 6

78

ROW 66

1825

109 113

(108) (107)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2 3

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

71

2

34

5

6

7

8

1

2

8

1400

1407

1411

1413

1417

1423

1431

1437

1441

1445

116

15441528

15241518

15161508

1500

15011509

15151519

15231531

1535

212

111

1 2

34

1

2

1

2

6

7

8

9

101

2

2A

3

4

5

1

2

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213

14

15

16

17

18

1920 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

11

16

17

18

18A

19

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

5

1

1

21

236

51

2

3

16A

4

7

1

13 12

11

10

8

1

Ch

att

ah

oo

ch

ee R

iver

200 feet

City Mills



167


Figure 74. Chain of Title for Lot 204.(Continued on next page)

Clarissa R. Wright 10-5-1878

$250BkU:238

(part of L204)

George A. Pearce

Mrs. Odelle Pearce Hunt, Mrs. Effie May Pearce Burrus (exec. of

Geo. A. Pearce)10-12-1939

$1.00Bk154:233

part of L204

Mrs. Minnie L. Flournoy

10-13-1939$10.00

Bk154:555part of L204

Seaboard Realty Co.

10-16-1939$10.00

Bk154:556part of L203 & L204

J.M. Kite

Continued at top of page

Continued from bottom of page

Home Building & Savings Assoc.

10-6-1939$10.00 etc.Bk153:553

part of L203 & N. part of L204

Philip Stephens

R.S. DesPortes

Hardaway Motor

R.S. DesPortes& Mrs. Leah DesPortes

1-16-1959Bk684:460

S part L204;N part L201

C. W. Buck4-16-1937$12,850

Bk135:536

J.M. Kite

10-19-1939$200

Bk154:281

10-11-1944$10.00 etc.Bk205:478

11-22-1954$10

Bk497:353part of L204

Mrs. Leah DesPortes Hamer


168


Figure 74 continued.

Theresa Warr10-16-1873

$1,000BkQ:194

N halves of Lots 204 & 203

P.J. Biggers

Clarissa Wright12-23-1886

$1600BkZ:499

Anna Taylor

J. Johnson Williams4-13-1906

$2850BkWW:44

Micheli Fiedarone (aka Mike Rose)

7-12-1918$3500

Bk25:513

Continued at top of page

Continued from bottom of page

(North Half of L204)

Mrs. Berta McEachern; Edgar L., Dayton A., and Hudmon Taylor;

Lou Sturkie & Abbie Parton11-8-1905

$2,290BkVV:164

Dan S. Odom

R.E. Dismukes5-4-1927

$9465Bk73:421

Dan S. Odom10-5-1922

$6300Bk42:341

C.C. Newman10-5-1922

$6300Bk42:341

N part L201; S. part L204

Henry Odom

Lucy Irvin Young & EstelleLavender Young

7-12-1918$2000

Bk49:113N1/2 of Lots 203 & 204

Inez Jamieson Odom11-21-1923

$9450Bk27:92

N 1/2 of Lots 204 & 203


169


Realty Company in 1939, as did the part held by theHome Building and Savings Association that sameyear. The property continued to change hands forthe next several decades and included the purchaseof at least part of it by the Hardaway Motor Com-pany in 1944.

Clarissa Wright owned the southernmost strip of Lot204 for an undetermined length of time prior to1886. It is likely that she or John Wright owned thesouthern half of Lot 204 as early as 1873, if not ear-lier. Clarissa sold the southernmost strip of the lot,along with the northernmost 20 feet of Lot 201, toAnna Taylor for $1,600 in 1886. By combining por-tions from both lots, Clarissa created one tract mea-suring approximately 60 feet wide (north-south) andrunning the full east-west length of a regular lot (147feet). Researchers found no deeds dating between1886 and 1904 for this parcel. By 1905 the tractappears to have fallen into the hands of heirs, prob-ably Anna’s. Mrs. Berta McEachern; Edgar L., Day-ton A., and Hudmon Taylor; Lou Sturke; and AbbieParton sold the parcel to J. Johnson Willliams for$2,290. Williams sold the property in five months

to Michele Fiedarone (alias Mike Rose) for $2,850.Fiedarone held the parcel until 1918 when he sold itto Dan Odom for $3,500. In 1922 Odom sold it toR.E. Dismukes for $6,300. This transaction and theone in 1923 described above gave Dismukes thenorthern and southern portions of Lot 204. He mayhave come into possession of the parcel situated be-tween these two tracts; however, no deeds post-dat-ing 1878 could be located for this center portion ofproperty. Dismukes sold the southern portion ofLot 204 in 1927 to C.C. Newman for $9,465.

While extant deeds for Lot 204 only date to the1870s, archaeologists have discovered a muchlonger history to the lot. This history includes resi-dents living on the lot in the 1840s and 1850s, aswell as an historic Creek-Euro presence dating priorto that period. Land use of Lot 204 during theseperiods are discussed throughout this chapter. Fig-ure 76 is a laser transit map showing the locationsand relative relationships of features in Lot 204 andits periphery. The reader is referred to this figurefor the remaining discussion in this chapter.

Figure 75. Changing Boundaries Associated with Lot 204.

0 40Feet

120 meters

Lot 203

Lot 201

Lot 204

1886 Division1878 Division1873 DivisionOriginal 1832 Boundary (Lot 204)


170


Figure 76. Transit Map of Features and Lot 204 Boundary.

F. 293F. 294

F. 295

F. 296F. 297F. 299

F. 304

F. 309

F. 310

F. 311F. 313

F. 329

F. 321

F. 322

F. 323F. 324

F. 325

F. 326

F. 327

F. 328

F. 331

F. 333

F. 334

F. 335F. 336

F. 337F. 338

F. 348

F. 345

F. 342

F. 347

F. 110

F. 104

F. 115

F. 112

F. 114

F. 113

F. 105

F.190

F. 189

F. 181

F. 188

F. 183 F. 182

F. 124F. 100

F. 119

F. 169F. 168

F. 154

F. 123

F. 111

F. 122

F. 101

F. 107

F. 11

F. 126

F. 130F. 132

F. 136

F. 145 F. 150

F. 152F. 144

F. 108

N950

N960

N970

N980

N990

N1000

E950 E960 E970 E980 E990 E1000

Lot 206

Lot 205

Lot 203

Lot 202 Lot 201

F. 137

F. 140

F. 139

F. 138

Brick Pier/WallWellAnimal PenCellar Pit

Post/Post ClustersPrivyPossible Dripline

Creek/Euro HearthTrench

F. 129

F. 133

10

0 16

0

ft

m

32

5

F. 320

F. 303

Postmold

Concrete

Lot 204

Underground Storage Pit

Tree

Unexcavated


171


CREEK-EURO FEATURES

Pit, Cooking/Subterranean Oven (Feature 336)

Feature 336 was a subterranean oven containinghistoric Creek Indian pottery and relatively earlyEuropean ceramics. It measured 105 cm east-westby 102 cm north south and was fairly round in planview. Feature fill was dark yellowish brown sandmixed with wood charcoal, burned sticks and brickfragments. This upper layer of fill overlaid a lighteryellow sand zone having lesser amounts of charcoaland brick fragments. Archaeologists uncovered anarticulated coursework of whole, handmade brickand brick fragments at the base of arbitrary Level 2(99.70 m) (Figure 77). This laid brick work wasone course thick (6 cm). Below this was a 6 cm zoneof brown sand interspersed with charcoal flecks.Complete excavation revealed a 27 cm deep, basinshaped pit (Figure 78).

Cross mends between artifacts from the surface andLevel 2 of the feature, and from Level 1 and Level 3,

suggest that the feature was filled relatively quicklyby the same person(s) and activities. For this rea-son, the artifacts are discussed here as one assem-blage rather than by arbitrary excavation levels.Archaeologists observed no cross mends betweenFeature 336 and any other feature on the block.Feature 336 contained a large amount of HistoricCreek ceramics, including 38 burnished bodysherds. Archaeologists were able to mend 10 ofthese into a small bowl with an out-flaring rim mea-suring 36 cm in diameter (Figure 79). European-made ceramics totaled 12 sherds and included 4pearlware sherds (1 underglazed blue handpainted), 5 edgeware (scalloped rim impressed), and3 transfer print sherds. An almost complete irondutch oven lid was recovered, as well as two chertflake fragments, 12 unidentified pieces of iron andthree pieces of clear glass that are possibly gobletglass (Figure 80).

Other artifacts included architectural and clothingitems, and some ecofacts. The feature contained arelatively high number of architectural artifacts,including 16 pieces of window glass, 41 cut nails orcut nail fragments and 35 unidentified nails. Therewere 10 unidentified and one handmade brick in the

Figure 77. An Archaeologist Uncovers In Situ Brick to the Right of the BlueTransfer Print Bowl.


172



Nail B X X Nail ALine levelElv 99.85 mE 984.01N 958.10

E 985.29N 958.08

Bisection Line

3

3

12

3

X X

Plan View, Base of

North Profile

1. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) fine to medium sand with charcoal and brick fragments.

2. Yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) to dark yellowish brown(10YR 5/6) sand with sparse brick fragments and small

3. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand with occasionalcharcoal flecking.

amounts of charcoal.


cm

200 N

Nail B Nail A

Level 2

Brick


173


Figure 79. Part of a Reconstructed Burnished Clay Bowl.

0 .5 1 in

0 12 24m m


174


feature, most inlaid as a single course near the baseof the feature. Clothing artifacts included a silveredstraight pin and six fragments of scissors. Featurefill also contained a small amount of charcoal, wood,six animal bones, and two fish scales.

A total of 12 sherds provided a MCD of 1814.04. Amore reliable date of 1820 was provided by the TPQfor a “Romantic” underglaze stippled transfer printsherd. A total of 41 cut nails offered a pre-1855 datefor the feature fill. The ratio of ceramics to bottleglass was 4:1.

This feature represents a somewhat formal subter-ranean oven, with a partial pad of laid brick at itsbase and sloping dirt walls. The subterranean na-ture of this cooking feature and the presence of cer-tain artifacts such as historic Creek pottery, earlyEuropean wares, a Dutch oven lid, cut nails, scis-sors, and a straight pin all suggest that this is an earlyfeature and that it likely represents the presence ofa Creek woman on site. The permanent nature of theoven indicates that its user probably lived there fora significant amount of time. This may have beenprior to the establishment of Columbus, or duringits early days. She may have been living as the wifeor servant of a Euro-Creek trader or early settler.She had access to European goods, but maintainedsome traditional customs such as cooking methodsand using native pottery.

The presence of a large amountof window glass and nails dur-ing such an early period as this,suggests that a nearby structurewas an established dwellingrather than a hut, squatter’shouse, or poor person’s dwell-ing. Recovery of flat glass indi-cates that the house would havehad expensive glass windows.The glass panes probably ar-rived with the establishment ofregular shipments of goods onvessels up the ChattahoocheeRiver, at the very onset of thebuilding boom resulting fromthe settling of Columbus. Thelarge number of nails suggests awooden structure made of cutbeams and boards rather than alog house. If the house associ-

ated with the subterranean oven was constructedof wooden beams and planks, as hypothesized fromthe large number of cut nails found in the featurefill, then it was likely built after a sawmill was estab-lished in the area during the initial establishment ofthe town and earliest house construction. Even ifthe house was a hybrid of log beam and plank con-struction sitting on piers, it would have requiredhand sawing of planks and nails to hold them in place.The above-average house, the decorated Europeanceramics, the bricks and the “trade goods” itemssuch as the scissors, pin, and iron pot lid depictthings that were expensive or hard to obtain. Fea-ture 336 suggests that the person creating the fea-ture may have been a Creek or mixed-Creek womanliving in a higher status household. The head of thishousehold may have been a deerskin trader of Eu-ropean or mixed Euro-Creek descent, or a fairlywell-to-do early Columbus settler.

Pit (Feature 334)

This pit feature was uncovered near the southernboundary of Lot 204, approximately 10 m south-east of Feature 336. Its function, artifact content,and date range suggest an association with Features336 and 333. Feature 334 was a shallow basinshaped pit measuring 63 cm north-south by 76 cmeast-west. It was roughly oval in plan and measured10 cm deep (Figure 81). Fill consisted of brown siltymicaceous sand with charcoal flecks and a few brick

Figure 80. A Dutch Oven Lid from Pit Feature 336, Lot 204.

0 5cm


175


fragments. Architectural artifacts included 93 uni-dentifiable nails, 1 unidentifiable brick fragment,and 2 pieces of window glass.

Archaeologists recovered 106 ceramic sherds fromFeature 334. There were 31 Creek pottery sherds,of which 20 bodies and 2 rims were plain, 6 weresimple stamped bodies, and 3 were burnished bod-ies. A total of 75 sherds were of European (or Ameri-can) manufacture. These included 42 pearlwaresherds (24 underglaze blue hand painted, 17 plain,and 1 unidentifiably decorated), 14 alkaline glazedstoneware, 12 blue underglaze stippled transferprint, 4 edgeware (scalloped rim impressed,curved), 2 porcelain, and 1 plain creamware.

Other artifacts from Feature 334 included a non-kaolin clay tobacco pipe bowl and clay tobacco pipestem, 34 pieces of animal bone/teeth, 1 fish scale,12 pieces of charcoal, and 31 unidentifiable metalfragments.

A MCD of 1816.82 derived from 73 sherds. A sherdwith a “Romantic” underglaze stippled transfer print

design produced a TPQ of 1820. The feature con-tained five pieces of olive glass. Other bottle glassincluded 5 pieces of clear and 1 piece of aqua. Theceramics to bottle glass ratio was 7.5:1. The largenumber of Creek sherds, albeit small ones, the non-kaolin tobacco pipe fragments, and the pearlwareand creamware sherds suggests that this feature wasprobably made and filled in by some combination ofCreeks and Euro-American inhabitants living hereprior to the establishment of Columbus or during itsvery early years. The small pit may have been dugoriginally as a storage pit, and later used to disposeof trash.

Pit (Feature 130)

Feature 130 was located in what would have beenthe southeastern corner of original town Lot 205,just north of the Lot 204/205 border. This featuremay predate the 1828 establishment of these lotboundaries.

This feature was the size and shape of a shallow pit.It measured one meter in diameter and 25 cm in

Nail A

Nail B X

X X Nail A

N 949.71E 992.73Elv 99.82 m1127

1128

11

1

2

1. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loamy sand with charcoal

2. Strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) sand mottled with charcoal;

green and clear glass, prehistoric ceramics, and bone.


Plan View West Profile

cm

200 N

Post

Post

Nail B X

N 950.55E 992.65Elv 99.79 m

no artifacts.

flecking, transfer print ceramics, alkaline glazed stoneware,



176


depth. Its sloping walls terminated in a flat base.The dark yellowish brown mottled loamy sandleached into lighter yellow sand not discernible ex-cept in the profile and archaeologists excavated allthe feature fill as one zone. Artifacts in Feature 130included 9 handmade and 4 unidentifiable brick frag-ments, 2 cut and 8 unidentifiable nails, 1 piece ofwindow glass, and 7 pieces of roofing slate. Ceram-ics included eight pieces of Chattahoochee Brushedpottery and two unidentifiable sherds. There wasone Euro-American sherd. It was a piece ofhandpainted whiteware. There were four pieces ofclear bottle glass in the fill, as well as 1 brass buttonand minimal amounts of animal bone and oystershell and iron fragments. The feature contained 5chert thinning flakes, 3 chert and 1 quartz flake frag-ment, and 2 river cobbles. At least four pieces ofdebitage were heat-treated.

Feature 130 had a TPQ of 1830 based on the piece ofhand painted whiteware. Several factors suggest thatthis pit may have been used by a household havingboth Creek and European influences. The presenceof Creek pottery and limited Euro-American wares,in a ratio of at least 8:1 is one factor. The recoveryof 11 pieces of debitage is a second, since most ofthe historic features within the project area gener-ally have contained few prehistoric or historic Creeksherds. Finally, the artifacts date to the early 1800s,with the latest diagnostic being 1830. This wouldhave been a period prior to Columbus’ establish-ment or during its early years. Either would havebeen a time when Creek Indians and settlers wereliving in the area. The existence of Feature 130 inthe general proximity of the other Creek features onthe area now known as Lot 204 suggests a morelikely relationship between those entities than be-tween the feature and its location just inside the Lot204/205 boundary line.

Summary of Creek-Euro Featureson Lot 204

Features 334, 336, and 130 appear to be Euro-Creekfeatures, made by a household that included at leastone Creek member and one Euro-American mem-ber. Features 334 and 336 are located within thesouthern portion of original Lot 204. They laywithin a 20 meter area of each other and are basin-shaped. One (F. 336) appeared to have been used asa subterranean oven and then a trash pit. The origi-nal use of the other (F. 334) is not conclusive, butboth it and Feature 130 appear to have been usedlast as trash pits. Feature 130 was located approxi-mately 45 meters northeast of Features 334 and336. All three Euro-Creek features ranged in diam-eter from 76-100 cm and were 10-27 cm thick. Eachhad Creek pottery and Euro-American ceramics,although there seems to be no commonality in theratios of Creek to Euro sherds between features. Thismay be due to the small sampling size of only threefeatures.

The most striking similarity between all three fea-tures is the artifact content (Table 9). Common ar-tifacts among the three include cut nails and win-dow glass, Creek pottery, and Euro-American ce-ramics. All three features contained some of theseveral items typically associated with deerskintraders such as straight pins, scissors, hooks andeyes, and Dutch oven lids or iron kettles. Charac-teristics identified by the author as indicating Creekor Creek-Euro features are discussed more in theinterpretation chapter of this report. Other arti-facts considered reflections of higher status house-holds during the late 18th and early 19th centurieswere discovered in these three features. These arti-facts included goblet glass, and more expensive ce-

Table 9. Euro-Creek Features, Lot 204.Totals

Pottery Totals Feature Number

Creek Euro-

American

Cut Nails

Window Glass

Lithics Present

MCD TPQ Feature Function

Maximum Dimension

cm Thickness

Traditional Deerskin

Trade Artifacts

334 31 75 UD 93 2 No 1817 1820 Shallow Pit 76 10 Poss. goblet glass, olive green bottle

glass

336 28-38* 12 41 16 Yes 1814 1820 Pit, Cooking 105 27 Straight pin, scissors, kettle, poss. goblet

glass

130 8-10 1 2, UD 8 1 Yes N/A 1830 Shallow Pit 100 25 Brass button, possible goblet glass


177


ramics such as hand painted and transfer printeddesigns. Native American interaction, however, isvisible in the Creek pottery and clay tobacco pipes.All three features contained animal bone and or fishscales. (See previous chapter for faunal analysis re-sults concerning these Creek features and those ofLot 200).

EARLY NON-CREEK FEATURES (LATE 18TH-EARLY 19TH CENTURY)

Large Pit (Feature 333)

Feature 333 was a large pit located just south of theboundary line between Lot 204 and 201. In spite ofits location just inside the northeastern corner ofLot 201, it is likely that Feature 333 is associatedwith Lot 204 occupation. Feature 333 was locatedapproximately 12 m southeast of Feature 334 andwas probably associated with it. Feature 333 ap-peared as a large-diameter stain measuring 200 cmeast-west by 161 cm north south. The pit termi-nated 49 cm below its observed top. Archaeolo-gists excavated it in three natural zones.

Zone 1 was a 13 cm thick lens consisted of a brownloamy sand intermixed with wood charcoal, riverpebbles and brick fragments. Zone 1 was the thin-nest zone, yet it contained the largest amount of ar-tifacts. Architectural artifacts comprised the singlelargest category. Archaeologists recovered 853pieces of window glass, 160 cut nails or fragments,609 unidentifiable nails, and 1 iron spike. Remain-ing artifacts in Zone 1 included three clothing items(1 brass hook and eye and 2 straight pins), 2 ceram-ics (1 alkaline glazed stoneware and 1 hotelware), 9kitchen glass (3 clear bottle glass, 3 olive green bottleglass, 2 very thin clear curved glass, and 1 gobletrim), and metal artifacts (part of a cast iron lid, ametal hook). Other artifacts recovered from thiszone included one each of the following: animalbone, oyster shell, and fire cracked rock.

Zone 2 was 22 cm thick lens of very light yellowishbrown coarse sand. This zone consisted primarilyof architectural artifacts, with the exception of ablue underglaze stippled transfer print sherd. Zone2 had not only less variety than Zone 1, but had fewerarchitectural artifacts. This included 2 unidentifi-able brick fragments, 179 window glass fragments,

197 cut nails, 145 unidentified nails, and 7 pieces ofplaster.

The final zone of the feature, Zone 3, extended fromthe bottom of the feature and up the eastern side. Itmeasured 14 cm thick. Zone 3 fill was brown loamysand similar to soils in Zone 1. This zone contained13 pieces of window glass, 20 cut nails, 24unidentifiable nails, and 1 animal bone fragment.

Feature 333 had a TPQ of 1818 based on the recov-ery of a blue underglaze stippled transfer print sherd.The two ceramics in the feature were not enough toproduce a reliable MCD. There were no Creek ce-ramics in this feature fill. The presence of only cutnails and unidentifiable nails produced a nail date ofpre-1855. The ceramic to bottle glass ratios was0.38:1.

This pit was dug for an unknown purpose, perhapsstorage. The feature served a final purpose as a trashpit and was filled in sometime between 1818 and thevery early years of Columbus’ establishment. Thedisposal of large amounts of architectural materialssuch as window glass and cut nails in Feature 333suggests that it represents the destruction of at leastone wooden building, likely a house, having glasswindows and some plaster walls. A TPQ of 1818,square nails, olive green glass, goblet glass, straightpins, and a hook and/or eye suggest a very earlyperiod for Feature 333. The glass and sewing para-phernalia suggests a Creek-associated feature, how-ever the lack of Creek pottery and the huge amountsof window glass (n=1,045) and nails (cut, n=377;unidentifiable, n=778) argue against such an ethnicassociation. The house represented by the archi-tectural debris in Feature 333 is atypical. Fancyhouses with plaster walls and glazed panes were notcommon in pre-Columbus and early Columbus.Quickly assembled huts, log cabins and other plainstructures were more typical. Clearly, however, thearchaeological record shows contrary evidence inthis area.

Cellar (Feature 310)

Feature 310 was likely a cellar. It was located in thesoutheastern quadrant of original Lot 204. A mod-ern trench bisected the top of the feature. Thistrench fill generally ran north-south, and archae-


178


ologists removed it to avoid contamination of thefeature fill. While it was only eight meters northeastof cellar Feature 335, it predates that cellar by sev-eral decades. Feature 310 has a MCD of 1809.22(n=29). A TPQ of 1830 was derived from a whitewaresherd, handpainted green. The next most recentbegin date of any of the artifacts was 1826, based onan unimpressed blue, scalloped edgeware sherd ofpearlware. The ceramics to bottle glass ratio of thisfeature was 12.67:1.

The cellar labeled Feature 310 measured 276 cmeast-west by 160 cm north-south. It was mapped asa fairly rectangular stain in plan view, with roundedcorners on the north side. The southern and easternwalls of the feature were undercut resulting in a some-what bell-shaped pit. This may have been the resultof erosion of the sandy cellar walls in this area. Themaximum depth of the cellar was 75 cm below thestripped ground surface. Archaeologists observedno evidence of any wall covering on the sand walls.The cellar floor was very informal, with no evidenceof wood plank or brick flooring. It sloped 40 cmover a distance of 185 cm. This slope on the westernside of the feature may have been an intentional rampproviding easier access to the items stored in theroot cellar.

Archaeologists excavated the cellar in two arbitrarylevels and one natural level. Levels 1 and 2 werearbitrarily divided into a 32 cm and 30 cm level,respectively, based on slightly less mottling of thebrown and yellow brown sand in the latter. Level 2sloped into a point in profile. Level 3 followed theramp slope and terminated into a 42 cm thick zoneon the eastern side of the feature. The MCDs werebased on a small sample size, but they did get olderwith deepth. Levels 1, 2, and 3 had a MCD each of1811.10 (n=23), 1802 (n=5) and 1802 (n=1).

Artifacts recovered from Feature 310 includedmostly architectural and kitchen items. Little dif-ference was seen in the types and dates of artifacts inLevels 1 and 2, or in the fill of those levels. For thesereasons, artifacts from both levels will be discussedtogether here. Levels 1 and 2 contained 36 cut nailsand cut nail fragments, 1 unidentifiable nail, 2 piecesof window glass, and an iron hinge. One brick, possi-bly machine made was found in Level 1. It may haveoriginated in the modern trench-disturbed area.

Pearlware with various decorative motifs made upthe bulk of the ceramics from this feature. Levels 1and 2 contained 11 underglaze blue hand paintedand 10 plain pearlware sherds. Archaeologistscounted 5 blue edgeware sherds, including 2 scal-loped unimpressed and 3 impressed. An annularware sherd was also pearlware. Other decorativemotifs included a polychrome hand painted sherdand a handpainted whiteware sherd. A total of 6white-bodied sherds were plain. The remaining ce-ramics in Levels 1 and 2 appear to be of Creek manu-facture. These include 2 burnished and 1 unidenti-fiable sherds. Other artifacts in Levels 1 and 2 in-cluded minimal amounts of animal bone and oystershell, 3 clear bottle glass fragments, an iron key, apiece of unidentifiable lead, 1 ground stone, 4 flakefragments, 1 fire cracked rock and a river cobble.

Level 3 of Feature 310 included one of each of thefollowing: cut nail, porcelain, underglaze blue handpainted pearlware, white bodied ceramic, animalbone, fish scale, thinning flake, unspecialized flakeand river cobble. Level 3 contained slightly less fillby volume than Levels 1 and 2 combined, but farfewer artifacts. The artifacts that were there, how-ever, were generally typical of those in the upperlevels.

Feature 310 appears to have been the cellar of anearly Columbus house and is not associated withthe structure on the 1889 Sanborn map. The pres-ence of Creek sherds suggests a possible associationwith a household containing Creek and Euro-Ameri-can members. The relatively small number of Creeksherds, however, contrasted with other featurescontaining Creek pottery in the project area sug-gest that this cellar and its associated structure mayhave been less likely to have been used by Creeksand more likely by early Columbus Euro-Americansettlers. The lack of typical trade items, such askettle parts, scissors, and sewing paraphernalia alsosupports a Euro-American occupation. The datesof the artifacts within the feature indicate that thecellar was used on the cusp of the establishment ofColumbus, or during its very early years. The arti-facts also indicate that the cellar was filled in notmuch later.


179


Possible Cellar (Feature 329)

Feature 329 was an extremely large, amorphousstain uncovered in the western central part of Lot204. It measured 5.20 m north-south by 3.2 m east-west and was truncated by a modern brick wall. Alarge amount of rubble consisting of hand-madebricks was visible on the surface of the feature andextended in many places to the edges of the stain.Given the size of the feature, archaeologists bisectedit on a north-south axis and excavated all of Level 1and most of Level 2 on the feature’s eastern side.They then sampled the far southeastern section ofthe feature to subsoil. Feature fill in the southeast-ern section extended 48 cm. Archaeologists thenexcavated a 50 cm square unit 40 cm north of thesampled area. The feature extended to the sameamount in this section, as well, but the stratigraphyvaried slightly.

Level 1 was dark yellowish brown sand with brickrubble. Artifacts on the stripped surface of the fea-ture and within this level included 2 cut and 10 uni-dentifiable nails, and 1 window glass fragment. Atotal of 10 pieces of pressed glass, 2 clear bottle glass,and 1 amber bottle glass lie in this level. The total ofamount of ceramics was low but the variety was high.Ceramics included 3 underglaze stippled transferprint sherds in miscellaneous colors, 1 stonewareginger beer bottle, and 4 ironstone sherds. Onemodern artifact, a “U” shaped piece of graphite pos-sibly from a battery or an electric motor may repre-sent contamination from bioturbation. A small sec-tion of the Level 1-Level 2 transition zone containedthree unidentifiable brick and nails.

Level 2 was comprised of dark yellowish brown andbrownish yellow water lain sands and contained al-most entirely Native American artifacts, with theexception of two unidentifiable nails and a few brickfragments. Remaining artifacts included ceramicsand debitage, with minimal animal bone. There were4 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds; 1 plain, burnished;and 1 plain, sand/grit tempered sherd. Chert andquartz debitage included 4 thinning flakes, 3 flakefragments and 4 fire cracked rock.

Feature excavation of the eastern half of the stainwas stepped down near the base of Level 2 to a 50cm sample that encountered Levels 3 and 4. Level 3was dark yellowish brown sand with some charcoal

flecks but no brick fragments or pebbles. The soleartifact in Level 3 was a Chattahoochee Brushedsherd and Level 4, mottled yellowish brown sand,was sterile.

The feature appeared somewhat more regular inprofile than it did in plan. Its profile revealed a flatbase and deep sides that were only slightly sloped innature. The profile shape suggests a cellar, how-ever, the extremely large, linear, and rather amor-phous nature of the stain in plan suggests a gully ortrench. The nature of the artifacts within the fill,dating to the same general period, however, doesnot support the hypothesis of a gully produced byerosion. Such a gully should contain artifacts frommultiple periods of occupation and feature fill shouldreflect alternating lenses of water deposited sands.The steep, almost vertical walls of the feature andits brick-rubble filled interior offer the strongestsupport for the function of Feature 329 to have beena cellar. It is possible that the rectangular hole wasdug solely to dispose (or even curate) the brick stock-pile. The lack of later artifacts and the low density ofartifacts from feature fill suggest that the feature wasfilled early in Columbus’ history. The stratigraphyconsisted of three to four equally thick layers of soilmeasuring approximately 15 cm. Level 2 was theonly stratum showing evidence of water lain sands.Archaeologists excavated the sample areas in theseobserved natural strata.

MID-19TH CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FEA-TURES UNASSOCIATED WITH SANBORN

STRUCTURES (POST-CREEK INDIAN/PRE-SANBORN PERIOD)

Cellar (Feature 11)

The Feature 11 cellar represents a mid-nineteenthcentury occupation of Lot 204 and the location ofone of the earlier structures on the lot (Structure 3).It was located in a backhoe trench during the origi-nal survey of the lot (Figure 82). The top zone offeature fill was a black sand containing charcoal andburned plaster that stood out extremely well fromthe yellow brown sand matrix. The southern por-tion of the feature lay in the trench, with the north-ern portion extending into the trench’s northernwall. Archaeologists excavated the southeasternquadrant of the exposed feature and determined itto be a cellar full of burned debris originating from


180


Figure 82. Archaeologists Discovered a Cellar(Feature 11) in this Survey Trench, Lot 204.


181


the structure above it. Some debris fell into the cel-lar as the building burned, covering a few bottlesand dishes that were on the cellar floor (Figure 83).The remaining debris was pushed into the cellar af-ter the fire in an effort to clean up the area and fill inthe hole. Archaeologists documented the southernportion of the feature, excavated the southeasternquad, and in-filled the trench.

Archaeologists returned to Feature 11 during thedata recovery phase of the project. Following back-hoe stripping of the site and exposure of the remain-

der of Feature 11, they removed the fill from thesoutheastern quadrant of the feature. They drewthe feature in plan and mapped it with a laser tran-sit. The overall dimensions of the cellar were 1.9 mnorth-south by 4.25 m east-west. The cellar was 50cm in depth, and does not appear to have been trun-cated to any great degree, almost certainly less than30 cm, at the top. There were four zones of featurefill capped by a layer of alternating lenses of soilsfrom the area surrounding the feature. These aredepicting in the profile drawings in Figure 84).

Zone 10 was the deepest stratum and laydirectly on top of the reddish brown sub-soil. Zone 10 was dark grayish brownsilty sand with charcoal and may repre-sent soil tracked into the cellar duringor after cellar construction. It had a MCDof 1848.36 (n=26). This zone had fewerarchitectural artifacts than the levelsabove, with 34 nails, 2 pieces of windowglass and 3 u.d. metal artifacts. A totalof 20 ceramics were in this zone alongwith 9 bottle glass fragments. Minimalamounts of animal bone, oyster shell, andeggshell were deposited within this stra-tum.

Zone 9 was dark yellowish brown waterlain sand. Ceramics within Zone 9 pro-duced an MCD of 1848.84 (n=22). It layon top of Zone 10 and had more of everytype of artifact than did Zone 10. Archi-tectural items included a handmadebrick, 33 window glass fragments, 233nails or fragments, 6 pieces of mortar andplaster, and 8 roofing slate fragments.Archaeologists recovered a total of 33historic ceramics and 5 prehistoricsherds from this zone. Slightly more ani-mal bone and oyster shell was observed.There were a total of 40 bottle glass frag-ments, and minimal amounts of pressedand flat glass. Unidentifiable metal frag-ments tallied 23. Aboriginal lithic de-bris constituted 5 pieces.

Directly above Zone 9 was the mix ofvery dark grayish brown silty sand anddark yellowish brown sand of Zone 8.This latter zone had only 11 diagnosticFigure 83. Artifacts Laying on the Cellar Floor

When the House Caught Fire.


182


12

3 4 3

5

7 768 8

910 11

1111

10

Asphalt

Feature 11W 1/2Unexcavated

Unexcavated

1. Red (2.5YR 5/8) coarse sand with abundant gravel fill for asphalt base.

2. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand with abundant gravel.

3. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand.4. Concrete.5. Alternating lenses of layers 7, 6, and 3.

6. Feature 11, Zone A. Black (10YR 2/1) sandy charcoal with small to medium piecesof heated altered plaster ranging from black to reddish orange in color.

7. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sand with common lighter small mottles.

8. Feature 11, Zone B. Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty sand with common charcoal flecks and small mottles of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand.

9. Feature 11, Zone C. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) lamelli, waterlain with rare charcoal flecks.

10. Feature 11, Zone D. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silty sand with common charcoal flecks.

11. Subsoil. Strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) sandy clay.

cm

0 50

Feature 11, Block 10, Lot 204South Profile4m west of SE

corner of Trench 3

10

Figure 84. Feature 11, Profile of a Portion of the Cellar Excavated During Survey, Lot 204.

ceramics that produced a MCD of 1849.13. Artifactsin Zone 8 were similar to Zone 10, in that both zoneshad fewer artifacts than Zones 9 and 6. There were 7pieces of window glass, 28 nails, and one piece ofmortar in Zone 8. This zone had 11 ceramics and 12pieces of bottle glass. Minimal amounts of animalbone and oyster shell were located in this zone, aswere 5 cinders or clinkers.

Zone 6 was directly on top of Zone 8. Zone 6 wasblack sand with large amounts of charcoal and heataltered plaster. Zone 6 measured 25 cm thick, butpinched into a thin lens toward the southwesternportion of the feature. The MCD of Zone 6, all strata,was 1854.36 (n=111). Zone 6 sported by far thegreatest amounts of artifacts in addition to the great-est variety. Architectural artifacts included 449pieces of window glass, 2,592 nails, 74 pieces of plas-

ter, 9 roofing slate fragments, 24 ceramic doorknobfragments, and small amounts of ceramic tile, hand-made and u.d. brick, a piece of plate glass and 1 pieceof plumbing hardware. Archaeologists recovered atotal of 140 ceramics and 137 bottle glass frag-ments. Zone 6 contained other artifacts not foundin the other cellar zones. This included clothingitems such as buttons, a copper alloy furniture finial,a piece of goblet glass, and a keyhole plate.

Zone 6 was overlain by alternating lenses of sur-rounding soils (including Zones 7, 6, and 3) in Zone5. Above this lay Zone 3, a dark yellowish brownsand. Zone 3 was topped by a crush and run pre-pared bed and an overlying asphalt surface. Most,if not all, of these zones represent modern day land-scape modification on the lot.


183


Zooarchaeologists studied samples of the faunal re-mains found in the cellar fill. These were includedas part of a larger assemblage of bone from Lot 204,subdivided into chronological periods. These as-semblages and the interpretation of the faunal re-mains are discussed in greater detail in the interpre-tation section of this report.

The cellar was large with dirt walls and a woodenfloor that sat upon several wooden floor joists (Fig-ure 85). The cellar served as a large, but probablyshallow storage facility beneath a house (Figure 86).The cellar flooded on several occasions, which mayhave been the impetus to the construction of awooden floor made of boards. Someone swept thefloor occasionally, but not particularly neatly asthey left sweepings in the cellar corners and alongedges of the wall. The house was a wooden structureas suggested by the almost 3,000 nails recovered.The house above the cellar was fairly fancy with atleast some painted, plastered walls in its interior.The house boasted glass panes in its windows, asindicated by the 491 pieces recovered from cellarfill. The small sample size of faunal material, therelatively small counts of ceramics (n=204) andbottle glass fragments (n=198), the existence of glasswindows rather than shuttered openings, and thepresence of painted plaster suggest that the struc-ture above the cellar was a house rather than akitchen outbuilding. The house above the cellarburned, sending burned wood fragments and heatedand broken plaster into the cellar, leaving a 25 cmdeposit of debris. The remainder of the burnedhouse may have been pushed into the cellar hole.Later the ground was leveled. At some point in rela-tively modern history the ground was prepared foran asphalt parking lot.

Certain diagnostic ceramics and nails contribute adate range for use of the cellar and the house aboveit, as well as a time frame for its sudden and dra-matic filling. The MCD of sherds in all levels of thecellar fill was 1852.25 (n=179). Excavation uncov-ered a plain c.c. ware bowl with a maker’s mark of“Edward Clarke” and “Turnstall” lying on the cellarfloor, beneath all the fill zones. Clarke’s pottery pro-duced the Turnstall ceramic mark between 1865-1877 (Godden 1996:147). The TPQ of this sherd in-dicates that the cellar was still in use by at least 1865.The next most-recent TPQ is 1850 for wire nails. Allof the diagnostic nails recovered from the cellar pro-

duced a nail date range of 1855-1875. In summary,therefore, it appears that residents lived in the houseabove the cellar during the 1850s and 1860s, until itburned. The bowl lying on the cellar floor indicatesthat the house did not burn down and become cellarfill until at least 1865, but possibly later. The MCDand the types of artifacts located within the burneddebris of the house suggest that the fire most likelyoccurred during the mid-to late 1860s as opposedto the mid to late 1870s.

It is possible that the fire was a result of Wilson’sRaid on Columbus at the end of the Civil War in Aprilof 1865. (See Chapter 3 for a further discussion ofthis possibility and the Civil War in Columbus.) Whileprivate homes usually were not targeted by theUnion, it is quite possible that the fires and explo-sions during Wilson’s Raid sparked a fire on the houseon Lot 204. The bowl with the maker’s mark of 1865may have been a recent addition to the householdsometime between January and mid-April of thatyear. Likewise, the fire may have been a result ofmob looting and plundering activity reported byUnion officers after Wilson’s Raid on the town.

The first surviving documentation of a subdivisionof Lot 204 occurred in 1873 when the northern halfof the lot was sold along with the northern half ofadjacent Lot 203. The Feature 11 cellar occupiedthe northern half of Lot 204, and the fiery destruc-tion of the house above it and the resulting infillingof debris into the cellar may have been an eventualcatalyst for the 1873 parcel sale. Certainly the tur-moil of the Civil War and resulting Reconstructionwere likely to have played a role in the partitioningand sales of the lot. The cellar and associated housewere no longer functional by the time Theresa Warrsold the northern half of the lot to P.J. Biggers in1873.

A thick porcelain lid sherd recovered from the cel-lar mended with a sherd from a well (F. 152) ap-proximately 17 m northeast of the feature, just onthe edge of the northern property line of Lot 204.The sherd was in Zone 6 of the cellar and in TrackhoeSection 3, Zone 7 of the well. This mend clearlyassociates the two features with each other, with thesame time period, and with the same person orpeople. Trackhoe Section 3 was the lowermost sec-tion of the excavated well, reaching a depth of al-most 16 ft. The lid broke in the house, where most of


184


Figure 85. Archaeologists Recorded Locations of Trenches ThatAccomodated Floor-Board Joists.

Plan View

North Profile

1 2

34

1. Black (10YR 2/1) sand with charcoal flecks purned plaster. Zone 6.

2. Very dark gray (10YR 3/2) silty sand with common charcoal flecks and common small

mottles of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand.

3. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) waterlain fine sand. Zone 9.

4. Dark gray (10YR 4/1) silty clay. Zone 10.

2

2

unexcavated


cm

200 N

Blueedgeware

Trench at base of cellar.

Bisectionline


185


the sherds were swept up. These fragments werethen discarded in the bottom of the well (F. 152),which had just recently begun to be used as a gar-bage receptacle after another adjacent, abandonedwell (F. 104) had been completely filled with gar-bage. [See section about wells later in this chapterfor details.] The sherds that were overlooked in thesweeping process became part of the debris fallinginto the cellar when the house burned.


Archaeologists discovered a cellar (F. 335) approxi-mately one meter (3.5 ft) north of the house loca-tion depicted on the Sanborn map. Feature 335 wasa rectangular cellar located along the northern edgeof the composite parcel whose northern boundarylines were established in 1878. The cellar was ori-ented east-west and measured 339 cm east-west by200 cm north-south. A total of 19 posts were re-corded in and near this feature. Most were alignedalong the northern wall of the feature, approxi-mately 10 cm away from the cellar edge and arelikely associated with a property line division withinLot 204. Others were truncated by the feature, andtherefore predated it. Some of the posts that laywithin the feature went through the cellar fill andpost-dated it while others could not be determined

to be truncated by the cellar or to be truncating thecellar. A few posts showed evidence of replacement.The post pattern suggests two things. First, thecellar’s superstructure appears to have been of simi-lar size to the cellar. Secondly, wooden posts ratherthan a brick foundation supported the superstruc-ture.

The superstructure may have been a kitchen or ahouse. The amount of bottle glass (n=301), ceram-ics (n=57), kitchen metal (n=43) and animal bone(n=11) totals 412 artifacts in the Kitchen classifica-tion. In contrast, there were 57 Activities, 4 Cloth-ing, 4 Arms, 3 Personal, and 1 Tobacco artifacts.The more than 400 artifacts in the Kitchen classifi-cation suggest the cellar’s superstructure may havebeen a kitchen. The overwhelming majority of arti-facts fell within the Miscellaneous classification(n=812) followed by 546 artifacts in the Architec-ture classification.

Cellar excavation revealed well-defined, verticalwalls that had not been lined with brick, wood, orany other material. The cellar measured 37 cm thickand contained six distinctive fill layers in sevenzones. Fill zones in Feature 335 generally consistedof sand containing coal and brick fragments; mor-tar, brick and granite; or coal, iron, and other arti-

Figure 86. Cellar Feature 11, Lot 204 After Complete Excavation, Lot 204.


186


facts. Zones were generally horizontal, althoughlarge artifacts deposited in the northeastern sectioncontributed to a noticeable elevation change in thezones resulting in a greater slope among zones here.Two strata of Zone B were separated by Zone C, sug-gesting that all three may have been deposited in arelatively short period of time. In spite of this possi-bility, archaeologists were unable to find any mendsbetween any of the ceramics in the seven zones.

These zones were more easily discernible in profilethan plan, and the eastern half of the feature wasexcavated in two arbitrary levels rather than natu-ral strata. Level 1 ranged in depth from 15-20 cmand Level 2 was 12-15 cm. Artifacts from these lev-els are documented in the inventory in the Appen-dix A Rickets three-piece molded amber bottle wasembossed with an 1862 date. Level 1 fill also in-cluded two Durkee’s Salad Dressing bottles patentedin 1877. Another embossed bottle had a patent dateof 1911. An ironstone sherd contained a maker’smark for Homer Laughlin’s “Hudson” pattern, whichwas made between 1903 and 1920. A TPQ of 1915was provided by a clear, machine-made tobaccobottle found in Level 1. The 3 in 1 Oil bottle fromLevel 2 has a TPQ of 1894, since that product was notinvented until that year (Editor 2001:4). The oil wassold in bottles until 1912. Supporting evidence forthis date comes from a secondary TPQ of 1892 inLevel 2 came from a metal crown bottle cap. A MCDfor both levels of 1854 was produced by 41 diagnos-tic ceramics. The ratio of cut to wire nails for Levels1 and 2 combined, produced a nail date of 1875-1895.

The cellar does not align with any structures on the1889 or 1907 Sanborn maps. Based on this negativeevidence and the dates of artifacts within the fill, thecellar was associated with a structure predating 1889.Feature 335 may have been a cellar associated withan outbuilding such as a kitchen, or with a house. Itis likely that it was a separate kitchen associated withStructure 6. It would most likely have been an ac-tive kitchen during the mid nineteenth century. The1886 lot division just skirts the northern edge of thecellar, suggesting that the building was still standingin this year, or at least the ruins and rubble-filledcellar. The superstructure was definitely gone by1889, since it does not appear on the Sanborn mapsfor that year. The preponderance of late nineteenthto early twentieth century dates suggests that the

lot occupants were beginning to fill the cellar bythis period and may have finished the process bythe first few decades of the twentieth century. Theperiod of infilling would coincide with lot owner-ship by the Wright family and then later by AnnaTaylor. The MCD suggests a much earlier date of1854. It is possible that residents discontinued us-ing the cellar as a cellar, even while continuing touse its superstructure, as early as the mid-nine-teenth century. They may have begun to slowly fillthe cellar with trash throughout the ensuing decadesuntil by 1889 the building above it no longer re-mained. Lot occupants continued to throw early19th century trash into the ever-slumping hole thatwas once the cellar.

Such infilling causes one to speculate that perhapsunlined cellars were not suited to the sandy soil ofColumbus, resulting in a short life expectancy forthese architectural features. The relatively largedimension of the cellar, contrasted with its shallowdepth, strongly suggests that the upper portions ofthis feature were razed historically through land-scape modification.

Several imported items were readily visible. Theseincluded ceramics and foodstuffs. Residents used amolded porcelain pitcher with green hand paintedroses made in Germany. They ate condiments andother food items imported from across the UnitedStates, including Durkee’s Salad Dressing from NewYork, and beer from Indianapolis. They also dranklocally brewed spirits, as suggested by the half-pintbottle embossed “Chatt” and non-alcoholic bever-ages such as Coca-Cola and ginger beer. These bev-erages were accompanied by some foodstuffs in-cluding meat, eggs, peaches, and probably oysters.Canning jars contained produce that was packed forlong-term storage.

Archaeologists found a total of eight bottles (LN 823,825) of E.R. Durkee’s Salad Dressing in the upper-most level of the well (Feature 335) on Block 10, Lot204. The location of the bottles in the same strataof the well suggests that they were all disposed ofwithin a short period of time, probably by the sameindividual or family. The Durkee’s registration markon the bottle base suggests a post-1882 date. Themold seams of the bottle place it into the automaticmachine made bottle category with a begin date of1915. These bottles help tell archaeologists that the


187


top of the well was still being filled with trash as lateas the first two decades of the twentieth century,although the well easily could have been abandonedand partially filled at a much earlier date.

Archaeologists also found Lea and Perrin bottles andglass stoppers in features in Lots 200 and 204 onBlock 10. The cellar (Feature 335) on Lot 204 heldsome remains (LN 825). [Others lay along the north-ern fence line of Lot 200, in Feature 244, Zone 8 (LN771); and in the uppermost level of a well (Feature

221) (LN 566) onthe same lot].The 2nd Avenuebottles (LN 825,771, and 566)are embossed,“JDS” for JohnDuncan’s Sons( Z u m w a l t1980:269). Thisembossing ap-pears on bottlesmanufactured inSalem, New Jer-sey and filledwith the im-ported saucethere. This bot-tling was donebetween 1877-1921 (the bottleswere no longerembossed after1921) (Zumwalt1980:269. The2nd Avenuesauce bottles,therefore, helpdate the part ofthe feature inwhich they werefound to be-tween 1877-1921, or later.

Another type ofcondiment rep-resented in

downtown Columbus included Lea and Perrins’Worchestershire Sauce. Its long history began in

1837 when two British druggists, John Wheeley Leaand William Henry Perrins, began manufacturing andmarketing their secret recipe and imported it to theUnited States sometime between 1838-1840(Zumwalt 1980:269). Even factory workers in En-gland were not allowed to learn the ingredients orcomplete process of manufacture. An attempt atreplicating the recipe by other pharmacists in 1876included the following ingredients: vinegar, walnutand mushroom catsups, madeira wine, canton soy,salt, allspice and coriander seed, mace and cinna-mon, assafoetida, brandy, and chopped hog’s liver(Rinker n.d.). Today’s recipe is somewhat differentand includes vinegar, molasses, high fructose cornsyrup, anchovies, water, hydrolyzed soy and cornprotein, onions, tamarinds, salt, garlic, cloves, chilipeppers, shallots, and natural flavorings (AllenVegotsky, personal communication, June 20,2000).

LATE 19TH TO EARLY 20TH CENTURY

ACTIVITIES ON LOT 204

Structures and Related Features

The many subdivisions of Lot 204 mentioned abovein deed references were plotted to scale on graphpaper by archaeologists following fieldwork. Ar-chaeologists then printed a map of the relict postlocations recorded with a laser transit during field-work. Researchers overlaid this post map, whichalso contained documented features, on top of thelot boundary map. Rows of fence posts indicatingold fence lines were instrumental in determining thechanging exterior boundary of Lot 204, as well aschanges to internal partitioning (Figure 87). Find-ing the boundaries of the various parcels was im-portant and allowed archaeologists to attempt toassociate particular wells, cellars, and other featureswith specific parcels, and with the parcel owners andresidents. While researchers could not discover thenames of all the owners and residents of each parcel,they were able to determine which features were lo-cated within which parcels and try to tie the featureassemblages to individual households and time pe-riods. Archaeologists examined the Sanborn mapsto discover the locations of late nineteenth and earlytwentieth century structures. Figures 88 and 89 areredrawings of such maps from 1889 and 1907 forLot 204. Archaeologists then overlaid this informa-tion with the laser transit map of features, to pro-

In 1850 Eugene R. Durkeepeddled door-to-door his home-ground spices, which initially con-s is ted of b lack pepper , ce lerysalt, and curry powder. Alwaysan entrepreneur , he operatedvar ious drugstores throughoutNew York f rom 1850 to the1870s (Zumwalt 1980:129). Fol-lowing passage of an act to reg-ister t rademarks, Durkee wasone of the first registrants, usinghis line of newly developed prod-ucts. Durkee experimented andmarketed mustard (as a season-ing and a de-wormer), laundrystarch-even bird food in 1906,in addition to his salad dressing(Zumwalt 1980:129) . Durkee’sreputation for a quality productled the United States governmentto ask h im to def ine industrystandards for spices for the PureFood and Drug Act. His reputa-tion for pure products resultedin consumer popularity for theDurkee line of spices. This popu-lar i ty is obvious because thebrand still exists today after sev-eral corporate mergers and buy-outs. Durkee’s bottles have beenuncovered on numerous other ar-chaeologica l s i tes , f rom theTechwood/Clark Howel l UrbanRevi ta l izat ion Tract in At lanta(Gardner et a l . 1998) toSkagway, A laska’s Mi l l CreekDump/Peniel Mission Site (Rhodes1988) .


188


F. 293F. 294

F. 295

F. 296F. 297F. 299

F. 304

F. 309

F. 310

F. 311F. 313

F. 329

F. 321

F. 322

F. 323F. 324

F. 325

F. 326

F. 327

F. 328

F. 331

F. 333

F. 334

F. 335F. 336

F. 337F. 338

F. 348

F. 345

F. 342

F. 347

F. 110

F. 104

F. 115

F. 112

F. 114

F. 113

F. 105

F.190

F. 189

F. 181

F. 188

F. 183 F. 182

F. 124F. 100

F. 119

F. 169F. 168

F. 123

F. 111

F. 122

F. 101

F. 107

F. 11

F. 126

F. 130F. 132

F. 136

F. 145 F. 150

F. 152F. 144

F. 108

N950

N960

N970

N980

N990

N1000

E950 E960 E970 E980 E990 E1000

Lot 206

Lot 205

Lot 203

Lot 202 Lot 201

F. 137

F. 140

F. 139

F. 138

Brick Pier/WallWellAnimal PenCellar Pit

Post/Post ClustersPrivyPossible Dripline

Creek/Euro HearthTrench

F. 129

F. 133

10

0 16

0

ft

m

32

5

F. 320

F. 303

Postmold

Concrete

Lot 204

Underground Storage Pit

Tree

Unexcavated,

F. 154

F.298

F.300F.301F.302

F.306--

F.307

--Cen

terline

-- Clay

Pipe

F.308F.312

F.314--Centerline -- Pipe

F.315--Centerline -- Pipe

F.330

F.332

F.341

F.343

F.344

F.121

F.349

F.350

F.190

F.1

87 M

etal

Pip

e

F.184

F.180

F.179

F.176

F.175F.174

F.153

F.173

F.170

F.172F.171

F.167F.166

F.165

F.164

F.157

F.128

F.118

F.156

F.155

F.160F.158F.159

F.161

F.162F.163

F. 117

F. 120 Pipe

F. 126

F. 127

F. 131

F. 132

F. 134

F. 135 Modern Pipe

F. 150

F. 152

F. 148

F. 147F. 146

F. 108

F. 151 -- Modern

F. 141

F. 142

F. 143 F. 140

F. 139

F. 138

F. 133

Centerline -- Gaspipe

Non-cultural, or Modern

1886 Division1878 Division1873 DivisionOriginal 1832 Boundary (Lot 204)

Figure 87. Overlay of Lot 204 Divisions on Feature Map.


189


Figure 88. Redrawing of 1889 Sanborn Showing Lot 204.

D

D

D

15311527

1523

Servants

1523 1/2

Servants1531 1/2

1501

1501 1/2

D

Chattahoochee R

iver

1st Ave

15th Street

Lot 204

Lot 200

20

0 32

0

ft

m

64

10


190


Figure 89. Redrawing of 1907 Sanborn Showing Lot 204.

Hen Coops

Coop

Hen House

Wash House

D

High B

ank

D

DServants1527 1/2

1523 1/2Servants

15291527

1523

D

D

Shed

Shed

15051501

Servants1505 1/2

1st Ave

2

Chattahoochee R

iver

15th Street

Lot 204

Lot 200

20

0 32

0

ft

m

64

10


191


duce a composite map showing features and struc-tures on Lot 204 (Figure 90). They then numberedthe structures chronologically.

Boundary divisions within Lot 204 reveal that dur-ing the third quarter of the nineteenth century, thelot was settled from north to south. The northernhalf of Lot 204 was divided in 1873, if not earlier,resulting in a house (arbitrarily called Structure 4)and associated outbuildings confined within thatparcel. Five years later in 1878 the northern part ofthe southern half of the lot was delineated as a sepa-rate parcel followed by construction of Structure 5and its outbuildings. Then, eight years later thesouthern strip of the lot and the northern strip ofthe adjoining lot were out-parceled followed by con-struction of Structure 6 and associated outbuild-ings. Perspective maps depict standing structuresin 1872 (Ruger) and 1886 (Wellge) (Figure 91). Whilethis pattern holds for the late nineteenth century, itis not indicative of Lot 204 occupation during the1840s and 1850s when the lot was not subdividedto this extent, if at all.

Structure 1

This may have been the superstructure above theFeature 310 cellar. The cellar lies in the center of ahouse depicted on the 1889 Sanborn and the earli-est deed located indicates that Lot 204 may not havebeen subdivided on either side of this house until1878. Artifacts recovered from the cellar, however,suggest a fill date prior to 1878. This suggests thatthe cellar likely belonged to another building thatexisted before the structure shown on the 1889Sanborn map. (Feature 310 cellar is discussed indetail above.)

Structure 2

This may or may not have been an actual structure.The designation refers to Feature 329, which was anextremely large vertical hole in the ground contain-ing handmade bricks and limited other artifacts. Thelarge amount of brick suggests demolition of a nearbystructure. The profile of the feature suggests a cel-lar, or possibly a large hole intentionally dug tostockpile brick for later use. The lack of later arti-facts may indicate a pre-1850 deposition.

Structure 3

This structure is represented by the Feature 11 cel-lar. No other evidence of the structure is visible,such as brick foundations or post patterns. The ex-istence of the cellar indicates the presence of a struc-ture at one point. Artifacts recovered from the cel-lar indicate that the superstructure of Structure 3burned and was pushed into the cellar in the mid1860s.

Structure 4

This structure occupies the northern half of Lot 204and is depicted on the 1889 Sanborn map. The factthat it is not centered on the lot suggests that it wasmost likely constructed after the 1873 parcel divi-sion of the lot (unless there is a pre-1873, non-ex-tant deed showing that this out-parceling was origi-nally done earlier). By 1907 occupants of Struc-ture 1 were using the western half of the long nar-row parcel that extended to the Chattahoochee Riverto raise chickens. Residents were probably usingthe western part of the lot (originally the northernhalf of Lot 203) as early as 1873 for agricultural andother purposes not reflected on the earlier Sanbornmaps.

Structure 4 maintained its footprint from its con-struction to at least 1907. The only noticeable modi-fication to this footprint occurred sometime be-tween 1895 and 1907. In 1907 mapmakers re-corded a rectangular area measuring 12 ft. by 10 ft.centered along the rear wall of the house and ex-tending slightly into the yard. Archaeologists re-corded a cellar at this location (F. 136). The modifi-cation appears to be a root cellar that extended 2/3beneath the house and 1/3 into the yard/enclosedporch area where there was access via an overheadcellar door covering a dirt ramp leading into thecellar.


The cellar (F. 136) measured 210 m east-west by270 m north-south. It was rectangular in plan andhad vertical sides. Archaeologists excavated 25 cmto the base of the cellar. Artifacts from the featuresuggest an occupation and disposal period olderthan the 1873 date offered by the property division


192


Figure 90. Composite Structure Map of Lot 204.

Brick Pier/Wall

1

2

3

6

5

4

Denotes separatebuilding episodes

F.310

F. 136

F.11

10

0 16

0

ft

m

32

5

N950

N960

N970

N980

N990

N1000

E950 E960 E970 E980 E990 E1000

Lot 206

Lot 205

Lot 203

Lot 201

Lot 204


193


1872

1886

Figure 91. Perspective Maps Including Lot 204 Structures in 1872 and 1886, View to the Northeast(Ruger 1872; Wellge 1886).


194


and older than date suggested by the architecturaldrawing on the 1895 Sanborn map. This is logical asthe cellar would have been built during house reno-vation sometime between 1895 and 1907, and notfilled in with trash until later when it no longer func-tioned as a cellar.

Archaeologists recovered a very limited amount ofporcelain, pearlware, olive green glass, cut nails,polychrome hand painted ware, and yellow ware.They also found small amounts of Bristol slip stone-ware; ironstone; and aqua, amber, and clear bottleglass. Feature 136 had a MCD of 1849.7 based on asmall amount of 27 sherds. The presence of a fewolder ceramics may indicate family heirlooms ordishes considered at that time “old fashioned” oroutdated. The TPQ of 1930 was derived from a pieceof plastic in Level 2. The next most-recent TPQ was1860, based on a bottle in Level 2 having a moldseam extending to its neck in Level 2. Cellar fill con-sisted of predominantly water lain sands, especiallyin the lower 40 cm. The upper zone was homog-enous light yellow brown coarse sand. Archaeolo-gists excavated two natural levels within Feature136. The edge of the cellar showed evidence of ero-sional gullies.

Structure 4 was a one-story house that had three out-buildings in 1889. Either P.J. Biggers or Lucy IrvinYoung and Estelle Lavender Young owned the prop-erty during the period from 1890 to 1918. The larg-est outbuilding was servants’ quarters located be-hind the main house and adjacent with the lot’s northproperty line. The quarter was addressed 1531 ½and was a one-story dwelling slightly less than halfthe size of the main house. South of the quarter stoodanother outbuilding. It was aligned with the 1873southern boundary lot division, falling exactly in themiddle of original Lot 204. This outbuilding wasabout one third the size of the servants’ quarter. Al-most adjacent to this outbuilding and between it andthe servants’ quarters was another outbuilding. Thisstructure was smaller than the servants’ quarter butlarger than the other outbuilding.

By 1895 another outbuilding stood just west of theservants’ quarters and may have been an outhouse.Archaeologists discovered a stain (Feature 190) atthis location (discussed below). By 1907 the ser-vants’ quarters had become a washhouse in the east-ern half and a hen house in the western half of thestructure. Residents chose a convenient place for

the washhouse, as it sat above two wells (Features152 and 104) that probably originally serviced theservants’ quarters. These wells are discussed be-low. Additional outbuildings included a large coopin the center of the lot, a row of five hen coops onwhat was originally Lot 203, and a rectangular out-building. Apparently the owner, either P.J. Biggersor the Youngs, raised chickens and may have soldeggs and/or fowl for income. Five small coops andtwo large hen houses would have allowed a largeproduction of both. Archaeologists uncovered fea-tures at the locations of the row of coops (F. 188 andF. 189). Feature 188 was a linear stain probablyproduced by the construction and/or cleaning ofthe coops. Feature 189 was a dripline that indicatesthat two of the coops were connected by an over-hang, perhaps used to store items beneath. Fea-ture 188 contained very few artifacts, including clearbottle glass, unidentified metal, 3 cut nails and 1animal bone and oyster shell. Feature 189 con-tained a few fragments of brick and animal bone, 1each of aqua, olive green and clear glass fragments,6 unidentified nails, 1 ironstone sherd and a thin-ning flake.

Privy (Feature 190)

Feature 190 was possibly a privy and was con-structed between 1889 and 1895. Many cities wereestablishing sewer services during the 1870s-1890.Historical research has not documented the extent,if any, of Columubus’ sewer services during this pe-riod. There was definitely no sewerage treatmentfacility, and the existence of privies during this pe-riod on downtown lots suggests that the city sewer-age pipes that would have allowed in-house plumb-ing, were still uncommon here during the late nine-teenth century. The Feature 190 privy likely servedthose living adjacent to it in the servants’ quarters.The feature measured 70 cm east-west by 75 cmnorth-south and was partially rectangular in planview. It had vertical sides and a slightly roundedbase. The privy extended 60 cm below the strippedground surface. Feature fill was a dark yellowishbrown loam mottled with reddish brown sandy clay.Archaeologists recovered the following artifacts: 1cut and 5 unidentified nails, 2 plain ironstonesherds, 1 dark blue underglaze transfer print sherd,2 unidentifiable brick fragments, and 1 animal boneand oyster shell. In addition, there were 54 piecesof unidentifiable iron fragments in the feature.


195


Archaeologists discovered three wells along thenorthern property line of original Lot 204. Two ofthe wells (Features 152 and 104) fell within the Lot204 boundary, just south of the property line. Thethird well, Feature 100, was located just north ofthe property line, in Lot 205. Features 152 and 104are discussed here as part of the focus on Lot 204.

Well (Feature 152)

Feature 152 originally appeared in plan view as a3.30 m by 1.50 m elongated curved stain followingbackhoe removal of the asphalt, gravel and concreteoverburden of the city lot (Figure 92). Trowelingand hand-excavation revealed a more defined cir-cular feature measuring between one and 1.13 m indiameter. Archaeologists excavated four sectionsof the well (TS 0-TS 3) to its base at an elevation of

95.45 m, or 4.78 m below the documented top ofthe feature (Figures 93 and 94).

Zooarchaeologists conducted faunal analysis on ani-mal bone samples from Feature 152. This data wassubsumed into the feature assemblage for Lot 204based on specific date ranges. It is discussed ingreater detail in the interpretation section of thisreport.

Archaeologists recovered a total of 10,809 artifactsfrom Feature 152. The largest category was archi-tectural debris, representing 56% (n= 6,016) of theartifacts. The majority of architectural artifacts(n=4,041) consisted of metal. Most of these metalitems were nails, with a preponderance of cut nails.Kitchen artifacts constituted 15% (n=1,665) of thetotal artifacts, placing a distant second. Glass andceramic artifacts constituted almost equal amounts

Figure 92. Feature 152, Plan View, Lot 204.

Elv 99.52 m

Elv 100.27 m

loam, brick, and charcoal

mottled with dark yellowish brown (10 YR 4/4) sandy

Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam

Waterlain Sands

Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4)

cm

500

Plan ViewFeature 152, Block 10, Lot 204

48N

Trench Remnant

Well Shaft


196


1

1

2

31

Wood

1. Brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sand and coarse sand mottled with dark brown (10YR 3/3) loamy sand with brick and mortar and yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silt.

2. Dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam with oyster shells, brick,mortar, and charcoal mottled with yellowish brown (10YR 5/4),dark brown (10YR 3/3), and brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) soils.

3. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) sandy loam with lots of mortar.

7. Very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loam with shell, brick, charcoal and

8. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loam with shell, brick, and charcoal.

5. Very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loamy sand with charcoal and lighter4. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) clay.

11

1

1 6

5

3

2

9. Light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) sandy loam with strong brown(7.5YR 5/6) clayey loam.

of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy loam with common bits

11. Mottled and lensed yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) and dark yellowishbrown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam with mottled dark brown (10YR 3/3)

12. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) and gray (10YR 5/1) sandy loammottled with very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam.

Air

Brick

Line Level

Well Shaft10

12 10 11

TS 0

TS 1

TS 2

TS 3

Ramp to Well

Feature 152, Block 10, Lot 204East Profile

6. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) and brown (10YR 3/3) sandy

10. Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam with rare mottles

of charcoal and mortar.

0 100

cm

Elv 100.27 m

mottles.

loam.

glass.

sandy loam.

9

8

7

1

4

Brick


Figure 94. Photograph of Feature 152 (TS2), Lot 204 (Note the Flare-Out ofthe Profile From Erosion).


197


of the Kitchen category, totaling 1,225 (11.3%) and1,194 (11%), respectively. Lab analysis revealed arange of glass bottle types from hand blown phar-maceutical and wine bottles to semi-automaticbottles and machine made soda bottles. These in-cluded olive green, aqua, colbalt blue, amber, am-ethyst, milk glass, and clear glass bottle fragments.Ceramics recovered from the well included:jasperware, creamware, pearlware, porcelains, iron-stones, hotel ware, stonewares, and yellow wares.Decorative motifs consisted of hand painted wares,edgewares, transfer prints, flow painted, spongedwares, annularwares, and decal motifs. A total of 31personal items were recovered from the well. Someof these items, if purchased by residents, indicatethat they had a degree of economic freedom andcould afford to buy things such as bone fans, rings,brass jewelry, and pins. Several bone toothbrushhandles suggest that hygiene was also a concern ofresidents. The Arms category included 18 items.There were only three tobacco related items fromthe entire well. Activity artifacts, however, totaled274. Many of the artifacts in this category suggestthat some leisure time was available to residents,particularly children. Some artifacts within this cat-egory included: ceramic marbles, miniature porce-lain tea set dishes, mouth harp, and a porcelain dollpart.

The total amounts of artifacts in each category sug-gest a latter period of trash accumulation and de-posit. The low numbers of Arms and Tobacco arti-facts, and the larger number of activity artifacts,point to a later period of artifact use and trash depo-sition. The almost one to one ratios of bottles toceramics also suggest a latter time period when resi-dents had equal access to both. The very high num-ber of architectural items suggests that remnantsfrom one or more substantial buildings were thrownin the well in an effort to clean up the area. Thesewould have been older buildings based on the largeamounts of cut nails in the debris, and the presenceof roofing slate. A mend between a sherd in Feature152 and a sherd in the nearby well (Feature 104)shows a relationship between the two that is dis-cussed more in the section below.

Not only did residents discard large amounts of olderarchitectural debris in this well, but they apparentlycleaned out what had been inside and around someof these structures. The presence of older period

ceramics in the well such as pearlwares andhandpainted wares depict a cleanup of this older“trash” on the lot and its ultimate disposal in thewell shaft of Feature 152. The MCD of 1853.8 (n=928)from all zones of the feature also suggests that muchof the debris came from an older occupation on thelot. Nails within the feature produced a nail daterange of 1855-1875. Archaeologists analyzed a rustyiron fragment, which may represent a crown bottlecap from the lowest fill zone of the well. By itself,one might argue that it could have been an intrusiveartifact. Several other possible late nineteenth cen-tury artifacts from this zone and the zone directlyabove suggest a turn of the century date for initialfilling of the well with debris. Such artifacts includeda small fragment of bottle glass that may be machinemade. If so, it would provide a TPQ of 1915 and apossible pharmaceutical bottle with a mold seamstopping below its lip would produce a TPQ of 1880.Both artifacts were recovered from the transitionbetween the deepest two zones (TS 3 Zone 6/7) ofthe well shaft. If these residual artifacts are what wethink, then people began filling in Feature 152 in 1892or later. The well shaft may have been full of trashby the early twentieth century, but slumpage result-ing from air pockets created by decaying materialproduced additional space in the very top of the shaftand in the large pit around it. This area continued tobe a receptacle for trash until at least the 1930s,based on artifacts discovered in this fill zone.

Given these dates, it is likely that the well depositsrepresent trash generated and structures used dur-ing the ownership of Theresa Warr prior to 1873 andP.J. Biggers from 1873 until around 1890. Depend-ing on the length of Theresa’s ownership, the welldebris may represent prior owners, as well. Actualresidents of this parcel during these periods maydiffer from actual lot owners. (Archaeologists didnot focus historical research on late nineteenth-early twentieth century residents). Artifacts in thewell also date to the Lucy Irvin Young and EstelleYoung ownership (1890-1918) and the Henry Odomand later Inez J. Odom ownership (1918-1923). Ar-tifacts from these periods may have been thrown inthe well directly by their users, or may have beendiscarded during later clean up activities by R.E.Dismukes when he gained property ownership in1923 of this parcel and the southern parcel of Lot204. At any rate, the artifacts from the mid to latenineteenth century and early twentieth century are


198


intermixed within the zones of well Feature 152, fromthe mid nineteenth through first quarter of the twen-tieth centuries.

Well (Feature 104)

Archaeologists discovered this well in proximity totwo other wells (Feature 152 and Feature 100). TheFeature 104 well lay several meters northeast ofFeature 152 and several meters southwest of wellFeature 100. Feature 104 lay just south of the origi-nal northern boundary of Lot 204. Feature 104originally measured 2.0 m in plan view, but archae-ologists trowelled the stain and further defined it asa 1.10 m diameter stain that turned out to be theactual well-shaft.

Archaeologists excavated this well in four sections(TS 0-3) to an elevation of 95.32 m (Figure 95). Thiselevation was 4.58 m below the stripped ground sur-face and the top of well excavations. The base of thewell was estimated to be located at 5 m, or an eleva-tion of 94.90 m. The upper three sections of the wellwere unlined. Archaeologists encountered a liningof curved well brick at the top of TS 3, at an eleva-tion of 96.46 m. The brick lined well shaft continuedto the base of the well. Only the lowest 52 cm of thebrick lining extended into the modern water table.The well shaft profile in the section directly abovethe brick lining (TS 2) indicates that the historic wa-ter table may have fallen at this higher elevation.The well profile balloons outward on both sides ofthe well shaft, suggesting that fluctuating watertables at this level caused a breech in the sandy wellshaft walls. The brick lining in the section directlybelow this (TS 3) may have actually contributed tothe cave-in. The brick supported the walls in thelowest part of the well shaft, but may have allowedfluctuating water levels and flood tables to take thepast of least resistance directly above the brick.

Diagnostic ceramics within all zones of Feature 104generated a MCD of 1850.7 (n=432). The MCD forexcavated trackhoe sections ranged from 1832 to1853. Most fluctuated in the general time-frame ofthe 1840s. See Table 10 for a list of MCD by excava-tion section. An examination of TPQ by well zonescan help determine if the deposition was similar toFeature 152, or if Feature 104 was actually infilledin chronologically distinctive layers.

The portion of the well identified as a possiblebuilder’s trench was located in the uppermost sec-tion of the well excavation (TS 0). Archaeologiststried to isolate a narrow zone they thought might bea builder’s trench, but the poorly defined nature ofit makes for an unreliable dating source. The zonesin TS 0 contained artifacts dating to the late nine-teenth and early twentieth centuries and indicatethat the top of the well was not completely filledwith debris until the first three quarters of the twen-tieth century. These artifacts included gilded earth-enware sherds, decal porcelain, machine madebottles and other relatively late artifacts. The nextsection of excavation was TS 1, which consisted offour naturally excavated zones. Higher numbersdenote deeper excavations. The TPQ dates for Zones1, 2, 3, and 4 were 1930 for Zone 1 and 1915 forZones 2-4. The next section of the well (TS 2) con-tained Zones 2-7. The TPQ dates are as follows: Zone2, 1915; Zone 3, 1902; Zone 4, 1820; Zone 5, 1840;Zone 6, 1829; and Zone 7, 1813. The next section ofthe well, TS 3, contained Zones 7 and 8. These hadTPQs of 1818 and 1850, respectively. The deepestzone, TS 4, had a TPQ of 1829. In summary, the fourexcavated sections of the well had the following TPQdates from top (TS 0) to bottom (TS 4): 1930, 1915,1915, 1850, and 1829. While there is some varianceof dates between individual zones within these sec-tions, most likely based on slight disturbances fromroots or rodents, generally the large sections of thewell appear to follow the laws of superposition.

The top two sections of the well (TS 0 and TS 1) con-tained dozens of stoneware jugs and jug fragments(Figure 96). Archaeologists recovered embossedbottles from the first three sections of the well, andnone from the deepest section (TS 4). The upper-most sections, TS 0 and TS 1, contained the greatestmix of embossed food and medicine bottles.

For example, archaeologists discovered three milkglass containers (LN 360) in the very top of the Fea-ture 104 well. The glass was embossed, “Royal Lun-cheon Cheese”. This product was probably sometype of cheese spread and has been identified as acirca 1900 item (Zumwalt 1980:354).

Another example was part of a Dodson’s Liver Tonebottle was contained in the fill of TS 1 (Figure 97).The word “tone” in Dodson’s Liver Tone signifiedthe normal functioning of body tissues. Dodson’s


199


8

1

6

7

Iron Object

9 9

12

Water Lain Soil Water Lain Soil

6. Dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) sand, full of jars and bottles.7. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sand.8. Strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) clayey sand mottled with grayer sands.9. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loamy micaceous sand mottled with

strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) compact loamy clay.10. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) fine sandy loam, contains curved bricks.11. Dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam, full of bone.12. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) and yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty loam.

Matrix Matrix

MatrixMatrix

11

0 50

cm


Unexcavated

West Profile Datum

Surface

Dense

Pocket o

f Coa

l

2

1

14

14

43

3

3

Jug

Line Level

1. General fill, very dark brown (10YR 2/2) sandy loam, full of coal, bottle glass,

2. Zone B, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sand, loosely mottled with (1).3. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy loam.4. Disturbance, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy loam.5. Dark brown (10YR 3/3) loamy sand with brick, mortar and artifacts.

brick chunks, bone, mussel shells, and bottles.

TS0

TS1

TS3

Unexcavated Unexcavated

8

6

10

7

10

9

Crum

bly S

ubsoil

TS2

Elv 99.86 m

Plan View

Not Excavated

Brick Top of TS 3

Elv 96.36 m

N

Large plate or platter fragments

Glass bottleBrick fragment

Brick Rubble Fill

Matrix. Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) loamy sand mottled with strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) compact loamy clay.

Rubble Fill13

13. Dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam.

Figure 95. Feature 104, Profile and Plan View, Lot 204.


200


Figure 96. Note the Numerous Jugs in Section TS 1 (originally calledSection 2) of this Well (Feature 104, Lot 204).

Figure 97. A Bottle of Dodson’s Liver Medicine.

0 1.5 in

4 cm0

Table 10. Feature 104, Lot 204, MCD by Well Section.Trackhoe Section MCD Count

(n=) TS 0 1848.86 197 TS 1 1845.23 19

Base TS 1-Top TS 2 1853.81 203 TS 2 1852.25 4

Base TS 2-Top TS 3 1848.04 14 TS 3 1845 1 TS 4 1832 4

Builder's Trench 1820.25 4


201


Liver Tone origi-nally containedcalomel, or a type ofmercury salt com-monly used in the1800s as a laxative(Allen Vegotsky,personal communi-cation, January 12,2000). This mer-cury toxin was re-placed later withvarious plant ex-tracts. The 20 per-cent alcohol wasused, in part, to dis-solve and preservethese botanicalproperties. The for-mula was intendedto cure serious bil-ious attacks, consti-pation, colds, sourstomach, and head-aches.

Apparently themedicine was mar-keted to sick peoplein French, German,and Spanish speak-ing countries as re-flected by labelsprinted in those lan-guages. Althoughthe company waslocated in West Vir-

ginia, it is likely that the bottle found in Columbuscame from the company’s branch office in Atlanta.The Dodson Liver Tone bottle uncovered in the 2nd

Avenue excavations is similar to a bottle dating be-tween 1918 and 1957 located in the Hachett DrugStore in Lumpkin, Georgia, but the Columbus bottlemost likely dates between 1903-1914 based on theamethyst color of the bottle and its automatic, ma-chine-made bottle scars. During the early twenti-eth century a five-ounce bottle sold for 50 cents.

A “Hester” bottle appeared in the top of the well fillof Feature 104, on Block 10, Lot 204. This bottlewas embossed “Hester” and may have been “Dr. I.Hester’s Stomach Bitters”. A bitters medicine bottle

was another type of stomach medicine. No furtherinformation was discovered concerning this bottle.

Excavations uncovered three bottles of Fletcher’sCastoria on the 2nd Avenue project. Two were lo-cated in a well (Feature 104, TS 1, Zones 1 and 2) onLot 204. Another was discovered during survey inFeature 27, Trench 10, Block 10 (parcel 1).

Cathartics, or medicines with purgative effects, wereprevalent in the nineteenth century because ofpeople’s diets (Allen Vegotsky, personal communi-cation, June 28, 1999). Food preservation had notyet been perfected, and canned food and refrigera-tion was uncommon until late in the century. Dietconsisted of only fresh fruits and vegetables thatwere in season and high-fiber diets would have beenless common during the winter months. Hence, therewould have been a need for medicines such ascastoria.

One nineteenth-century advertisement for castoriathat targeted parents contained this melodramatictome:

“Grim death has taken darling littleJerry.The son of Joseph and Seveva Vowels;Seven months he suffered with the dys-entery,And then he perished with his littlebowels.Perhaps was weaning little Jerry,His bottle seemed to hurt his stomach’stone;But with the angels he’ll get plump andmerry

For there’s no nursing bottles where he’s gone” (Young 1979:19).

Following the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, ad-vertisements for Fletcher’s Castoria proudly claimedthat it, “contains neither opium [nor] morphine...notnarcotic” and an alcohol content of only three per-cent (Fike 1966:28). The company was not againsttrying scare tactics to sell its product to parents,however, and one advertisement from a Sears Roe-buck catalog during this period states that, “Infantmortality is something frightful, and we can hardlyrealize that 22 percent, or nearly one-fourth, of allborn die from stomach and bowel troubles before

In 1860 a Massachusetts phy-sician named Samuel Pitcherdeveloped Castoria and pat-ented i t e ight years la ter(Richardson and Richardson1992:157) . In 1869 thePitcher’s Castoria Manufactorybegan operat ing in Boston.P i tcher ’s Castor ia changedhands several t imes duringthe 1870s-1880s. In 1887Char les F letcher , who hadbeen a stock c lerk , juniorpartner and later secretary inf i rms assoc ia ted wi thPitcher’s Castoria, acquiredthe patent-expired medicine.He changed the formula andrenamed i t “F le tcher ’sCastor ia” (R ichardson andRichardson 1992:157) (Figure98). Charles Fletcher’s in-tensive marketing resulted inast ronomica l sa les ofF letcher’s Castor ia and thebot t les became one of themore common medic inebott les at archaeologica lsites. It is not surprising then,that excavations at 2nd Avenuerecovered three bott le andbottle fragments of Fletcher’sCastoria, which date to 1887or later due to the name (Fig-ure 99). Fletcher’s Castoriaenjoyed an unusually long pe-riod of popularity and was stillbe ing sold as recent ly as1985 (Fike 1987:162).


202


Figure 98. An Advertisement for Fletcher’s Castoria(Richardson and Richardson 1992).

Figure 99. A Bottle that Once Held Castoria.Scale is 1:1


203


the age of one year” (Hechtlinger 1969:157). Ofcourse, such serious stomach and bowel troubleswere likely the result of microbacterial diseases andcould not be cured by a product like castoria (AllenVegotsky, personal communication, June 28, 1999).

Castoria contained no castor oil. It was namedcastoria, however, to remind mothers to purchaseit as a better substitute for the smelly, distasteful,nauseating castor oil taken begrudgingly by chil-dren. Castor oil was used in the treatment of consti-pation. Castoria was advertised as, “A perfect rem-edy for constipation, sour stomach, diarrhoea,worms, convulsions, feverishness and loss ofsleep...promotes digestion, cheerfulness and rest”(Fike 1966:28). Castoria contained senna, manna,rochelle salts, water, alcohol, oil of wintergreen, andeither fennel and sugar, or pumpkin seed, anise seed,peppermint, bicarbonate of soda, and worm seed(Oleson 1899:37; Fike 1966:28). The senna was rec-ognized as a “prompt, efficient, and very safe purga-tive” to which the salts also contributed (Wood andBache 1865:773). Manna was also a mild laxative.The alcohol and water were used to dissolve thesematerials and the fennel was an inert ingredient. Thesugar and oil of wintergreen made the medicinepleasant tasting. The version containing anise usedthat ingredient as a substitute for fennel, and theanise served as a flavorant and as a means of reduc-ing gas. Pumpkin seed was used to treat tapeworms,as was the plant wormseed (chenopodiumantihelminticum) (Wood and Bache 1865:639). Thetwo slightly different variations of Fletcher’sCastoria served as effectual treatments for consti-pation and one formula was effective in treating thecommon complaint of roundworm in young chil-dren of the period. The other claims made by ad-vertisers that the medicine could prevent convul-sions and fever appear to be less rooted in fact thanfiction.

Fletcher’s Castoria appeared to enjoy a market thatnot only included Columbus, but also in countriesaround the world, as suggested by product wrap-pers printed in English and Spanish. Around 1906 alarge bottle of Fletcher’s sold for 35 cents and a smallone for 25 cents. In an attempt to compete withdrug stores, Sears Roebuck reduced their prices to26 cents for a large bottle and 18 cents for a smallone (Allen Vegotsky, personal communication, June28, 1999).

The discovery of a Hick’s Capudine bottle at the 2nd

Avenue project indicates that the Bromo Seltzerheadache market was at least minimally competi-tive in the Columbus area. One bottle (LN 1022) ofHick’s Capudine for Headaches was discovered inFeature 104 (Figure 100). This bottle was located inTS 1, Zone 4 and has a TPQ of 1894.

Consumers were purchasing Hick’s by the 1890s, ifnot earlier as a remedy for headaches and pain inthe nerves (neuralgia) (Fike 1987:166). Henry Hicksregistered the trademark for the product in 1899,but had been selling it since at least 1894. TheCapudine Chemical Company located in Raleigh,North Carolina produced the early twentieth cen-tury version of this medicine containing antipyrine,potassium bromide, sodium salicylate, and caffeine.While it did not contain acetanilid, which had be-come recognized as a poison, it did have antipyrineas an ingredient. The latter is a fever and pain re-ducer; however, it is also a toxic heart depressant(Allen Vegotsky, personal communication, October4, 1999). The toxic nature of antipyrine was a con-troversial subject at the turn of the century and over-doses on it only served to fuel the debate. Numer-ous reported cases of death resulted from takinglarge doses of products containing this substance.One such case include a minister’s wife nearCovington, Georgia who died in 1908 from taking anoverdose of capudine for periodic headaches (Cramp1912:503).

Apparently the formula was changed at some pointafter 1935, when it was no longer listed as an “ac-ceptable drug” in some of the pharmaceutical manu-als of the period. It continued to appear in others,however, as late as 1952. Hick’s Capudine, in whatwas likely a changed formula, was still being sold inthe mid-1980s as “Capudine Liquid Headache Re-mover”. During the first half of the twentieth cen-tury a two-ounce bottle cost consumers 30 centsand a half-ounce container was priced at ten cents(Allen Vegotsky, personal communication, January12, 2000).

Archaeologists discovered Heinz bottles and bottlefragments in two wells on Block 10, Lot 204. Mostwere located in the upper section of one well (Fea-ture 104) although the uppermost fill zone in an-other well (Feature 221) had this artifact type also.


204


Heinz bottles were also excavated at Columbus’ Pub-lic Safety site. The Heinz line was another brand bornin the nineteenth century that continues to enjoy aprosperous life into the beginning of the twenty-firstcentury. Henry Heinz evolved from a boy sellingvegetables to Pittsburgh grocers to establishing theHeinz Noble Company in 1869 (Zumwalt 1980:203).The company rebounded from its 1875 bankruptcyand established 57 varieties of products including“India relish, Mustard Dressing, Malt Vinegar, BakedBeans with Tomato Sauce, Tomato Chutney, Pre-served Fruits, Sweet Pickles, Euchred Figs, Apple andPeach Butters, and Evaporated Horseradish”, toname a few (Zumwalt 1980:202).

Other bottles were discovered in the Feature 104well. Archaeologists recorded alcohol bottles in Sec-tions TS 1 (Zone1 and Zone 2) and TS 2 (Zone2). Thesewere “Paul Jones Whiskey” bottles.

Excluding soil, wood and other samples, archaeolo-gists recovered 6,014 artifacts from the Feature 104well. The largest amounts of artifacts were located inTS 0 and TS 1, with 2,246 (37.3%) and 3,475 (57.7%)of the artifact total, respectively. The lower, and pre-sumably older fill zones, TS 2, 3, and 4 each had atotal of 495 (7%), 93 (1.4%), and 10 (0.2%) artifacts.TS 3 had few ceramics (n=5) contrasted with 22 frag-ments of glass and 61 pieces of architectural debris.All four sections of the well contained the followingartifact groups and totals: Architecture-1,281; Cloth-ing-23; Furniture-7; Kitchen-3,928; Miscellaneous-908; Personal-28; Arms-60; and Activities-84.

There is a relationship between Fea-tures 104, 152, and possibly 11. Labo-ratory analysis revealed a cross mendbetween two sherds of an alkalineglazed exterior stoneware jug havingan Albany slip interior. Table 11 pro-vides a list of cross mends among theseand other features on Lot 204. Figure101 is an image representation of thesecross mends. One piece of the jug wasexcavated from the top section of Fea-ture 104 (TS 0). It matched a sherdlocated in the fourth excavation sec-tion (TS 3) of well Feature 152. Themend suggests that Feature 104 was al-most completely filled with debris be-fore Feature 152 was used for trash dis-

posal. A piece of a thick porcelain lid was recov-ered from Feature 152 (TS 3, Section 7) that mendedwith a sherd from Feature 11 (NE quadrant, Zone6). Given the differences in artifact dates derivedfrom feature fill, however, it is unlikely that thesetwo features were used at the same time. The mend-able sherd in Feature 11 came from the northeast-ern quadrant of the feature, near a very large treedisturbance (Feature 145). The later porcelainsherd most came to rest within this tree stump androot-disturbed soils.

Structure 5

Structure 5 was probably built around 1878, anddefinitely between 1878 and 1889. It falls entirelywithin the narrow parcel created in 1878 from thenorthern part of the southern half of Lot 204. Itsnorthern wall aligns with the center of Lot 204,which is also the northern boundary of the 1878parcel. Several outbuildings fall within this tract’sboundaries and are most likely affiliated with Struc-ture 5. This includes a small one-story building inthe extreme southwestern corner of this narrowparcel. It’s location along the back lot line and inthe corner of the parcel suggests an outhouse, butthere were no features in that location to supportan outhouse interpretation. The structure may havebeen a shed.

Between 1889 and 1895 a second outbuilding wasconstructed on the parcel. This one-story buildinglay between the main house and the outbuilding atthe far corner of the lot. This later outbuilding was

Figure 100. Hick’s Capudine Bottle Found in Feature 104.Scale is 1:1.


205


Table 11. Crossmends, Block 10, Lot 204.

Between Features Number of Number of Feature Provenience Mended

Vessels Mends With: Feature Provenience Mended

Vessels F. 11 NE quad, Zone 6 1 mends with: F. 152 TS 3 (Sec. 3, TS 7) 1 F. 104 TS 0 1 mends with: F. 152 TS 3 (Sec. 3, TS 7) 1 F. 347 TS 0, Zone 9 1 mends with: F. 348 TS 0, L.2, ZA 1

Within Features Number of Feature Provenience Mends With:

Provenience Mended Vessels

F. 11 Stripping mends with: Zone 6, NE quad 1 Zone A mends with: Zone 6, NE quad 2 TS 1, (Sec. 1, Zone B) mends with: Floor Artifact 1 F. 100 Level 1 mends with: Level 2 1 F. 104 TS 1 mends with: TS 2 (Sec. 2, TS 3) 1 TS 2 mends with: TS 0, General Fill 1 TS 1 (Sec. 1, TS 2) mends with: TS 2 (TS 3, Sec. 2) 3 F. 108 Zone A mends with: Zone D 1 Zone B mends with: Zone D 1 Zone B mends with: Zone C 1 F. 133 Zone 1 mends with: Zone 3 4 Zone 3 mends with: Zone 4 1 F. 152 TS 2 (TS 1, TS 2, Sec.2) mends with: TS 3 (TS 7, Sec.3) 1 TS 2 (TS 3, Sec.2) mends with: TS 2 (TS 5, Sec.2) 1 TS 3 (TS 2, Sec.3) mends with: TS 3 (TS 7, Sec.3) 1 F. 336 Surface mends with: Level 2 1 Level 1 mends with: Level 3 2 F. 347 TS 0, Zone 1 mends with: TS 0, Zone 2 1 TS 0, Zone 1 mends with: TS 0, Zone 6, NE quad 1 TS 0, Zone 1 mends with: TS 0, 130 cmbs 1 TS 0, Zone 4 mends with: TS 0, Zone 5 1 F. 348 TS 0, Zone A, Level 1 mends with: TS 0, Zone B 1 TS 0, Zone A, Level 2 mends with: TS 0, Zone B or D 1 TS 0, Zone A, Level 2 mends with: TS 0, Zone B 1


206


Figure 101. Ceramic Crossmends Between Features In and Near Lot 204.

F.348

F.347

F.104

F.11F. 152

10

0 16

0

ft

m

32

5

N950

N960

N970

N980

N990

E970 E980 E990 E1000

Lot 205

Lot 201

Lot 204


207


constructed on the northern boundary of the par-cel and extended south. It was probably servants’quarters at this time, although it wasn’t called thaton the Sanborn maps until 1907 when it was given a1527 ½ address. By 1907 two other outbuildingwere added, both along the southern boundary lineof the parcel, south of the servants’ quarters. Nofeatures, other than a long brick wall foundation ex-tending east-west across the parcel and few postswere observed in this area. This brick foundationdates to after 1907 and was the foundation for earlyto mid 20th century commercial structures. Con-struction of the foundation may have removed thefeatures associated with the earlier outbuildings.

A well just inside the southern boundary is likelyassociated with Structure 5. This well was com-pletely obscured by the extant brick foundation ofa more recent structure. The brick foundation wasnot removed during data recovery operations. Thewell was not discovered until demolition crews re-moved the brick foundations from the lot later.While this discovery happened well after data re-covery operations on this lot were complete, ar-chaeologists returned to the area of brick removalto map the location of the well. It was not exca-vated.

Structure 5 and the well were likely associated withGeorge Pearce who purchased this newly createdout-parcel of Lot 204 in 1878 from Clarissa Wright.Other features lying within this parcel’s boundariesmay be associated with Pearce based on their geog-raphy; however, they may also be associated withearlier and later activities on Lot 204 as a whole.The rear portion of this parcel exhibits the densestconcentration of features. The location of these fea-tures lies in the only open area in 1907 of the ex-treme back yard. By 1907 this area is bounded onthe north by a parcel lot line, on the east and southby outbuildings and on the west by a parcel lot lineand stable on the adjacent lot. The available spacein the middle of this is consumed with minimallyfive medium-to-large features and numerous posts.Based on the geographical information, some ofthese features in the back of the parcel are likelyassociated with the period around 1907. Severalwere either modern features such as an undergroundstorage tank (Feature 327) or features of non-descript origin and function.

Structure 6 (ca 1886-post 1907)

This structure was built across the property line ofthe original 1828 boundary of Lots 204 and 201.Due to this location across two lots, this structurecan be associated with whoever owned the south-ern third of Lot 204 and the northern edge of Lot201 at the same time. Unfortunately, few early deedshave survived for these two lots. At least one per-son, Clarissa Wright, fits this description. She mostlikely gained ownership of the southern half of Lot204 and the northern strip of Lot 201 prior to 1873and definitely before 1886.

One likely scenario has the Wrights owning this prop-erty sometime after 1851. Walter C. Wright pur-chased the 20 ft strip in and along the northern edgeof Lot 201 in December of 1851 (MCSC Deed BkG:160). At this time it appears that Walter may nothave owned the southern portion of Lot 204, be-cause the deed says that the strip, “adjoins John J.McKendree on the north…” MCSC Deed Bk G:160).Walter’s parcel was probably combined with the al-most 40 ft wide strip of the southern edge of Lot 204sometime between 1851 and 1878, but certainly by1886. It was in 1886 that Clarissa sold this compos-ite Lot 201/204 parcel to Anna Taylor for $1,600.

Anna Taylor owned the property for about 20 years(ca 1886-1906). There is no reference to a residenceor other structure on the property when Anna pur-chased it; however, deeds often do not state specificstructure information or merely contain a blanketclause including “all appurtenances and improve-ments”, regardless of what may or may not actuallybe located on the tract described. Structure 6, there-fore, may have been built sometime during the de-cades of lot ownership by the Wright family (post1851 to ca 1878), or Anna may have had it con-structed between 1886 and 1889, the latter date be-ing when a structure first appeared on a SanbornFire Insurance map. Given Anna’s length of owner-ship from 1886-1906 it is likely that she lived at thisresidence, although she could have held it as a rentalunit.

This parcel of the lot contained virtually no evidenceof the footprint of this mid-to-late nineteenth cen-tury house. There were no brick piers or linear foun-dations visible prior to, or after backhoe stripping.Postholes made extremely good fence patterns else-


208


where on the lot, but none could be discernable aspatterns representing structures.

The Sanborn maps depicted several outbuildings lo-cated behind Structure 6 on the composite parcelconsisting of the extreme southern edge of Lot 204and the extreme northern edge of Lot 201. One out-building is labeled 1523 ½ as early as the 1889 map.This address, along with its location extending acrossthe Lot 204/201 boundary, confirm its associationwith Structure 6 and its construction range between1886 and 1907. This building housed domestic ser-vants. It measured approximately 23 x 12 ft andwas divided into two rooms, possibly with separateentrances. This structure may have stood on woodenor brick piers sitting on top of the ground, as archae-ologists uncovered no brick foundations or postholepatterning. Sometime between 1895 and 1907 thestructure occupied roughly the same footprint, butrather than being one building with two rooms, itbecame two separate buildings containing one roomeach. An outbuilding behind the servants’ quarterssat at the extreme southwestern corner of the parcelthat may have been a shed. No features or postswere uncovered in this area.

Three wells (Features 337, 347, and 348) were lo-cated in close proximity to each other. Features337 and 347 were both located immediately behindStructure 3. Feature 337 was just inside the south-ern boundary of the lot. Feature 347 was locatedsouth of that lot line and inside original town Lot201. Another well, Feature 348, was located justinside the southern property line of the original Lot204 boundary and within the footprint of theoutbuilding(s) situated behind Structure 3, and la-beled “Servants” on the 1889-1907 Sanborn maps.The location of the Feature 348 well strongly sug-gests that it was associated with the servants’ quar-ters and used by its occupants. Cross mends be-tween sherds in Features 348 and 347 indicate thatboth were filled, at least in part, during the sameperiod. This suggests that Feature 347 was directlyassociated with the other well (F. 348) and indirectlyassociated with Structure 6. No such cross mendswere made between Feature 337 and the other twowells. The geographical location of the F. 347 welldirectly off the back porch of the 1889 structure sug-gests an association, as does its location just insidethe extended 1886 boundary of Lot 204 that encom-passed Structure 6, the servants’ quarters and all

three wells. All three wells are discussed in moredetail below.

Well (Feature 337)

This feature measured one meter in diameter. Ar-chaeologists excavated 1.70 m of this well. No arti-facts were located within the well shaft other thanlarge amounts of coal and clinkers and occasionalbrick-bats. The exposed portion of the well shaftwas brick-lined. Archaeologists excavated a por-tion of the builder’s trench. Artifacts recovered fromthe builder’s trench of the well, and the well’s loca-tion immediately behind Structure 6, suggests thatFeature 337 may have been the house’s original well.Likewise, TPQ and MCD information, and nail dateranges all indicate that this well was created priorto the construction, use and infilling of the othertwo nearby wells (Feature 347 and 348). No arti-facts from the builder’s trench or well shaft of Fea-ture 337 contradict a mid-nineteenth century con-struction date. This well was likely constructed bythe Wright family and infilled by the Wright or Tay-lor families.

Artifacts within the builder’s trench provide somechronological information for feature construction.A porcelain insulator fragment offers a TPQ of themiddle of the nineteenth century. Archaeologistsrecovered other artifacts in the construction trench,including architectural items such as 46 cut nails, 7window glass fragments, 1 lead window came, and 4plaster fragments. These items indicate the pres-ence of debris from an older structure that was nolonger standing when the well was dug. The major-ity of other artifacts in the Feature 337 well builder’strench consisted of kitchen items. Archaeologistsdocumented a total of 7 stoneware, 2 hotelware, 3ironstone, 1 pearlware (plain), 1 cream colored ware,1 coarse earthenware, and one transfer print ware.Clear bottle glass totaled 10 pieces and melted glasstallied three. Other artifacts included unidentifi-able metal, iron/steel, charcoal, eggshell, clamshell, animal bone, and one quartz flake. The MCDof 1845.16 may be fairly accurate, however, it isbased on a very small sample of only six sherds.The TPQ of 1829 is not extremely helpful, but again,there is no recent TPQ contradicting a mid-nine-teenth century date for well construction. The lackof diagnostic artifacts within the well shaft make itdifficult to assign any chronology to well-filling.


209


Logically, one might infer that if this well was dugprior to the others, then it is most likely that it wasalso filled before the others, or at least before theconstruction of the Feature 347 well. This latterwell appears to have serviced the same structure asthe Feature 337 well. It is most likely, thereforethat the first well (Feature 337) was no longer func-tional when the second one (Feature 347) was con-structed. Archaeologists terminated excavation at1.70 m below the stripped top of feature. This fielddecision was made due to the lack of artifacts con-tained within the shaft, resulting in an overall lackof information, and overall time constraints of theproject.

Well (Feature 347)

When archaeologists first uncovered this stain itmeasured 3.27 m east-west. Further excavationrevealed a circular stain within this area measuringone meter in diameter. This smaller area becamebetter defined after additional troweling, and provedto be an unlined well. The well feature lay on thesouthern side of a well-defined row of postholes,clearly defining the southern edge of the targetedLot 204 boundary. Its location outside of the lotled to a decision to excavate only the upper portionof the feature to determine its function and possibleage. It was not until detailed mapping of land own-ership boundaries following fieldwork that archae-ologists realized that the northern strip of the lotadjoining 204 was at one time a combined parcel.So it was fortuitous that the backhoe stripping ex-tended south of original Lot 204, even if the wellwas not excavated in its entirety.

Excavation of the upper 1.30 m of the well, how-ever, has produced substantial information for in-terpretation of this feature. The well shaft includedmultiple deposition zones containing relativelylarge amounts of artifacts, particularly when con-trasted with artifacts amount in the Feature 337well. Fill zones consisted of yellow brown loamysands alternating with dark brown lenses of organi-cally rich sands. Archaeologists observed layers ofash and charcoal, as well. In a zone near the bot-tom of the excavated area they noted large amountsof shell, bone and artifacts.

Archaeologists excavated a portion of the builder’strench (Zone 5) associated with Feature 347. TheTPQ of artifacts recovered from this small sample

was 1850, based on the presence of four wire nailfragments. Remaining artifacts within this zone,however, suggest a relatively older period of con-struction. These artifacts included an English spallgunflint, 2 olive green bottle glass fragments, 20 cutnails, a five hole bone button, and a variety of ce-ramics such as 1 ironstone, 1 cream colored ware, 2black underglaze and 2 miscellaneous colors under-glaze stippled transfer printed wares. Other artifactsin the builder’s trench sample included 9 pieces ofwindow glass, 14 unidentifiable nails, animal bone,eggshell, 6 clear bottle glass fragments, and 22 piecesof unidentified iron. The TPQ of 1850 would tie thewell construction nicely to the period when this stripof land was part of a parcel consisting of the south-ern edge of Lot 204 and the northern edge of Lot201, under the ownership of the Wrights and thenAnna Taylor, from the mid to late nineteenth cen-tury.

Artifacts in Zones 1, 3, and 7 were excavated fromthe stain surrounding the top of the well and extend-ing west of the well shaft. This stain appears to rep-resent a low spot, perhaps associated with the origi-nal construction of the well, but definitely not filledwith debris until the late 1920s-1930s. The debriswithin the uppermost portion of the well shaft itself,however, was likely deposited between 1890 and1915 or even after 1930. The presence of a paneledpharmaceutical bottle from Robert Carter’s drugstore in Columbus provides this 1890 TPQ (Figure102.) A machine soda green bottle in Zone 6 pro-duced a TPQ of 1915. A probable piece of plastic inZone 8 would have a TPQ of 1930. It is likely that thetrash in the top of the well was deposited by resi-dents and/or landowners after Anna Taylor. Thetrash may have been a combination of items lyingaround on the lot or in structures from Anna, or evenClarissa Wright’s ownership, along with trash gener-ated by residents after Anna’s ownership.

Apparently by the 1930s either Lot 204 and/or Lot201 were cleaned and trash disposed of in the up-permost top of the well shaft, which was not com-pletely filled due to past settling of well contents.Zone 9 was the deepest zone excavated in the well.It extended from 1.10-1.31 m below the strippedsurface. No obviously modern artifacts were ana-lyzed from this zone. The TPQ of 1829 came fromfive underglaze stippled transfer print sherds, includ-ing ones in red and purple. Other kitchen artifacts in


210


this level include a cream colored ware sherd, 7 clearbottle glass, 2 olive green bottle glass, 1 glass tum-bler, and a metal lid. Zone 9 also contained 3 piecesof window glass, 26 cut nails, 24 unidentifiable nails,3 unidentifiable brick fragments, a brass container,and various low frequencies of animal bone, oystershell, wood, mortar and unidentifiable iron. Zone 9may have been deposited as recently as the zonesabove it, but there is no evidence to support thisother than its location directly under Zone 8 con-

taining a possible piece of plastic. A sherd fromZone 9 mends with one from Zone A, Level 2 in theFeature 348 well.

Well (Feature 348)

Backhoe stripping revealed a 1.70 m circular stainthat archaeologists bisected on a north-south axis.They excavated the eastern half of the well from 0-1.35 m below stripped ground surface. Due to logis-tical reasons, archaeologists excavated the west-ern half of the well from 1.35-5.9 m below surface.Excavations on the western half of the well includedTrackhoe Sections (TS) 1-4. TS 4 was a difficult sec-tion for archaeologist to deal with, as it was ex-tremely wet and soils prone to collapsing. Archae-ologists screened fill removed with the trackhoebucket. They were unable to profile this lowest sec-tion of the well shaft due to safety concerns, butwere able to note that a horizontal layer of woodwas present at the current water table. The nine-teenth century water table was likely much higherthan today. This layer of wood probably was lo-cated at or very near the base of the well. The entirewell had been lined with a thin wood lining. Thislining had decayed, but left evidence of its exist-ence in a thin, dark, organic stain paralleling bothsides of the well shaft in profile.

The excavated sections of Feature 348 below TS 1had zones containing no obviously recent artifacts.The TPQ date for each of TS 2, 3, and 4 zones was1829, based on the presence of underglaze stippletransfer print sherds. While this date is obviouslyearly, what is more important is the negative evi-dence. There are no artifacts in any of these trackhoesections that produced a twentieth century TPQdate. Given the presence of such items as machinemade bottle glass and decal porcelain in some of theupper levels, it seems likely that had these lowerdeposits also been of recent origin, they too wouldhave contained diagnostic artifacts of a more re-cent period.

The majority of artifacts within the well shaft, in fact,appear to be old and were found in all sections fromTS 0-TS 4. In contrast, the four artifacts that pro-duced the twentieth century TPQs are definitely inthe vast minority. A MCD based on diagnosticsherds from all TS levels is 1832.9 (n=196). Thisseems a little early, although disregarding the four

Figure 102. Columbus Druggist,Robert Carter, Sold Medicines in His

Embossed Bottles.


211


TPQ artifacts, the remaining artifacts could easilyfall into a mid-nineteenth century range. Nails pro-vided a date range of 1855-1875. Cut nails, roofingslate, shell and bone buttons, hooks and eyes,straight pins, pearlware, redware, early polychromehand painted wares, an aboriginal sherd and tobaccopipe, a green glazed stoneware pipe bowl, 3 ironbuckles and 1 brass shoe buckle, hand blown phar-maceutical and other bottles, a mouth harp, a stonemarble, olive green bottle glass, goblet fragments,porcelain, iron kettle fragments, and a French bladegunflint suggest a much earlier period of use anddiscard than the twentieth century TPQ dates indi-cate. Several of these artifact types hint at the pres-ence of a Creek Indian or deerskin trader. The pres-ence of large amounts of ceramics, including deco-rated and gilded porcelains, and also glass bottlesand glass tableware, a brass buckle, pipes and amarble all suggest a degree of economic security oreven wealth. This is especially true if most of thedeposits came from the same household.

The Feature 348 well was probably dug by at leastthe middle of the nineteenth century, if not earlier.It may have been constructed around the same timeas the Feature 337 well, since each well would haveserved a different building. This well is associatedwith Feature 347 through a mend as discussed pre-viously. The matching sherd in Feature 348 waslocated in Level 2 of Zone A, which extended from30-62 cm below the backhoe stripped ground sur-face. This mend to a sherd located from 1.10-1.31 mbelow the surface of the Feature 347 well suggeststhat the infilling of Feature 348 well with debris wasfinished before the complete filling of the Feature347 well. Parcel occupants may have begun fillingFeature 348 earlier than Feature 347. The top 2.15m of Feature 348 was not filled until at least 1915, asindicated by the presence of three machine madesoda bottle, one in Zone A and one in Zone C of TS 0

and one in Zone 5 of TS 1. A porcelain sherd withdecal decoration produced a similar date of 1902.It was located in Level 2 of TS 1. The advent of amore reliable water supply provided by the city inthe 1920s and 1930s undoubtedly resulted in theeventual abandonment of wells and their infillingwith debris.

POTABLE WATER ON LOT 204

Five wells (Features 104, 119, 152, 337, and 348)were recorded in Lot 204 during data recovery ac-tivities, most of which appeared as rounded stainson the surface and rectangular features in profile(Table 12). A sixth well was discovered when con-struction workers removed brick foundations fromthe site. This well was directly below the southern-most foundation (running east-west). It measuredone meter in diameter and was entirely concealedbeneath the foundation, which post-dated it. Thiswell was not excavated. Feature 347 was a well thatlay just south of the Lot 204 property line, in Lot201. Both lots had a common landowner for a pe-riod of time, and archaeologists excavated a por-tion of Feature 347. When first uncovered in plan,the wells on Lot 204 generally measured betweenone and two meters in diameter (three to six feet),although Feature 152 was somewhat larger at overthree meters in on direction. Three wells (Features104, 152, and 348) were excavated to their bases, at16.4 ft, 15.5 ft, and 20 ft, respectively. The remain-ing wells on the lot were excavated to depths of be-tween five and six feet.

The majority of the wells employed brick or wood toline the interior and shore up the sandy walls. Incontrast, all or parts of three wells were unlined.Two of the wells (Features 337 and 119) were filledin during a single episode each, as evident by thehomogeneous fill. They were filled with large

Table 12. Lot 204 Well Summary Table.

No.of 3-4 ft.Sections Depth of Lowest Total Depth Linings Brick Feature Excavated (incl. TS0) Screened Section* of Well Brick Wood Unlined Shape

100 5 4.63m (15.20ft) unknown X curved 104 4 4.58m (15.02ft) unknown X X curved

119 1 1.00m (3.28ft) unknown (2 +m) X 152 4 4.82 m (15.81) unknown X

337 1 1.70m (5.60ft) unknown X rectangular

347 1 0.98m (3.21ft) unknown X 348 5 5.48m (18 ft) 6.10m (20.00ft) X


212


amounts of either clay or coal/clinkers, with fewother artifacts. Apparently the wells were filledquickly and intentionally, perhaps prior to construc-tion on the lot. In such a scenario, new construction(or merely new landowners) may have inspired thelandowners to fill dangerous holes, and to rid theproperty of unsightly piles of clinkers, debris andtrash. In contrast, three other wells on the lot ap-pear to have been filled more slowly - or at leastmore episodically. These wells have three to sevenfill episodes each, and contain greater numbers ofartifacts than the previously discussed wells.

It should also be noted that at least two of the wellsdisplayed significant slumping, collapsing, and un-dercutting, even though one of the two wells waslined with brick. Apparently the sandy soils on thislot could not withstand the leeching and undercut-ting resulting from a fluctuating water table andchronic use of the wells. Apparently well shafts col-lapsed somewhat frequently on this lot and otherlots within the project area, necessitating the exca-vation of new wells.

Two wells are directly associated with each other.Well F. 104 and F. 152 were both abandoned duringthe middle of the nineteenth century. Reliable citywater did not serve Columbus residents until the sec-ond decade of the twentieth century, so well aban-donment was likely a product of either water con-tamination or wall slumpage. Archaeological pro-file drawings indicate that F. 104 experienced a “blowout” in which portions of the sandy walls of the wellcollapsed, causing large sections of the wall to slumpand cave. This occurred at an elevation between 96and 97. 11 m. (from about 3–4 ft below the strippedground surface). This was probably a result of fluc-tuating ground water tables. Interestingly, the wellbuilder used brick to line the deepest one-meter sec-tion of the well, undoubtedly anticipating problemswith groundwater eroding sandy walls. Apparentlythe water table fluctuated higher than anticipated,perhaps as a result of particularly rainy years, andthe brick lining did not extend high enough to stopthe erosion. In fact, the level at which the brick lin-ing was terminated appears to have aggravated theerosion, causing the sandy well walls to erode di-rectly above the top of the brick. It is likely thatsuch erosion contributed to the collapse of the up-per walls of the well, repeatedly filling the drinkingwater with sand and debris. This would have not

only made the water less healthy, but would havelessened the amount of water available in the welland made it difficult to retrieve full buckets of wa-ter. At some point the slumpage would have be-come so severe that the bottom of the well wouldhave been completely filled with sand, replacing thewater.

Feature 152 was an unlined well with sandy walls. Itshowed a less dramatic “blow-out” than F. 104. Thesouthern side of the well wall slumped outward atan elevation ranging between 97.02-95.97 m. Fea-ture 104 was filled almost completely before F. 152became a waste repository.

Structural failure of parts of the shaft in both wellsmight have made the lot owners willing to spendmore money on brick to line shafts in later well con-struction. Alternatively, it may have been cheaperin the short run to hire a well digger to dig a well andnot line it with brick, and hope that the walls wouldnot collapse anytime soon. The lack of many brickhouses in Columbus during the early to mid nine-teenth century illustrates the unaffordable natureof brick and suggests that lining a hole in the groundwith it would be a luxury unavailable to many atthat time.

SANITATION ON LOT 204

Lot 204 is remarkable for the lack of privies andtrash pits. Feature 190 may be either a privy ormerely a very large post. It measured 70 x 75 cmand extended to a depth of 60 cm. It was vertical inprofile with a partially flat and partially pointedbase. Soils and artifacts were not indicative of fea-ture function. The nearest confirmed privies wereboth located on Lot 205. Feature 107 was approxi-mately six meters north of the northern propertyline of Lot 204 and Feature 101 was located approxi-mately three meters north of the boundary. It ispossible that Lot 204 residents used privies locatedon nearby edges of other lots. There seems a greaterlikelihood of this occuring on either Lot 203 or thenorthern portion of Lot 201, both of which wereowned at one time or another by landowners of Lot204. It does not explain what those residents of Lot204 did for privies during the period when no othernearby lots fell under the same ownership as Lot204. It may be that the bundling of the northernpart of Lots 204 and 203, and the southern part of


213


Lot 204 with the northern part of 201, occurred notonly in the 1870s and 1880s, but was a trend initi-ated early in the town’s history. This would explainthe lack of both privies and trash pits within Lot204, as these sanitation features may have been rel-egated on the associated parcels of land, as far fromhouses as possible.

Feature 107 was actually just north of the Lot 204boundary line, in Lot 205. It may have been associ-ated with Lot 205, since people often establishedprivies as far away from their home and as close tothe lot line as possible. Less likely, but still pos-sible, it may have served residents of Lot 204 if thelot boundaries fluctuated through time. Feature107 was a distinctive privy unlike any others exca-vated within the project area. Once defined, thebuilder’s trench of the feature measured 2.5 m east-west by 1.05 m north-south. The entire feature hada clay cap across the shaft and the builder’s trench.This suggests that after abandonment, the top of theprivy was razed and then capped with clay. Exca-vation uncovered a rectangular well shaft with ver-tical walls. Remnants of wooden planks were re-corded around the edges of the privy shaft, near itsbase (Figure 103). The base of the feature lay 1.69m (5.54 ft) below the stripped ground surface. Itwas here that archaeologists discovered an intactdry-laid brick floor of handmade brick (Figure 104).The floor measured 1.53 m (5 ft) square. While it ispossible that the feature was a cellar, its relativelydeep and narrow dimensions suggest that it is not.The partial lining of wood and the brick base sug-gest a privy that could be easily cleaned of nightsoil on a regular basis. Also, the brick and woodmay have helped keep night soil from readily leech-ing into the surrounding soils.

ARCHITECTURE ON LOT 204

The most obvious examples of architectural remainson Lot 204 were the brick foundations that sup-ported commercial buildings extant at the beginningof the project. The two east-west foundations followthe same lines as postmolds and postholes markingtwo interior lot divisions. Two other walls withinthis foundation are thicker and may represent ei-ther larger weight-bearing walls, or foundations forother structures.

The majority of earlier structures on Lot 204 con-tained less obvious evidence in the archaeologicalrecord. Some postmolds and postholes may indi-cate previous structures. Cellars clearly indicatedwhere structures or parts of structures once stood.Cellars were associated with both houses and kitchenoutbuildings. There were four definite cellars on thelot (Features 11, 136, 310, and 335). There were anadditional four features (Features 303, 322, 326, and329) that were either pits or cellars. Cellars gener-ally consisted of vertical, unlined sandy walls. Somecontained evidence of wooden floorboards. Cellarsranged in size from approximately four by twometers, to one and a half by three and a half meters.Most were rectangular in plan. Cellar depths werefairly shallow, mostly by design, although gradingof the ground surface over time may have contrib-uted somewhat to their shallow nature. Cellar depthranged from 25 to 50 cm deep. The shallowness ofthe cellars suggests that they were used for food stor-age rather than as rooms for activities or living.


214


Metal

Nail

Brick

Hand PaintedCeramic

Brick

Line Level

xDatum

N 999.80E 980.93Elv 99.93 m E 984.7

N 999.52

1

23

4

5

6 2

7

3

Yellowish Brown Sand

1. Clay Plug. Dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4) sandy clay with abundant mottles of lighter and

2. Well Fill. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sand with abundant mottles of lighter and darker soils and rare charcoal flecks.

3. Well Fill. Dark brown (10YR 3/3) sand with rare small mottles of lighter sand and rare charcoal

flecks, common brick fragments.

4. Same as "3", but no brick fragments.

5. Yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clayey sand builder's trench.

6. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy silt.

Feature 107, Block 10, Lot 205North Profile

cm

500

7. Dark brown (10YR 3/3) sand.

Wooden Plank

darker soils.

Brick

Figure 104. Privy Feature 107, Profile, Lot 205.

Figure 103. Privy Feature 107, Plan View, Lot 205.

3. Matrix. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy silt.

Brick


(Feature base)

N

Elv. 99.34 m

333

3

Elevation 98.96 m

Plan View, Base of Excavation

0 50

cm

2. Builder's Trench. Very similar to "1" but with more mottles of yellowish clay.

and darker sands and rare clay mottles.1. Well Fill. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sand with abundant small mottles of lighter

Elv. 99.79 mE 984.74N 999.52Datum

Bench or Ledge

Wooden Planks

2

1

Brick

Nail

Not Excavated

Volume I. Living in Columbus, Georgia 1828-1869: The Lives of Creeks, Traders, Enslaved...

Documents

Transcript of Volume I. Living in Columbus, Georgia 1828-1869: The Lives of Creeks, Traders, Enslaved...