Final Report on the 2008 Excavations at the

R.B.H. Yates House

by the Rice University Archaeological Field Techniques

class (Anthropology 362/562)

Under the supervision of

Professor Susan McIntosh (Rice University)

Dr. David Bruner (YCAP)

Dr. Carol McDavid (YCAP)

Edited by S.K. McIntosh and B.T. Clark

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

Brian Clark

2. History of Freedmen’s Town and the Yates Family 4

Amara DiFrancesco

3. Previous Archaeological Work at Freedmen’s Town 8

Dario Prieto-Centurion

4. Excavation Methods and Excavated Levels 15

Sarah Nouri

5. Ceramics 23

Brittany Wise and Zoe Zimet

6. Glass Artifacts 36

Felix Digilov and Samantha Thompson

7. Metal Artifacts (Non-Nails) 55

Brittany Spurrier

8. Nails 67

Ben Bahorich

9. Faunal Remains 74

Emily Taylor and Tyler Whitham

10. Bricks 89

Mark Bahorich

11. Artifacts of Personal Adornment 94

Tsholofelo Dichaba

12. Miscellaneous Artifacts 102

Kaitlin Simmons

13. Conclusion 107

Brian Clark

14. Appendix I: The Oral History of Houston’s Freedmen’s Town 116

Part A: Interview with Catherine Roberts 121

Part B: Interview with Lue Williams 134

Part C: Interview with Thelma Scott Bryant 145

DeAngela Hayes and Angel Ashley L. Smith

1

Introduction

By Brian Clark

Background and Goals

The spring 2008 excavation of the Rutherford B. H. Yates Museum site (41HR980) was

conducted by Rice University students and faculty with Museum supervision as part of the

University’s Anthropology 362 class: Archaeological Field Techniques. Under the supervision

of Rice anthropology professor Susan McIntosh, working in concert with Dr. Carol McDavid

and Dr. David Bruner of the Yates Community Archaeology Program (YCAP), students were

guided through a hands-on course of excavation work during four weekends in February,

followed by artifact analysis and interpretation. The aims of the excavation reflected objectives

of both the Archaeological Field Techniques course and the Yates Community Archaeology

Program.

The Yates House site was a significant opportunity for archaeological instruction: it is

rich in historical artifacts and offers possibilities for the articulation of historical and

archaeological information. Yet due to the shallowness of the archaeological deposits, it is

possible to excavate to sterile floodplain in the course of four weekends. Excavation techniques

were aligned with YCAP's to insure consistency of methodology. YCAP continued its

commitment to investigating the lifeways of the community of formerly enslaved peoples who

were primarily responsible for developing “Freedmen’s Town” in the Fourth Ward (McDavid

and Bruner 2004). Many of the research questions are similar to those articulated in a CRM

survey conducted by Feit et al. (2007) in Freedmen’s Town. Of particular interest were the

economic and social interactions of Freedman Town's residents at different scales ranging from

the community level to the global. Artifacts such as food remains, pottery, glassware and other

historical objects permitted hypotheses on how consumer choices and aesthetics may have

reflected social and economic integration, worldviews, and the light they shed on the area’s

integration into historical Houston. Bruner and McDavid have taken this project a step further

by asking similar questions but of specific historically important properties in an attempt to build

localized historical narratives while still reconstructing the social milieu of Freedmen’s Town.

2

Besides the archaeology itself, the collection of oral histories, investigations into documentary

records, and engagement with the community are also deemed significant to fleshing out the

archaeological record and making the information relevant to the contemporary community

which faces gradual gentrification and subsequent erasure of its history.

The excavation described in this report concerned a single 2 x 2 m unit in the back of

Rutherford B. Yates’ former home. Yates was a prominent community leader and played a

significant role in the development of Freedmen’s Town. As well as the more general interests

outlined above, Bruner and McDavid were interested in identifying evidence from this site that

may provide evidence of two historically-noted building episodes at the site, as well as for the

reported use of the house briefly as a school. Additionally, evidence for structured use of the

back yard space was of interest, including the boundaries of the burn pile that had been located a

meter or two farther away from the house than the excavation unit.

The Report

In order to address the number of goals by different groups stated above, students were

asked to compile a professional-style excavation report after the completion of their excavation

and analysis, which would summarize and interpret their work and the information gathered from

it. The results of this endeavor can be found in the following chapters. Each student or group of

students were assigned particular topics and instructed in how to report on such topics ranging

from particular artifact classes to archaeological standards like stratigraphy and methodology.

Aside from these staples of archaeological reporting, certain students also chose to do related

projects like the collection of oral histories and independent background research into the

historical documentation.

References

Auston, David, chairman

1997 Rice: The Next Century. Report of the Strategic Planning Committee.

Rice University: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~provweb/plan/plan.html. Accessed 10

August 2008.

3

Feit, Rachel and B. M. Jones

2007 Cultural Resources, HISD Freedmen’s Town. Hicks & Co. September.

McDavid, Carol and David Bruner

2004 The Yates Community Archaeology Program: Proposal, with Detailed

Operating Plan, Phase One Investigation. unpublished.

4

The History of Freedmen’s Town and the Yates Family

Amara DiFrancesco

On June 5, 1837, an election took place resulting in the emergence of Houston as a

chartered city within Texas. Shortly thereafter, on August 28, 1837 (McComb 1969:72), James

S. Holman became Houston’s first mayor. The city was then divided into four wards imitating

the identical organization utilized in New York’s Manhattan (Feit and Jones 2007:13). The total

land comprising the wards spanned over nine square miles. Each of these four wards had two

representatives, or aldermen, that were elected from along with the mayor. The geography of the

town was determined by the location of the Houston courthouse, which was considered to be the

core of Houston. Of these wards, fourth ward soon emerged as a predominantly African

American section of Houston.

The outcome of the Civil War led to great expansion within fourth ward. The location of

Fourth Ward on the ‘outskirts’ of Houston provided an ideal destination of former slaves to seek.

Common thought was that employment was available within the growing metropolis. One of the

main points of entry at the time to the city of Houston was San Felipe Road, which was located

right next to the Fourth Ward.

Fourth ward grew in African-American population following the conclusion of the Civil

War due to two main factors: The increase of African Americans arriving fresh off release from

plantations (Johnston1991: 75) (leading to the subsequent departure of Confederate

sympathizers) and its location near the major route leading from areas with abundant plantations

(Wintz 1984: 18). At this point, the nickname “Freedmen’s Town” came into existence because

of the mass amounts of slaves immigrating to Fourth Ward. Although segregation and

discrimination was widespread at this point, some African Americans were able to gain

ownership of small parcels of land within Freedmen’s Town during the 1860’s.

One such individual was John Henry Yates, the first pastor of the Antioch Baptist church.

John Henry (Jack) Yates was the second child out of six borne to a slave family in Virginia in

1828. Yates learned to read at a young age, owing to his friendship with his master whom he was

close to in age. He married Harriett Willis, fathered 12 children, and moved to Texas when his

5

master decided to leave the North. He greatly fostered the spiritual growth of Freedmen’s Town.

Yates exerted great influence over his congregation, serving as pastor for over 20 years

(1868-1891). He encouraged community members to follow his example by purchasing several

parcels of land within fourth ward, encouraging those within his parish to do the same. Yates

helped to facilitate this by assisting illiterate freed slaves with paperwork and by helping them

work through the legal process. Because of Yates’ presence, a substantial part of the African

American population was able to gain ownership of land. Yates constructed a two story home

that was the first of its kind owned by an African American in fourth ward, as well as one of the

first all throughout Houston (Yates and Yates 1985:19). The house, which dates from the 1870’s,

now sits at Sam Houston Park in Houston, TX. The decision to relocate the house from fourth

ward to the park is ironic, considering the park’s namesake was a slave owner.

Yates was a very generous individual; he was known to have paid for young children’s’

education, and to have had a very welcoming demeanor in general. He greatly promoted

education, founding Texas Southern University (Houston College at the time) in 1885. (Feit and

Jones 2007: 14). He was a strong advocate for the establishment of Bishop College in Houston,

an African- American Baptist educational institute. Although he was disappointed when it was

instead established in Marshall, Texas, he continued to rally the community in supporting it,

sending four of his children to earn their degrees in later years.

Yates passed on his passion for learning to his son Rutherford, who wrote a book focused

on the successes of his father, and set up a successful printing business under the name of Yates

Printing Company of Houston, which was one of a few African-American-owned printing

companies operating in Houston. Rutherford was one of four of Jack Yates’s children to attend

Bishop College and earn a degree.

The spring 2008 Archeological Field Techniques class excavated a section of the

backyard of Rutherford B. Yates’s house. The Rutherford B. Yates house was constructed in

1912, and Olee Yates McCullough recalls moving in 1913 at the age of three to 1314 Andrews,

which neighbored her grandfather, Jack Yates’s, residence at 1318 Andrews (McCullough 2007:

1).

The preservation of the Rutherford B. Yates house and excavation of nearby

6

surroundings is understandably of the utmost importance in establishing African-American

history, which is sorely lacking any form of documentation. The presence of the Rutherford B.

Yates house provides the modern generation a chance to walk in the footsteps of a past and glean

some knowledge about the struggles and triumphs of the African-American people.

References

Bureau of Research in the Social Sciences of The University of Texas

1942 Houston: A History and Guide. Houston: Anson Jones Press

Feit, R, and B.M. Jones

2007 "A Lotta People Have Histories Here…": History and Archaeology in

Houston's Vanishing Freedmen's Town. Archaeology Report no. 184, Hicks &

Company, Houston. Unpublished report.

House, Gladys Marie

n.d. Freedman's Town: A Brief History. Electronic document,

http://www.houstonprogressive.org/FTAbrief.txt

Johnston, Marguerite

1991 Houston: The Unknown City, 1836-1946. College Station: Texas A&M

University Press

Kelsen, J.M.

1913 Houston Street Guide. Electronic Photograph of map,

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/arc/maps/images/map0435.jpg

McComb, David G.

1969 Houston: The Bayou City. Austin: University of Texas Press

McCullough, Olee Yates.

2007 Handbook of Texas Online- Yates, John Henry (Jack). Electronic

document, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/YY/fya7.html

Rutherford B. Yates Museum

7

2005 Bridges to the Past. Electronic photograph,

http://www.publicarchaeology.org/yates/history.html

The Heritage Society

2005 Historic Structures: Yates House. Electronic photograph,

http://www.heritagesociety.org/yates.html

Wintz, Cary D.

1984 The Ethnic Groups of Houston. In von der Mehden, Fred (ed.) Rice

University Studies: Houston: 11-30

Wortham, Louis J.

n.d. Texas During the Civil War. Electronic document,

http://www.texasmilitaryforcesmuseum.org/wortham/4345.htm

Yates, Rutherford B and Yates, Paul

1985 Life and Efforts of Jack Yates. Houston: Texas Southern University.

8

Previous Archeological Work at Freedmen’s Town

Dario Prieto-Centurion

Previous Work – Hicks & Co.

Motivation

The project at the Gregory Lincoln School Site was intended to save and recover

historical data about Freedmen’s Town before the project area was developed. As stated by Feit,

few to none archeological studies of worth had been conducted at Freedmen’s Town before that

by Hicks & Co (Feit and Jones 181). This lack of written history about the area further

emphasized the need for a rigorous archeological study of this kind.

Objectives

As stated by Feit, the goals of the project at the onset were not the same as those at the

closing stages (Feit and Jones 157). Feit and Jones originally designed the project to study the

following:

1. Food remains present in the area and what the community’s food preference implies.

2. Material and cultural remains and what social, economical and racial information they

confer

3. Religious artifacts and whatever information on religious practice in the community

they bring about

4. Contrasts between artifacts from rural and urban African-American communities

during the Jim Crow era

5. Contrasts between Houston’s Freedmen’s Town and other similar African-American

communities of the time

6. Contrasts between purchasing and consumption habits in Freedmen’s Town relative

to the rest of Houston, and their socio-economical implications

7. The change in population and infrastructure density at Freedmen’s Town

9

However, Feit admits that trying to address all these points was ambitious and it was

understood the objectives would change as the project progressed (Feit and Jones 157). At the

outset, the project had two goals (Feit and Jones 181):

1. Prove or deny the presence of burials in the area

2. Study the household remains of the population that lived in the area at the turn of the

century

Despite great effort, the investigators found no graves in the area of study. Household remains

were plentiful; nevertheless, interpretable artifacts and features were sporadic at best (Feit and

Jones 181). The few interpretable features and artifacts were few and far in between and did not

encourage further study under the guidelines of the Texas Antiquities Code (Feit and Jones 184).

State Archeological Status was not awarded to any of the ten sites in the Gregory Lincoln School

site (Feit and Jones 185).

Location

The project area was located four blocks west of the Rutherford B.H. Yates Museum. As

illustrated by Feit and Jones ( Feit and Jones 52), the area spanned from Robin Street on the

north to Victor Street on the South, and from Taft Street on the West to Genesse Street on the

East and occupied an area of approximately thirty-thousand square meters (Figure 1).

Feit and Jones used trenching for general characterization of the sites and test units for

data refinement. In Figure 2 we can see that west of Mason Street and north of Andrews Street

trenches are mainly latitudinal while East of Mason Street orientation is mainly longitudinal.

According to Feit and Jones, trenches were dug north to south were a cemetery was suspected

because historical burials are usually longitudinal (Feit and Jones 45). While Feit and Jones fail

to explain criteria they used to determine the likelihood of burials, it seems they assumed burials

would not be situated close to households.

10

Robin

Andrews

Ruthven

Cleveland

Victor

Taft

Gen

ess

e

Wilso

n

Gil

lett

e

Mas

on

PROJECTAREA N

W Gray

Robin

Andrews

Ruthven

Cleveland

Victor

Taft

Gen

ess

e

Wilso

n

Gil

lett

e

Mas

on

Robin

Andrews

Ruthven

Cleveland

Victor

Taft

Gen

ess

e

Wilso

n

Gil

lett

e

Mas

on

PROJECTAREA N

W Gray

Figure 1: Feit and Jones study area highlighted by dashed lines relative to the R.B.H. Museum,

indicated with a white arrow. Map not to scale. Schematic based on Feit and Jones, Figure 6-1,

p. 52, and Clark Condon Associates, Midtown Land Use and Development, 2006.

11

Figure 2 shows the general location and orientation of the trenches and test units at the Gregory

Lincoln School Site. Feit and Jones, figure 6-1, p. 52

12

Review of Results

Households: Infrastructure

While most of Freedmen’s Town appears to have developed haphazardly and over

several years, it seems that the project area was developed in the wake of an urban planning

effort by the city of Houston at the turn of the century (Feit and Jones 160-161). Feit and Jones

argue that since no cistern, well or privy was uncovered, a water and sewage system must have

been in place (Feit and Jones 161). They are quick to point out, however, that some features may

have been missed since not the entire area was stripped. Feit and Jones also mention that the 2nd

Pleasant Green Baptist Church was connected to the electrical grid by 1924, and indicate that

electricity was likely available to residents of the project area. However, glass fragments from

kerosene lamps were uncovered in pre-1940’s context, suggesting that residents did not rely

solely on either method of lighting (Feit and Jones 162).

Households: Yards

Feit and Jones recorded a few events of waste disposal in yards, however, these were well

delimited and do not suggest that residents ignored maintenance (Feit and Jones 165). In fact,

the abundant flower pot shards give an idea of the residents’ aesthetical sensitivity (Feit and

Jones 165-166). In addition, it appears that these flower pots were not merely stylistic in nature.

Feit suggests that residents might have grown plants to supplement their diets, and draws

attention to the concentration of shards along property boundaries, hinting they were used as

delimiters (Feit and Jones 166).

Diet and Lifestyle: Faunal Material and Food Processing

According to Feit, analysis of the animal remains shows that residents of the project area

had a typical diet for a Texas urban site, consisting mainly of cows and pigs. Nevertheless, a few

unusual remains, such as bones of marine fish, are indicative of a larger regional economy that

expected (Feit and Jones 167-168). Feit also points out that the lack of canning jars and can lids

13

suggests home canning and processing was not heavily practiced. Instead, Feit argues, residents

of the project area relied on products processed by local storeowners (Feit and Jones 170-171).

Patterns of Consumption

Feit and Jones encountered that households in the project area were no different that

white households as far as ceramic composition is concerned (Feit and Jones 173). In addition,

socio-economical status showed the wares differences expected in white communities. The

wealthier Spillman family owned at least part of a French Haviland Porcelain; tenant houses, on

the other hand, produced a higher concentration of whiteware fragments reflecting lower socio-

economical status (Feit and Jones 173 – 175).

Patterns of Activity and Consumption

Another outstanding characteristic the project was the quantity of buttons and clothing-

related items found around tenant houses which apparently burned down while people still lived

there (Feit and Jones 175). The sizable button collection suggests that women in these

households worked as laundresses and seamstresses, and were keeping spare buttons for future

use (Feit and Jones 176)

General Health

Medicine containers found at the project area were primarily for aches, grooming and

digestive problems. Cough and flu medicine, on the contrary, were very scarce (Feit and Jones

177). Strangely enough, the ubiquitous prescription bottle was almost missing from the artifact

set – only one was found – which suggests that druggists were either few or completely absent in

Freedmen’s Town (Feit and Jones 177).

Relation to Yates Site

This project area holds a special bond with the R.B.H. Yates site due to highly communal

aspects of the neighborhood. As described by Feit, the material remains of several households

show outstanding similarities that can only be explained by the constant transfer of items

14

between them. (Feit and Jones 178) It is conceivable that this was not only occurring in at the

project site, but that it was a widespread phenomenon in Freedmen’s Town. It is no stretch of the

imagination to believe that some of the items and history at the Yates site are related to the

findings in the project area. Because of the proximity of the two sites and the well-known

interactions between members of the community, it is possible there was a strong link between

families at the Gregory Lincoln School site and the Yates family.

Current Work – R.B.H. Yates Museum Inc.

Motivation

As with the study by Feit and Jones, the work by McDavid and Bruner is driven to save

history in a rapidly developing area and at the same time educate the current residents of

Freedmen’s Town. (McDavid and Bruner 10-11) This is especially important as there is little to

none written history on Freedmen’s Town. Saving as much as possible of one of the few

continuously inhabited communities is not only important to the city of Houston, but the entire

country. These communities are an important reminder and evidence of one of the most

interesting periods in American history, the turn of the 20th

century.

Approach and Objectives

McDavid and Bruner plan to educate members of the community and to involve them

directly in the excavation and analysis. The project plans to allow team members to become

familiar with techniques and data. As so, the main objective of the project is to educate the

community and to inform them that Freedmen’s Town is an important historical site that is worth

saving and understanding (McDavid and Bruner 11-12).

References

Feit, Rachel and B. M. Jones

2007 Cultural Resources, HISD Freedmen’s Town. Hicks & Co. September.

McDavid, Carol and D. Bruner

2003 R.B.H. Yates Museum, Inc., Community Archeology Program

15

Excavation Methods and Excavated Levels

Sarah S. Nouri

The excavations conducted by the Rice University Archaeological Field Techniques class

(ANTH 362) took place on the property of the R. B. H. Yates Museum (site designation:

41HR980) over four weekends beginning February 2nd

[8 A.M. to 5 P.M. on Saturdays and 12

P.M. to 4 P.M. on Sundays]. One 2m x 2m unit – Unit P – was excavated in the back yard of the

Yates House. Its northwest corner was shared with the southeast corner of Unit D, which had

been previously excavated by the archaeologists of the Yates Community Archaeology Project.

Metal stakes were placed in each corner of the unit, which were strung to define the perimeter of

the unit. Another set of stakes were placed 20 cm away to prevent people from standing too close

to the unit and collapsing the walls. A pre-existing stake (from Unit D) in the northwest corner

served as the Point-of-Origin, established 11 cm above ground surface. All depth measurements

were taken with reference to this P.O. The unite was excavated in 5 cm levels to a depth of 60

cm below the P.O., at which point cultural materials had almost entirely disappeared.

Excavation Methodology

Excavation commenced with the removal of the top 5 cm, which was mostly grass cover

and root mat, over the entire unit. A second 5 cm level was removed below that. At Level 3, the

unit was divided into four 1m x 1m subunits (1 – NW, 2 – NE , 3 – SW, and 4 – SE ). Subunits

were maintained until Levels 9 and 10, which were excavated across the entire unit.

Usually four or five students excavated – one student per subunit – while one person, the

pit boss, supervised. The pit boss recorded all the data on Unit excavation forms (see Appendix

to this chapter for sample form). Once subunits were established, primary recording was done on

Subunit forms (see Appendix to this chapter for sample form), and at the end of each level the pit

boss summarized the data from the subunit forms onto the Unit form for the entire level. The

forms included the depth of the subunit or unit (measured in each corner and in the center), the

soil color (Munsell Color chart) and texture (Ahn Test), artifacts found, and excavation

technique. On the Unit forms, roots, changes in soil, and interesting artifacts were all drawn to

16

scale. Their exact locations were measured from three directions: depth from the point of origin

and distance from the two closest walls.

Each level was approximately 5 cm deep. West African short-handled hoes (dabas) were

used to remove the surface root mat, and trowels were then used to level the surface. For the top

three levels, dabas were used to dig in 2.5 cm intervals, and trowels were used to level the

surface. Whenever new types of soil were reached, trowels were used instead of dabas so as not

to disturb the stratigraphy of the unit. With increasing depth, trowels were relied on more

frequently to ensure greater care and precision with each 2.5 cm pass. Dabas were again used in

the heavy, wet clays of Levels 9 and 10.

Roots that emerged from the walls of the unit were either cut with clippers or chopped off

with dabas. The excavated deposits were collected in buckets, and then sifted in ¼” screens.

Buckets were labeled by sub-unit and sifted in a dedicated sub-unit screen in order to avoid

confusion and inadvertent mixing. Artifacts were placed in Ziploc bags labeled with the site,

level and subunit numbers, and then were sorted, washed and catalogued in the Rice University

Archaeology Laboratory. The categories of artifacts included glass, ceramic, lithics, building

material, metal, and bone. Photographs of the unit were taken at the beginning and end of each

level. Soil samples were taken at each level from a 0.25 m x 0.25 m column in the southeast

corner of the unit. These samples have been stored at the Yates Museum, and will be sifted in

finer screens to collect the small artifacts.

A final trip was taken to the site on March 23rd

to draw and photograph the profiles of the

unit. Trowels were used to clean and smooth the walls, and roots were removed with root

clippers. To draw the strata, measurements were taken every 20-30 centimeters with a measuring

tape from a string that was level with the Point of Origin.

There were a couple of problems during the excavations that affected the methodology.

First of all, there were many roots in the soil, especially in the upper levels. Most of these were

removed successfully, but one remained in the northwest corner of the unit, thus preventing the

excavation of a small triangular section in that corner. Second of all, the weather was very humid

and it rained often. It rained during one of the excavation days (February 16th

), and several times

17

the unit was filled with water from rainfall. This water was removed with buckets at the

beginning of each day.

Excavated Levels

The stratigraphy for Unit P is described in this section. The soil and artifact content are

described for each level, with appropriate references to the subunits. There is also a table

summarizing the Munsell and Ahn tests, as well as the artifacts discovered, for each level (Table

1). There are four section drawings, which show the natural layers of the soil for the four walls of

the unit, as well as, in dashed lines, the excavated levels (Figs. 1 and 2). These drawings are

followed by a key describing the types of deposit of the strata. The chapter appendix contains

level sketches of the unit at the close of Level 3, Level 5, and Level 6A.

The soil in Level 1 was moist, sticky, and heavy clay. It began under the root mat, which

was removed with dabas. The artifacts found were small bones; metal, including bottle caps,

aluminum foil, coins, pieces of iron, nails, and a spoon; building material, including shingles,

brick, white mortar; seedpods; and some glass and ceramics. A tent stake with string was

identified by Dr. D. Bruner as originating from a recent event at the Museum. Clearly, Level 1

has a mixture of materials deposited over a range of recent time.

Level 2 commenced with the same type of soil as Level 1. After 2 cm, an area of lighter,

greasier, more compact and grayer clay was observed in the NE corner. The border was

difficult to delineate, owing to disturbance by tree roots .but it appeared to extend over much of

the NE and SE quadrants of the unit. Artifacts recovered included bones (both small and large),

glass and metal fragments, seedpods, building material and coins. There was also a plastic

button, a bone button, grey fabric, and a red shoestring. The far west side of the unit was

obscured by a large tree root. At the bottom of the level, the deposit was sandier, lighter in color,

and saturated with pebbles and rocks, particularly in the south and center of the unit.

The soil in Level 3 was sandier than that in the previous two levels. The top layer was

rich in clay, while the lower layer was coarse and yellowish sand. Subunit 4 had the sandiest soil;

Subunit 1 had many roots. The artifacts found included bones and glass, mostly in Subunit 1,

nails in Subunits 2 and 4, bottle caps and can bottoms in Subunit 3.

18

The soil in Level 4 was heterogeneous, consisting of loam and clay, with streaky light

patches of reddish-yellow sand interspersed with grey clay appearing in Subunits 3 and 4.

Subunit 2 was more homogeneous. Notable amounts of charcoal ("coke") and large quantities of

rusted metal, especially nails, were found in all units, Brick fragments were mapped in subunits

1 and 3. There was a lot of metal and glass (different color glass beads) distributed in all the

subunits. There were also building materials, seashells, animal bones, and fish vertebrae. Subunit

1 contained many fragments of white ceramic. There was a high concentration of charcoal in the

center of the unit, especially near Subunits 1 and 3. There were also several bricks in Subunits 3

and 4.

In Level 5, the greasy, grey, heavy clay with reddish-yellow streaks that was most

abundant in the southern subunits resolved at the close of the level into an underlying yellow

sand. Level 5 was continued until the sand layer had been delineated over subunits 1, 3, and 4.

Bricks in subunits 1, 3,and 4 were pedestalled. Numerous large cobblestones and small stone

were noted in subunit 3 distributed along a NW/SE axis. There was a large concentration of

iron in Subunits 2 and 4. Other categories of artifacts were less numerous than in upper levels.

Level 6 was a thin (1–2 cm) layer of reddish-yellow sand. There were patches of mortar

breaking through the layer of reddish brown sand in Subunits 1 and 2. The northeast corner of

Subunit 2 consisted of very dark grey loam. In Subunit 1, the sand was beginning to disappear

and was replaced with dark loam. There was a heavy concentration of iron, especially in Subunit

4. The level was subdivided and the darker loam deposits under the sand were excavated as

Level 6A.

Level 6A comprised the darker, loam deposits that underlay the sand over most of the

entire unit. Reddish sand persisted in some areas and light-colored sand was present at the north

and west edges of the unit. There were a number of prominent patches of friable, degraded

mortar between Subunits 1 and 3 and Subunits 3 and 4. There was a stony patch on the east side

of the unit. Metal hardware pieces were prominent finds.

The deposits in Level 7 were predominantly wet, light clay with some sandy sections in

Subunit 1. Tree roots were present in all of the subunits. All of the artifacts that were found in

this level were rather large. There was a lot of glass and iron in all of the subunits, along with a

19

higher concentration of coke in Subunit 4 and shells in Subunit 2. There were also many

different types of ceramic in all of the subunits.

Level 8, much like Level 7, consisted of wet, light clay. This level had more

homogeneous soil, however. There were noticeably fewer artifacts that in the previous level.

Artifacts consisted mostly of metal and glass fragments, nails, and some ceramic. There was

charcoal ("coke") across the unit but the pieces were too small to be processed. The water that

appeared in Level 7 was beginning to seep in throughout the unit.

With artifacts levels in marked decline, sub-units were eliminated in Level 9. Level 9 also

consisted of light clay. The most common artifacts were iron hardware (nails) and building

materials. There were some ceramic and bone fragments. Water was still seeping into the unit

from the northeast corner. At this point, excavations were reduced to the northwest 1 x 1 m sub-

unit.

The soil in Level 10 was very moist, heavy clay. There was some building material, but

the pieces were large and very sparse. The level was basically sterile.

In general, the first few levels contained large quantities of small artifacts, while levels 7

and 8, immediately below the red-yellow sand of Level 6 and patchily in 6A, contained much

bigger artifacts. Artifact concentration and root density were lower in levels with sandy soil. The

roots from the tree located approximately one meter north of the northeast corner of Unit P

greatly affected the natural strata of the soil by moving (pushing up or down) sandy layers in

order to grow in the clay-like soil, which contains a higher concentration of nutrients. This may

have affected artifact distribution.

Relation of Excavated Levels to Stratigraphy

In general, excavated levels correspond to observed stratigraphy (Figs. 1 and 2). Levels

1 and 2 correspond to natural layer A; Levels 3 and 4 correspond to natural layer B in the south

(interrupted by the mottled clay of B') and east (interrupted by the dark, homogenous deposit of

A'' at this depth), B and A' in the north, and B and C in the west. Level 5 incorporates several

different natural layers – B, A', C, D. Levels 6 and 6A correspond generally to the sand layers E

20

and F and thus provide a clear demarcation between artifact-bearing levels above and below the

largely sterile sand. Levels 7, 8, 9, and 10 correspond roughly to the heavy clay layer G.

North Profile

East Profile

Figure 1: Drawings of natural strata and excavated levels for the North and East walls of Unit P.

“P.O.” is the point of origin. The horizontal lines for excavated levels (dashed) are extended out

for clarity. The numbers on the right side are the excavated level numbers, while the letters

represent the types of soil (see below for key). The numbers on the top and left are distance in

centimeters. On the North profile, the portions of the lines to the left of the vertical dashed line

(at 40 cm) represent inferred strata because of the diagonal cut at the NW corner of the unit

(caused by a root). Hatched = unexcavated

Key for the different types of deposit: Label Description

A Very dark brown clay with root mass from the grass; homogeneous gumbo clay; not many

artifacts

A’ Same color as “A” but with slightly more sand and tree roots; no grass roots; many artifacts

A” Homogeneous, dark clay (no sand); no artifacts or roots

B Heterogeneous mixed clay (dark brown) and sand (orange); some artifacts

E Orange sand with some clay and some white sandy patches; not many artifacts

21

F White or light khaki sand; no artifacts

G Dark, heavy, gumbo clay; some iron artifacts and roots

South Profile

West Profile

Figure 2: Drawings of both natural strata and excavated levels for the South and West walls of

Unit P. “P.O.” is the point of origin. The horizontal lines for excavated levels (dashed) are

extended out for clarity. The numbers on the right side are the excavated level numbers, while

the letters represent the types of soil (see below for key). The numbers on the top and left are

distance in centimeters. On the West profile, the portions of the lines to the right of the vertical

dashed line (at 160 cm) represent inferred strata because of the diagonal cut at the NW corner of

the unit (caused by a root).

Key for the additional deposit types in South and West profiles (see Figure 1 for the descriptions

of A, B, E, F, and G):

Label Description

B’ Red clay, with some gray patches; no sand; some small roots; no artifacts

C Grayish brown clay with some sandy patches; high concentration of rocks and

iron

D Mixed sand and clay (mostly sand); modeled with orange sand

22

Table 1: Depth measurements, Munsell and Ahn values, artifacts, and general observations for

each level. “L” is level, “O.D.” is opening depth, and “C.D.” is closing depth. Opening and

closing depths are measured in centimeters from the point of origin. L O.D. C.D. Munsell

Values

Ahn Test Artifact Observations General Observations

1 9.5 14.0 7.5 YR 2.5/1

(brown-black)

F (light clay) Mostly metal and building

material; some bone

Layer was directly

underneath root mat

2 14.0 19.0 10 YR 3/1

(dark gray)

F/G (light to

heavy clay)

Mostly metal and glass;

some large bone, mortar,

buttons, fabric, string

NE corner – an area of

lighter clay; SW corner –

grainier soil

3 19.0 23.0 10 YR 3/1

(dark gray)

C (light loam) Mostly bones and glass,

building material

Sub 1 – a lot of roots;

Sub 4 –sandy soil

4 23.0 29.0 Sub 1: 2.5 YR

2.5/1

Sub 2: 5 Y

2.5/1

Sub 3: 10 YR

3/1

Sub 4: 2.5 YR

3/1

F (light clay) Mostly metal and building

material; some glass,

ceramic, bone

Lighter clay; a lot of

charcoal and gravel

5 29.0 35.0 10 YR 3/1

(dark gray)

D (loam) Mostly building material

and glass; some ceramic

metal

Yellowish clay in north

and sand in south;

artifacts are larger

6 35.0 37.0 7.5 YR 4/6

(strong brown)

B/C (light

loam/loamy

sand)

High concentration of

metal

Red/brown sand

6a 37.0 39.0 Sub 1,2: 2.5 Y

3/1

Sub 3,4: 7.5 YR

3/1

C/E/A (light to

heavy loam and

sand)

High concentration of

metal hardware

Patches of mortar and

stone

7 39.0 45.0 Sub 1: 10 YR

3/1

Sub 2,3: 10 YR

3/2

Sub 4: 7.5 YR

3/1

G (heavy clay) Mostly glass and

charcoal/coal slag; some

metal and ceramic

Two mortar features; a

lot of roots

8 45.0 50.0 Sub 1: 7.5 YR

3/2

Sub 2: 7.5 YR

2.5/1

Sub 3: 7.5 YR

3/3

Sub 4: 7.5 YR

3/1

F/G (light to

heavy clay)

Mostly metal and ceramic;

some charcoal

Low artifact count; water

was seeping onto the

floor on the east side

9 50.0 56.0 7.5 YR 3/1 F (light clay) Mostly metal, building

material, bone; some

buttons and ceramic

Low artifact count; water

seeping in

10 56.0 60.0 7.5 YR 3/1 G (heavy clay) Some large pieces of

building material

Soil was mostly sterile –

very few artifacts

23

Ceramics

Brittany Wise and Zoe Zimet

Introduction

The ceramics for Unit P Levels 1-10 were carefully documented to preserve context of

location. All but four levels (1, 2, 9, and 10) were divided into subunits, and the artifacts found in

these levels were noted for their subunit location in the appendix below.

Methods

All the ceramics were catalogued based on the type of ceramic technology they

represented, understood by their paste and glaze, and important features such as the presence of

makers marks, body part and decoration were noted. To a large extent this was in line with he

Yates Community Archaeology Project’s established criteria for ceramic classifications and thus

the Yates data and coding systems were used for the cataloguing process. Earthenwares were

classified into whitewares, creamwares, and pearlwares based on a close examination of the

paste and more importantly the glaze. Creamwares were the oldest submaterial and were

identifiable by the heavier body, off-white paste and yellowed glaze. Pearlware was developed

after creamware and its distinguishing feature is the bluish tinge to the glaze created by the

introduction of cobalt. It is most noticeable in the places where it puddles (in the crevices around

the rims). Whiteware was the last submaterial introduced, and represents the greatest refinement

of the paste and glaze materials resulting in a clean, near white ceramic. It was usually less thick

than the other two, and the part between the top and bottom layers of glaze was uniform in

appearance, with tinier pores. A possible qualitative trend which became useful in identification

of earthenwares were the sounds they made when gently dropped from a short distance about the

table; the creamware sound was clunky and the whiteware sound was more tinkly, and the

pearlware was somewhere in between. Although this was not a definite indicator of ceramic

type, the correlation may have worked out well because of the propensity for earthenwares to

become finer, freer of impurities and more vitreous with the increases in technology associated

with each ceramic type.

24

China and porcelain, although effectively the same things, were distinguished based on

the quality of their production. Porcelain was characterized as being a fine, fully vitrified, kaolin

rich ceramic while china was less vitrified and heavier bodied making it appear grainier and less

glassy in profile and something like an earthenware. One easy way to distinguish the two was to

hold pieces up to a strong light. Because both were characterized by their degree of vitrifcation,

porcelain was translucent in strong light given its glass-like qualities while china was generally

not.

Stoneware was the final ceramic type identified. Stonewares are intermediate between

porcelain and earthenwares in terms of their vitrification. The breaks on stoneware are often

smooth and shiny although not as glassy as porcelain. No further distinction among stonewares

was made, however, regarding technological types of the ware such as salt-glazed stonewares, or

grey bodied versus buff bodied wares.

Decoration was also examined. The vast majority of decorations were transfer prints on

earthenwares identified by the stippling effect of the transfer printing process. A few pieces,

however, represented other techniques like ceramic B in Figure 3 which was clearly painted on

and glazed over in a technique similar to majolica on tin glazed earthenwares.

Data presentation

Levels 4-10 were found to have a lot of earthenware, including pearlware, whiteware, and

creamware. As seen in Figure 1, the peak the frequency of earthenware of these three types

occurs in Level 7. Pearlware fragments were found in the greatest abundance, followed by

whiteware and then creamware. Creamware was found mainly in Level 5; the only other instance

of creamware was in Level 8. The later instance of the creamware could be due to a piece finally

being discarded after a period of time of its reuse and passing down in the family.

Figure 2 shows the frequency of each submaterial found, and is an excellent source for

observing the trends in variety of materials found in the class of ceramics. We see that in Level 6

there was a lack of artifacts found outside of the porcelain and earthenware found. The other

levels which did not contain much variety were Levels 1 and 2, and also Level 10. Since Level 6

is not close to either end of this spectrum, it is possible that there was an archaeological break in

25

the unit at Level 6. Evidence that would support this theory would be if there were fewer artifacts

found in other material classes.

Several artifacts of noted interest were ones with makers’ marks. In Level 5, there was an

earthenware fragment found with a clear green maker’s mark: Homer Laughlin- Hudson.

Lehner's Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain, and Clay (1988) indicates that this

mark was registered around 1900 (Lehner 1988:247). This contributes to the context of the time

period of the findings; Level 5 cannot date to any earlier than 1900.

Figure 3 shows a summary photograph of all of the sherds found within the unit in levels

6-10. The majority of the finds came from Level 7. A range of colors is represented, mostly used

in the method of transfer printing, including blues and greens, and also purple. The images

shown were floral motifs of leaves and blossoms. An interesting find was the artifact that

contained a fragment of a maker’s mark: “OPAQUE”. Online research led to the lucky discovery

of an image of a maker’s mark by Edward Clarke (Figure 4). The “OPAQUE” image is found in

the lower right hand of the whole maker’s mark. Research into the maker’s mark showed that it

was produced in Tunstall and Burslem, Staffordshire in England between 1865 and 1887

(http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22319).

Figure 5 shows a creamware fragment of a figurine with a stamped “7” or an italicized

“L” on it, found in Level 9. The top of the cylindrical fragment is worn down, indicating a

function which involved continued use of that particular surface. For example, the fragment

could have been a toy horse’s leg, and the bottom surface, or the “hoof”, made contact on the

ground repeatedly.

Figure 6 shows a bottle top fragment with a light brown glaze, found in Level 7. Three

other fragments of the same type were found: one in Level 5 and two others in Level 7. The

frequency of these fragments found suggests their use throughout time around the location of the

Unit P.

Figure 7 shows a fragment of a child’s teacup found in Level 9. It is surprisingly intact

for being so far down in the stratigraphy. The china is only half there, and is missing a handle. Its

presence indicates an example of a recreational activity a child might have partaken in at that

point in time: having tea parties or playing house.

26

References

California State Parks

2008 Maker’s Mark Type Collection Photo Gallery. Electronic document,

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22319.

Ceramics Frequencies in Levels 1-10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Level

Co

un

t

Pearlware

Creamware

Whiteware

Figure 1: Ceramic Frequencies in Levels 1-10. This figure compares the frequency of the

different submaterials of earthenware. There is an apparent peak in the presence of pearlware in

Level 6. The amount of whiteware remains constant throughout all the levels. Creamware was

only present in Levels 5 and 8.

27

Submaterial Frequencies

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Level

Co

un

t Porcelain

Stoneware

Earthenware

China

Figure 2: Submaterial Frequencies. The figure compares the frequency of the different

submaterials of ceramics.

28

Figure 3: Artifacts with prints. A. Creamware fragment with blue ink transfer print found in

Level 7, Subunit 2; B. creamware fragment with green floral decoration found in Level 7,

Subunit 1; C. whiteware fragment with green and blue floral arrangement transfer print found in

Level 7, Subunit 3; D. whiteware fragment with green transfer print found in Level 7, Subunit 3;

E. whiteware fragment with black floral transfer print found in Level 7, Subunit 1; F. whiteware

with maker’s mark: “OPAQUE” found in Level 6, Subunit 4; G. whiteware fragment with a

floral motif in a cobalt blue glaze found in Level 9; H. whiteware fragment with maker’s mark:

“-ONI SONT QUI” found in Level 9; I. pearlware with a transfer print in a purple floral motif

found in Level 9; J. whiteware fragment with blue ink transfer print found in Level 7, Subunit 2.

Scale in centimeters.

Figure 4: Maker’s Mark for Edward Clarke. The fragment in Figure 3 (F) comes from the lower

right corner of this maker’s mark image.

29

Figure 5: Fragment of figurine. Found in Level 7, Subunit 3. Contains printed “7” or italicized

“L” (upside down). Top is very worn down. Creamware. Scale in centimeters.

Figure 6: Bottle top fragment. Found in Level 7, Subunit 1. Light brown glazed earthenware

fragment. Scale in centimeters.

30

Figure 7: Half of child’s teacup. Found in Level 9. Missing handle and back half (not visible).

China. Scale in centimeters.

Appendix: Catalogue of Analyzed Ceramics

Lvl Sub-

unit

Material Sub-

Mat

Art.

Class

Qty. Wt

(g)

Comments

1 I CB 1001 1

1 I CC 1001 2

1 I CH 1001 6 4

1 I CH 1031 1 Light Blue / Green Glaze

1 I CH 1033 1 2 U-shaped

2 I CC 1001 4 Two Runners

2 I CC 1003 1

2 I CC 1003 1 Gray with Blue Pieces around the Rim

2 I CC 1003 1 Light Yellow Glaze

2 I CC 1003 1 Floral Imprint

2 I CF 1003 1 White Diagonal

3 1 I CA 1003 1 Rectangular Indent

3 1 I CC 1001 2 2

3 1 I CF 1001 1

3 2 I CC 1001 2 4

3 2 I CC 1003 1 4 Dark Glaze

3 2 I CC 1003 1 Pale Blue Glaze with Internal Rim

3 2 I CC 1003 1 Light Yellow Smooth Glaze

3 2 I CC 1003 1 Yellow Glaze

3 4 I CB 1033 1 10 Dark Brown Glaze with Surface

Bubbles

31

3 4 I CC 1001 3 4

3 4 I CC 1003 1 14 Base with Blue Glaze on the outside

3 4 I CC 1003 1 Blue Glaze with Blue and White

Circular Decoration

3 4 I CH 1001 1

4 1 I CB 1003 1 3 Dark Brown Glaze

4 1 I CC 1001 1 Pearlware

4 1 I CC 1001 2 20 Thick Edges with Crazing

4 1 I CC 1001 12 27 Whiteware Piece Including a Rim and

Handle

4 1 I CC 1003 1 Light Blue Glaze

4 1 I CC 1003 17 79 Gray Color Class from Same Set /

Raised Molded in Circles and

Arabesques

4 1 I CF 1001 2 3

4 2 I CA 1001 1 2

4 2 I CC 1001 1 4 Lead Glaze with Black Edges

4 2 I CC 1001 6 14

4 2 I CC 1001 11 22 Whiteware

4 2 I CC 1003 1 3 Light Blue Glaze on top, Off-white on

bottom

4 2 I CC 1003 1 3 Deep Blue Glaze with Raised Floral

Decoration

4 2 I CC 1003 1 3 Gray Glaze with Blue Dots / Raised

Surface

4 2 I CC 1003 3 2 Blue Floral Decorations

4 2 I CC 1003 5 24 Rough Gray Glaze

4 2 I CF 1001 2 2

4 3 I CA 1001 1 1 Rim Sherd with Wavering Line and

Raised

4 3 I CC 1001 4 20 Share Common Rust Stains

4 3 I CC 1001 7 32 Rough Gray Glaze with Molded Forms

4 3 I CC 1001 11 18 Variety of Edges and Thickness

4 3 I CC 1003 1 6 Light Brown/Yellow Glaze

4 3 I CC 1003 1 1 White Slipped Red Body

4 3 I CC 1003 1 2 Light Blue Glaze

4 3 I CC 1003 1 3 Blue Glaze with Raised Edges and

Yellow Accents

4 3 I CC 1003 1 Small Fragment with Dark and Light

Blue Sides

4 4 I CA 1001 2

4 4 I CC 1001 4 47 Large Fragments with a Rough Glaze

4 4 I CC 1001 5 9

4 4 I CC 1003 1 37 Large Fragment with a Dark

32

Brown/Black Glaze and Rough/Smooth

Surface

4 4 I CC 1003 3 6 Darker Gray Spots

4 4 I CC 1023 1 2 Possible Tile Fragment

5 1 I CA 1001 3 3 Belongs to One Vessel, Rim Included

5 1 I CB 1001 1 103 Drain Pipe with Salt Glaze

5 1 I CC 1001 1 17 Contain Dark Edges

5 1 I CC 1001 15 19 Variety

5 1 I CC 1003 1 1 Light Gray Glaze

5 1 I CC 1003 1 2 Rim

5 1 I CC 1003 1 1 Rim with Shell Column Decoration,

Outlined in Pale Pink

5 2 I CA 1003 1 2 Curving Lines with a Pattern Striations

and Two Circles

5 2 I CA 1007 10 6 Pieces Include Two Ears and Other

Indeterminate Facial Fragments

5 2 I CA 1033 1 Curved Neck

5 2 I CC 1001 3 1 Thick, Smooth Creamware

5 2 I CC 1001 5 16 Pearlware with Sharply Defined

Crazing

5 2 I CC 1001 6 11 Rough Creamware, One Piece Bears

Rust Marks

5 2 I CC 1001 7 5 Smooth Creamware, Pieces Include

Two Rims

5 2 I CC 1001 11 65 Rough Gray

5 2 I CC 1003 1 2 Handle Fragment

5 2 I CC 1003 1 Clear Green Maker’s Mark: Homer

Laughlin - Hudson (1900)

5 2 I CC 1003 1 Bears Black Intricate Decoration

Beyond Identification

5 2 I CC 1003 1 Light Blue / Dark Blue with Dots And

Decoration

5 2 I CC 1023 1 1 Light Brown

5 2 I CF 1003 1 8 Bottom Edge Rim

5 2 I CF 1003 1 5 Bears Parallel Lines

5 3 I CA 1001 1 Disturbed Surface

5 3 I CA 1003 1 1 Pink on Surface

5 3 I CA 1003 1 Raised Edge

5 3 I CA 1003 1 Curved Edge with Raised Point

5 3 I CB 1033 1 1 Light Brown Glazed Bottle Top

Fragment

5 3 I CC 1001 1 4 Pearlware Rims

5 3 I CC 1001 1 1 Rough Gray Glaze

5 3 I CC 1001 2 3 Creamware

33

5 3 I CC 1033 1 6 Ornamented Handle Edge with Finial

5 4 I CC 1001 1 16 Curved Thick Smooth with Small

Crazing

5 4 I CC 1001 2 1 Smooth Pearlware

5 4 I CC 1001 3 23 Smooth Gray Glaze

5 4 I CC 1003 1 2 Rim with Raised Dots and Gray

Decoration

5 4 I CC 1003 1 3 Pearlware with Raised Lines and

Corresponding Trenches

5 4 I CC 1003 3 27 Rough Gray Glaze with Modeled

Arabesque Pattern and Dark Edges

6 1 I CA 1001 2

6 2 I CA 1001 2 4

6 2 I CC 1001 2 2 Pearlware

6 3 I CC 1001 1 Pearlware

6 4 I CA 1001 3 2

6 4 I CC 1001 1 4 Fired

6 4 I CC 1001 1 Molded, Glazed White Body Ceramic

6 4 I CC 1001 3 1 Pearlware

6 4 I CC 1003 1 2 Whiteware with Maker’s Mark:

Opaque

6a 2 I CC 1001 1 14 Pearlware

6a 3 I CA 1001 1

6a 3 I CC 1001 1 1 Ridged Pearlware

6a 3 I CC 1003 1 6 Plate Fragment with Foot Intact

6a 4 I CA 1010 1 1 Possible Boot-shaped Part Of Doll

6a 4 I CC 1001 1 Pearlware

6a 4 I CC 1001 2 3 Pearlware

6a 4 I CC 1003 1 2 Pearlware with a Small Marking on the

Edge

6a 4 I CC 1003 2 16 Plate Fragment with Foot Intact

7 1 I CA 1001 1

7 1 I CB 1001 1 6 Slipped, Salt Glaze

7 1 I CB 1033 1 21 Light Brown Glazed Bottle Top

7 1 I CC 1001 3 3 Pearlware

7 1 I CC 1003 1 3 Green Floral Decoration

7 1 I CC 1003 1 Transfer Print

7 2 I CA 1001 3 3

7 2 I CB 1001 1 4 Gray Body with Light Brown Finish

7 2 I CB 1033 1 10 Light Brown Glazed Bottle Top

Fragment

7 2 I CC 1001 1 Water Worn

34

7 2 I CC 1001 2 2 Whiteware

7 2 I CC 1001 3 7 One Layer Pearlware with Foot Intact

7 2 I CC 1003 1 1 Dark Brown Glaze

7 2 I CC 1003 1 Light Brown/ Dark Brown Glaze

7 2 I CC 1003 1 Whiteware with Blue Ink Transfer Print

7 2 I CC 1003 1 Pearlware with Blue Ink Transfer Print

7 3 I CA 1001 1

7 3 I CB 1033 1 4 Medium Brown Slipped Bottle Top

Fragment

7 3 I CC 1001 1 22 Rim Sherd, Possible Platter Piece

7 3 I CC 1001 1 4 Lead Glaze

7 3 I CC 1001 2 11 Heavy Band of Slip

7 3 I CC 1001 4 12 Pearlware

7 3 I CC 1003 1 2 Blue Glaze

7 3 I CC 1003 1 3 Transfer Print with Blue and Green

Floral Arrangment

7 3 I CC 1003 1 1 Transfer Print with Green Mark

7 3 I CC 1022 1 3 Bears a Stamped “7”

7 3 I CF 1001 1 7 Fragment of Plate with Foot Intact

7 4 I CA 1001 7 18 Four Pieces Fit Together

7 4 I CA 1003 2 5 Pieces Belong to Vessel Mentioned

above and Bear Pink (Gold Residue)

Decoration

7 4 I CC 1001 1 71 Pearlware (Originally 2 Fragments)

7 4 I CC 1001 1 Orange/Yellow Glaze

7 4 I CC 1001 4 5 Pearlware

7 4 I CC 1003 2 2 Molded, Hand-painted Fragments with

Cobalt Blue Glaze

7 4 I CC 1023 1 2 Light Brown Unglazed Body

7 4 I CF 1001 1 13 Fragment of Plate with Foot Intact

8 1 I CA 1033 1 Finial

8 1 I CC 1001 1 256 Unglazed Piece, Inside Bottom

Blackened

8 2 I CC 1001 1 6 Pearlware

8 2 I CF 1001 1 2

8 3 I CC 1001 1 Creamware

8 4 I CC 1001 1 3 High-fired Piece with Rough Texture

Surface

8 4 I CC 1001 1 Pearlware

9 I CA 1001 3 3

9 I CA 1003 1 One Side Glazed with Cobalt Blue

9 I CB 1001 1 7 Light Brown Glaze

35

9 I CC 1001 3 7 Whiteware with a Floral Motif in a

Cobalt Blue Glaze

9 I CC 1001 6 25

9 I CC 1003 1 2 Pearlware with Transfer Print in a

Purple Floral Motif

9 I CC 1003 1 1 Whiteware Fragment of Maker’s Mark:

-oni son qui

9 I CF 1033 1 12 Fragment of Children’s Teacup

9 I CF 1033 1 1 Tube-shaped Fragment

9 I CF 1033 3 5 Fragment of an Indeterminate Function

10 I CB 1001 1 2 Salt Glazed Spout Fragment

36

Glass Artifacts

Felix Digilov and Samantha Thompson

Introduction

The glass recovered from Unit P did not include any intact objects. Analysis thus relied

on fragments, and of these very few contained identifying elements. The vast majority of

fragments reveal no pertinent information about their chronology or function. Instead, we chose

to attribute a time period for these indistinguishable fragments by considering the level in which

they were found and the density that they appeared. Further, this paper will attempt to determine

some key facts about certain glass fragments which are whole enough and contain identifying

elements based on observable physical characteristics for interpretation including the

approximate age and possible function of the bottle.

Methodology

When sorting the glass artifacts, we first categorized the glass by its color. While this

classification may appear arbitrary, the color of the glass may be an indicator of the function that

the glass originally served as well as provide a general idea of the time period in which it was

manufactured. The next category that the glass was divided into was whether the glass was flat,

curved, a bottle rim or base, kitchenware or tableware. If the glass was flat, there was a good

chance that it once belonged to a window pane or bottle base at one time. If the glass was curved,

it most likely was once part of a bottle or lantern of some sort. The bottle rim and base were two

of the best indicators of age and function, as they contained the most physical information

regarding their manufacturing process including the telling mold seam and pontil scar. If we

were fortunate, the rim or base would contain writing or a maker’s mark that made identification

much easier. Tableware and kitchenware were usually distinguishable based on the increased

thickness of the glass or if the glass had a prominent bowl or plate shape to it. Upon determining

the artifact class, we recorded the quantity of glass fragments and weighed the glass.

37

Ageing

The bottle ageing and manufacturing information of our report draw heavily upon the

information contained in the Society for Historical Archeology website which can be found at

this URL: http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm. As we had access to a limited number of rims

and bases, identifying the age of the glass based on physical characteristics was difficult and was

limited to only bottle fragments. Mouth-blown or hand-made bottles were produced by skilled

craftsman who gathered the hot glass onto a blowpipe, with or without the aid of a mold. “The

large majority of mouth blown bottles, probably at least 95%, date prior to the World War I era,

1915-1920. At least a few American glass companies were using hand-blown into the mid 20th

century” (Lindsey, 2008). This quote is drawn from the hand-blown dating section of the SHA

site (http://www.sha.org/bottle/mouthblowndating.htm). Thus, it can be inferred that the

quantities of hand-blown bottles would be very small in any post-1920 archeological

assemblage. In our artifact collection, evidence for mouth-blown bottles is almost nonexistent.

There are several physical indications that signify the presence of a hand made bottle. First, we

had to determine the presence of a pontil scar (Figure 1a), which is of variable size and is a type

of scar left on the base of a bottle by a pontil rod. The following information is found in the

glassmaking section of the SHA website (http://www.sha.org/bottle/glassmaking.htm). “A

typical pontil rod was a 4-6 foot long metal pole that was securely attached to the base of a

freshly blown hot pliable bottle. The rod had to be long enough so that the heat transference from

the extremely hot bottle (2000 degrees Fahrenheit) did not reach the hand of the pontil rod

holder” (Lindsey 2008). “A pontil rod held the bottle during the steps in the bottle blowing

process where the blowpipe is removed from the bottle and the break off is completed. Once the

bottle is finished, the pontil rod is sharply tapped which breaks it free of the bottle. The base of a

bottle which was held with a pontil rod will almost always retain some evidence of the pontil rod

attachment” (Lindsey 2008).

The other identifying feature is the mold seam (Figures 1b and 1c), which can be found

on either the base or the rim. If the mold seam goes all the way up the side of the rim, the bottle

is very likely hand-made. “From the mid 19th

century to about 1900, the seam where the glass

came together during its production steadily extended from ending near the base of the neck to

38

reaching the top of the lip.” The bottle rims that we found in level five display both seams that go

all the way up to the rim as well as seams that stop short of reaching the top. The fact that both

types of bottles are found may indicate that level five was a transition level between archaic

bottle making techniques and modern manufacturing techniques. Another identifying feature of

machine made bottles is the valve mark on the base of the bottle (Figure 1d), “which is almost

exclusively found on wide mouth machine made hollow ware like food bottles and jars, milk

bottles, and fruit jars” (Lindsey 2008). The transition from mouth-blown to machine made

bottles was made over an extended period of time and there were setbacks in the social

acceptance of this new technology. There were numerous reasons why machines were not

immediately accepted. “The expense of licensing and acquiring an automatic bottle machine was

quite high, pricing smaller glass makers out of the market” (Lindsey 2008). Many of the glass

companies that did acquire fully automatic bottle machines retained hand operations for smaller

or specialty orders for quite some time. Also, worker opposition to machines delayed their

introduction in many glass operations. “In one notable instance, worker opposition was so

vociferous that machine made operations were abandoned amid protest form the workers”

(Lindsey 2008). The final identifying feature we were able to observe was a maker’s mark,

which greatly increased our knowledge of the bottle fragment in question. Unfortunately,

maker’s marks were found in very small quantities, limiting our ability to gather information

about the artifacts.

Glass Color

Once again, the information for bottle colors was obtained from the SHA website

(http://www.sha.org/bottle/colors.htm). Color tints can be useful diagnostic tools for an

archeologist who may be dealing with fragmented bottles, as we are in this assemblage.

Although color is not a definite or precise way to identify time period or function, it still serves a

useful purpose in our analysis because it may provide a general idea about a glass fragment that

has no otherwise remarkable characteristics to work with. “It is reasonable to assume that if the

glass fragment is colorless or clear with a slight yellow tint, it is very likely from a machine

made bottle, meaning that it is not much older than the WWI time period or the mid 1910s. The

39

date could also extend to as far up as the mid 20th

century and possible later” (Lindsey 2008).

Further, a colorless fragment with a slight purple hue is quite likely from prior to WWI.

“Historically, bottles of colorless glass were relatively sparse prior to the 1870s but came into

much more prominent usage after the widespread distribution of automatic bottle machines in the

first decades of the 20th

century” (Lindsey 2008). “Aqua is known to be a very common color in

a variety of American bottles made from the early 19th

to the early 20th

centuries.” Thus, no

specific type or class can be clearly associated with the widely distributed color due to its

multipurpose nature. Aqua bottles decreased in popularity around the 1920s after the

introduction of machine made bottles. Also, aqua bottles were largely replaced with clear

containers, as producers of bottled products sought for their goods to be more visible to the

growing consumer market and clear glass enabled them to more effectively showcase their

canned goods. “The one notable exception to this general trend is soda bottles, including the

greenish tint of the popular glass Coca-Cola bottle. Another exception is that large numbers of

fruit jars were also made into the 1930s in aqua, although colorless glass eventually replaced

aqua within a decade” (Lindsey 2008). “Ball fruit jars were made in a distinct ‘ball blue’ from at

least 1909 until the late 1930s.” Like aqua, shades of green can be found in a wide variety of

bottle types and manufacturing dates, providing very little diagnostic data to this category of

color. “Limited observations can be made, however, as blue-green colors were very uncommon

on machine made bottles and generally signify a 19th

or early 20th

century manufacture date”

(Lindsey 2008). Different shades of olive green can be found in many different types of bottles

from several eras. However, olive green is a color that is much more common to hand made

bottles and thus 19th

century dates than later manufacturing dates. It is also associated with

certain types of bottles more than other types. “Olive green is a color that is very uncommon in

any type of bottle after 1890 and almost unknown after about 1900. After 1900 it is primarily

found in wine, champagne, and liquor bottles” (Lindsey 2008). Like aqua and green, amber

colors were used for an extended period of time in most types of bottles. However, a few

observations can be made. When machine made bottles began to inundate the market after WWI,

amber became a fairly standard color to use with machine made bottles. Amber was and still

remains the most common color for beer bottles as it provides the best light protection from the

40

light wavelengths that are responsible for photochemical reactions. “Too much light, natural or

artificial, causes beer to become light struck which causes the distinct off-flavor which is

associated with green and clear colored beer bottles.” “Both of these colors provide little

protection from the particular part of the spectrum which induces the off-flavor chemical

reactions whereas amber glass provides a high level of protection” (Lindsey 2008). The presence

of blue colors has limited dating and typing utility because of the colors wide application.

“Though not a common color when compared to aqua, amber, and green, blue can be found to

some degree in virtually any type of bottle from ink, to poison, to flasks and beer bottles. Blue

colors are somewhat more common in certain classes of bottles like poisonous substances and

cosmetics” (Lindsey 2008).

Level Analysis

Glass density in Level 1 is low (c. 100 gr.) as shown by Figure 2, possibly due to a shift

in utilization patterns, whereby the earlier practice of disposing of garbage in the vicinity of the

house was no longer done. Also, it may be possible that the paucity of the glass unearthed is due

to the prevalence of plastic bottles and containers instead of glass. The glass discovered was

quite diverse, ranging from regular flat and curved glass to decorated and even as elaborate as a

glass hair bead. The base of an amber bottle (Figures 3 and 4) with the word ‘liquor’ and serial

numbers was also recovered. The level contains predominately clear glass artifacts, strongly

suggesting that almost all of the glass is machine made. In nearly all levels, amber glass was

always present.

Level 2 contained slightly more glass, about 190 grams. The glass that was found was a

mixture of amber and clear glass, again representative of the machine made glass objects

prevalent in the area after WWI. The nature of the glass was quite ordinary, mainly consisting of

plain curved and flat glass. Several marked fragments were recovered, one with the letters

‘LISO’ and the other ‘5 QUA’, possible a 5 quart vessel of some sort.

Level 3 was also dominated by clear glass, with a significant blue component for the first

time. Also, opaque bottle fragments made an appearance, possible signifying the use of cosmetic

and toiletry bottles by the occupants. Density remains fairly low (c.220 gr.).

41

Level 4 is overwhelmingly marked by clear glass, with blue glass being the second most

prevalent color. The key feature of this level is the significant increase in the density of glass (c.

380 gr.). This is very plausible because this level dates to around WWII and at the time glass

containers had been in heavy use because plastic had not yet emerged into full production. The

one identifiable artifact is the base of a bottle of Heinz Ketchup which was found in level 4.

Heinz did not start producing ketchup until 1876, therefore the level postdates that year. The

bottle was of an octagonal shape that was produced by Heinz between 1926 and 1930 (Figure 5).

This analysis is on track with the rest of the level due to the very specific dates of manufacture

for the ketchup bottle. Also, it is paramount to keep in mind that very many glass bottles were re-

used by the occupants, perhaps as a vase or to hold another type of liquid. Thus, it is possible that

the ketchup bottle was re-used many times and finally thrown out maybe years after it was

originally purchased.

The glass density in level 5 is slightly lower, (c. 275 gr.) and includes primary colors. The

increase in the variety of colors can be attributed to the influence of hand made glass, which is

known for its wide ranging colors. Most of the glass discovered was flat. Two rims (Figures 6

and 7) were recovered with very different seam lengths from different manufacturing processes,

as described on the second page of this chapter. The first had a seam ending about 2 centimeters

before the lip of the bottle, indicating a date of manufacture between 1860 and 1880. The second

seam goes all the way up the neck and lip, dating it after 1900.

Level 6 marks the end of a cultural level that is continuous with level 5. It is only about 2

cm thick, accounting for the very low quantity of glass. Level 6a is a largely sterile level of sand,

mixed with culture bearing deposits, again explaining the low artifact yield. However, the nature

of the artifacts uncovered is somewhat ornate, again infused with numerous primary colors.

Several bases were recovered as well as glass with ‘YOR’ written out.

Level 7 had numerous bottles that were dark green and blue in color. These colors

suggest that a large proportion of the bottles in level 7 were hand made. Level 7 also held the

square bases of two small perfume bottles (Figure 8). The shape of the bases was quite unique in

our artifact assemblage, being the only two pieces that had square instead of circular bases. As

42

with the wide array of colors, hand made bottles must have differed in overall shape as well.

Interestingly, the weight per artifact in level 7 is significantly greater than that of any level.

Levels 8 and 9 have few glass elements, perhaps reflecting a low occupation intensity or

different use of space. Level 8 has clear indications of hand made glass, as the seam of one rim

does not reach all the way up. Further, Level 8 has patterned as well as gold painted glass. Also,

an artifact with the letters ‘CON’ was found. Level 9 has glass with ‘SO’ and ‘VIN’ written out.

Conclusion

The state in which we recovered our glass artifacts necessitated the use of a variety of

identifying techniques in order to glean meaning from otherwise enigmatic artifacts. By

observing the color of the glass shards, we were able to ascertain information about the everyday

household use that the glass objects once held. By getting better acquainted with manufacturing

techniques of bottles dating back to the mid 1800s to present day, we were better able to

distinguish which bottles were hand or machine made. This knowledge helped illuminate

transition levels and time periods. We observed that as we moved back in time, the clear or

amber glass was steadily replaced with a variety of colors and more ornate bottle designs, which

characterizes hand made glass bottles compared to standardaized machine made bottles. We

recovered luxury objects like perfume bottles that suggested the inhabitants of the site were from

a social class that could afford to allocate money towards luxury goods. Although the state of

the glass artifacts we recovered was fragmentary, they nevertheless enabled us to gain insights

into the chronology of occupation and the consumption preferences of the inhabitants of the

Yates property.

References

Lindsey, Bill

2008 Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website,

http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm, accessed April 13, 2008.

43

Figure 1a Figure 1b

Figure1b

Figure 1c Figure 1d

Figure 1a: The pontil scar is a clear indicator of a hand-made bottle.

Figure 1b: The mold seam stops before it reaches the rim, possibly showing that this bottle is

machine made.

Figure 1c: Mold seam goes all the way up the rim, indicating that this bottle is most likely hand

blown.

Figure 1d: This valve mark shows that this jar was machine made and most likely used to store

food, perhaps fruit or milk.

All photos taken from http://www.sha.org/bottle/dating.htm.

44

Glass Artifact Density by Weight

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 6a Level 7 Level 8 Level 9

Weight (grams)

Figure 2: Density of glass artifacts per level by weight

45

Figure 3: Base of liquor bottle found in level 1.

Figure 4: Level 1 base from figure 5 turned on its side.

46

Figure 5: Part of base of a Heinze ketchup bottle found in level 4, subunit 1.

Figure 6: Neck and rim of clear bottle found in level 5, subunit 3 with seam that ends

approximately 2 cm from the rim.

47

Figure 7: Rim of bottle found in level 5, subunit 2 with seam continuing all the way up the rim.

Figure 8: Base of clear perfume bottle found in level 7, subunit 3.

48

Appendix: Catalogue of Analyzed Glass Artifacts

Key to Catalogue:

II. Glass

Sub-Material

GA. Clear

GB. Red

GC. Green

GD. Blue

GE. Amber

GF. Brown

GG. Black

GH. White

GI. Violet

GJ. Yellow

GK. Other

Artifact Class

2001. Flat, no backing: plain

2002. Flat, no backing: decorated

2003. Flat, mirrored backing: plain

2004. Flat, mirrored backing: decorated

2005. Curved: plain

2006. Curved: decorated

2007. Bottle Rim: plain

2008. Bottle Rim: decorated

2009. Bottle Base: plain

2010. Bottle Base: decorated

2011. Tableware Rim: plain

2012. Tableware Rim: decorated

2013. Tableware Base: plain

2014. Tableware Base: decorated

2015. Kitchenware Rim: plain

2016. Kitchenware Rim: decorated

2017. Kitchenware Base: plain

2018. Kitchenware Base: decorated

2019. Button: plain

2020. Button: decorated

2021. Hair Pin: plain

2022. Hair Pin: decorated

2023. Tubular Bead: plain

2024. Tubular Bead: decorated

2025. Spherical Bead: plain

2026. Spherical Bad: decorated

2027. Cylindrical Bead: plain

2028. Cylindrical Bead: decorated

2029. “Seed Bead”

2030. Cut Glass

2031. Tube: plain

2032. Tube: decorated

2033. Round Bottle Stopper: plain

2034. Round Bottle Stopper: decorated

2035. Cut Glass Bottle Stopper

49

Glass Artifact Catalogue

Level Subunit Material Sub-

Material Artifact Class Quantity

Weight (g) Comments

1 none II GA 2001 12 26

1 none II GA 2002 2 2 raised bubbles on one side

1 none II GA 2005 14 1 lens

1 none II GA 2005 25 16

1 none II GA 2006 3 2 raise ridges

1 none II GA 2010 2 20 curved lines around base

1 none II GA 2006 1 2 tan lettering …POSII…

1 none II GB 2029 1 1 half of bead

1 none II GB 2001 1 1

1 none II GE 2005 8 8

1 none II GE 2010 1 26

numbers and "liquor", raised bumps around base

1 none II GC 2005 2 1

1 none II GK 2005 33 10 orange

2 none II GE 2010 1 12 has 75 on bottom

2 none II GK 2005 7 10 orange

2 none II GE 2006 1 6 LISO written on the glass

2 none II GE 2005 9 4

2 none II GA 2001 76 46

2 none II GD 2002 1 2 Bubbles

2 none II GA 2001 1 1 Clear/yellow

2 none II GE 2001 2 4

2 none II GD 2001 15 8 blue

2 none II GC 2001 10 12 green

2 none II GA 2005 212 58

2 none II GE 2006 2 2

2 none II GA 2002 2 4

2 none II GA 2008 2 2 decorated bottle top

2 none II GA 2006 1 4 5 QUA written on the glass

2 none II GA 2009 1 4 Base

3 1 II GA 2005 16 12

3 1 II GA 2009 2 2

3 1 II GA 2010 1 2 letters on bottom

50

…EX…

3 1 II GA 2035 1 1 decorated with flower

3 1 II GA 2033 1 1 black plastic with glass

3 1 II GE 2005 4 1

3 1 II GH 2005 3 1

3 1 II GK 2001 8 2 opaque

3 1 II GK 2005 5 8 opaque

3 2 II GA 2001 8 6

3 2 II GA 2005 19 22

3 2 II GA 2010 1 22 47, WI, 3 written on the glass

3 2 II GE 2005 7 6

3 2 II GK 2005 1 1 cloudy opaque

3 3 II GA 2001 8 12 bluish tint

3 3 II GA 2005 13 18

3 3 II GA 2006 1 1 raised ridges

3 3 II GA 2010 1 16

K written on the glass and enclosed in a box

3 3 II GC 2005 5 4

3 3 II GE 2005 1 1

3 3 II GH 2005 1 1 semi-opaque

3 3 II GI 2001 1 2

3 4 II GA 2001 7 4

3 4 II GA 2005 18 26

3 4 II GA 2010 1 6 …NAME written on the glass

3 4 II GC 2001 3 4

3 4 II GC 2005 3 2

3 4 II GD 2001 1 2

3 4 II GD 2005 2 16 reflects rainbowish on one side

3 4 II GE 2005 3 4

3 4 II GI 2001 1 1

3 4 II GK 2005 1 1 violet and white swirled

3 4 II GA 1 8 unidentified

4 1 II GA 2001 29 18

4 1 II GA 2005 28 30

4 1 II GA 2006 4 26 raised ridges (possible bottle base)

4 1 II GA 2010 0 18 part of octagon,…EINZ…

4 1 II GA 2 8 unidentified, cloudy

4 1 II GB 2005 1 1 possible bead fragment

51

4 1 II GC 2005 1 2

4 1 II GI 2033 1 14 clear w/ violet tint

4 2 II GA 2001 16 12

4 2 II GA 2005 45 52

4 2 II GA 2006 3 6 2 w/ ridges, 1 w/ …CO

4 2 II GA 2008 1 1 rim to small bottle w/ ridges

4 2 II GD 2005 1 1

4 2 II GE 2005 1 1

4 2 II GH 2005 1 4

4 3 II GA 2001 16 14

4 3 II GA 2005 32 38

4 3 II GA 2006 1 4 raised ridges (possible bottle rim)

4 3 II GA 2007 1 1

4 3 II GA 2010 3 24

1 w/ ridges (flower?), 2 fit together with …ARMA… written on it

4 3 II GA 2016 2 16 indentions on rim

4 3 II GD 2005 5 4

4 3 II GE 2005 2 4

4 3 II GI 2005 1 2

4 4 II GA 2001 10 4

4 4 II GA 2003 30 38

4 4 II GA 2006 3 12

1 w/ ridges, 1 w/ …BER…, 1 w/ …AE and OA

4 4 II GA 2009 1 2

4 4 II GA 2010 1 12 …MPAN… written on the glass

4 4 II GC 2001 2 4

4 4 II GC 2005 1 1

4 4 II GD 2001 1 1

5 1 II GA 2005 18 28

5 1 II GA 2006 2 10 unidentifiable writing

5 1 II GD 2005 3 2

5 1 II GE 2005 5 10

5 1 II GH 2005 1 2

5 1 II GI 2005 1 1

5 2 II GA 2001 2 4

5 2 II GA 2005 34 42

5 2 II GA 2006 2 8 possible rim, one with bumps

5 2 II GA 2007 4 28 one complete w/ seam all the way up

52

5 2 II GA 2033 1 14

5 2 II GC 2005 3 12

5 2 II GD 2005 3 1

5 2 II GE 2005 1 1

5 2 II GH 2005 1 1

5 2 II GI 2005 1 1

5 3 II GA 2005 18 28

5 3 II GA 2007 1 36 seam stops before rim

5 3 II GC 2005 1 1

5 3 II GG 2001 1 1

5 4 II GA 2005 20 16

5 4 II GA 2001 8 12

5 4 II GA 2006 4 12 small band of ridges

5 4 II GC 2005 1 1

5 4 II GD 2005 2 1

5 4 II GE 2005 1 1

6 1 II GA 2005 2 4

6 1 II GD 2005 1 1 Blue

6 2 II GA 2005 4 4

6 3 II GA 2001 12 1

6 3 II GC 2001 1 1

6 3 II GA 2005 23 10

6 3 II GA 2006 1 1 YOR written out

6 4 II GA 2005 5 10

6 4 II GK 2001 3 4 Clear Green Tint

6 4 II GA 2016 1 12 Big Circle with Ridges

6 4 II GC 2001 2 1 Green

6 4 II GE 2001 1 1 Alcohol?

6a 1 II GA 2001 2 4

6a 1 II GK 2001 1 1 light blue

6a 1 II GA 2005 3 4

6a 1 II GA 2001 1 1

6a 2 II GK 2001 1 24

6a 2 II GA 2005 114 16

6a 2 II GA 2008 17 8

6a 2 II GA 2005 5 2

6a 2 II GE 2018 1 8

6a 2 II GA 2001 1 8 Round ridges

6a 2 II GE 2005 1 2

6a 3 II GA 2001 1 4 Flat, w/o ridges

6a 3 II GA 2001 4 1

6a 3 II GC 2017 2 4 Large circular Blue Base

6a 4 II GD 2005 3 14

53

6a 4 II GE 2001 3 18

6a 4 II GH 2008 2 10 Circular Little Base

6a 4 II GA 2005 1 1

6a 4 II GC 2001 2 4

6a 4 II GD 2001 11 6

6a 4 II GA 2001 10 5

7 1 II GH 2005 3 18

7 1 II GA 2001 6 4

7 1 II GA 2005 7 6

7 1 II GD 2001 18 18

7 1 II GK 2002 6 6 Decorated Bubbles

7 1 II GA 2002 1 1 NF written on the glass

7 1 II GA 2002 1 4 Ridges

7 1 II GD 2009 1 6

7 1 II GA 2010 1 18 Square Base

7 1 II GA 2010 2 24 2 Bases

7 1 II GD 2001 20 18

7 1 II GK 2008 2 22 Dark Green

7 1 II GD 2005 6 16

7 1 II GE 2005 4 10

7 1 II GE 2001 25 14

7 1 II GA 2007 7 8

7 1 II GA 2001 26 50

7 1 II GD 2001 3 6

7 1 II GC 2005 2 2

7 1 II GC 2005 1 26

7 1 II GD 2008 1 2 Blue Bottle

7 1 II GD 2005 19 16

7 1 II GE 2005 4 8

7 2 II GA 2005 27 28

7 2 II GA 2009 2 28

7 2 II GA 2009 1 4 Perfume Bottle

7 2 II GC 2005 3 20

7 2 II GC 2009 1 18

7 2 II GD 2001 8 14

7 2 II GA 2007 2 8

7 2 II GD 2005 12 16

7 2 II GD 2008 1 52

7 2 II GE 2005 1 1

7 3 II GA 2001 9 8

7 3 II GA 2005 19 24

7 3 II GA 2006 2 6 1 w/ bubble and 1 w/ diamond pattern

7 3 II GA 2009 1 26 Rectangular Perfume Bottle Base

54

7 3 II GC 2005 7 8

7 3 II GC 2009 1 18

7 3 II GD 2001 3 1

7 3 II GE 2005 9 18

7 3 II GH 2005 1 1

8 1 II GA 2005 4 2

8 1 II GA 2006 1 1 CON written on the glass

8 1 II GD 2001 2 4

8 1 II GD 2006 3 4 Bubble Looking Pattern

8 1 II GK 2006 1 1 Painted

8 2 II GA 2001 1 2

8 2 II GA 2005 5 4

8 2 II GA 2009 2 20 Seam Doesn’t Go All The Way Up

8 2 II GC 2005 2 6

8 2 II GE 2001 1 1

8 3 II GA 2005 5 4

8 3 II GA 2007 10 6

8 3 II GA 2018 1 4

8 3 II GA 2005 1 6 Cloud-like ridges

8 3 II GD 2005 2 6

8 3 II GG 2005 1 1

8 4 II GA 2008 5 8

8 4 II GA 2001 1 6 Cloud-like ridges

8 4 II GC 2005 1 1

8 4 II GC 2005 1 2

8 4 II GD 2005 1 2

8 4 II GK 2005 1 1 Painted Gold

9 none II GA 2001 17 18

9 none II GA 2005 33 44

9 none II GA 2006 2 4 So and VIN written on glass

9 none II GC 2005 2 1

9 none II GD 2001 13 1

9 none II GD 2001 8 8

9 none II GD 2005 1 6

9 none II GE 2005 4 4

9 none II GG 2005 2 1

9 none II GA 2015 1 4

9 none II GH 2005 2 1

9 none II GJ 2005 1 6

55

Metal Artifacts (Non-nail)

Brittany Spurrier

Introduction

Metal artifacts are very important in understanding an historical excavation site.

Oftentimes diagnostic artifacts can be found, which can give a more precise time-line of the site.

This depends on factors including the level of rust decay of the objects found, as well as their

identifiability and their uniqueness to certain time periods.

Analysis

An abundance of both nail and non-nail metal artifacts were recovered from Unit P, so

the two groups of metals were analyzed separately. After sorting and transferring the nails to B.

Bahorich for recording and analysis, the remaining metal artifacts were sorted into general

categories: determinate and indeterminate. After that separation, each of those groups was

further broken down into type of metal (iron, copper, etc.) The indeterminate metal was then

cataloged as the same artifact class (3176 – Indeterminate) in the YCAP Artifact Cataloging

System. The vast majority of artifacts are indeterminate, as shown in Figures 1-4, and once they

were cataloged and weighed, little else could be done with them within the lab to gain anymore

useful information. The identifiable objects were then scrutinized to find their function. This

was based on my abilities to discern shape through severe rust and corrosion, and my familiarity

with the object. The most noteworthy of these are described below. For all others, see the

catalog in Appendix 1. None could be assigned to a definite period of manufacture.

Overall, the determinate iron and steel artifacts were a collection of personal clothing

items, or miscellaneous hardware pieces. Copper or brass artifacts were bullet casings, clothing

items and wires. The aluminum artifacts were foil, lids, and pull tabs from various cans. The

only silver artifact was a spoon found in level 1. One unidentifiable lead artifact was found.

Intact Artifacts of Interest.

56

There are several well-preserved artifacts recovered from various levels at the site, and

though there may not be a vast amount of information that can be gained from them, they are

noteworthy.

Level 4

A fork identifiable due to the presence of the base of tines at one end (Figure 5) was

found in level 4 Subunit 1.

A key, indentified by the presence of a head, as well as an irregularly grooved shaft

(Figure 6) was found in Level 4 Subunit 1.

A belt buckle (Figure 7) was found in Level 4 Subunit 4.

A pants button (Figure 8) was found in Level 4 Subunit 4. The maker's mark is slightly

visible, though it's too rusted and obscured to get an idea of what it says.

Level 6a

These two pieces of, what appears to be, machinery (Figures 9 and 10) were found in

context with one another in Level 6a Subunit 2. Though their function is unknown, it is

noteworthy that they were found together, suggesting they may be from the same apparatus.

Level 7

This large piece (Figure 11) appears to be half of a pair of hearth tongs found in Level 7

Subunit 3. I concluded that this piece was too long to be from scissors, plus there is a collection

of rust near the base of the “handle” that appears to be where the other edge would have attached

and pivoted.

A well preserved thimble (Figure 12) was found in Level 7 Subunit 4.

Level 9

A large square spike in impressive condition (Figure 13) was found in level 9. A nearly

identical square spike was found in Level 5 subunit3.

Conclusion

Though little can be determined from the collection of non-nail metal artifacts, they do

provide a small, yet interesting look into the various metal products used throughout this

household's history.

57

Iron/Steel Artifacts

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1 2 3 4 5 6 6a 7 8 9 10

Level

Qu

an

tity

+ W

eig

ht(

g)

MA (Indeterminate)

MA (Determinate)

Weight

Figure 1: Volume of iron and steel artifacts by level.

58

Brass/Copper Artifacts

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

1 2 3 4 5 6 6a 7 8 9 10

Level

Qu

an

tity

+ W

eig

ht(

g)

MB (Indeterminate)

MB (Determinate)

Weight

Figure 2: Volume of brass and copper artifacts.

59

Silver Artifacts

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

1 2 3 4 5 6 6a 7 8 9 10

Level

Qu

an

tity

+ W

eig

ht(

g)

MD (Indeterminate)

MD (Determinate)

Weight

Figure 3: Volume of silver artifacts

60

Lead, Aluminum & Unidentified Sub-Material Artifacts

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 6a 7 8 9 10

Level

Qu

an

tity

+ W

eig

ht(

g)

Lead

Weight (Lead)

Aluminum

Weight (Aluminum)

Unidentified Sub-Material

Weight(Uniden.)

Figure 4: Volume of unidentifiable and other metals.

Figure 5: Fork

61

Figure 6: Key Figure 7: Belt Buckle

Figure 8: Pants button Figure 9: Possible Machine part

62

Figure 10: Possible machine part

Figure 11: Heart tong half

Figure 12: Thimble

63

Figure 13: Spike

64

Appendix: Catalogue of Analyzed Metal Artifacts (Excluding Nails)

Level Sub-unit Material

Sub-material

Art. Class Quantity Weight (g) Comments

1 III MA 3177 24 705 Modern

1 III MB 3177 5 14 Modern

1 III MD 3177 1 23 Modern

1 III MH 3177 25 27 Modern

1 III MI 3177 1 10 Modern

1 III MA 3176 18 14 Indeterminate

1 III MA 3012 3 9 Screws

1 III MA 3015 4 60 Bolts

2 III MA 3177 15 127 Modern

2 III MB 3177 1 1 Modern

2 III MH 3177 12 6 Modern

2 III MA 3012 2 6 Screws

2 III MA 3176 20 370 Indeterminate

3 1 III MA 3177 7 15 Modern

3 2 III MA 3176 15 24 Indeterminate

3 3 III MA 3177 3 6 Modern

3 3 III MA 3176 21 21 Indeterminate

3 4 III MA 3049 4 149 spring, hooks, nut

3 4 III MA 3177 3 5 Modern

3 4 III MA 3176 17 19 Indeterminate

4 1 III MA 3092 1 56 Fork

4 1 III MA 3136 3 91 pipe/tube pieces

4 1 III MA 3100 1 10 Key

4 1 III MA 3018 2 4 washers

4 1 III MB 3176 1 1 copper wire/flat

4 2 III MA 3176 5 2 Indeterminate

4 3 III MA 3106 1 11 jack

4 3 III MA 3161 1 1 hook

4 3 III MA 3026 1 1 rivet/hook

4 3 III MB 3035 1 1 wire

4 3 III MB 3020 1 1 rivet from jeans

4 3 III MH 3103 1 1 piece of can

4 3 III MA 3176 11 57 Indeterminate

4 1 III MA 3176 22 70 Indeterminate

4 4 III MA 3176 31 169 Indeterminate

4 4 III MA 3028 1 22 Belt Buckle

4 4 III MA 3019 6 15 nuts

4 4 III MA 3171 3 26 bottle caps

4 4 III MA 3033 1 3 Jeans Button

5 1 III MA 3171 1 9 bottle cap

5 1 III MB 3035 1 4 wire

65

5 1 III MB 3136 1 18 garden hose pipe

5 1 III MA 3176 13 77 Indeterminate

5 2 III MA 3176 50 362 Indeterminate

5 2 III MA 3049 1 182 framing/building

5 3 III MA 3176 9 15 Indeterminate

5 3 III MA 3005 1 308 Square Spike

5 3 III MB 3035 1 5 wire

5 3 III MB 3131 1 5 machine part

5 4 III MA 3176 18 87 Indeterminate

5 4 III MA 3035 1 1 wire

5 4 III MB 3031 1 4 Buckle – indeterminate

6 1 III MA 3176 4 14 Indeterminate

6 2 III MA 3176 3 1 Indeterminate

6 3 III MA 3176 2 1 Indeterminate

6 3 III MB 3049 1 2 Hardware – indeterminate

6 4 III MA 3176 8 12 Indeterminate

6 4 III MA 3017 1 690 large “staple”

6a 1 III MA 3176 7 4 Indeterminate

6a 1 III MB 3176 2 1 Indeterminate

6a 1 III ME 3176 1 13 Indeterminate

6a 1 III MB 3178 1 2 metal piece from #2 pencil

6a 2 III MA 3176 37 198 Indeterminate

6a 2 III MA 3017 1 33 Staple – large

6a 2 III MA 3134 1 88 Wheel/Machine Part

6a 2 III MA 3135 1 394 Non-Wheel/Machine Part

6a 2 III MB 3114 1 4 bullet casing (Caliber unknown)

6a 2 III MI 3035 1 7 wire

6a 3 III MA 3176 2 74 Indeterminate

6a 4 III MA 3176 14 55 Indeterminate

6a 4 III MB 3020 1 2 rivet

7 1 III MA 3176 32 113 Indeterminate

7 1 III MA 3103 1 32 can part

7 1 III MA 3136 1 50 garden hose pipe

7 1 III MA 3017 1 38 Staple – large

7 1 III MB 3034 1 3 wire square/flat

7 1 III MB 3020 1 1 clothing rivet

7 1 III MB 3113 1 4 rim casing, either 12 or 20 gage.

7 1 III MB 3049 2 16 hardware hook/bracket

7 2 III MA 3176 60 490 Indeterminate

7 2 III MA 3035 2 50 wire

66

7 3 III MA 3176 30 104 Indeterminate

7 3 III MA 3097 1 213 Half of tongs

7 3 III MA 3100 1 17 can key

7 3 III MA 3029 1 18 shoe buckle

7 4 III MA 3176 70 684 Indeterminate

7 4 III MB 3073 1 3 Thimble

7 4 III MB 3022 1 1 rivet

7 4 III MB 3136 1 6 end of tubing/pipe

8 1 III MA 3176 15 144 Indeterminate

8 2 III MA 3176 20 65 Indeterminate

8 3 III MA 3176 18 83 Indeterminate

8 4 III MA 3176 12 23 Indeterminate

9 III MA 3176 30 216 Indeterminate

9 III MA 3005 1 258 Square Spike

10 III MA 3176 2 1 Indeterminate

67

Nails

Ben Bahorich

Introduction

Nails were by sheer number the most common artifact recovered. Therefore, nails were

analyzed separately from other metals. In total, 594 nails or nail fragments (wt. 3,166g) with

head intact were recovered, and 1,961 (wt 6289g) fragmentary nails without a head were found.

Because the method of manufacture has chronological implications, this chapter provides an

analysis of the nails from Unit P focusing on those that could be identified as round (drawn) or

square (cut).

Background

There are three main types of nails that have been used in the United States: hand-forged

nails, machine-cut nails, and wire nails. Hand-forged nails are particularly rare in North America

because they were generally used before the 19th

century (Sutton: 163). Iron or steel that has

been in the ground for more than 200 years is likely to completely disintegrate. Historically,

machine-cut nails were produced in the United States throughout the 19th

Century. However, in

the late 1800’s, nail factories completely switched from producing machine-cut nails to

producing drawn, round nails (Table 1). “It can be postulated that since nail production averaged

8,000,000 kegs a year for the years cited, the great majority of nails available in 1886 were cut

nails. After about 1890, wire nails were the dominant type throughout much of North America”

(Sutton: 164).

Recording Methods

Nails were classified as determinate nails only if they had a distinct head and shaft

(Figure 1). Determinate nails were divided into two categories: round (drawn) or square (cut).

Indeterminate nails were categorized as pieces of metal having a shaft but lacking a definable

head.

68

Analysis

We see a large concentration of round nails in the first few layers, especially layers 4 and

5 (Figure 2). Because of the considerable amount of nails discovered in layers 4 and 5 (15cm-

25cm), there must have been a substantial amount of building and crafting. When we observe

the total number of nails found we see that the bulk of the nails were found in levels 4-5 and 7-8

(Figure 3). However, when we examine levels 7 and 8 (30cm-40cm), we find that almost all of

the nails found in these layers are square nails (Figure 4). One interesting thing to note is the

difference between Figures 3 and 4. In Figure 4, the differential between round nail peak (levels

4 and 5) and the square nail peak (level 7 and 8) is much less then the differential between the

same two peaks in Figure 3. This difference is due to the fact that the square nails that we found

tended to be slightly larger (heavier) than the round nails we found. Because of the humid

climate, most of the nails were highly deteriorated (Figure 5). Therefore, we had much more

indeterminate nail mass than we had determinate nail mass (Figure 6).

Conclusion

The abrupt change in the type of nails found in level 7 (Figure 6) suggests a change in the

type of nails available at the time. Table 1 indicates that this manufacturing change transpired

from 1886-1895. Therefore, from our data, it is reasonable to conclude that levels 6 and 7

represent the turn of the century. However, because we found many more indeterminate nails

than we found determinate nails, our margin of error is large. For example, if most of our

indeterminate nails in levels 7 and 8 were round, there would be no evidence that we had reached

the turn of the century. On the other hand, if most of the indeterminate nails in levels 7 and 8

were square, our estimate of the level of the turn of the century remains accurate. Consequently,

we cannot conclude with complete certainty that level 6 and 7 roughly represent the year 1900.

Reference:

Sutton, Mark, and Brooke Arkush

1996 Archaeological Laboratory Methods: An Introduction

Dubuque. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

69

Table 1: Nail Production in the United States

Year Nail Type Amounts

1886 cut nails 8,161,000 kegs

wire nails no figures

1894 cut nails 2,425,000 kegs

wire nails 5,682,000 kegs

1900 cut nails 1,573,000 kegs

wire nails 7,234,000 kegs

Figure1: Round Nail

70

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

number of nailsL

evel

Figure 2: number of nails vs. depth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 50 100 150 200 250

number of nails

Le

ve

l

round

nails

square

nails

Figure 3: number of round and square nails vs. depth

71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 200 400 600 800 1000

weight (g)L

evel

round

nails

square

nails

Figure 4: weight of round and square nails vs. depth

Figure 5: indeterminate nails

72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

weight (g)L

evel

round

nails

square

nails

indeter

minate

nails

Figure 6: round, square, and indeterminate nails vs. depth

Figure 7a: typical square nail Figure 7b: typical round nail

73

Appendix: Catalogue of Analyzed Nails

Lvl Sub-unit

n = round weight(g)

n = square weight(g)

n = indeterminate weight(g)

1 5 8 34 0 0 0 0

2 5 21 98 0 0 70 141

3 1 5 13 0 0 50 112

3 2 8 30 0 0 30 70

3 3 14 72 0 0 40 84

3 4 7 50 0 0 40 119

4 1 50 247 0 0 180 542

4 2 50 240 0 0 190 580

4 3 40 131 0 0 179 545

4 4 57 252 0 0 228 674

5 1 22 115 1 18 88 257

5 2 36 227 0 0 170 448

5 3 23 141 0 0 58 173

5 4 19 86 0 0 113 352

6 1 17 81 0 0 3 19

6 2 6 48 0 0 6 33

6 3 6 20 4 56 28 130

6 4 4 22 3 22 24 122

6a 1 17 103 0 0 0 0

6a 2 24 120 6 24 25 89

6a 3 14 44 2 14 0 0

6a 4 28 94 0 0 6 34

7 1 12 30 12 82 70 260

7 2 1 3 20 160 50 189

7 3 0 0 7 82 50 250

7 4 8 28 15 154 110 510

8 1 0 0 2 22 50 228

8 2 0 0 4 52 25 86

8 3 0 0 3 18 35 112

8 4 0 0 12 53 18 60

9 5 0 0 6 80 25 70

10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total: 497 2329 97 837 1961 6289

74

Faunal Remains

Emily Taylor and Tyler Whitham

Introduction

The analysis of faunal remains from site 41HR980 can provide insights into the trends

concerning what the individuals living at this site ate throughout the years, as well as which

animals they may have raised at the site. Butchered bone in particular can provide insights into

the socioeconomic status of the inhabitants of the area. Though it is difficult to extrapolate the

analysis of the bone found in Unit P to the entire site without additional site information, we can

hypothesize as to how the test pit fits in relation to the entire location.

Methodology

We began our analysis of the bone from site 41HR980 by sorting the bone as “potentially

identifiable” or “unidentifiable.” We sorted and weighed the identifiable and unidentifiable

bone, and cataloged it by level and sublevel. Once sorted, we identified and labeled each bone

from the “identifiable” category and classified them by animal. In order to assign each bone to an

animal, we consulted the HAS animal materials, as well as the Sewell 103 drawers. After we

determined the species of origin, we identified the bone, determined whether the bone had been

butchered, and weighed each bone individually.

Artifact Density

Figure 1 summarizes the artifact density in grams by level, and distinguishes between

identifiable and unidentifiable bone. Levels 1 through 3 produced a roughly equal amount of

identifiable and unidentifiable bone, which did not exceed 50 grams per category, per level.

Based on David’s assessment of corresponding dates to levels, levels 1-3 may roughly represent

the 1960’s-present. We hypothesize that we fail to see as many artifacts in these levels because

the tendency to deposit waste outside rather than in a receptacle was reduced in recent decades.

Levels 4 and 5 generated a rise in both identifiable and unidentifiable bone, perhaps as the trend

to dispose of waste on the ground outside of the home was still in practice. Levels 6 and 6A

75

contain very few artifacts of either category. Level 6 was dug only 3 cm deep before we

encountered the sandy 6A layer, and we closed the level; this level may contain fewer artifacts

because of its smaller size. Level 6A was lighter in color and sandy, a marked difference from

the other levels we encountered. David hypothesized that the sand was deposited quickly either

by people or flooding. If these hypotheses are correct, 6A does not represent a naturally

occurring layer, and was deposited so quickly that it contains only scarce artifacts. Levels 7

through 9 were dense in artifacts, but that density thinned as we entered level 10 and reduced our

subunits. It is possible that level 10 may be approaching a time period when this area was not

heavily inhabited, which would also account for this reduced artifact density.

We classified a large amount of bone from 41HR980 as unidentifiable because much was

too fragmentary to sort by species or bone type. This large amount of fragmentary bone may

suggest that the residents of this site hollowed the marrow out of many bones, leaving them

fragile and subject to greater decomposition (Uerpmann 1973: 310). In our identification of

butchered bone, we found several bovine long bones that in fact show signs of having been

hollowed.

Species Identification by Level

We identified faunal remains from 5 distinct species, as well as created a category for

those bones we could classify by type, but not species. Figure 2 summarizes the percentages of

each species found in the entire unit. Though the species with the greatest percentage of bones

varied by level, the artifacts that appeared most frequently were butchered and unbutchered

bones from cows and pigs. Chicken and fish made up a smaller portion, and deer a very small

fraction. We found several billowed, unfused long bone epiphyses, which we placed in the

“unclassified” category. We did not determine to which species these epiphyses belonged

because we did not have access to juvenile skeletal structures for comparison. Also in the

“unclassified” category were various bones from medium sized mammals, perhaps those of

rodents or scavengers.

Table 1 summarizes the number of bones provided by each species per level. Levels 4, 5

and 7 contain the greatest number of artifacts discovered. Although cow and pig bones

76

predominate in every level, fish and chicken bones comprise a significant portion of the artifacts

found through level 5. From level 5 through level 10 however, the chicken and fish bones do not

appear at all in our artifact record. We hypothesize that because chickens are simple to raise, as

are fish to obtain, that the individuals at this property would be consuming moderate quantities of

these proteins throughout the time period covered by our excavation. A possible explanation for

why these animals would not appear in the later artifact records is because the bones of chicken

and fish are far smaller and more brittle than those of cows, pigs, or deer. Perhaps these bones

decomposed to the point that the remains in these levels are too fragmentary to identify. We

categorized the bones in each level not only by species, but also by type of bone. Table 2

summarizes the types of bone found within species, by level. It is difficult to draw many

conclusions about economic status or the frequency with which meat was consumed however,

because many of the bones within a certain species may have come from the same animal. If they

did originate from one animal, this does not provide clear insight into the frequency with which

they consumed meat (Uerpmann 1973: 311).

The unbutchered bone, in addition to providing insights into diet, may also reveal which

animals the residents may have raised. In the some of the lower levels (5-8), we discovered pig

teeth, pieces of mandible, and fragments from ankle joints that are not consistent with our

research regarding commonly ingested portions of pigs. One explanation for these remains may

be that the individuals raised pigs for protein. Alternatively, they could have been purchasing

whole pigs to slaughter or been engaged in alternative or traditional culinary practices utilizing

the offal.

77

Artifact Density

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Lvl 1

Lvl 2

Lvl 3

Lvl 4

Lvl 5

Lvl 6

Lvl 6A

Lvl 7

Lvl 8

Lvl 9

Lvl 10

Level

Unidentifiable

Identifiable

Figure 1: Artifact density, weight in grams

78

Species-Entire Unit

32%

26%

16%

14%

2%

10%

Cow

Pig

Chicken

Fish

Deer

Species-Unclassified

Figure 2: Breakdown of species in unit

Table 1: Number of bones categorized per species, by level

Tabl

e 2:

Clas

sific

atio

n of

ani

mal

bon

e

per

level, bold indicates butchered bone

Level 1

Cow 1 Cervical Vertebra

Pig

Cow Pig Chicken Fish Deer Unclassified

Lvl 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

Lvl 2 3 2 0 2 1 0

Lvl 3 2 7 4 3 0 0

Lvl 4 4 8 9 9 0 6

Lvl 5 8 4 5 8 0 1

Lvl 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lvl 6A 0 0 0 0 0 1

Lvl 7 13 7 0 0 2 4

Lvl 8 5 5 0 0 0 2

Lvl 9 4 1 0 0 0 0

Lvl 10 0 1 0 0 0 0

79

Chicken 1 Radius

Fish

Deer

Unclassified

Level 2

Cow

2

Ilium/Sirloin 1 Shoulder Steak

Pig 1 Hallux 1 Pork Chop

Chicken

Fish 2 Vertebrae

Deer 1 Round Steak

Unclassified

Level 3

Cow 1 T-Bone 1 Cervical Vertebrae

Pig 1 Upper Incisor 2 Pork Chop 4 Rib

Chicken 4 Radius

Fish 3 Vertebrae

Deer

Unclassified

Level 4

Cow

1 Cervical

Vertebrae 1 Carpal

1 Ischiopubic

ramus/pubic

symphasis

1

"Stewbone"

Pig 1 Pork Chop 3 Femur/"Ham" 3 Vertebrae 1Tibia

Chicken 6 Radius 2 Tibia 1 Metatarsal

Fish 9 Vertebrae

Deer

Unclassified 6 Billowed long bone epiphyses

Level 5

Cow

1 Shoulder

Steak 1 Cervical Vertebrae

Cow 1 Carpal 1 Ilium/Sirloin 3 Lumbar/T-bone

Pig

3

Femur/"Ham" 1 Hallux

Chicken 5 Radius

Fish 8 Vertebrae

Deer

Unclassified 1 Sacrum

Level 6A

Cow

Pig

Chicken

Fish

80

Deer

Unclassified

1 Billowed long

bone epiphysis

Level 7

Cow

1 Distal

Humerus 3 Rib 6 Ilium/Sirloin

Pig

6 Femur/

Ham 1 "Stewbone"

Chicken

Fish

Deer 2 Molar

Unclassified

1 Spinous

Process 1 Vertebral Body

1 Billowed long

bone epiphysis 1 nail

Level 8

Cow 1 "Stewbone" 2 Tibia, unfused 1 Distal humerus

Pig 3 Femur/Ham 1 Rib

1 Mandible

Fragment

Chicken

Fish

Deer

Unclassified 1 Navicular

1 Billowed long

bone epiphysis

Level 9

Cow

1 Proximal

raduis 1 Lumbar/T-bone

1 Distal Tibia

(hacked) 1 Distal Tibia

Pig

1 Mandible

Fragment

Chicken

Fish

Deer

Unclassified

Level 10

Cow

Pig 1 Femur/Ham

Chicken

Fish

Deer

Unclassified

Analysis of Butchered Animal Bone

48 of the identifiable bone fragments found in unit P displayed butchery marks. See

Table 4 for a complete list of butchered bone fragments found in unit P. Figure 3 shows a

81

variety of examples of butchered bone found in unit P as well as one comparative specimen from

the HAS collected material as an example of how we identified some of the common bones

found in butchered meat.

Figure 3: From left to right: Sus scrofa femur slice, Bos taurus lumbar vertebrae, HAS specimen

from meat market labled “porterhouse steak”, Bos taurus distal tibia, Bos taurus distal humerus.

Table 4: List of Unit P butchered animal bone specimens

Lvl. Sub Unit

Scientific Name

Common Name Bone Cut of meat

Mark Type Wt.

2 Bos taurus cow Illium Sirloin Saw 2g

2 Bos taurus cow Illium Sirloin Saw 2g

2 Bos taurus cow Scapula Shoulder Steak Saw 3g

2 Cervidae deer Femur Round Steak Saw 2g

2 Sus scrofa pig Vertebra Pork Chop Saw 2g

3 1 Bos taurus cow Lumbar vertebra

Short Loin/Tenderloin saw 2g

3 4 Bos taurus cow Cervical Vertebra saw 2g

3 2 Sus scrofa pig Vertebra Pork chop saw 3g

82

3 4 Sus scrofa pig Vertebra Pork chop saw 2g

4 4 Bos taurus cow Vertebra

Matched HAS

"stewbone" Saw 8g

4 1 Sus scrofa pig Vertebra Porkchop Saw 3g

4 4 Sus scrofa pig Femur Ham Steak Saw 4g

4 4 Sus scrofa pig Femur Ham Steak Saw 4g

4 4 Sus scrofa pig Femur Ham Steak Saw 1g

4 4 Sus scrofa pig Vertebra Porkchop saw 4g

5 2 Bos taurus cow Lumber Vertebra

Short Loin/Tenderloin Saw 9g

5 3 Bos taurus Cow Illium Sirloin saw 2g

5 3 Bos taurus Cow Lumbar vertebra

Short Loin/Tenderloin saw 4g

5 4 Bos taurus cow Lumber Vertebra

Short Loin/Tenderloin Saw 15g

5 4 Bos taurus cow Illium Sirloin Saw 5g

5 4 Bos taurus cow Scapula Shoulder Steak saw 1g

5 4 Bos taurus cow Cervical Vertebra saw 2g

5 3 Sus scrofa Pig Femur Ham Steak Saw 2g

5 1 Sus scrofa pig Femur Ham Steak Saw 6g

5 3 Sus scrofa pig Femur Ham Steak saw 2g

7 1 Bos taurus cow Illium Sirloin saw 4g

7 2 Bos taurus cow Illium Sirloin saw 11g

7 2 Bos taurus cow Distal

Humerus Saw/Cut 76g

7 3 Bos taurus cow Lumbar Vertibra

Short Loin/Tenderloin saw 3g

7 3 Bos taurus cow Lumbar Vertibra

Short Loin/Tenderloin saw 4g

7 3 Bos taurus cow Lumbar Vertibra

Short Loin/Tenderloin saw 5g

7 3 Bos taurus cow Illium Sirloin saw 3g

7 3 Bos taurus cow Illium Sirloin saw 8g

7 4 Bos taurus cow Illium Sirloin saw 6g

7 4 Bos taurus cow Illium Sirloin saw 8g

7 3 Sus scrofa pig Femur Ham Steak saw 4g

7 3 Sus scrofa pig Femur Ham Steak saw 4g

7 4 Sus scrofa pig Femur Ham Steak saw 6g

8 3 Bos taurus cow Distal

Humerus Saw/Cut 158g

8 3 Bos taurus cow Illium Sirloin saw 12g

83

8 4 Bos taurus cow unid. saw 3g

8 2 Sus scrofa pig Femur Ham Steak saw 4g

8 4 Sus scrofa pig Femur Ham Steak saw 9g

9 Bos taurus cow Distal Tibia Chop 96g

9 Bos taurus cow Proximal Radius saw/chop 29g

9 Bos taurus cow Lumbar Vertibra

Short Loin/Tenderloin saw 23g

10 Sus scrofa pig Femur Ham Steak saw 23g

Figure 4: Distribution of identifiable butchered by level and species.

0

3

2

1

7

0

10

3 3

00

1

2

5

3

0

3

2

0

1

0

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Level

Cow

Pig

Deer

84

Figure 5: Percentage of identifiable butchered by species

Unit P Butchered Animal Bone Species

Distribution

29

17

1

Cow

Pig

Deer

85

Bos taurus

Bos taurus bone is the most abundant type of butchered bone found in unit P. Nearly all

of the butchered Bos taurus bone from unit P came from the high quality short loin and sirloin

cuts of beef. These cuts of beef contain easily identified bones, including thoracic/lumbar

vertebrae and the illium portion of the innominate (see Figures 6 and 7).

Figure 6: Diagram of beef cuts

86

Figure 7: Bos taurus skeleton

The lack of bones such as ribs, teeth and skull bones suggest that the inhabitants did not

purchase whole sides of beef, nor did they butcher whole carcasses. Also, since nearly all of the

butchered bone fragments from this area were cleanly sawn through, it is probable that the meat

was purchased pre butchered in the form of steaks. The large number of bones from these high

quality, and therefore expensive, cuts of beef suggest that the inhabitants were not of a low

socioeconomic status. However, the presence of butchered long bones in levels 7, 8 and 9

suggest that the inhabitants also ate low quality beef as well. The distal end of a tibia was found

with butchery marks, see figure 4, which indicates harvesting meat from the front shank area.

This meat is some of the toughest meat on the cow and is used in stew. The bone was also

smashed open and the marrow scooped out. The distal ends of 2 humeri, which are located in the

brisket portion, were found with saw marks as well. The marks on both of humerus fragments,

found in different levels, are identical, which is further evidence of professional butchering.

87

The data suggests that the inhabitants of the site consumed very high and very low

quality beef. Though there are more remains of high quality beef represented in the data than

remains of low quality beef, the data is not conclusive as to which cuts of meat were consumed

the most, as lower quality cuts of meat usually don’t contain bone and are not represented in the

data. Also, the butchered long bones occur in lower levels, possibly suggesting that the

inhabitants ate lower quality meat when they fist inhabited the area and then gained prominence

in the area in later years and could afford better quality meat.

Sus scrofa

Butchered Sus scrofa bones are the second most common type of butchered bone found

in unit P. Ham bones were the most common, but vertebrae and ribs from pork chops, as well as

quite a few pig hallux/pollox bones were found, suggesting that all parts of the pig were eaten.

All of the butchered Sus scrofa bone was cleanly sawn, so it was probably professionally

butchered, and the presence of non butchered pig bones such as teeth and podial bones (see

Table 2) suggests that perhaps either whole pigs were purchased and butchered, or that live pigs

may have been kept on the property.

Figure 8: Diagram of pork cuts

88

Figure 9: Sus scrofa skeleton

References

Uerpmann, Hans-Peter

1973 Animal Bone Finds and Economic Archaeology: A critical Study of ‘Osteo-

Archaeological’ Method. World Archaeology 4: 307-322.

Figure 6, Beef Cuts Chart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Beef_cuts.svg

Figure 7, Bos taurus Skeleton

http://www.archeozoo.org/IMG/png/bos_taurus.png

Figure 8, Pork Cuts Chart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:American_Pork_Cuts.svg

Figure 9, Sus scrofa Skeleton

http://www.upprs.com/health/skeleton.htm

89

Bricks and Building Materials

Mark Bahorich

Introduction

In this section, three categories of material from Unit P are discussed: mortar, brick and

coke. A total of 14 Kg of brick, including many fragments of crumbled brick were recovered.

Decayed mortar was common on many levels. A total of 2.7 Kg was retrieved. 3.4 Kg of coke

was recovered; this category includes any carbonaceous material including coal and other more

or less oxidized forms of carbon. The Construction materials from Unit P speak to an earlier

structure existing on that lot.

Figure 3: Building Material Level Distribution

Methodology

Unit P was excavated by the class and the artifacts were screened from the loose and

cleaned before being categorized and weighed. Figure 1 shows the level distribution of three

broad types of materials by weight while Figure 2 shows the subunit distribution by weight. The

three types are: mortar, brick and coke. The qualifications for mortar are defined as material

Weight (g)

Axis

Truncated

Artifact Category Subtotal by Level

90

used in masonry to bind construction blocks together, which is a mixture of sand, lime and water

(Wikipedia, 2008a). Easily identifiable by a gritty, sandy texture and grey color, Mortar is an

essential ingredient in the construction of a brick structure.

Coke is a catch-all term for any black carbonaceous material and includes coal. One

important not is that all materials are only a representative sample. Due to high clay content and

resulting increased load on the screens, clay clods approximately too large to fit through the

grates were pinched and any artifacts were removed. There is a chance that small numbers of

artifacts may have been missed. The sample studied here is not the sum total of everything of

human origin originally contained in the unit, but surely comprises almost all of it.

Recording Methods

In the collection of data for this material class, all of the artifacts were weighed en mass

divided by material class, subunit and level. A spreadsheet was created to organize the data as

collected. For certain determinant brick fragments, dimensions were measured and the munsell

of the brick was taken.

Figure 2: Artifact Category Subtotal by Subunit

Description and Analysis

*doesn't

include levels

without

Subunits

Weight (g)

Artifact Category Subtotal by Subunit*

91

It is clear that there is an increase in brick material density for level five and levels seven

through nine (Figure 1), however the trend is not as strong with both mortar and coke/coal which

both remain relatively constant. Additionally, Subunit three and four are relatively more active

for brick and less so for the other two (Figure 2). Subunits three and four are closest to the

existing structure, which could be the explanation for this trend.

Brick is categorized as a “block of ceramic material used in masonry construction”

(Wikipedia, 2008b). Brick is especially useful in archaeological diagnosis because much

information can be gathered from pieces of it. It is possible to determine, for example, the

materials used as well as where they came from. The color of the brick can also reveal how

evenly the brick was baked and the quality of its manufacture. If a sufficiently large enough

piece is discovered, the method of forming the shape can also be determined. There are three

main possibilities for the formation of the shape of the brick. The first and earliest type of

formation is by hand. Much like shaping a loaf of bread, artisans would form the brick into a

rectangular shape by hand before baking the brick.

Understandably, this method produces an inconsistent size and relative composition of the

brick. Secondly, brick makers developed a mold for accurately forming the size and shape of the

brick consistently. This method creates “pressed brick” (Dictionary.com, 2008) but is more

expensive to manufacture as each brick must be packed into the mold individually. The third

method, extrusion, involves forcing the brick mud through a small opening to achieve a uniform

and semi-continuous line of brick. After a given amount of the brick material is pushed through,

the end is cut and separated from the mold. This method allows for changes in the length of the

brick, but keeps a consistent rectangular face (Wikipedia, 2008c).

Most helpful, in diagnosis however, is whether or not the brick contains traceable and

identifiable symbols called a “maker’s mark.” One such brick discovered at level 5, subunit 1

does carry a fragment of a mark (Figure 3), but the origin of the mark could not be resolutely

determined.

92

Figure 3, brick fragment with maker’s mark

From looking at the brick deposits recovered from the test unit (see Appendix below), two

main types of bricks exist. The first type is painted and well formed brick with even sides which

could have been formed by a press or extruder. One factor posing a problem in this analysis is

that three of the bricks from level 5 appear to be slipped a dark red. Two of those slipped bricks

are both the largest and most complete bricks discovered. The bricks share a common size and

dimension off a particular face. Interestingly, small indentations seem to have a directional

nature along the smooth faces of both bricks and it could be concluded that these two also may

have come from the same place.

References

Wikipedia

2008a Mortar (masonry). Electronic document,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_%28masonry%29, accessed April 14.

2008b Brick. Electronic document,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick, accessed April 14.

2008c Extrusion. Electronic document,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrusion#Ceramic, accessed April 25.

Dictionary.com

2008 Pressed brick – Definition. Electronic document,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pressed%20brick, accessed April 14.

93

Appendix: Catalogue of Large Brick Fragments

Large Brick Fragments

Level Sub-

Unit

Weight(g) Dimensions Comments

5 1 1162 9.4 x 7.2 x 8 cm End part of a brick, 2.5yr 4/4 small striations present

5 4 542 5.3 x 5.8 x 10.5 cm Piece of a brick, three flat sides (two opposite facing

and one slender side. 7.5yr 5/4 small striations present

5 4 522 5.75 x 5.7 x10.1 cm Piece of a brick, three flat sides in a row oriented

longitudinally. 7.5 yr 5/4

Small directional indentations on surface

5 3 472 10 x 5.6 x 5.7 cm Piece of a brick with a corner connecting three smooth

sides and a piece of a smooth side opposite the corner,

2.5yr 4/4. small striations Present

5 3 447 5.6 x 4.45 x 5.6 cm Piece of a brick with a broken corner connecting two

large and one small flat side. One side 2.5yr 4/4 while

the remainder of the brick is 7.5yr 5/4. Small striations

present

5 4 2061 9.7 x7.7 x12.9 cm Large section of brick with four smooth and one

slightly rougher side. 2.5yr 4/4. Small directional

indentations on surface

7 589 9 x 5.1 x 9.7 cm Piece of brick with two adjacent smooth sides. Sandy

texture with many pockmarks. Brownish red in color

5 1 51 4.5 x 3.65 x 2.4 cm Piece of brick with letters. M on top and RI on line

underneath at an angle. Dark brown and consistent

94

Artifacts of Personal Adornment

Tsholofelo Dichaba

Introduction

Personal adornments include a wide range of artifacts including beads, buttons, necklaces,

buckles, rings, pendants, bracelets, anklets etc. The personal adornment artifacts that were

recovered from the Unit P excavations included glass beads, buttons made of bone, shell, glass,

and plastic, a ceramic pendant, and metal clothing eyes, rivets and buckles. Other than plastic

and bakelite, none of these materials provides very useful chronological information. Decorated

and metal buttons, as well as clothing hooks and buckles may be indicative of economic class

and gender. This chapter aims to:

1) Classify and describe all the personal adornments artifacts obtained from Unit P

2) Provide interpretive graphs and tables

3) Discuss possible historical interpretations

Methodology

Personal adornments were selected from the rest of the artifacts recovered from Unit P.

These 45 artifacts were recorded on a spreadsheet following the Yates Community

Archaeological Program (YCAP) artifact Cataloging System. The system classifies objects

according to seven (7) broad categories of Materials: Ceramic, Glass, Metal, Rubber, Lithic,

Ecology and Other. Within each category are Sub-Materials, then specific Artifact classes.

Provenience by level and sub unit was recorded for each artifact. The full table of recorded

artifacts of personal adornment is available in Appendix I of this chapter.

The personal adornment artifacts were then divided into beads, buttons and “other”

artifacts – see Fig. 1 for the distribution of these classes by level and Figure 2 for a sample of the

artifacts.

The beads were classified according to material, sub material and artifact class. Only six

beads were found in Unit P. For buttons, the YCAP Artifact Cataloguing System did not have

codes for color or type of decoration. These descriptions were made in the comments section. A

95

total of 28 buttons were obtained from the unit (See App. I). Their distribution by material is

presented in Fig. 3. While frequencies of decorated buttons may provide insights into socio-

economic status, the sample size from Unit P is too small to permit meaningful interpretation

(Fig. 4). The remaining artifacts ("Other") were mainly rivets, clothing hooks, necklace

pendant/charm and buckles (shoes, belt, etc). Again, the sample size is small, precluding much

interpretation.

References

Rovine, Victoria.

1995. Status, Symbols: African Textiles and Adornments. United States of

America: The University of Iowa Museum of Art.

Sutton, Q. Mark and Brooke S. Arkush.

2002. Archaeological Laboratory Methods: An Introduction. United States of

America: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

96

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Numbe r

beads

but t ons

ot her

Figure 1: Personal adornment classes by level

97

Figure 2: Sample of personal adornments artifacts

98

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

numbe r

Plast ic

Shell

Bone

Met al

Figure 3: Button type by level

99

0 2 4 6 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

N umb er

Decorated buttons

Undecorated buttons

Figure 4: Decorated vs. Undecorated buttons by level

100

Catalogue of Analyzed Artifacts of Personal Adornment

Level

Sub-

unit Material

Sub-

material

Art.

Class Qty.

Wight

(g) Comments

Beads

1 II GK 2026 1 0.5 10 cm long, orange in color

2 II GC 2025 1 1.2 9.6 cm long

4 1 II GC 2029 1 1.5 17.4 cm long

4 1 II GD 2029 1 1.8 16.2 cm long

4 2 II GI 2025 1 0.9 bead broken

4 4 II GD 2029 1 1.6 16.4 cm long

Buttons

2 IV

RD 4005 1 0.9

circular, brown, 2 holes,

18.4 mm(dm)

2 VI

EN 6009 1 0.3

circular, white,bone, 2

holes,13.1 mm(dm)

3 1 VI

EF 6009 1 0.2

circular, white, 2 holes, 12

mm(dm)

3 1 VI

EN 6009 1 0.2

circular, white, bone,4

holes,13.2 mm(dm)

3 1 VI

EN 6009 1 0.2

circular,white, bone, 4

holes,13.2 mm(dm)

3 1 VI

EF 6009 1 0.5

circular, white,2 holes,11.9

mm(dm)

3 4 IV

RD 4004 1 0.4

circular, brown, 2

holes,13.9 mm(dm)

3 4 VI

EN 6009 1 0.6

circular, white, bone, 2

holes,17.8mm(dm)

4 1 IV

RD 4004 1 0.5

circular, white,2 holes,11.5

mm(dm)

4 1 IV RD 4004 1 0.9 circular, white, 14.1 mm

4 1 VI EF 6009 1 0.1 rectangular, 1 hole

4 2 IV

RD 4005 1 1.1

circular, white, 2 holes,16

mm(dm)

4 4 III MA 3033 1 circular, rusty

4 4 IV

RD 4005 1 0.2

diamond, red,decorated ,1

hole

4 4 VI

EF 6009 1 0.2

circular, white, 2 holes,9.6

mm(dm)

5 2 IV

RD 4005 1 0.2

diamond, red,decorated ,1

hole

5 2 IV

RD 4004 1 0.5

circular, white, 2

holes,11.2mm(dm)

5 3 VI

EF 6009 1 0.8

circular, white,2

holes,14.9mm(dm)

6a 2 VI

EN 6009 1 0.6

circular,white, 2

holes,15.5mm(dm)

6a 3 III MA 3032 1 3.3 button is rusty,25.3

101

mm(dm)

6 4 III MA 3032 1 1.3 circular, 18.4 mm(dm)

6 4 IV RD 4004 1 1.2 trapezium, black, 1 hole

7 1 IV

RD 4004 1 0.5

circular, white,4

holes,10.7mm(dm)

7 1 IV

RD 4005 1 1.6

conical, black,

decorated,metal hook

7 2 IV

RD 4004 1 0.4

circular, white,4

holes,10.7mm(dm)

7 3 IV

RD 4004 1 1.5

circular,white,4

holes,17.2mm(dm)

7 3 IV

RD 4004 1 0.4

circular, white, 4

hole,10.8mm(dm)

7 4 IV

EF 6009 1 0.7

circular,white,2

holes,12.9mm(dm)

7 4 IV

RD 4005 1 0.7

pin shaped,white,11.9

mm(dm)

8 3 IV

RD 4004 1 0.5

circular, white, 4

holes,11.1mm(dm)

9 3 IV

RD 4004 1 0.8

circular,white,4 holes,14.2

mm(dm)

Other

artifacts

1 I CC 1 5 necklace pendant/charm

3 1 III MA 3020 1

4 2 III MA 3027 1 0.1

4 2 III MA 3027 1 0.9

4 3 III MB 3020 1 1

4 4 III MA 3031 1 1 anklet, bracelet, watch?

4 4 III MA 3028 1 22

7 3 III MA 3029 1 18

Total 45

102

Miscellaneous Artifacts

Kaitlin Simmons

Glass

The only glass artifacts found for this section were marbles. They ranged in weight from

3.7 to 6.8 grams. They also varied in diameter from 14.0mm to 17.3mm. The marble found are

the same as modern-day marbles. Some were made up of a solid color glass, while other

consisted of various colored “swirls” within the glass marble. The marbles were not just found

on the top levels. However, there were marbles discovered throughout the levels. The marbles

found in Levels 1 through 4. The weight and diameter to the ones found earlier, it was in worse

condition and had chips and cracks around the outside.

Metal

All of the miscellaneous metal artifacts that were discovered were found in the top three

layers. These artifacts mainly consist of aluminum foil, pennies, and hardware parts. All of the

pennies were Lincoln pennies. Two pennies were found in Level 2, and one penny was found in

Level 3. Only one of the dates was readable. It was a 1967 Lincoln penny found in Level two.

The oldest penny, found in Level 3 did not have the Lincoln Memorial on the back of it. Instead

it says “One Cent” in the center in capital letter. There were scraps of aluminum foil found in the

top layers. There were also nine identical plastic hardware parts found in the Level 1. They each

have two metal prongs and are covered by a yellow cap at the other end.

Plastic/Rubber

Plastics and rubbers were the most copious of the miscellaneous artifacts. Artifacts in

this category were fairly diverse although their range was limited to the most recent levels of the

excavation.

Level 1 contained a large amount of broken fragments ranging from Styrofoam plates to a

transparent green toothbrush with the bristles intact. Other artifacts in Level 1 include straw

stirrers, part of a cigarette lighter, tube caps, red toy, red plastic seal reading “Penalty, Do Not

Remove”, and many others.

103

Level 2 also included various interesting plastic artifacts. Among those found were a

white clip, tube caps, spray nozzle, and the tear-off seal of a milk carton.

There were two interesting artifacts found in the lower levels of the site. Both were part

of hair combs. One of them, found in Level 7, was half the body of the comb with only bits of its

teeth remaining. The other was found in Level 8. It appeared to be a part of an older style of

comb that flipped open. When closed, the teeth slid inside a protective cover that was hinged to

the body of the comb.

Writing Material

There were two broken pencils found in Levels 4 and 5. The pencils had clearly been

sharpened down to their end with only a small pieces of wood and eraser remaining connected by

a brass band. A piece of chalk was also found in level four. Graphite and slate pieces were also

found in Levels 6 and 7.

Other

There was a piece of an elastic waistband and a large collection of red yarn found in the

top levels of the site. Although the yarn encased in mud and too delicate to clean completely off,

it is still possible to see that the fabric is red. The red yarn was most likely from an old carpet

that was cut or discarded outside.

Conclusions

Overall, there were various types artifacts found at this site. However, there was a large

amount of hardware materials and tube caps (that most likely cap from glue containers or other

adhesives). There were also pencils and parts of pens and chalk found on the site as well. While

this diversity of only a few artifacts exclusive in scope to all others makes any interpretation

difficult, the variety does suggest that this was likely a multipurpose space being used by a

number of different residents.

104

Appendix: Catalogue of Analyzed Miscellaneous Artifacts

Lvl

Sub-

unit Material Sub-mat

Art.

Class Qty. Wt/g Comments:

1 NA II GD 2036 1 3.8g 14.1 mm Ø, shiny royal blue

1 NA IV RA 2 >0.1g rough torn styrofoam plate scraps

1 NA IV RA 30+ 4.7g scraps of torn styrofoam plate

1 NA IV RD 1 14.1g

whole toothbrush w/ bristles, clear/

green plastic Colgate

1 NA IV RD 4008 1 2.6g

similar eyedrop cap, silver plastic, 27.2

mm height, 21.3mm width

1 NA IV RD 4011 1 4.2g

red plastic seal to unknown, w/ eroded

metal pronges text says "Penalty, Do

Not Remove", 38 x 21, 5mm thick

rounded

1 NA IV RD 4014 1 4.5g

broken white fork w/ pronges and

textured handle

1 NA IV RD 4011 1 14.4g

unknown mechanism, black 51.0mm Ø,

51.5mm square

1 NA III MA 3049 9 17.6

plastic yellow capped metal pronges,

electric hardware?

1 NA IV RD 4014 7 1.0g white broken scraps

1 NA IV RD 4014 3 0.3g Red and white straw stirrer

1 NA IV RD 4014 1 4.0g Broken trigger for lighter

1 NA IV RD 4014 1 1.5g

black rook for chess board, 32.0mm

height

1 NA IV RB 4011 2 5.8g black rubber scraps

1 NA IV RD 4014 2 2.3g broken pen pieces, black

1 NA IV RD 4014 3 1.2g

broken scraps green plastic, 2.5mm

thick

1 NA VII OF 7004 10+ 1.0g scraps of wrappers/ trash

1 NA IV RD 4014 1 2.9g possibly helmet strap incremental slits

1 NA IV RD 4014 1 1.0g

plastic red hat for a lego-type toy

person

1 NA IV RD 4014 1 1.1g

orange threaded screw-on cap,

21.4mm height, 11.0mm Ø

1 NA IV RD 4014 1 1.0g black cap, threaded, 25.4mm Ø

1 NA III MH 3178 4 1.0g aluminum foil scraps

1 NA VII OE 7005 1 0.4g

109mm length, about 14.6 wide, elastic

"waistband"

1 NA IV RD 4014 1 6.3g

black cap, 21.5mm height, 15.1 Ø,

25.5mm Ø, "twist off"

105

1 NA IV RD 4014 1 0.5g

black top , threaded, 16.4mm height,

9.4mm Ø ribbed, cone top

2 N.A. III MB 3164 2 6.2g

Ø= 19.0 nm Lincoln Pennies. One of

them from 1967 is 1.3mm thick

2 N.A. II GK 2037 1 5.6g

Ø= 16.4mm, light green w/large white

swirls

2 N.A. II GK 2037 1 5.5g Ø= 15.8 mm clear w/peach swirls

2 NA iv RD 1 0.4g

10.4mm height, Ø= 9.7 mm, black

sprout nozzle

2 NA IV RD 1 0.8g

Olive green plastic tube w/ threads,

outside w/ large ribs 9.8 mm height,

16.0= Ø

2 NA VII OE 7005 1 6.6g

cant determine length b/c incased in

dried mud and very fragile red yarn

2 NA VII OE 7005 1 0.7g

undetermined length, red yard encased

w/mud

2 NA IV RD 1 0.4g

11.6 mm Ø, burnt under cap, ribbed,

threaded, tube cap

2 NA IV RD 1 0.2g

7.9mm Ø, black cap not threaded, snap

on

2 NA III MH 3178 1 0.2g

balled up aluminum foil, fragile, flakes

easily

2 NA VII OE 7005 1 1.1g

unknown length and color, long pile of

string encased in mud

2 NA V 4 5019 1 1.1g

18.3 mm Ø, 4mm Ø hole, 4 mm thick,

flat w/hole in center

2 NA IV RA 1 70.1g

13.8mm x 12 mm rough rectangle,

styrofoam plate scrap

2 NA IV RD 4014 1 8.1g

about 35mm rough hexagon, 12.0mm

thick, gray plastic chunk

2 NA IV RD 4014 2 0.6G

odd shaped yellow ochre plastic bits,

2.1mm thick

2 NA IV RD 4014 3 0.4g

odd shaped broken white plastic bits,

1.2mm thick

2 NA IV RD 4014 1 0.4g

white clip for keys/ name tag, 30 mm

length, 3.5 mm thick

2 NA VII OF 7001 2 7.8g

light brick red face, ribbed textule face,

white pitted back

2 NA IV RD 4014 1 0.1g Yellow triangular plastic fragment

2 NA IV RD 4008 1 0.2g

pink & white fragment of cap "sealer"

that tear off of milk

3 2 II GA 2037 1 4.9g Ø= 15.3 mm white &beige swirls

3 2 III MB 3164 1 2.8g Ø=19.0 mm, Lincoln penny 1916?,

106

Lincoln face, "One Cent"

3 4 VII OE 7005 1 >0.1g scrap of red yarn

3 4 VII OE 7005 3 >0.1g string encased in mud, unknown color

4 4 IV GK 2037 1 3.7g Ø= 14.0 mm black with yellow swirls

mostly black

4 4 II RD 4011 1 2.2g

29.0 mm in length about 5mm width, L

shaped fragment, teeth on top, white

in color

4 3 II GK 2037 1 6.8G

Ø= 17.3 mm white/clear glittery, opal

translucence

4 2 IV RD 4011 1 1.0g

white plastic, 15.8 mm length, ½ circles

about 11.0 mm

4 2 V LJ 5015 1 1.1g

21.3 mm length, 7 mm Ø, end of pencil

w/ part of eraser w/ metal around end

4 1 v LI 1 1.1

piece of chalk 16.2 mm thick, 8.5-8.8

mm Ø

5 2 V OE 5015 1 1.5g

24.1mm length, 8mm Ø, end of pencil,

broken small pieces, bits of eraser&

metal

5 4 IV RD 4011 1 0.2g

dark brown pick, 4.4mm to point,

brokem off something

6 4 II GC 2037 1 6.0G

Ø=16.8mm, glass w/white swirls, sides

are chipped

6a 4 V LH 5005 1 2.0g

39.2mm length, cylinder, one end

pointed the other broken off, 8.8 mm

to go to point , Ø= 5.0mm

6a 4 v RD 5017 1 0.8g

20.7 mm length, one end broken to

"flat point," other cleanly broken off,

Ø= 4.6 mm

6a 2 V LJ 5016 1 0.3g

14.5mm x 5.7mm, 2.3mm thick,

graphite

7 4 V LH 5017 1 2.6g 32.4mm length, 5.4mm square stick

7 4 IV RD 4003 1 5.4

78.7 mm x 15 mm ½ of a comb, brick

red and dark brown basically no teeth,

a few short broken off teeth

8 1 IV RD 4003 1 3.0g

40.7 mm length, width~5.5-6.0 mm,

brown plastic, brown part of comb, has

the end w/ hinge for teeth cover

107

Conclusion

By Brian Clark

Introduction

Interpretation of the history of Freedmen’s Town thus far comes largely from oral

traditions, written sources, and the work of previous archaeologists such as Feit et al. (2007). It

is appropriate then to frame the interpretation of the work done this semester in this broader

context. Drawing any certain conclusions from this season’s excavation about either the Yates

home or Freedmen’s Town more generally is unwise however, as the area excavated represents

only a very small portion of the Yates property and certainly does not represent the diversity of

social and economic worlds inhabited by the neighborhood’s residents. Despite the limited and

biased nature of the data, however, it is interesting to see how much of the information recovered

can be used to further support many of the hypotheses proposed by the Yates Museum staff and

previous researchers.

The purpose of this section then is to summarize some of the most significant findings

uncovered this year including the depositional history of the area and discoveries which are

relevant to the hypotheses of Bruner and McDavid. The data derived from this year’s excavation

will also be examined in the light of previous work which has been conducted in the area. While

the conclusions which can be drawn from this year’s excavation are tentative and will require

further elaboration in the future, they provide good support for previous theories regarding the

property and demonstrate the integration of the Yates property into the broader society of the

Fourth Ward over the last 100+ years.

Chronology and Stratigraphy

In general, excavation of the site was carried out in approximately five centimeter

intervals to strictly control the context of artifacts. Attempts were made to coordinate the

excavated levels with the natural stratigraphy, however, the soft, muddy nature of the soil and the

often minor changes in color and texture frequently meant levels terminated just above or below

a natural level. For the most part though, clusters of excavated levels correspond approximately

108

to natural strata. The majority of the soils encountered were composed of dense, dark clays with

varying proportions of sand and loam. Levels 6 and 6A were unique, however, because they

were primarily sandy and loamy, respectively, and will be discussed further below. Table 1

below summarized the depositional periods identified and will be discussed further.

Table 1: Summary of depositional periods.

Levels Corresponding Period Chronological Markers

1-2 ~1960s - present polystyrene, aluminum pull tabs, batteries

3-5 1910s - ~1960s octagonal Coke bottle, modern ceramics, round nails

6, 6A 1900s - 1910s sandy layer (low artifact density)

7-10 late 1800s - 1900s 19th century ceramics, square nails

The latest levels (1-2) were very artifact rich although clearly modern. These two levels

contained such items as aluminum pull tabs, polystyrene cup and plate pieces, batteries, modern

plastics, and other “garbage” which likely accumulated in the yard in recent times. The 1960s

date and the transition to levels 3 through 5 is only an estimated chronological point marked by

the drop off in the distribution of recent materials like batteries and aluminum pull tabs. Levels 3

through 5 are chronologically characterized by the presence of modern ceramics, bakelite

plastics, an octagonal Heinz Ketchup bottle base datable to between 1926 and 1930 and round

nails whose use postdates the turn of the century. Level 6 and 6A are unique for their overall

lack of artifacts and the presence of sand in contrast with the surrounding strata of gumbo clays.

A similar sand level at approximately the same depth (25 cm) in other excavations near the Yates

home has prompted suggestions that it is due either to flooding or construction infilling.

Analysis of this section of Level 6 sand samples confirms that it is construction sand (Ebrahim,

n.d.). Levels 7 through 10 represents the earliest occupational phase and is datable to the late

1800s until the 1910s. This has been determined by the presence of hand made square nails, the

absence of industrial round nails, the quantity of 19th

century ceramics and one ceramic with a

maker’s mark datable to between 1865 and 1887. Although the deposition of the ceramics and

other datable objects like the ketchup bottle are no guarantee of the date ranges of their

associated strata, their association with other temporally similar artifacts lends credence to the

aforementioned site chronology.

109

The sequence represented by the deposits is consistent with evidence for two different

construction phases on the Yates property. Bruner and David suggest that the first house was

built in the late 1800s and was torn down and replaced sometime around 1910 by the current

home. As noted in Bahorich’s chapter on nails recovered from the site, there is a clear drop off

between levels 7 and 5 in the volume of hand made square nails which lost favor to round

industrial nails in the first decade of the 20th

century, coinciding with the presumed time of the

second construction.

The Material Culture

Previous to the Yates program, the only other major excavation or survey of the Fourth

Ward was conducted by Feit and Jones (2007) in preparation for further development of the

neighborhood. The benefit of their work to the Yates Community Archaeology Project is its

extensive and thorough exploration of the neighborhood and their detailed analysis of their

findings. This makes their report a suitable place from which to draw comparisons with the

Yates property in order to frame a discussion of it in the broader context of the old

neighborhood. Feit and Jones tackle a number of issues in their report and cover more topics

than can be discussed adequately from the few remains recovered this year. Some of their

principal questions as they apply to the Yates program are, however, the material nature of class,

particularly as this applies to typically lower income renters versus middle class homeowners,

foodways, the uses of outdoor space, and evidence for the integration of residents into local and

global economic markets. Along with a comparison to previous work, it is also worth examining

how the material remains found this year do or do not support further hypotheses of the Yates

staff. Principally, these hypotheses are that the Yates family maintained a garden somewhere on

the property and that the house was once used for a short time as a school. A goal of the project

has also been to identify the boundaries of a trash burning pile.

A key component of Feit and Jones’ report (2007) is their discussion of homeowners

versus renters. Homeowners, according to the authors, were generally wealthier and more secure

in their station in life and could therefore invest more money into consumer products, often with

social intentions or implications, and take greater control over the design of their space. Renters,

110

however, tended to be poorer and less in control over their surroundings. Material remains from

the areas of these individual’s habitations tended to be fewer and reflect a lower socio-economic

position with less integration into the local and global economies. Since the Yates family owned

their home, then, one would expect that material remains found around their yard would reflect a

comfortable socio-economic position and demonstrate interaction with wider economic spheres.

One prime area for investigating socio-economic status and consumption patterns is an

examination of the ceramic assemblage from this season’s excavation. Feit and Jones note that

eclectic mixing of patterns were common among all African-American residents and that

homeowners typically possessed finer quality pieces than renters (2007: 174-175). Such a

pattern is reinforced by the assemblage collected this year. Porcelain fragments, for example,

were not uncommon in the Yates assemblage. Even today, porcelain still carries with it

assumptions of wealth and status. Even if the porcelain fragments found on the Yates property

were locally produced rather than imported their social and monetary value was probably not

insignificant for the time. Similarly, a number of high quality pieces of stoneware were

uncovered including two finely made buff bodied bottleneck fragments with a glassy, mocha

colored, glaze. Ceramics of this aesthetic and technical quality, while perhaps not expensive at

the time, certainly indicates that the residents could afford items whose aesthetic value went far

beyond purely utilitarian needs. While the assemblage is perhaps too small to make judgments

on the relative volume of decorated tableware owned by the Yates (in reference to the preference

for eclecticism noted by Feit and Jones, 2007) it is safe to say that they owned a variety of

different ceramic types and functions. This suggests that preferences for patterned wares

probably also followed suite. It is also interesting to note that the ceramics with makers’ marks

discussed in Wise and Zimet’s chapter indicate that the Yates had managed to acquire ceramics

originating from great distances. This is consistent with Feit and Jones’ belief stated above that

material remains in the Fourth Ward offer strong indications of the participation of local

residents in numerous economic spheres.

Other remnants of discarded objects also suggest the relative affluence of the Yates

property residents and their desire to display that affluence, even if appearances might be

deceiving. The presence of buttons manufactured mostly from shell and bone, for example,

111

indicates a fairly middle class economic status (Feit and Jones 2007: 176). Furthermore, the

perfume bottle fragment described by Digilov and Thompson (Chapter 6) along with the number

of hair beads and other bric-a-brac further implies that surviving from day to day was not the

first concern of the family and that, occasionally at least, money could be spent on luxury items.

Although Feit and Jones note a number of ways such goods like expensive ceramics and other

items could have been acquired outside the market economy (2007: 173-175), the volume of

such goods at the Yates property is still sufficient to suggest that they maintained a comfortable

economic status comparable to their home-owning neighbors.

Foodways

Like ceramics, faunal remains representing the discard of meals can also be fairly useful

for indicating socio-economic status and participation in the local market system. Feit and Jones

note that the vast majority of faunal remains uncovered from across the Fourth Ward were those

of pig and cow, irregardless of socio-economic status. Chicken and fish were also common

although they note that their presence was much larger among renting populations than

homeowners, as was the presence of wild game (2007: 168). Furthermore, most faunal remains

showed signs of professional butchering and probably originated in the local produce markets of

the area. These are findings consistent with the Yates home where cow and pig bones with

professional butchering scars predominate. One key difference among the Yates assemblage and

that of Feit and Jones, however, was the predominance of loin cuts at the Yates site. Feit and

Jones, in contrast, cite rib and long bone cuts as being more common (2007: 169), cuts to which

Taylor and Whitham ascribe lower economic value. The distribution of cuts was nearly equally

as common throughout all levels with the one exception of butchered long bones which were

restricted to only the earliest levels. This suggests then that while the Yates residents did share

in many of the same food practices as their neighbors, their socio-economic status was probably

just high enough that they could afford to purchase slightly more expensive cuts of meat

regularly throughout their occupation of the site.

Taylor and Whitham make one good point though when they indicate that many tough

and therefore often inexpensive cuts of meat like the brisket do not contain bones and therefore

112

would not be traceable in the archaeological record. Furthermore, they suggest, as Feit and Jones

have (2007: 167), that fish and chicken bones are small and fragile, therefore difficult to recover

if they managed to survive. Furthermore, like their neighbors, a few cuts of offal and evidence

for the removal of marrow were also found at the Yates property, incidentally also in the earliest

levels. This suggests then that while the Yates residents could often afford expensive cuts of

meat, it is unwise to assume this was the norm. Instead, it is probably most likely that they

abided by the same culinary practices and norms as their neighbors although with the more

frequent indulgence in more expensive cuts.

Outdoor Space

While most of the discussion has thus far involved the artifacts themselves and their

economic meaning, it is also important to consider their location of recovery (the backyard) and

what the relationship between artifacts and space may tell us about the Yates property. Feit and

Jones note the frequency with which children’s toys were found throughout yards in the Fourth

Ward, suggesting that yards were public spaces for young residents to congregate and socialize

(2007: 179). They also note the frequency with which yards were ornamented with potted plants

which served to beautify the yard as well as segregate spaces and possibly provide minor

culinary additions to the local diet (2007: 165-66). Bruner and McDavid also have their own

hypotheses and goals regarding a study of the yard. After uncovering remains of a trash burning

pile in a previous season they have sought to outline the perimeter of the burning site and

identify any possibly associated structure such as a path which might have led to the pile. They

have also sought evidence to support the belief that the house was once briefly used as a school

in the mid 20th

century and that a garden was located somewhere within the yard. Overall, while

it is not possible to comment assertively on all these points, a few lines of evidence are worthy of

note.

Regarding the use of the house as a school and the discovery of features related to the

trash burning pile no definite archaeological evidence was recovered. A few broken brick

fragments and patches of mortar were uncovered dispersed through level 6A which it was

initially suggested may have been the remnants of a path. Further cleaning of the area revealed,

113

however, that the brick fragments appeared irregularly arranged at different angles and depths

and whether or not their placement was intentional will not be known until a wider area is

exposed. No evidence for the perimeters of the trash pile was uncovered either. Furthermore,

while many children’s items like hair beads, jacks and other toys were uncovered, none of this is

inconsistent with findings reported by Feit and Jones in other yards. Thus there is still too little

evidence to support the suggestion that a school was once housed on the property. All that can

be said about the yard regarding this matter is that it was used, much like neighboring yards, as a

social space for children; which, incidentally, probably helped break down perceived barriers of

private space and integrated the outdoor space of the neighborhood into one larger social

landscape.

One inconsistency with Feit and Jones’ report regarding use of yard space was the

paucity of flowerpots and terracotta in the Yates yard. Although terra cotta was not officially a

ceramic category the analysts were looking for, the commonality of terra cotta makes it

immediately recognizable and distinguishable from other ceramic types. An explanation for the

absence of flowerpots is needed then as this represents a glaring inconsistency with

archaeological observations elsewhere in the Fourth Ward. One possibility is, of course, that the

excavation simply was not extensive enough to uncover flowerpot fragments. An alternative

hypothesis can be formed, however, given observations made by Feit and Jones and the belief of

Bruner that a garden may once have existed on the property. Feit and Jones make the statement

that flowerpots were likely an easy way for low income residents with little free control over

their property to inexpensively ornament their yards and possibly provide additional edibles for

their tables (2007: 165). What such a generalization suggests about the Yates then is that they

may have had a much higher degree of financial stability and control over their yard since it

appears they did not feel compelled to resort to potted plants like their neighbors. This is

consistent with the evidence regarding their financial well being discussed above and their long

history of ownership of the property. Unlike some of their renting neighbors who would have

been limited in time, resources and permission to modify their yards, the Yates residents may

have chosen to landscape rather than merely ornament. Gardens and flowerbeds, if such things

existed on the property, would have diminished the need for potted plants and indicated a sense

114

of permanence and stability that came with home ownership and financial well being. Whether

or not such permanent installations existed, however, and whether or not flowerpots are

represented in the as yet unrecovered ceramic assemblage ought to be addressed in future

excavations on the property.

Conclusion

Overall then, while this season’s work was too limited to draw any major conclusions

about the Yates property and the neighborhood as a whole, the work done does suggest that the

Yates residents were typical middle class urbanites in the manner of many other Freedmen’s

Town residents. When compared to the research done by Feit et al. (2007), the Yates residents

and their interactions with the community and wider economic spheres appear to be fairly

normal. Their material goods represent a mix of economic utilitarianism with a fair amount of

accessorizing. Similarly, their food patterns suggest an adequate standard of living and

participation in urban dietary and consumer habits similar to their neighbors. In terms of their

social interactions with the local community little can be determined thus far although given the

prominent historical role of the Yates family members in the community and the number of

children’s toys in the yard, it seems reasonable that the Yates residents were active community

members and were equally a part of the neighborhood’s social network as were other locals.

Unfortunately, many specific questions asked by Bruner and McDavid could not be

adequately addressed this season. While the evidence does not deny the possibility of a

children’s school on the property, neither does it prove it. Similarly, the unit does not appear to

have been located in the immediate vicinity of the trash burning pile although the scatter of

objects found in the unit may have been articles intended for the flames. The only question

which this excavation does seem to support is the hypothesis of two building episodes on the

property. The relative sterility of level 6A and the few chronological markers associated with it

seem to be good evidence supporting the belief that sometime around the turn of the century, the

current house was erected.

Considering that this experience proved to be very successful for both the Rice students

and Yates Community Archaeology Project staff, it seems likely the project will be continued in

115

the future. It will be at these future events then that many of the issues and uncertainties brought

up in this season’s excavations can be addressed and hopefully solved. Ideally, each successive

season’s work will contain new and returning students so that the experiences, questions, and

expertise of both can compliment one another to continue developing a more complete picture of

the history of the Yates property.

References

Ebrahim, Farah

2008 Report of Granulometric and Soil Micromorphological Analysis on Soil

Samples Taken from Units at the Rutherford B. Yates Community

Archaeological Program. Unpublished report. Anthropology Department, Rice

University.

Feit, Rachel and B. M. Jones

2007 Cultural Resources, HISD Freedmen’s Town. Hicks & Co. September.

116

Appendix I:

The Oral History of Houston’s Freedmen’s Town

DeAngela Hayes and Angel Ashley L. Smith

Introduction

Obtaining the oral history of a community is one of the most important, interesting, and

challenging tasks an archaeologist or historian can undertake. The people who have lived in a

community and have ties to its streets, buildings, and people, can be a treasure trove of

information about its past, present, and future. Their memories and impressions are at least as

important as archaeological and written records, and recording these vital resources before they

vanish is a high priority. It is also difficult. Obtaining oral histories involves time and effort, on

the parts of both the interviewer and those who agree to share their knowledge with others.

Sometimes people’s memories and opinions are in conflict with each other, or with historical

documents or archaeology; sometimes memories are distorted, or difficult to describe. Even so, it

could be argued that the memories of those who lived in a time and place are its history. As one

of our interview participants was told when she couldn’t provide information from “records”:

“You are the record.”

For Houston’s Freedmen’s Town, oral history is particularly important because the

written record is so limited. Despite its rich and fascinating history, it has largely been

overlooked until quite recently, and many of its historical structures, including churches, have

been demolished to make way for new construction. As a result, much of the Freedmen’s Town

community has been dissolved, and details of the archaeological record have been lost.

Recording the oral history of this unique and inspiring neighborhood has become an urgent goal,

as the members of the founding families move, age, or pass on. Efforts to speak with those who

lived in Freedmen’s Town or who had family ties there have been undertaken recently, by

historians such as Debra Sloan. In addition to shedding light on the history of the neighborhood

itself, interviews with community members and activists offer a lively and important history of

the efforts to preserve the neighborhood. For this study, three people from very different

backgrounds were interviewed, and each contributed valuable information to Freedmen’s

117

Town’s rich history. Catherine Roberts is a Caucasian American who moved to Houston in the

1980s and became involved in the efforts to protect Freedmen’s Town’s historic buildings

through her volunteer work in the area. Lue Williams moved to Freedmen’s Town with her

immediate family in the early 1950s at the age of ten, and still belongs to one of its historic

congregations. She is now actively involved in trying to save the neighborhood’s remaining

churches and draw attention to the area. Thelma Scott Bryant was born in Houston’s Third Ward,

but has had strong ties to Fourth Ward’s Freedmen’s Town community since she was a child in

the early 1900s. Each of these individuals provides details about two aspects of Freedmen’s

Town’s history: its history as a thriving community founded by African Americans freed from

slavery, and its history as a historical district under threat by developers.

History of Freedmen’s Town: A Thriving Houston Community

Both Lue Williams and Thelma Scott Bryant have childhood memories of Freedman’s

Town. Mrs. Bryant says, “Everything I’m trying to think of, I relate to something I was doing

then. That’s how I keep up with my dates, you see.” And she remembers a great deal. Born on

September 26, 1905, Mrs. Bryant has seen many historical events take place in Houston and the

effects they have had on the African American communities, Freedmen’s Town being one of

them. Mrs. Bryant was never a resident of Freedmen’s Town, but her parents and many of her

family members were. She begins her narrative with the coming of her grandparents to

Freedmen’s Town, a story that begins in the days of slavery:

My grandfather on my father’s side was a Scott and he was sold into slavery on

the Atlantic coast, brought in here with his momma. My grandfather on my

mother’s side came from Mississippi, but they were all here before the Civil War.

My Bryant says that after her relatives were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation and the

subsequent Thirteenth Amendment, her paternal grandfather, Horace Scott, was the founder of

“the first black church in Houston” and the second black mail-carrier in Houston. She says that

outstanding achievement was a necessity in Freedmen’s Town, a place where many of the

residents eventually went to college to become black professionals. Of Horace Scott’s ten

children, all but two went to college. Growing up during segregation, Mrs. Bryant recalls a time

118

of all black businesses and schools in Fourth Ward, when “the Main Drag” – formerly St.

Philippe, now West Dallas – boasted African-American owned dance halls, stores, and theaters.

She describes these places as the only places where blacks would feel safe to go at night, in a

time when segregation and mistreatment of blacks was a reality in Houston.

Mrs. Bryant recalls a major conflict which occurred in Freedmen’s Town in August of

1917, the 1917 Riot. She says that the riot occurred because many of the black soldiers stationed

nearby were “upset and fed up” with the way white policemen treated members of the black

community, especially women, and decided to revolt. Mrs. Bryant, nearly twelve years old at the

time, recalls that many of her parents’ friends who lived in the Fourth Ward area came to spend

the night in her home after the incident, and she describes the fear and anger black residents felt,

and the tenseness of the atmosphere in church the following Sunday. She has happier memories

of Juneteenth celebrations, during which she says that many residents of Third, Fourth, and Fifth

Ward would go to Emancipation Park in Third Ward (3018 Dowling Street) on June 19th

every

year. She remembers it as a day full of festivity: parades, barbeques, and concerts. Lue Williams,

growing up in the 1950s, remembers the Nineteenth of June as a day for celebration, albeit with

mixed connotations: it was the only day of the year that African Americans were allowed to visit

the old Playland Park, the first amusement park in Texas, which later became Astroworld. The

rest of the year, she said, “you couldn’t go there.”

Mrs. Bryant and Mrs. Williams conceive of the boundaries of Freedmen’s Town

differently: for Mrs. Bryant, it encompasses about four square blocks; for Mrs. Williams, it

includes most of Fourth Ward. In her interview, Catherine Roberts explains that Freedmen’s

Town included a much larger area than it now does, because when it was declared a national

historic district in 1984, many landlords refused to allow their properties to be included in the

designation. All three women agree, however, that Freedmen’s Town had a proud heritage of

focusing on education. Mrs. Williams recalls:

They [the white children] got the new books and we got the used books. But…

Our teachers were very strong, determined that we were going to learn no matter

what. And we were eager children. I don’t remember having any slothful children

in our classrooms at that time.

119

Catherine Roberts, who through her activities in the communities has gathered many

gems of oral history concerning Freedmen’s Town, offers unlimited praise for the strength and

ingenuity of Freedmen’s Town’s residents:

Everything in Freedmen’s Town they built themselves. They started their own

businesses, they built the churches, they built the schools… They raised up the

houses on tiers, they brought in land fill and raised up the land so it wouldn’t

flood anymore. They were very clever, very tenacious… They had all the trades

available to them within that little community, because they were the ones who

were building Houston, essentially. On their shoulders, the city was built. They

were… the mill workers, the carpenters, and the brick makers, the black smiths…

they were all in Freedmen’s Town. And so they had the skills to build really fine

homes and well-built homes and they’ve lasted a hundred years.

While many of the houses have been lost to new developments, nine historic

congregations remain in the neighborhood, and buildings such as the Yates House and Gregory

Elementary remain. Since 1984, the area has undergone extensive regentrification efforts, but the

fight to save what is left of the Freedmen’s Town legacy continues.

Preservation Efforts: The Fight to Save Freedmen’s Town

The hard work and determination of Freedmen’s Town African Americans changed the

area from a swamp in the early 1900s to the valuable property it is today, and in the 1980s,

developers started taking an interest in the area, buying houses and tearing them down to build

high-density housing for middle class professionals. Catherine Roberts remembers the

devastating effect this had on the Freedmen’s Town population, who were being forced out on

technical violations of the new “curb ordinance.” At the time she was doing volunteer work with

low income families in the area, helping them obtain food and loans for repairs, and was

approached by Olee Yates about saving her father’s house, still standing on Andrews Street.

Unable to obtain a loan to buy the Rutherford B. Yates House property as a non-profit, she

eventually bought the house with a personal loan to save it from destruction. Even then it was not

safe: the city wanted to move the house to a vacant lot on Highway 6, far from the historical

120

context that gave it meaning. Refusing to sell or move, Mrs. Roberts began a long, up-hill battle

to save the neighborhood houses, businesses, and churches from destruction.

The fight to save Freedmen’s Town as a historic district has been a challenge every step

of the way. Mrs. Roberts relates that when it was declared a historic district in 1984, over five

hundred thirty houses remained, including sixteen churches. Now, there are only about thirty

buildings, and six churches. The numbers are devastating. The reasons for the destruction of the

neighborhood are clear to both her and Lue Williams: “the green dollar,” Mrs. Williams says.

Mrs. Roberts remembers that in the 90s, students contributed to the effort to save Freedmen’s

Town by bombarding the city council with faxes, calls, and letters, protesting the destruction of

the neighborhood and managing to save some of the existing structures through this sort of

passive resistance, which temporarily crippled the city offices and stopped work for three days.

She describes frustration over what she sees as a lack of concern for African American culture:

no one “would ever even consider tearing down the Alamo or any of those missions.” Lue

Williams echoes this frustration, saying that “they see it as they’re doing a service. They’re

getting rid of this old ugly stuff and they’re bringing in new stuff.” We should save it, she says,

“because of the historic nature of it. And I just think we just need to preserve the African-

American culture. I say African-American, but really, I feel as if Freedmen’s Town is Texas

history, it’s American history.” In 2005, she became involved in the Coalition of Pastors, a group

formed to save and restore the historic churches left in Freedmen’s Town. Both Mrs. Roberts and

Mrs. Williams remind us that it is not over yet; the district is still under threat. Both hope that the

interest of students and members of the Houston community will assist preservation efforts.

121

Appendix I, Part A: Interview with Catherine Roberts

Interview Date: Wednesday, April 02, 2008, 2:00 p.m.

Interviewer: Angel Ashley L. Smith, Rice University Undergraduate Student

Interviewee: Catherine Roberts

Summary: Catherine Roberts has been actively working to save the Freedmen’s Town

community since the early 1980s. In this interview, she discusses the challenges she and others

have faced over the years in working to save this important part of African American and

Houston history and how they have managed to save the Yates House, six of the historic

churches, and other important structures. She relates that the number of historic buildings

remaining in the neighborhood has been whittled down from over five hundred to less than fifty

– and how the area is still under threat from developers.

Angel: OK, so I’m talking to Catherine Roberts and… do I have your permission to record this

interview?

Catherine: Yes you do.

Angel: OK. That’s a formality. Alright, so um, I guess we’ll go ahead and getting started so I

don’t have to take up too much of your time. Um, and, I kinda wanted to get started with, with

uh, how you first, uh, learned about Freedmen’s Town and got involved in the preservation of it.

Catherine: Uh, back in the, uh, mid, uh, I guess it was in the 80s. I’ve known about Freedmen’s

Town since the 70s. We moved to Houston and I was volunteering with low income families.

Uh, and I was volunteering and, at that time in Allen Parkway Village. Finding ESL classes for

the newly arrived Vietnamese families and finding furniture and donated things for the other

families in Freedmen’s Town, I mean in Allen Parkway. Uh, in the 90s I was, um, uh, asked by a

friend, Joan Denkler, who started a group called Houston Housing Concern, and she pointed out

that there were elderly families in Freedmen’s Town who really needed repairs done to their

homes or they could lose them because the city had just put forth, uh, a new ordinance called a

“curb ordinance,” and that was an ordinance that, that uh if you had a hole in your screen on your

122

window that was large, large enough for a mouse to come through, you would be in violation.

And they would stop slapping fines and, and uh, liens on your property. So, they made a very

really strict, rigid ordinance for Freedmen’s Town in order to drive out the families that were

there. And, so the families were concerned, what do we do, they need repairs for their house,

they couldn’t get bank loans because they were being red-lined at the time, and uh, and the city

permitting department had a, uh, issue in their computers that said “Do not issue permits” for

…anything in the Freedmen’s Town area. So if you had to get plumbing or electrical work done

you couldn’t get a permit to do it. It was quite frightening for these elderly families. So Joan

asked if I would go with her to some of these meetings and they had found that, uh, uh, there was

a newly formed group called NOAH, N-O-A-H, a non-profit, and their m-, their mission was to

help elderly families get repairs done to their house. And so Joan and I then started meeting in

the churches in Freedmen’s Town to try to find out from the families what kind of repairs do

they need done to their homes so that they wouldn’t be hit with one of these violations. It was

pretty much, uh, meetings that went on in churches and some of us went door to door to look at

the houses, see what needed to be fixed. Then we’d contact NOAH, they’d get the materials and

supplies they needed and bring the volunteer labor out and fix them. And they went beyond that.

They started putting in handicap ramps, and, and other things the families needed and they

managed to, under Joan Dangler’s guidance, they managed to, and they went to get thirteen

houses repaired in Freedmen’s Town, in the, uh, early 90s. So that was very uplifting, and uh, in

the process I met an elderly woman, her name was Olee Yates MacCulloch, the great-

granddaughter of Jack Yates, and the…

Angel: What did you, I’m sorry, what did you say her first name was? I’m sorry, what was her

name again? I didn’t catch the first name.

Catherine: Oh, Olee, O-l-e-e, Yates…

Angel: OK.

Catherine: MacCulloch.

Angel: Oh, OK, MacCulloch. Thank you. OK, go ahead, sorry.

Catherine: And Olee Yates MacCulloch came up to me and said that the city is going to bull

doze her father’s home. He’d passed away long since, the house had been vacant for awhile, and

123

she didn’t have the funds to restore it, and she asked could I find somebody to save the house

from demolition and to turn it into a museum. And I thought, oh my gosh, well, surely I should

be able to do that, I mean, there’s bound to be someone out there who’d like to do that. So we

started making calls, I couldn’t find anyone. (Laughs.) It was such a controversial area that no

one really wanted to get involved in any projects in there. Uh, especially of an art nature, like

that, a museum house. So I went to some banks myself to see if I could get a loan for repairs to

the house, to, to make it into a museum. And, uh, I purchased it, quickly, just so it wouldn’t be

demolished. Uh, and then we proceeded with Olee’s help to set up a non-profit organization and

then we went to banks to look for money to restore it. Well, the banks wouldn’t give us a loan to

restore it. Um, they simply said that, that we’d have to have the same amount of money on

deposit as we would, um, that we were gonna borrow. Which is ludicrous. If we had that kind of

money we would have used it. We wouldn’t need a loan. But anyway, um, Olee passed away

before the restoration was, uh, was complete. And, uh, but, uh, I proceeded with the restoration

on the house still thinking that we’d raise the money to finish the restoration and then, uh, and

then get a foundation to buy the property back from me for what I put into it, and then I would

donate that money back to the organization, the non-profit, to operate it. Well, it, it just wasn’t

happening because what happened then was the city, uh, wanted us out of there. They had

scheduled that whole interior area to be high-density housing. And all the houses were going to

be demolished along Andrews and that whole core of the community. That was the plan the

Houston Renaissance had developed. And, uh, so they offered to buy the house from me and

move it out to Highway 6 where they had a vacant lot they would give me. And I said, that’s

ridiculous, you know, um, nothing to do with history, it would destroy its national register

listing, and no, the house wasn’t going anywhere. Then they said we couldn’t open it as a

museum because we didn’t have parking, off-street parking. So then we had to do a fundraiser to

raise money to buy a parking lot. That took us a year. And, uh, uh, so it’s been a real long

journey. Then they wouldn’t give us a tax, property tax exemption for charitable organizations

on the property, they wanted us to pay tax when all the other museums don’t pay tax on their

property, vacant or otherwise.

Angel: Hmm.

124

Catherine: So, so the last eleven years has been a real challenge, and just currently in the last

two years have we been able to get property tax exemptions, uh, and they’re very conditional,

and at the whim of HCAT.

Angel: Mm-hmm.

Catherine: So, I mean we’re still under the threat, and we have to constantly be alert. We’ve got

some board members who, for eleven years have been working on this, doing everything, uh,

that’s needed to run an organization as volunteers, they’re just incredible people, and, so, I don’t

know, does, is that the right kind of answer, I mean.

Angel: Yes! Actually you already uh, have answered some of the questions that I had, so… yeah,

you’re telling me exactly what I wanted to know. Um, I was curious, I mean, it seems like that

the city council doesn’t think that Freedmen’s Town is worth saving. Um, can you talk a little bit

about efforts to convince them otherwise and what the community… because I know that, um, in

addition to archaeologists and historians, the community has been a big part of trying to keep

Freedmen’s Town, uh, there. Umm, so if you could talk a little bit about that, maybe how they’ve

tried to talk to the city council, or…

Catherine: Well, uh, I would say, this thing goes back to, the, uh, the first, this goes back to the

70’s when the first master plan was brought forth by one of the early mayors, at that time

Whitmire, uh, and that plan was to essentially get rid of Freedmen’s Town and replace it with,

you know, high rise and low rise offices and housing and condos. And, um, so there was a huge

outcry, not only from the people wanting to save Allen Parkway Village, because we were

terribly in need of, of low income housing for families, but to, to attack Freedmen’s Town. So

Gladys House mustered the troops in Freedmen’s Town. And outside of Freedmen’s Town. And

then, uh, then, uh, in the 70s, started to protest this new master plan called the “Founder’s Park

Plan” the American General put forth. And, uh, uh, to oppose it. And she gathered many

residents, and at that time you’re talking about over five hundred historic families were still in

Freedmen’s Town. She’d, they’d have them marching to city council and taking signs and, uh,

you know, going to every public hearing they could to protest the activities that were taking

place that were hurting the families. Uh, and trying to get the families some funds so they could

sty there and redo their houses. So, uh, she really slowed up the demolishing of Freedmen’s

125

Town. She’s a very strong woman, she knew the laws, she knew what, how – well, she still does

– how to deal with the banks and, and slow it up. Uh, then Nia Becknell, who is new deceased,

was another major woman who really did a lot too to slow down the destruction of Freedmen’s

Town. She was an architect professor at U of H, uh, and she gathered a lot of architects together

and they gave a show at Diverse Works in the, uh, in the late 80s I believe, and, uh, early 90s in

there, and, uh, they talked about this whole area, uh, could be developed where you keep all the

houses, restore them, and this should be a major historic zone, and a tourism site for the city of

Houston. And so, I, uh, hundreds of students and architects and artists and photographers were at

the council constantly and, uh, tried to convince the city that this is the direction development

should take for Freedmen’s Town. And that low income families could still live there in historic

homes and it could be a viable historic community. Uh, so Nia Becknell was a major player in –

again, she’s deceased. Her son is still here, and he is an architect student at Rice now, or he may

be finishing up. Um, in 1984 the outcry was so great and the stories were just incredible coming

from the elderly that, um, they, uh, applied for a National District designation for Freedmen’s

Town and it was granted by the National Service of the Interior. So in 1984 there were five

hundred and thirty historic homes, and, uh, I think about sixteen historic churches, uh, were on

the national register, uh, designation for Freedmen’s Town. Uh, of course now, since 1984, we

have left, uh, I would say, we have left, uh, fifty.

Angel: Wow.

Catherine: Thirty that are in, that haven’t been tampered with too much. Because the housing

authority did buy some and didn’t do proper restoration on them, but uh, and then we only have,

uh, six, seven historic churches left. But we do have nine historic congregations that are all

related, because of the fires, serious fires and things. We have historic congregations that go back

to those early founding families. So, it’s been very difficult trying to find champions within the

city council, the mayor’s office, for every single, I mean, uh, to… The evidence is there, it

started with over five hundred historic structures and it got down to fifty. That tells you that

every one of those past mayors didn’t really care about African American history. And this is the

only remaining post Civil War freedmen’s community of its kind in the whole United States.

126

Angel: That was gonna be my next question. Was, uh, if you could talk a little bit about the

history of Freedmen’s Town and why it’s such an important historical landmark, so… I’d like to

hear about that.

Catherine: You know, when I first… When I say it’s the only national district of its kind, post

Civil War freedmen’s community of its kind in the U.S., and that – the reason why it’s different

than others is that, um, it was founded by the freed men, um, in Houston. They were told after

the end of slavery, well, you can buy land but you can only buy it here, in this area, here on

Buffalo Bayou where it’s always flooding and it’s land no one else wanted. So the families

began to buy land in there and build their own homes, design and build their own homes from

the ancient stands of cedar, cypress, and heart pine that were growing along the bayous and in

the swampland. Uh, where other communities where freedmen around the country, where

freedmen left plantations and started communities, uh, most of them went into other

communities, where it was previously populated by another ethnic group, and they may have

taken over a community that was previously housing for German families, or, you know, other

ethnic groups. Uh, and then, those that did start their own, uh, communities from the ground up,

most of those communities are gone. I mean, there may be like a smattering of one or two houses

left, in, you know, around the South. So, for this to have an impact… five hundred. And it could

have been more if they would have expanded the borders of the national district, ’cause there

were more at the time in 1984, and that went all the way on the other side of West Gray, those

original founding families, but, hmm… At the time, in order to get a national district designation,

you had to have agreement from 51 percent of the property owners. And on the other side of

West Gray there were a lot of absentee landlords who did not want their properties included in

the district.

Angel: Hmm.

Catherine: So, anyway, umm…

Angel: Well you have –

Catherine: You know…

Angel: Oh, go ahead, I’m sorry.

127

Catherine: …the significance, you know, of the – the significance is when you look at

Freedmen’s Town, it’s a concentration of marginalized families.

Angel: Mm-hmm.

Catherine: And that period after slavery wasn’t the end of slavery, it wasn’t the beginning of

freedom, because there were still enormous restrictions imposed on the families of Freedmen’s

Town. They did not have the same rights as, say, another immigrant population coming to the

United States by choice, you know. They were told – you know, they never even had a school

built for them ’til 1926. They had their own school they had to build, and well, from – Victor

was the first school house they built themselves. It was a wood structure and a very impressive

one. Uh, and they taught their own – you know, they had their own teachers’ training program,

their own businesses. Everything in Freedmen’s Town they built themselves. They started their

own businesses, they built the churches, they built the schools. Uh, they raised up the houses on

tiers, they brought in land fill and raised up the land so it wouldn’t flood anymore. They were

very clever, very tenacious. Uh, they had all the trades available to them within that little

community, because they were the ones who were building Houston, essentially. On their

shoulders, the city was built. They were the, uh, you know, the mill workers, the carpenters, and

the brick makers, the black smiths… they were all in Freedmen’s Town. And so they had the

skills to build really fine homes and well-built homes and they’ve lasted a hundred years. Uh, the

significance of the churches. The churches played a major role being the safe place for families,

being the place where they could go when there was difficulty. Um, they could go there for

spiritual healing, for health issues; it was a gathering. I mean, money… the church members

would gather to help one member borrow money to buy land and build a house, the churches are

where they were empowered to read and write, learn to play the organ, the piano. The churches

were exactly like the missions in San Antonio. It was a period in American history where

freedmen, the churches were the place for freedmen to build their life, and, and be free in those

church walls from any sort of aggression or harassment. And there… the same thing with the

missions in San Antonio. That’s the… I mean the mayor or the city in San Antonio would never

even consider tearing down the Alamo or any of those missions. And that same kind of respect

should be shown for Freedmen’s Town. It has not been shown. Uh, so this population was so

128

unique. 51 percent could read and write after slavery, they learned during slavery. Um, they

were extremely self-sufficient. They made their own bricks, uh, Reverend Pullam with the brick

yard. They installed bricks in there. They were built for them. They had liens against their

properties in the 1930s; families paid for those brick streets. They were extremely strong, strong-

willed and determined. Uh, the homes were elegant, the, uh, main ones along Andrew, and they

had wall paper, perfect construction, you know, inside, doors, the windows. It says an awful lot

about a population that has been totally suppressed from any freedom at all within a few years

after slavery they’d be able to do so much, to accomplish so much. So… and I can’t say enough

about this, the history. The more I hear about the families and what they went through that… I’m

just, you know, your know… So, I mean, it has to be saved. There has to, people have to

understand. Um, these were giants and, the willpower, uh, you know… Some young people have

said, “Why would you want to save the history? They were victims. Who’s proud of being a

victim?” And I said, “No, they were victimized and they overcame the victimization by sheer

strength and will. And they achieved in spite of all this, these things that were put on them. So,

yes, it has to be saved, every last stone and wood structure right this minute has to be protected.

Uh, I don’t know how to get the city to do that. I don’t even know how to get the state to

intercede or even the federal government. They won’t even step in.

Angel: You know, that was gonna be one of my final questions, actually, because now that I’ve

been doing this project, I’ve… I’ve seen these houses taking over, you know, this architecture

where these wonderful historic houses are, I mean, and I was wondering, what can be done?

What can I do, or students do to try to save these buildings, because you mentioned that they’re

still under threat. Umm…

Catherine: Oh, gosh yes. Yeah.

Angel: Yeah, I mean, do you have any ideas about what the next step is?

Catherine: Well, you know what, I… The whole problem with this has been the lack of

education of the general population, to really let them know the quality of this community and

why it needs to be saved. Uh, and get them as passionate about them, uh, as passionate about this

community as they would be if the Alamo were threatened. And, so, it would take every young

person at the university to just stand up and say, “Wait a minute.” Go to the mayors, go, you

129

know, flood them with letter and calls and to every council members say, “Enough! This is

American history you’re destroying!” So there isn’t just, it isn’t just the African Americans who

need to stand up, it’s everyone.

Angel: Right!

Catherine: This is the heritage. As embarrassing as it is for the white people because of what our

ancestors did to African Americans. So what? It needs to be told. The story needs to be told, and,

uh, you know, we need to stand up. So how can we do that? You know, how to get the word out?

We try, we go to every council meeting, that, you know… Everyone says this about economics.

So, we make the case for the history being important; how do you make a case for it

economically being more important than building a bunch of condos?

Angel: Yeah, it’s terrible.

Catherine: And you know, the high density housing brings tax dollars to the city and revenues

in property taxes. That’s what they tell us all the time. That’s why it’s more important to do that.

But we have pointed out, you know, that heritage brings cultural tourism and brings home more

money. Even though, you know, we wouldn’t pay taxes – owners don’t pay taxes on historic

structures – but the income it would generate to attract tourism to the city of Houston… motels,

cab drivers, tour operators, um, you know, that would offset the revenue from property taxes. But

again, how do we get the message to everyone when you have developers giving campaign

contributions to council members, and mayors, and governors, and…

Angel: I’m wondering –

Catherine: It has…

Angel: I’m sorry, go ahead.

Catherine: I don’t know. What… what did you think?

Angel: Well, I’m , I don’t know. I guess I’m wondering why… if anyone’s trying to go outside

of the city of Houston, being that it is to unique to the whole U.S. It seems like a national or at

least a state issue to try to save this area.

Catherine: You know, it’s true. We have applied several times. Uh, Gladys House first applied,

probably fifteen years ago. The is a national competition through the National Trust, and it’s

called “Save Our Endangered Landmarks in the U.S.,” and you have to send in an application,

130

say why this is, why do you think this is the most endangered, uh, historic site in the U.S. Uh,

and they choose thirteen a year, and every time we submit it – I submit it one years, Gladys two

years – it was rejected.

Angel: That’s hard to believe. That’s amazing.

Catherine: And the last submission… Oh, I know! The last submission, you know, who one of

the winners was? It was a 1960s housing complex in Detroit.

Angel: Oh. Oh, no. Hmm. Um…

Catherine: And I thought… And then when you read, mostly the deed restrictions in that

housing development, I mean it said, it’s to be built only for Caucasians, and they’re not gonna

be sold to anyone but Caucasians. But yet they were honoring it for its post modern architecture.

Angel: Wow.

Catherine: And it’s a bunch of Reisbergers.

Angel: Do they give you –

Catherine: But there’s plenty of examples all over town.

Angel: Do they give you any reason for the rejection? Or does –

Catherine: Basically, no, they just said that, “Oh, we could see the value of your request, but

there’s so many others and we have to choose the best ones.” And so, they chose the best ones,

and that was one of the best ones that they chose, and I was thoroughly insulted that they would

choose something like that, uh, especially when there’s so many examples of that style of

architecture all over the country. And they said, well, it was being endangered because the

developers wanted to take it down and build high rises. And I said, well, so is ours! And ours

was an important community and structures!

Angel: Wow.

Catherine: So, so if on a national level you can’t even convince them that African American

history has value and historical resources… It has value. It’s really hard to do anything on the

state and national level.

Angel: It makes it… it’s shocking almost that we still have the same attitude toward African

American culture now as when Freedmen’s Town was built, in some ways.

131

Catherine: It definitely is. I, I, you know, I was a child of the sixties and protesting and

marching and, uh, we were happy when the right to vote happened and everything. But then, it

hasn’t changed very much, sadly. And it makes me really sad to think, all that work and all those

people that sacrificed so much and yet, racism is still alive in Houston.

Angel: Yeah.

Catherine: And, and that’s a very sad statement. So, we have made some attempts to go outside

of Houston, because we were advised that if you could get some national attention from the

media… Um, Reuters did a story once on it, but it, you know, it didn’t get very far. They said, if

you can’t couch the story in an economic sense it’s a little hard to do anything. So in other

works, if you can show a scandal about affordable housing, or, developers, or something, then,

uh, it would make the national news.

Angel: Have you –

Catherine: Uh –

Angel: Have any –

Catherine: You know…

Angel: I’m sorry.

Catherine: Then the next step is internationally, and so we’ve done a little of that, we’ve done

presentations in England. Um, Carol McDavid has made some presentations and it’s too, as you

say, we’re singing to the choir. Because, you know, we do make them aware of the history, and

they already know it and they appreciate what you’re telling them, but, um, they’re not the

decision makers either.

Angel: Do you know if college students have gotten involved in the attempt to save it? I mean it

seems like if colleges start protesting things, you now, that sometimes they’ll listen.

Catherine: Well, that is what happened in the sixties. I mean, college students really made a

huge difference, an impact on bringing the soldiers back from Vietnam, as well as, you know, the

Civil Rights movement. Uh, trying to pull together that kind of, uh, again, educating them. If

they could get really passionate about it and pull it all together, that requires leadership, and a

massive educational program, to get that movement. We did have a time in the nineties when, uh,

Allen Parkway, to save that. Uh, there were a lot of medical students who really got involved

132

because they were doing some home health visits in Freedmen’s Town, so, uh, we set a three day

period, we notified everyone we could. The students got out and notified everyone, and asked

that, uh, those three days, they called it “flaming the fax lines” to every councilman in the

mayor’s office. And it went on all day long; they could not work, they were getting mail and

faxes, and they couldn’t use their faxes, and they had to read everything to tell what was their

business stuff and what were these protests coming in. And at the same time we went out to the

churches. And after each church service in the Catholic churches, we had letters already made

up, and sent, uh, little cards in an envelope, and pre-addressed, and people just had to sign their

name on the cards, put a stamp on, and then we collected them at the end of that Sunday. Um, we

had about ten thousand, and then we sent them in the mail, and split them into three days. So that

it went out to… those mail bags showed up in the town, city council offices and they couldn’t get

to their regular mail, it was all mixed in with these tons of letters. It overwhelmed their staff,

they called and said, “You’ve got to stop this. We can’t do business. You’re interrupting our

work.” And we said, “You’ve got to stop the demolition.” And, it helped. And it did slow things

down. It brought the congressmen down, and they called us to have a hearing, and, you know, we

made an effort. And that’s the only reason, after all these years, that anything’s left in

Freedmen’s Town, because there were these victories that did happen because of students

helping us. An, uh, you know, they stuck around. They stopped us from demonstrating at city

hall with signs, and we couldn’t bring signs to council meetings either. They passed an ordinance

that wouldn’t allow it. So, cause otherwise we would fill the council with people. And, uh, they

would bring signs and then everyone else would leave. But uh, that ended when they changed the

ordinance, forbidding us to go that and giving the police the right to take you out and exact fines.

So now we’re down to one minute, now, we can do that still. We can sign a – and we continue to

do that. Uh, at one point we would get twenty or thirty people to sign up for one minute to speak

at the city council open sessions, that’s one day a week. We could have that. You call ahead to

speak, and when we first started it, people would call in and give their name and address and

phone numbers and say, “I wanna speak for one minute.” And then they would say, “What

topic?” and you would say, “Freedmen’s Town.” Well, then they’d call in and get their time set

and then they’d, before, they were all getting calls from someone from the city’s office: “Well, I

133

understand you’re interested in Freedmen’s Town. How can I help you so you don’t have to

come to council and waste your time?”

Angel: Oh. Wow.

Catherine: And they would try to find out what they issue was and then they’d try to deal with it

on the phone, so that we wouldn’t come to council. So, here we get to council and there’s only

four or five people. And we’d call all our friends and they’d say, “Well, they called us and said

they would take care of it.” And I said, “Oh no! Don’t believe that!” So after that, we told people

to call in for their one or two minutes to speak. We’d tell them, you’re going to get a call back

afterwards, and they’re gonna call you and try to discourage you from coming. Don’t tell them

the reason you’re coming, just tell them it’s for Freedmen’s Town and tell them, you’ll be happy

to tell them when you arrive to the session. So that’s what we do now. We need to do that soon

because they’re some more. The churches are being threatened, and they’re going to tear down,

the city just bought three houses next to the school they’re gonna tear down.

134

Appendix I, Part B: Interview with Lue Williams

Interview Date: Friday, April 04, 2008, 10:10 a.m.

Interview: Angel Ashley L. Smith, Rice University Undergraduate Student

Interviewee: Lue Williams, Member of Mount Carmel Church in Freedman’s Town

Summary: In this interview, Lue Williams discusses her memories of growing up in Freedmen’s

Town since the 1950s, and her efforts to save its historic churches as a member of the Coalition

of Christian Pastors.

Angel: I am speaking with Lue Williams, and… do I have your permission to record this

interview?

Lue: Yes.

Angel: OK, so we’ll start with… tell me about how you found out about Freedman’s Town and

how you got involved in trying to preserve it.

Lue: I found out about Freedman’s Town, I grew up out there from a child. I attended church out

there. And, from, uh, knowing the history of it, that it was settled by, uh, people that had been

freed from slavery by the Proclamation , the uh, Emancipation… they had been emancipated.

Uh, they settled there and started a thriving community. My church is out there. My church is the

Mount Carmel Missionary Baptist Church. And, I, that’s the only church I’ve ever belonged to,

so I’ve been pretty active in it, working in all phases of the church. And there was a group that,

after the developers came in and started, um, buying up the land and tearing down some of the

houses, and there were feelings that the church, or, knowledge that the churches were in danger.

Um, we felt like that maybe the churches needed to come together and make some plans, trying

to preserve what was left. And, um, so the Pastoral Coalition was formed with, uh, nine of the

remaining churches that are out there. And from there we’ve been trying to uh, organize and

work and keep those, the remnants of those churches. And we’ve been planning activities, uh,

various activities to benefit the church. We have worked with the Yates’ Museum, with the

health fare; we also have a nineteenth of June, uh, committee that works with them in planning

135

activities, trying to preserve and keep the culture, uh, so they will keep celebrating the special

holidays. And we’ve also been uh, working to find resources that will help us preserve some of

the older houses and help repair some of the churches, too.

Angel: I know that the, um, the Mount Carmel Church, is that the one that was damaged by the

fire, or was that…

Lue: No, um, Bethel was the one that was damaged by the fire. It’s Friendship that burned.

Angel: OK.

Lue: Mt. Carmel is right there on the corner of Ruthven and Valentine, and we have a large sign

up. We are working to renovate, or, preserve, restore it. We have received the, uh, and this is

what the Pastoral Committee has been doing too along with the Yates’ Museum, we have been

working to get historical markers, because most of the church are, a hundred, around right at a

hundred years old. Uh, some of them have received historical markers. We also have a metal

plaque from the National Historic District. Uh, Mount Carmel has one and, I believe, Rose of

Sharon – no, I’m not sure. But, couple of them, they have, um, National Historic plaques. And

we’re working to get the rest of the churches historical markers.

Angel: Mm-hmm.

Lue: Because we would like for that, it, because the district is so unique. I’m sure somewhere

you heard that’s it’s the only remaining one like it since the Civil War.

Angel: Yeah, which is why it really needs to be saved.

Lue: I think if, I think it would be of great value to the city, tourist wise, uh, to work to help

preserve it. I think it would draw tourists and even the people in the community there to

appreciate it more, to help preserve it, to work towards preserving it.

Angel: Mm-hmmm. How old, do you know how old the Mount Carmel church is?

Lue: 93.

Angel: Oh. Wow.

Lue: Since 1915. It was ninety-fi… this is its ninety-third year .

Angel: And it still has a lot of members, or…

Lue: No, our, the members are dying out. Um, right now we’re not worshipping there because

we’re concentrating on restoring it. But, but, uh, we have quite a few people that moved out, uh,

136

they still express the interest that if, they have vowed that they will come back if… I don’t know

if they’re gonna rejoin. I hope they will join, because we do, our membership is small now. And

of course you can do more if we could get, uh, if they did rejoin. But they have expressed a

interest in working toward restoring it.

Angel: How has, um, has it been affected a lot by the development that’s going on there? How

many, I mean, um, you grew up there, in that neighborhood. Are you still living there, or… most

of the people have moved out now.

Lue: No, I, I’m not living over there, but I’m over there all the time, and, I have some property

over there, so I still have a valid interest in the area. And, whether I owned property or not, I

would be interested in it just because of the historic nature of it. And I just think we just need to

preserve the African American cultural… and I say African American, but really, I feel as if

Freedman’s Town is Texas history, it’s American history. And, we really could stretch it to

world history, just the place that the descendants are from.

Angel: You, uh, you said you grew up in that neighborhood. Do you know if your family, did

they live there before, or did they move in to there?

Lue: No, my family’s basically from East Texas, but my mother moved here and um, she joined

the area of Mount Carmel and that’s where we’ve been ever since.

Angel: Yeah.

Lue: So, but so we do have strong ties there. It’s a very nice place to grow up. And, um, people

in the neighborhood was caring and protective of you, they looked out for you. It wasn’t any, it

was just a, it was a family community and they could be concerned. And I always, uh, smile,

when my mother and I, we walked to church, ’cause I guess we lived about three or four blocks

and, how the men would stand on the corner. They could be fussing or using language and we

would get in hearing distance, they thought we had already heard, but they would stand and stop

talking and say, “Ya’ll see them ladies coming?” And, I don’t know, that had been impressed in

my memory or my mind from since I was a child, that they had that kind of respect for us. And

we don’t get that know. I’ve heard young children talking today, and they’ll say something and

I’ll correct them, they’ll say, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry, my bad” but… you wouldn’t see that, uh, you

didn’t hear of anything like that, then.

137

Angel: Uh, let’s see… what should I ask you? Uh, when you, you were talking about when they

were starting to do the development and, uh, when you guys realized that you needed to kind of

join together to save the churches. Can you, uh, talk a little bit more about that, like, when that

was and what was going on?

Lue: I believe it was back in two thousand and five, someone called me and asked me could I

come to a meeting and we met at one of the churches, and they had a representative from all of

the churches, and we were talking about looking at, at what was being done, and… there was

concern about people losing their property, people were having to be moved, and, of course,

there was some reminiscing about what they had promised, what things that they were going to

do for people that they did not follow through with. So, they were looking at, in the best interest

of the churches, and some of the members of the churches, that we needed to organize and see

what we could do so far as helping, so, so the developers wouldn’t just come in and just destroy

everything. And of course when Bethel burned, we were really upset because we just didn’t

know what happened. Would people really resort to burning a church down? Or, houses, because

some of the homes out there had burned also. But…

Angel: And that was around 2005 also?

Lue: No, Bethel was… I’m not sure. I can’t remember now. But Bethel was after then. Must’ve

been about, six, 2006 when Bethel burned.

Angel: And they never did find out what happened?

Lue: No, they arrested someone but, but I don’t… I believe they released him, I’m not really

sure.

Angel: Hmm. Um, do you remember growing up there, um… They’ve been asking a lot about

the streets. The brick streets that are in Freedman’s Town….

Lue: In the neighborhood?

Angel: Yes ma’am. Um, do you remember hearing anything about that, how those were built?

They’re trying to find that out, and nobody seems to know a lot. (Laugh).

Lue: Well, I don’t… I just know from word of mouth, about, I really, and I guess, because of

that, I would like to believe it the stories that, the people made those bricks and laid them.

Because, uh, at that time it wasn’t uh, priority. The city didn’t give the street priority in paving

138

so, the people living there because they, because they cared for each other, and was concerned

about creating a nice environment, that they paved those streets with those bricks.

Angel: Oh, so you heard they actually made the bricks? That’s one thing we’ve heard, and then

some say, you know…

Lue: Well, I don’t, I don’t really know. I haven’t been moved to try and go research it, I really

don’t know where you would, how you could, what records you would have to look at…

Angel: Well, I mean, you’re the record. We just have to ask everybody what they’ve heard, so…

Another interest they’ve had is the street signs, where some of them are upside down. And they

would, you know, we’d love to know why that is. Do you know anything about that?

Lue: Someone mentioned that to me the other day and I’ve been meaning to go down there. I

just know one place on, let’s see, Andrew and, down there where Bethel is. But I haven’t, I

hadn’t seen that, so… I was curious, I said well I’m gonna have to go, I want to know, I want to

see.

Angel: Yeah, nobody seems to know exactly why that is, but, there must be a reason for it. Um,

your group, the Coalition, um…

Lue: Of Pastors.

Angel: What kind of reaction from the city have they gotten? Have they been going to the city

councils, or…

Lue: We have had different meetings, we met with the mayor a couple of times, with Sheila

Jackson Lee, with uh, we’ve gone to some of the meetings that Carol Alvarado called, and, I

know we’ve met with the TIRS (?) Board a couple of times. But mainly we just, uh, trying to

see, first they were talking about closing Cushing and that goes by where that Smith Church,

Mount Horeb is, and we had, so they had several conferences with…

Angel: They’re talking about closing uh, a road?

Lue: Cushing. Cushing, they’re gonna sell Cushing. It’s C-U-S-H-I-N-G. They were gonna sell,

close the street and sell that property to the developers, because the developers wanted to put

some kind of a strip in there with parking area. And, uh, Reverend Smith, I wasn’t in that

meeting but, he and some of the other members met with Sheila Jackson Lee, and they, uh, with

consultation with the city, so far it seems as if they’re not going to close the street. And part of

139

the concern there too was that getting emergency vehicles getting in and out of the community,

because a lot of those streets are one way. And they has closed Wilson, Andrew and Wilson up

there where the brick streets go, they had closed that down for Gregory Lincoln School. And

they were concerned about closing Cushing because, uh, that’s another through street, and

there’s not that many streets coming in and out. But so far it seems as if that has been saved.

Angel: I hope so.

Lue: And, uh, it’s just, we’re just doing different things trying to restore the community. We

realize that we’re gonna have to embrace the new people coming in to the community. Uh, but,

we want, we want to be inclusive. We want to include them and invite them to our churches and

become members, uh, valued members of the community with the church. But we know that is

not going to be just, in a matter of a few days, I think… we’re gonna have to reach out to them

and they’re gonna have to let us know that they are. And, some has happened, some reaching out

and acceptance has gone out. But… we, we, I just think it needs to be done on a larger scale. And

we’re hoping that uh, we have out Nineteenth of June Celebration. We’re hoping that they will

come, and participate, or, in that, we’ve also had lectures, and that has been more or less

coordinated through the Yates Museum and the Nineteenth of June Committee. We’ve had our

different programs, lectures, activities that the community can get involved in.

Angel: Yeah, Catherine was telling me a little bit about that. I may, I might go to that myself,

next time.

Lue: Well, this year we’re planning a concert, and it’s going to be at Antioch Church. I don’t

know if you’re familiar with that?

Angel: I’m sure I walked by it, it’s in…

Lue: Well, Antioch is really downtown.

Angel: OK.

Lue: That was the first African American church out there, one that, uh, that Reverend Yates, he

was the pastor over there. But, uh, we’re gonna have, this years we’re gonna have a concert

there, and, uh, it’s gonna be, well, everything is not final, but mainly we’re gonna be focusing

on family; I think, uh, we’re gonna have the male chorus to do a concert. And then the churches

are gonna have a combined choir of men, and they will perform. And, uh, I think we’re going to,

140

uh, we’re working on plans along with Al Edwards to gather where the statue is and then where

our General Granger came in to Galveston and read the Proclamation. So we have several days

of activities planned.

Angel: That sounds pretty neat, actually.

Lue: I’m thinking the actual, that Saturday is when we’re planning touring the churches and

buildings out there. Each church will have something going on and you can go by, and uh,

participate and see what’s going on.

When you, uh, when you were growing up, did they celebrate the Nineteenth of June in that

neighborhood, or?

Lue: Uh, yes, in the neighborhood hood and then uh, at that time we went to uh what you call the

Emancipation Park out on Dowling Street. That, um, Reverend Yates was uh, they bought the

land, and, uh, made it a park. And it was like a big festival, almost celebrated just like the 4th

of

July. There were different activities going on. We would go to the Emancipation Park some time,

and then there was a time, at, called Playland Park. I don’t know if you’re heard of that?

Angel: Mm-mmm.

Lue: OK, that was place on the Nineteenth of June, that when they would let, uh, the African

American community come. And a few times I can remember going. But, mostly there, it was

around just at your house or on your front porch.

Angel: So, otherwise, if it wasn’t that day, you couldn’t go to the park?

Lue: No, you couldn’t go out there.

Angel: Wow. And when, when was that? Like…

Lue: Oh, let’s see, it was still segregated. It was in, the, fifties, I think the fifties?

Angel: Wow.

Lue: And that was our day to go ride the, uh, merry-go-round and the ferris wheel. Rest of the

time we couldn’t go to it.

Angel: Wow. That’s crazy. Do you remember, or, what kind of school did you go to. I know

they have that old high school there, it closed down now. They’re gonna turn it into a library

now, I think.

141

Lue: Yeah, no, that was an elementary school, Gregory. I attended fifth and sixth grade there.

But I went to Booker Washington High School. Uh, those are some fond memories. And looking

back then, and uh, I know our text book, I can remember looking at our text book and in the back

of the book you would see Lamar High School. And we always, we would see names of the

white high school. And they would send those books over to the, uh, African American school,

and uh, I assume… Not assuming, know… that they got the new books, and we got the used

books. But, uh, our teachers were very very strong, determined that we were going to learn no

matter what. And we were eager learners. Uh, I don’t remember really having slothful, uh,

slothful children in our classrooms at that time. And, I don’t know if I select not to believe that,

or what, but right now, really thinking, I cannot think of a lot of slothful students in school with

me. We were all eager to learn, wanted to learn. We liked our teachers, we respected them. It

was, and, um, I’m kind of odd too, I love learning for learning’s sake, and I was surrounded with

other, it was understood that education was the number one, uh, most important thing.

Angel: Yeah, I actually read something that the literacy rate was higher in that neighborhood

than some of the white neighborhoods. It was really emphasized in that community.

Lue: We had to. And our teachers, you know, they were, they were, you could see that they were

genuinely interested in you. They took an interest in you. And, it wasn’t, I don’t remember it

being drudgery. It was, it was fun to go to school.

Angel: Um, uh, a couple of people who have been interviewed have mentioned that the

neighborhood, when it was really thriving, there were doctors and lawyers and everybody living

in that community. Do you remember about that, or?

Lue: Um, I guess really, my life was around church and school. I would go to church and

participate in whatever activities church had and then school. And I saw, the businesses were in

the community, all kinds of businesses. I don’t really remember, I’m trying… Oh I know a

dentist, dentist lived down the street from us. I’m trying to think of… and I don’t know, I didn’t

look at them as… They were just kind, nice, people. I, I never, really wasn’t looking at careers I

guess then.

Angel: And they say the neighborhood was pretty nice. Like the houses, a lot of them were really

nice.

142

Lue: Oh, there’s some really nice homes out there. Oh, I’m trying to think of, was it Don Roby?

He was, uh, music, uh, into music, records and things. I think he lived in that house on Andrew

where there’s too lines on the street. You should pass by it when you go to the Museum.

Angel: Oh, the, uh, cement part, you mean? Yeah.

Lue: Um, he lived there and, um, I’m trying to think. I can’t remember.

Angel: You’re probably too young to remember a lot of those things. (Laughs).

Lue: (Laughs). Wasn’t paying attention, or…

Angel: They’ve been asking about the trolley and stuff, I don’t remember when that quit going

through.

Lue: I don’t remember, I can’t remember either. I remember seeing it a couple of times. I don’t

remember if I rode it, ’cause we walked. We walked, we were just that close to town that we

walked to town. But I can remember, I, uh, I see the things on the street, when it had, where the

line had been. And I can vaguely remember seeing it. But… umm… I think it must have been, it

was going out, when I was… We came here when I was in the fifth grade.

Angel: OK. And that was in the fifties you said?

Lue: Mm-hmm.

Angel: Yeah, I’m not sure exactly when that stopped running, but, uh, I know it used to be there.

Let me see, um, what was I gonna ask you? You pretty much told me a lot, umm…

Lue: I remember, uh, the voting, um, a lady named Miss Crudy Wide, I don’t remember if she

was precinct judge or what, but I do know that she lived on Andrew, right, Andrew and Arthur,

’round right there. She would, uh, register people to vote. And, I don’t know, I think she was a

beautician too. But I always remember her name. I was, it was a nice time, place to be. And it’s

sort of, it’s sad to me, because they call the houses shot gun houses and shacks, but, I sincerely

believe they look better than what’s out there now.

Angel: (Laughs). Those metal boxes. Yeah.

Lue: They looked a lot better.

Angel: I have to agree with you there. Yeah. Um, there’s actually a row of what they call the

shot gun houses, there’s still like four of them left, I think it’s four of them.

Lue: On Andrew?

143

Angel: Um, I don’t remember if it’s on Andrew.

Lue: There’s more than that on Victor, I believe. That’s the one that they wanted to tear down.

Angel: They’rere white-colored?

Lue: Now they want, they want to tear them down. We’re trying to figure out a way that we

could save them. But it always comes back to money. And, they property was fairly reasonable

there. Now, once the developers took an interest, everything shot up. And, even the city shot the

taxes up. So you have all of these things you have to deal with, and you start getting the feeling

that this is really unfair, disrespectful, it’s just that it seems as if you’re determined to destroy

something that you have no respect for. So, that’s disheartening.

Angel: Yeah. Catherine and I had a kind of hard conversation where, it seems like not much had

changed in the attitude over the decades.

Lue: Right, right.

Angel: And that’s really a sad thought. It’s very frustrating.

Lue: We’ve had changes, but things still seem to be the same. So… It’s just, you wonder, how

far is it going to go, or when will it end?

Angel: Well, we’re hoping that maybe by Rice taking an interest, and getting some college

students involved, that that’s gonna raise interest because, I mean, it is a national landmark, it’s

not just Houston, so… Do you know if any efforts have been made by the group you’re in to

kind of raise, uh, a national interest in the community?

Lue: Well, we’ve, we’ve talked about how could we get uh, nat--, attention on the national, by

getting involved. We need them. We’ve been trying to see if we could speak of a spokesperson

that might would take an interest in what we’re doing. But it’s heartening to me, to me, the

developers, to develop that area and put emphasis on it, to me, that that would be an advantage

for the developers. But the developers come in, they see it as they’re doing a service. They’re

getting rid of all this old ugly stuff and they’re bringing in nice new stuff. This is kind of their

attitude. And I’ve read it a couple of times in the Chronicle where they interviewed them, that,

like, they’re doing the city and everybody a favor, by, uh, being nice enough to build these nice

pretty things that they’re putting up. But if they would look at it and say, hey, if we enhance this

history, this cultural, it would be an advantage for us, but… It’s… I get the impression it’s all

144

about the – they say they’re going green, but I don’t think they’re talking about environmental

green. They’re talking about the green dollar. So…

Angel: Well, I can’t think of anymore questions, unless you can think of anything else?

Lue: No.

Angel: You’ve been very helpful, very interesting. Thank you.

145

Appendix I, Part C: Interview with Thelma Scott Bryant

Date: Monday, April 07, 2008, 1:00 p.m.

Interviewers: DeAngela Hayes, Rice University Undergraduate Student, and Debra Sloan,

Yates Museum Historian

Summary: Mrs. Bryant grew up in Houston’s Third Ward, but had strong ties to the Freedmen’s

Town and Fourth Ward Community. In this interview, she describes memories of growing up in

the Houston African American community.

(After telling Mrs. Bryant which high school I went to she responds):

Mrs. Bryant: You see, I came along in segregation, and that’s the reason I like to ask you all

cause I like to know about these new schools that you can go to now. Cause we couldn’t go at

that time.

(After Debra Sloan tells me that Mrs. Bryant graduated from Howard University in Washington

DC, here is the conversation that followed.)

Mrs. Bryant: You know everything I’m tryin to think of, I relate to something I was doing then.

That’s how I can keep up with my dates, you see. In 1926, I was coming out of Howard the new

Jack Yates was being built, or should I say the old Jack Yates. I remember my momma writing

me telling me, “Jack Yates school is being built on the corner of Elgin and Live Oak.” That’s one

road across from where I live. Now they have a new Jack Yates, you see, cause that one was

overrun with students.

(After some more conversation, we begin the interview☺

DeAngela: Well, I’m interviewing Thelma Bryant. Today is April 7, 2008. Mrs. Bryant, I just

have a few questions for you about Fourth Ward and Freedmen’s Town. So, were you born

around the area in Freedmen’s Town?

Mrs. Bryant: No.

DeAngela: Okay, where were you born?

Mrs. Bryant: I was born in Third Ward. Do you know anything about the wards?

146

DeAngela: Yes Ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: Okay. My parents grew up in Fourth Ward. That’s where Freedmen’s Town is.

Debra: Hold on, we’re gonna start over. Go ahead, start over.

DeAngela: Okay. I’m here with Mrs. Thelma Bryant. Today is April 7, 2008, and I’m gonna

start off by asking Mrs. Bryant about where she grew up. So you were telling me that you’re

from Third Ward.

Mrs. Bryant: Yes. From Third Ward. My parents were born and grew up in Freedmen’s Town

in Fourth Ward. My grandparents were all brought to the state of Texas as slaves. My

grandfather on my father side was a Scott and he was sold into slavery on the Atlantic coast,

brought in here with his momma. My grandmother and father on my mother’s side came from

Mississippi, but they were all here before the Civil War. See, so my…I am a little girl about 1

year old. I was born out here. I get my dates mixed up. You see my grandparents…well I have

to tell the story the way I see to tell it.

DeAngela: It’s fine.

Mrs. Bryant: Alright. My grandfather, Scott, was a founder of the black Methodist church. We

called it Big Trinity. Have you ever heard of Big Trinity?

DeAngela: No ma’am, I haven’t.

Mrs. Bryant: Have you heard of Trinity?

DeAngela: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: Alright. Years ago the big church was located down town, but in 1908 the people

had moved out of the Fourth Ward to Third Ward because it got too crowded out there.

DeAngela: You said that was in 1908?

Mrs. Bryant: No, that was before.

DeAngela: Oh, Okay.

Mrs. Bryant: That was about 1900 when it was getting crowded and they moved there.

DeAngela: Oh, Okay.

Mrs. Bryant: Well, my parents moved in 1905, the year I was born to 3003 Live Oak St., 2 short

blocks from Emancipation Park. Do you know where that is?

DeAngela: Uh, no ma’am.

147

Mrs. Bryant: You don’t know about Emancipation Park?

DeAngela: I don’t. I know, it’s sad. I don’t. That’s in Third Ward though, right?

Mrs. Bryant: That’s right! On Dowling St.

DeAngela: Is that down the street from TSU?

Mrs. Bryant: No, it’s up there…Do you know where El Dorado is?

DeAngela: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: Well its right near there on El Dorado. So you see, my parents moved out here

because it got too crowded in Fourth Ward, in Freedmen’s Town. They had gotten married and

lived with in-laws who had always been in Freedmen’s Town. So now when they move out

here, it’s like going to the country. Like a rural area, no modern conveniences; no lights, no

running water, and that kind of things. But that’s the kind of environment I was born in. See,

that’s 1905. Now about 5yrs later, I was about 5 yrs old, I say that’s 1910, I can remember

everything that happened in my life from 1910 up to the present time, see.

DeAngela: Wow.

Mrs. Bryant: Now, I can’t always remember names, but I remember the incidents. So now, we

had moved to the Third Ward. Uh, my mother’s gonna have this baby. At this time blacks could

not be served in any hospital in Houston. They wouldn’t serve you. If you wanted to have a

baby, the doctor had to come to your house, and deliver the baby.

DeAngela: Okay. Was it black doctor or white doctor?

Mrs. Bryant: Black doctor. So, it was a doctor by the name of Ferrell, who lived on Dowling

and Macalheney. Dr. Ferrell arrived at our house, parked his horse and buggy in front of the

house, came in, heated his instruments a wood burning stove, cause everybody burned wood in

those days. Boiled the water. Then he came into the bedroom. The neighbors are standing all

around, came to see to watch the baby be born. So, he brought me into the world, he did. Now, I

would say about 8 or 10 years after that the white doctors began to wait on us black folk. But

what they did was to erect a lot of those segregated rooms somewhere around the white

hospitals, see. There were just 2 or 3 hospitals that did that. One of them was where my mother

was operated on, and that was called…I can’t think of it right now, but it was downtown. See I

ramble, so you got to bring me back.

148

DeAngela: It’s okay. So, did you visit Freedmen’s Town when you were a when you were a

child, I mean when you were younger and as an adult, since you didn’t grow up there?

Mrs. Bryant: No, honey, when Freedmen’s Town was there, I’m just being born.

DeAngela: No, I mean Fourth Ward, when it became Fourth Ward, did you visit?

Mrs. Bryant: Well by the time I come along, they’re not calling it Freedmen’s Town.

DeAngela: They had started calling it Fourth Ward?

Mrs. Bryant: Yeah. Freedmen’s Town is just a part of Fourth Ward, you see. So by the time I

come along in the teen years I can’t go to the Fourth Ward all the time because I have friends and

kin visiting. But it’s a different Fourth Ward from Freedmen’s Town, you know what I’m

saying?

DeAngela: Yes ma’am. So Freedmen’s Town was like a part of Fourth Ward.

Mrs. Bryant: Yes. Now, I have to give you this background information: When the Allen

brothers sail up the Buffalo Bayou coming up to where they were gonna locate this city called

Houston, they stopped up there near Main St. where Main is now and the Buffalo. Do you know

where that is?

DeAngela: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: Alright. Right near the University of Houston Downtown. Now that’s where they

located this city, but the central part of the city was on Main and Congress. Do you know where

Congress is?

DeAngela: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: Now, they said, this is gonna be the center of Houston. Main is gonna run east

and west, and Congress is gonna run north and south. So where Congress crosses Main St, that

makes a quadrant, we’ll say, so it’s running like clockwise. In the top right side is the First

Ward, Second Ward, Third Ward, Fourth Ward. You see where Fourth Ward is?

DeAngela: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: Now Third Ward seems right under Fourth Ward. So now my people have moved

from the Third Ward to the Fourth Ward, which is right country with little conveniences, which

is you couldn’t get ‘em because they had to pay for ‘em to come down a street way down the line

and a certain number of neighbors had to put in and pay for this. So for a while we didn’t have

149

it. Now, later on Fifth Ward came in and Sixth Ward, but we were what the people were talking

about. You see you had four wards and they were just like the districts you have now. We

called them districts and the person who was over them was a councilman you see. But now

instead of a district and precinct, we had wards. Now the white people have dropped that old

term ward, it’s a government term, see. They’ve gone outside the new city and named their

communities like Montrose, and so forth, but we hang on to that ward. If you go into New York

City and run into somebody from Houston and say, “Where you live boy?” they say, “Well, I

lived in First Ward.” Because that is where the black folk lived then and most of ‘em still live

now.

DeAngela: Mrs. Bryant, you were talking about when your family came to Third Ward, they

didn’t have, well it was kind of like living in the country, so when they moved to Fourth Ward,

did Fourth Ward have streets at the time?

Mrs. Bryant: Oh yeah, Fourth Ward had gotten kind of modernized. You see, Fourth Ward was

the section that was given to the black people when the Civil War was over. They had given the

black people a little slave church and let the slaves go to church there. But it was on their

property like when you build a little church in the backyard. See at that time the first white

Methodist church was located where the Chronicle now stands. Do you know where the

building…

DeAngela: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: They moved from that section down on Main, that’s where it is now. But then it

was on Travis and Texas Ave., you see. Now they building a little shack in the backyard and

they say, “This can be your church. The slaves can go here.” So now the Civil War is over and

you are free these white people said, “Now, you can have the building, but you must move it off

of our land.”

DeAngela: So that’s when Jack Yates had to move them to Freedmen’s Town?

Mrs. Bryant: Yeah. SO then they go right down the street, which is about 12 or 15 blocks

maybe, and buy them a little block. And that’s what we call Trinity Methodist Episcopal

Church. We’ve had a lot of name changing, but that was our first name. And we said for short,

Trinity ME. You ever heard that term ME and AME?

150

DeAngela: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: Alright, that’s the ME church that started right there on Travis and Bell, and my

grandfather, Horace Scott, was one of the founders of that church. Now we stayed down there

until the storm blew the church down.

DeAngela: When was that?

Mrs. Bryant: That was the 1900 storm. Like they have these hurricanes…

DeAngela: The 1900…oh, you talking about the 1900 storm that happened in Galveston.

Mrs. Bryant: Yeah.

DeAngela: It came through Houston too?

Mrs. Bryant: Oh yeah. Anything that goes through Galveston that’s just as bad is gonna affect

Houston. So now this is the 1900 storm that come and gonna destroy our church, and we gonna

build a new church. So in 1900 the new church was built and it stayed there from about 1900-

1951 and it was burned down. So now, this church, the pastor was named Reverend Logan [or

Loehman]. We had two Logans, a Logan and his nephew, but I’m talking about old man Logan.

He had been to Houston before and they knew he could do things, so they brought him back

build this church. It was a two story church.

DeAngela: Mrs. Bryant, let’s talk about church, but let’s talk about it in 1917. Do you remember

what the sermons were like after the 1917 riot?

Mrs. Bryant: Mm-hmm.

DeAngela: So, what were the sermons like after the riots. Like what did the pastor basically say.

Like did he address it at all, or like what did he say about it.

Mrs. Bryant: Who?

DeAngela: The pastor at the church when you went to church after the 1917 riot.

Mrs. Bryant: After the riot?

DeAngela: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Angela: Well I have to go back there again. Let’s see. You see, this was April I think it

was, 1917 was when we had this riot. You know where Memorial Park is?

DeAngela: Yes ma’am.

151

Mrs. Bryant: Now that’s where the white soldiers were placed and the black soldiers were just

there to guard them, that’s all they would do. They would guard them and make sure nothing

would happen to them. But now, it just so happened that they got into a little friction because

these black soldiers, who had come down here to guard, they were from Chicago, New York, and

all around. They weren’t used segregation, see, and they didn’t like it and they weren’t gonna

comply with it. So what they would do, these soldiers, they had a sign up here that said black

and white, if you white you in front of the screen and if you black, you’re behind it. These

blacks get down there, take the screen, and throw it out the window. They did all kinds of things

like that, you see, cause they weren’t gonna comply with segregation. So, you have several

altercations. I can’t think of what they all were, but soldiers would be sticking up to the white

policemen for the black women that they would mistreat. And it was some kind of altercation,

so it came to a point that they were gonna have a riot. So these black soldiers went on to the

Memorial Park where they were stationed, got all the ammunition out cause it was locked up

with the white people, and came down right back to the central city, and they just started

shooting up things, you know. “We’re mad at how you all are treating us,” you know. Well

anyway, that’s what happened there. Now, I was a little girl about 12 yrs old then, but I can

remember so well that the people who lived in the Fourth Ward, they were close to this place,

and they were afraid to stay out there. Some of ’em came way on out here to the Third Ward and

stayed with us.

DeAngelia: So, when you went to church that Sunday, the Sunday after the riot, do you

remember what the preacher said about it?

Mrs. Bryant: Well, I don’t exactly. See, I started to tell you about this church. See, you have

the big church downtown, that we call Big Trinity. Now, our people that live down here in Third

Ward, they got tired of taking the street car and riding downtown to the church. They went to

the Bishop and said, “Bishop, we want you to build us a little church down here where we don’t

have to ride downtown,” see. So that’s when little Trinity was built, but I was only 3 yrs old

when little Trinity was built but by the time I was about 8 or 10 yrs old, I started attending little

Trinity because it was closer to my house and my friends went there. So now, I do remember the

152

tenseness of the church, but everybody was wrought up about what happened. Everybody was, I

can’t remember their exact words.

DeAngela: So, how did the black community react to it? Like were they upset at the white

people, or were they scared, or were they mad at the black soldiers?

Mrs. Bryant: Oh, they were scared, they were mad, and everything else. Now, in the meantime,

the First World War started. That was in 1914 and it lasts until 1918, so we’re in the middle of

this. We don’t wanna fight, but we’re gonna help take care of our friends, and our friends are

France and England. Now the Germans, just like in the Second World War, they tried to run

over France and England and take over all of Europe. But, they didn’t succeed, you see. Now

see in the Second World War, you know about Hitler?

DeAngela: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: Well in the First World War was a man named Wilhelm the Kaiser, as we call

him, the old Kaiser. Now in the meantime, the black people were organizing the NAACP and

WEB Du Bois…was insisting that you give the black soldiers a chance to be combat soldiers.

We wanna fight like the white people are fighting.

DeAngela: Because at that time they were having them cook in the kitchens and stuff like that.

Mrs. Bryant: Yeah, they had them cooking in the kitchens and digging trenches, that kind of

thing.

DeAngela: Yeah, and that was real hard horrible work.

Mrs. Bryant: Yeah. It was hard and they had to do all that dirty work and was getting nowhere.

So alright, they said, “We need a black man to come to Washington DC and work with these

white people and tell them what we want them to do. That man that was selected was my uncle.

DeAngela: Really?

Mrs. Bryant: Emmett J. Scott. Did you ever hear of him?

DeAngela: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: He was a sidekick of Booker Washington. So now Uncle Emmett went from

Tuskegee to Washington DC and his boss was named Newton Baker. He was what you call the

Secretary of War. I don’t think you have that in the cabinet now.

DeAngela: Oh, no. They call it something else. I think its Secretary of Defense now.

153

Mrs. Bryant: Yeah, well anyhow, he was Secretary of War. Alright, they ordered them to train

our black soldiers. They went to Des Moines, Iowa, and a white man trained them, I think his

name was Blue, and in 6 months time, those black soldiers were ready to fight. You not only had

them ready to fight, but you had what we call commissioned officers: some were captains and

lieutenants. You ever hear of Carl Wesley?

DeAngela: No ma’am, I haven’t heard of him.

Mrs. Bryant: Well Carl Wesley was a person who was over The Informer, the black paper. He

became a captain or lieutenant, and I could name you some other ones in Houston, but all of ’em

were trained well. So by that time the Germans were running over these French people. They

sent these black bucks over there to fight side by side with the French soldiers and they defeated

them, they knocked ‘em down. So that was something.

DeAngela: So, let’s talk about school for a minute. So you were telling me how, you know

segregation, so you had to an all black school, so what was it like to school during segregation?

Mrs. Bryant: Well, we had our own schools, and we didn’t worry about what the white people

were doing. You see, it didn’t bother us that we would pass by a white school and couldn’t go

there. We had to go all the way from Third Ward; we had to pay our nickel on the street car.

That’s we had, a nickel fair. If you wanted to save your nickel, you could walk cross town. It

didn’t make any difference if you walked 2 or 3 miles, you know? We walked from Third Ward

to Fourth Ward. We were just so happy in those days. We didn’t think about segregation. We

had our own schools; we had our own dance halls. We copied off of them and tried to have

everything they had. If fact at this very- she doesn’t know Emancipation Park.

Debra: She wouldn’t. She’s too young.

Mrs. Bryant: See when they made Emancipation Park, I was a little girl.

Debra: I’ll give you some information on Emancipation Park. See what happened is a

generation skipped. The generation after us should’ve told her about Emancipation Park. You

know, we’ve lost a generation, so that’s what happened. A lot of kids don’t know about

Emancipation Park.

Mrs. Bryant: You see, I was on the front page of the Chronicle.

DeAngela: When?

154

Mrs. Bryant: When Emancipation Park was talked about. Yeah, I got a newspaper right now

that tells you all about me. There.

DeAngela: Oh, I see it now.

Mrs. Bryant: You see, when slavery was over, a man named Gregory came down to Galveston.

See, we were really free in 1863, but the white people didn’t want us to know it you see. And so,

they gon work us all as slaves for another 2 years. So, by 1965, they come down here and tell

everybody we free, so then they gots to free us, you see. And so then in Galveston…wait let me

see what my main point is. Well anyway, from Galveston, we come on up here to Houston.

Some think that Galveston is right there on the Gulf, but it’s not a good growing point. Houston

has always been a place where it can grow however many people are there. So they bring these

Allen Brothers in 1856. They from New York, and they try to come down here and start a new

little city. So, they come down here in their boat, go through Galveston Bay, and strike the

mouth of Buffalo Bayou, and keep on up and get almost to Main St. and that’s where they gon

say, “This is where Houston gon be, right here. We gon call this Houston,” see.

DeAngela: So Mrs. Bryant, when we were talking about, like, how black people had their own

stuff, and ya’ll had everything that the white people had, was it mostly in like Third Ward and

Fourth Wars, or was it…Where exactly were the places? Like the dance halls and stuff.

Mrs. Bryant: Yeah, most of those places were in like Third Ward and Forth Ward and later

Fifth Ward. You see, we had theaters. We not only had main streets, we had…I call it the “main

drag.” The main drag of Third Ward was Dowling St. Anything that was important, you had to

take a trip down Dowling. Anything in Fourth Ward you had to go out, they called it San Felipe

then, but now they call it W. Dallas. But you got on that street and you passed by all your

businesses, and your theaters, and your barbeque stands, everything. You see the main street in

Fifth Ward was Lyons Ave. We had another called Oaten Ave. You moved from Oaten Ave. to

Lyons Ave and everything important you could get on those two main streets you see. And now,

what’s my main point?

DeAngela: Oh, you answered it already about how everything was on a certain street, like the

different Third Ward, and Fourth Ward, and Fifth Ward.

155

Mrs. Bryant: That’s right. You see now in Third Ward we had a theater called the Dowling.

And then we had another one called The Park cause it was near Emancipation Park. And then

we had a little hole in the wall down the street called The Holeman. I could go down there at

night and go home and not be bothered. In Fourth ward, you had the Rainbow Theater.

Debra: Where was that located?

Mrs. Bryant: On West Dallas.

Debra: And what hundred block? Do you remember what hundred block?

Mrs. Bryant: Well over there-

Debra: More downtown or where?

Mrs. Bryant: Close to Heiner.

Debra: Close to Heiner.

Mrs. Bryant: After you get on West Dallas and crossed Heiner, that’s where you run into all

these theaters and businesses see. The undertakers were there. Everybody who were in business

was right along there.

Debra: Well, let me ask you a question since you mentioned Heiner St. You know the freeway

runs right through there now. So, before the freeway was there, what kind of businesses were

there near Heiner off West Dallas? Do you remember what was there?

Mrs. Bryant: Well see. Heiner crossed West Dallas or San Felipe. And it kind of made a

division there. On this side of Heiner, we found our school, one undertaker, and dry-goods store,

and old man had an ice-cream factory; things like that.

Debra: What about Friendship? Was Friendship Baptist Church-

Mrs. Bryant: Well Friendship was way out the way because it starts over there on…well

anyhow, now it is further out than it was. But Friendship, well, I shouldn’t say that cause

Friendship started in the lower Fourth Ward too.

Debra: Yeah. Friendship was on Heiner, well close to Heiner and West Dallas.

Mrs. Bryant: Well wait, I’m getting wrong, getting mixed up. There was…it never got any

further than a one-story building. You know how you try to build a brick building and you get

the first floor?

DeAngela: Yes Ma’am.

156

Mrs. Bryant: Well that’s the way it was with Friendship. They started down there, but they

never…they had a big bell that would ring on the first floor and they intended to build a second

floor.

Debra: But never built it?

Mrs. Bryant: They didn’t build it there. They moved it, you see, when they weren’t making

progress there. The people were moving out from there, so they moved out with the people. It

was there like you say, but I forget there was a Friendship way back there.

Debra: Right, right. Well what about the families in Freedmen’s Town?

Mrs. Bryant: The who?

Debra: Some of the prominent families in Freedmen’s Town.

Mrs. Bryant: In Fourth Ward?

Debra: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: Alright. You ever hear of Caldwell?

Debra: I heard of the Caldwells. Educators.

Mrs. Bryant: Caldwell is a part of the Fourth Ward. His mother died early, and his mother’s

sister who married a man named Atkins, and he was kinda a big shot in the build up of Fourth

Ward. Now Caldwell’s one-half grade behind me. I finished, like they had a low and a high,

and when I finished in the high, he finished next spring in the low; low 11, the didn’t have 12

only 11 then. But Caldwell is one of the outstanding persons of the Third Ward. Now there was

also another John named John Martin, who was in that same class, and he, I don’t know if he

had any relatives here or not. You one of them people that have relatives, huh?

Debra: Well, any educators in Fourth Ward Freedmen’s Town.

Mrs. Bryant: Well now Caldwell is the main one. Why? Because his son and grandson live

here now. They moved away to Detroit, they had some family differences, and so they moved,

and they found work up in Detroit, but you know by the time they got to retire they decide they

come back here. Now the grandson is, what you call the man who works on your toes?

Debra: A podiatrist.

157

Mrs. Bryant: Yeah, that’s what he is, and he’s right down there near Sears. I think he’s on

Fannin St. near Sears. He has a place of business. And he comes around to work on your toes if

you can’t go to him. Now you hear me talk about Hazel Hainsworth Young?

Debra: Yes ma’am.

Mrs. Bryant: He goes to her. Doesn’t charge her a thing. Of course now we can all get there

on Medicare. Well, even before we had Medicare, because he knew her people do well, he was

glad to come there. Of course I have a different podiatrist, a woman comes to me and clips my

toenails. But these is some peoples you can get right now. You see, Caldwell’s son has a

daughter, I think she lives in Sugarland right now, right in that area. They all come back to the

South is what I’m tryin to say. They made that money to retire in Detroit, and they thought

they’d come back to old Houston. Now, that’s a family you can get hold of. Of course you

know about my cousin Edwina. Now Edwina and her children are all descendents of those first

people who were in Fourth Ward, you see.

Debra: Ok. What is the last name of those ancestors, of Edwina’s ancestors who lived in Fourth

Ward?

Mrs. Bryant: My grandfather had a sister named Bessie Price. Bessie Kyle Price. The Kyles

were the ones that were kinned to the Scotts. Now, old lady Kyle died before I was born. That’s

the only grandparent I did not know. I knew all the rest of them and talked to them, see, carried

on conversation with them, knew all about them. But grandma Kyle died in 1901, I was born in

1905. She had eight children. When she died, some of them were grown folks and some of them

was little tots. My father was a grown man when she died, Walter. Emmett Scott was a grown

man when she died. And one more, Quitman, the third one. There was five girls. One girl was

named Gertie, that’s the oldest girl. She was a school teacher at Douglass. But when she got

married, they had a ruling that married women couldn’t teach, and her job was taken away from

her. So she’s now nothing but a housewife. But she’s taking care of all the little ones, her little

sisters. Now in the mean time, my Uncle Emmett goes to Tuskegee 1997.

Debra: 1897.

Mrs. Bryant: 1897. So now when he gets over there and he’s the big man, he says, “I’ll send

for all of you to come to Alabama and help to educate you. I’ll give you a job, I’ll give your

158

husband a job, and I’ll make sure all the little children have a education. And that’s why they’ve

all turned out to be educators. Everybody on my father’s side. Except one, Quitman, he went to

California and became like a mechanic, one of them people who in the early days didn’t do

nothing but put shoes on horses. You ever hear of those.

Debra: Blacksmiths.

Mrs. Bryant: He went out there and he still had that mechanic ability. But everybody that went

to college, including my husband, I mean my father, but my father didn’t stay with education.

After he went to Prarie View for a hot minute he came back here and started carrying mail, so he

was just a mailman, and that’s what old Horace Scott was. He was the second black mailman to

pass through civil examination, and that was 1879 I think it was. Now there was another man

who just passed in October and his name was Brock.

Debra: Richard. Is it Richard Brock?

Mrs. Bryant: Yeah. Richard Brock.

Debra: Richard Brock, I didn’t know that.

Mrs. Bryant: See I always talk about Richard Brock Jr., an old man, but the old man was the

one who passed it three months ahead of my grandfather. They passed it.