Remaining faithful in the outhouse: an introduction to the utopian ...

-

Remaining faithful in the outhouse: anintroduction to the utopian archaeology of theAmana Colonies.Haunton, Christian Jeffreyhttps://iro.uiowa.edu/discovery/delivery/01IOWA_INST:ResearchRepository/12730681180002771?l#13730804310002771

Haunton, C. J. (2017). Remaining faithful in the outhouse: an introduction to the utopian archaeology ofthe Amana Colonies (University of Iowa). https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.nfbotn0u

Downloaded on 2022/08/08 00:33:34 -0500Copyright © 2017 Christian Jeffrey HauntonFree to read and downloadhttps://iro.uiowa.edu

-

REMAINING FAITHFUL IN THE OUTHOUSE An Introduction to the Utopian Archaeology of the Amana Colonies

by

Christian Jeffrey Haunton

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy

degree in Anthropology in the Graduate College of

The University of Iowa

August 2017

Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor Glenn Storey

Copyright by

CHRISTIAN JEFFREY HAUNTON

2017

All Rights Reserved

Graduate College The University of Iowa

Iowa City, Iowa

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

____________________________

PH.D. THESIS

_________________

This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of

Christian Jeffrey Haunton

has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Anthropology at the August 2017 graduation. Thesis Committee: ____________________________________________ Glenn Storey, Thesis Supervisor ____________________________________________ Katina Lillios ____________________________________________ Margaret Beck ____________________________________________ Scott Schnell ____________________________________________ J. Kenneth Kuntz

ii

To my parents, from whom all my best qualities originate, to Sara by whom all my worst

qualities are endured, and to George, Ira, Dave, and Teddy—just for being good cats.

iii

“Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks:

thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead. Thy teeth are like a flock of

sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins,

and none is barren among them. Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is

comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks. Thy neck is like

the tower of David built for an armory, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields

of mighty men. Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among

the lilies. Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of

myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense. Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee.

Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse, with me from Lebanon: look from the top of

Amana…”

Song of Solomon

King James Translation Chapter 4, Verses 1-8

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Exceeding thanks first and foremost to Glenn Storey for his guidance throughout

this project (and for several years before). This document would not exist without his help

and supervision. Thanks also to all the members of my committee--Katina Lillios,

Margaret Beck, Scott Schnell, and J. Kenneth Kuntz. In small and large ways, each has

done their part to make me a better student, instructor, and scholar.

Thanks to all those students who participated in this project— Sara Anderson,

Jordan Bennett, Karen Brunso, Jennifer Conry, Delany Cooley, Maureen Darby, Carissa

Dewaele, Ian Dunshee, Catherine Edgerton, Megan Farlow, Mitch Fischels, Jacob

Foubert, Deidre Funk, Christian Gonzales, Rachel Gonzales, Kevin Hoffman, Sara Lane,

François Lanoë, Robert Lepcin, Elisabeth Lowe, Sydney Mason, Leslie Nemo, Christina

Nicholas, Henry Qian, John Reighard, Kaitlin Schlotfelt, Jill Scott, Kara Simmons, Rachel

Sutcliffe, Spencer Usher, Tyler Teske, Tracy Vo, and Meredith Wismer. To say this would

not have been possible without them is a profound understatement. Special thanks to Sarah

Trabert, whose desire to get a little extra field leadership experience led to the most

enjoyable collaboration of my career.

Thank you to Lanny Haldy, Barbara Hoehnle, Christine Williams, and most

especially to Peter Hoehnle for sharing their knowledge, memories, and property access to

help me explore the Amanas as they were and as they are today.

Finally, thank you to the University of Iowa Graduate College, Department of

Anthropology, and the estate of Dr. Marcus Bach for their commitment of financial and

educational resources to this project.

v

ABSTRACT

This study considers how fundamental shifts in the relationship between religion,

community, and public life are reflected in the archaeological record of four excavation

sites in the Amana Colonies—a former school (1870-present), a church (1865-present), a

domestic outhouse (1860s-present), and a remote farmstead (1860s-1890s). The Colonies

are a collection of seven villages founded and settled by German pietists in the mid-

nineteenth century. In 1932 this community voluntarily abandoned the religiously-led

communal lifestyle that it had practiced in Iowa for 76 years—a fundamental alteration in

community structure that became known as the Great Change. This study was initially

formulated to examine material culture—specifically privy refuse—from before and after

the Great Change with an eye toward identifying shifts in the kinds, amounts, or origins

of material goods used and discarded by Amana citizens. Though the original questions

posed by the study could not be fully addressed with the data available, the sampled sites

did offer several insights into the ways that the Amana citizens used space and material

culture before and after the communal period. Artifacts collected at a domestic outhouse

suggest that the structure had been repurposed for use in the disposal of food preparation

waste after the Great Change. A comparison of artifact densities between the sites

indicated a high intensity of use of the grounds of the church, likely reflective of the

community’s organization around religious identity. Finally, an analysis of the relative

frequency of three types of artifacts found in quantity at all sites (metal, glass, and

ceramic) led to the conclusion that the remote farmstead likely reflects a lifeway outside

the Amana norm, and may suggest the ways in which Amana material usage was shaped

by communal living.

vi

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

The Amana colonies were formed when a group of German Pietist immigrants

settled in East Central Iowa beginning in 1856. The group, which called themselves the

Community of True Inspiration (or simply Inspirationists) lived a communal life that was

directed by a group of church elders and ultimately guided by the prophecies of their

spiritual leader or Werkzeuge. This lifestyle lasted three quarters of a century until 1932

when a vote was taken up by the Inspirationists to abandon their communal lifestyle and

separate church leadership from business and political matters. This project explores the

ways that the 1932 transition away from a religious-communal lifestyle can or cannot be

seen in the artifacts found at four Amana sites. Excavations at a school, a church, a

residence, and a farmstead located outside the community proper are compared to build a

better picture of how Amana community members lived, and how those lives changed

over time.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ ix

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER ONE: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE AMANA COLONIES ...................... 1

History.............................................................................................................................. 1

The Amanas as Utopian Community ............................................................................... 9

The Problem ................................................................................................................... 11

The Solution ................................................................................................................... 12

“Utopian” as a Relevant Term ....................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER TWO: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF UTOPIAN COMMUNITIES ............... 15

Utopian Archaeology within the Context of Historical Archaeology ........................... 15

Utopian Communities .................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 25

Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................. 26

Stage 1: Artifact Collection ........................................................................................... 29

Excavation Methods....................................................................................................... 31

The Amana School (2012) ............................................................................................. 32

The Homestead Church (2012, 2013, 2016) .................................................................. 37

Homestead Hoehnle House (2012) ................................................................................ 42

The Schaup Site (2013) .................................................................................................. 46

Stage 2: Dating Artifacts ................................................................................................ 60

Stage 3: Chronological Distribution of Artifacts ........................................................... 61

Stage 4: Historical Comparison ..................................................................................... 62

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ......................................................................................... 64

Amana School ................................................................................................................ 64

Homestead Church ......................................................................................................... 65

Homestead Hoehnle House ............................................................................................ 72

Faunal Remains .............................................................................................................. 72

Refitting ............................................................................................................................ 77

Dateable Material ........................................................................................................... 80

The Schaup Site ............................................................................................................. 90

Artifacts Among and Between Sites .............................................................................. 91

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 94

Amana School ................................................................................................................ 95

viii

Homestead Church ......................................................................................................... 96

Homestead Hoehnle House ............................................................................................ 97

The Schaup Site ........................................................................................................... 100

The Sites in Conversation ............................................................................................ 102

Significance of the Project and Future Research ......................................................... 108

Archaeology and Community Value ........................................................................... 112

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 121

APPENDIX A: SELECTED ARTIFACT PHOTOS ...................................................... 130

APPENDIX B: ARTIFACT COLLECTION DATA ..................................................... 135

Level Form Information by Site .................................................................................. 135

Piece Plotted Artifacts by Site ..................................................................................... 140

Homestead Hoehnle House Artifacts by Unit and Type (Non-Piece Plotted Only) .... 148

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Auger pulls from the Schaup Site ....................................................................... 57

Table 2: Artifacts from Test Pits A-K at Homestead Church ........................................... 69

Table 3: Size and Damage comparison of ceramic fragments .......................................... 91

Table 4: Artifact Density and Ratio by Site ...................................................................... 92

Table 5: Dateable material from Homestead Hoehnle House .......................................... 98

Table 6: Four Site Variables Compared.......................................................................... 103

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Satellite photo of Amana ................................................................................... 30

Figure 2: The Communities of Middle Amana, Amana, and Homestead, Iowa .............. 32

Figure 3: Overview of Amana schoolhouse site ............................................................... 34

Figure 4: Foundation of Amana School privy .................................................................. 35

Figure 5: An outbuilding at Homestead Church ............................................................... 38

Figure 6: Aerial view behind Homestead Church............................................................. 39

Figure 7: Overview of test pits A-K and other large features at Homestead Church ....... 41

Figure 8: Overview of relationship between three excavation units. ................................ 43

Figure 9: Units 1, 2, and 2.5 (from L to R) at Homestead Hoehnle House. ..................... 44

Figure 10: Layer of bricks at Homestead Hoehnle House ................................................ 46

Figure 11: Canadian tax document for Schaup farm in 1843 ........................................... 48

Figure 12:Samuel Schaup ................................................................................................. 49

Figure 13: Relocated and expanded house from the Schaup Site ..................................... 50

Figure 14: Amana, Middle Amana, and the Schaup Site .................................................. 50

Figure 15: Hand-drawn overview of Schaup farm ........................................................... 55

Figure 16: Aerial view of the Schaup Site. ....................................................................... 57

Figure 17: Lower altitude photo of the area framed in white in Figure 15. ...................... 59

Figure 18: Chicken and catfish bones from Amana School ............................................. 65

Figure 19: Test Pit 3 at Homestead Church ...................................................................... 66

Figure 20: Test Pit 2 and Homestead Church ................................................................... 66

Figure 21: Test Pit 1 at Homestead Church (expanded to the south and east) ................. 67

Figure 22: Homestead Church Test unit C (North is top) ................................................. 70

xi

Figure 23: Overlay of GPR results at Homestead Church at 20cm depth ........................ 71

Figure 24: Overlay of GPR results at Homestead Church at 40cm depth ........................ 72

Figure 25: Cut marks on bone consistent with the use of a power saw. ........................... 74

Figure 26: Chicken heads and chicken feet by Level ....................................................... 75

Figure 27: Bovine carpal bones from HHH Unit 2, Level 5 ............................................. 76

Figure 28: Peach pits from Homestead Hoehnle House Unit 2, Level 5 .......................... 77

Figure 29: Broken ceramic egg from HHH Unit 2, Level 5 ............................................. 79

Figure 30: Three ceramic cups Homestead Hoehnle House ............................................. 80

Figure 31: Broken bottle from HHH Unit 1, Level 5 ....................................................... 81

Figure 32: Diagram of markings from Broken bottle (enhanced for readability)............. 81

Figure 33: Blue Bromo-Seltzer bottle from HHH Unit 2, Level 5 ................................... 83

Figure 34: Marble from HHH Unit 2, Level 5 .................................................................. 84

Figure 35: Excavation of HHH Unit 2, Level 5 on June 14th, 2012. ................................ 84

Figure 36: Scrap of comic from HHH Unit 1, Level 5 ..................................................... 85

Figure 37: Lu-Ray Pastels backmark from HHH Unit 1, Level 3 .................................... 88

Figure 38: Ironstone China backmark from HHH ............................................................ 89

Figure 39: Example of Ironstone China mark ................................................................... 90

Figure 40: Diagram of outhouse orientation with respect to stone slab/dead grass .......... 97

Figure 41: Profile illustration of Hoehnle privy facing north-northeast. .......................... 99

Figure 42: The young volunteer working ...................................................................... 117

Figure 43: Puffball mushroom skewered on PVC pipe .................................................. 119

1

CHAPTER ONE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE AMANA COLONIES

History

In order to understand the Amana Colonies as they exist today, it is necessary first

to turn one's attention to two men living in Germany in the 18th century. Eberhard

Ludwig Gruber and Johann Friedrich Rock were Christians who became a part of the

pietist movement inspired by the teachings of Philipp Jakob Spener half a century earlier

(Shambaugh 1971). Pietism refers broadly to a collection of beliefs and practices

intended to return Christian communities to a more worship-centered life of simple piety,

in opposition to more academically rigorous, theological modes of Christianity that had

developed as a byproduct of the Protestant reformation and its regional consequences

(Barthel 1984). Pietism most frequently presented itself as a rejection of elaborate

ecclesiastical dress, architecture, and bureaucratic organization, and a general concern

regarding “the world” as a source of distracting and potentially dangerous influences on

the faithful Christian soul. Further, both Gruber and Rock were inspirationists, meaning

that they subscribed to the belief that living people in the community could pronounce

contemporary revelations of the word of God in the manner of the prophets found in the

Old and New Testaments (Hoehnle 2003). Specifically, Gruber and Rock believed in the

role of Werkzeuge--instruments of divine will--who would be overtaken by the Holy

Spirit with the gift of inspiration, and would therefore be able to guide the community in

accordance with the will of God. Rock was one such Werkzeuge (Shambaugh 1971).

2

In 1714 the two men founded what they called the Community of True Inspiration

(Wahre Inspirations Gemiende) (Hoehnle 2003, p. 11). The word “community” would

ultimately become the most significant aspect of that title, but at the time it was the word

“true” that held the greatest meaning. Gruber and Rock were attempting to distinguish

themselves from other pietist, inspirationist Christianities who might share essentially all

beliefs and practices with the Community of True Inspiration, but who were led by a

“false” spirit rather than the “true” spirit of the Lord (Hoehnle 2003). The line from

Gruber and Rock’s foundation of the Community to the present-day Amana Colonies is

unbroken, but it is not without significant twists and turns along the way.

The first, and perhaps most expected, of these developments was a general decline

in fervor and membership that accompanied the decades following the deaths of Gruber

(in 1728) and Rock (in 1749) (Hoehnle 2003). It was not until well into the 19th century

that a new generation of Werkzeuge emerged who would lead to a reawakening of the

Community of True Inspiration. These (sometimes overlapping) Werkzeuge oversaw a

period of resurgence and numeric growth in the ranks of the Community. Two such

Werkzeuge, Christian Metz and Barbara Heinemann, would survive long enough to see

the community come to North America and eventually establish the villages of the

Amana colonies (Hayden 1976).

By the 1830s several Inspirationist communities existed throughout Germany,

focused in the principality of Hess (Shambaugh 1971). It was during this time that the

Community of True Inspiration began to pool labor and economic resources in order to

pay rent to their landlords. However, magisterial expectations in the region (particularly

3

those pertaining to military service and the education of children) caused continual

tensions between the Inspirationists and the ruling government (Hoehnle 2016). As rent

costs continued to rise, the decision was made to transplant the entire community to the

United States, where inexpensive land and religious freedoms were more plentiful. Under

the direction of the Community’s most influential leader, Christian Metz, a party was sent

to North America to locate suitable property (Andelson 1997).

The location chosen was in western New York near the town of Buffalo (Hoehnle

2016). The Community purchased 5,000 acres of Native American reservation land that

had recently been opened up for European settlement. Here they built a series of villages,

starting in 1843. The settlements were called Ebenezer after a name in the first book of

Samuel translated to mean, “thus far the Lord has helped us” (Shambaugh 1971). As

would occur later in Iowa, all the villages but one shared the same name, being called

Lower Ebenezer, Middle Ebenezer, Upper Ebenezer, New Ebenezer, Canada Ebenezer,

and Kenneburg. Over the course of about a year and a half almost all practicing members

of the Community of True Inspiration had relocated from Germany to North America.

Ebenezer is most important to this story as an illustration of the fact that the

Amanas were not unique in the history of the Community of True Inspiration. In fact,

they are probably best seen as a second iteration of the same plan that had brought the

community across the Atlantic. The naming of the communities, their layout, the types of

industries in which they engaged, and their modes of interaction (or lack thereof) with

neighboring communities would all be representative of the same decisions made in Iowa

in the decades to follow.

4

It was during, and as a direct result of, the move to Ebenezer that the Community

of True Inspiration took its most significant official step toward communal living.

Because of the need to pool community resources, not only to develop the new villages,

but also to pay the transportation of European members to the new location, the decision

was made to officially adopt communal living as the standard for all Inspirationist

members (Hoehnle 2003). Whether it was the intention of Christian Metz and the other

church leadership or not, there seem to have been many who thought that this

development was only a temporary measure during a time of need, but it would become

the governing principle of the Community for nearly 100 years (Shambaugh 1908).

Though the Community’s time in Ebenezer was measurably successful from an

economic point of view, it suffered insurmountable challenges in terms of its ability to

grow and accommodate the particular tastes of the Inspirationists. Its proximity to the

successful and expanding community of Buffalo, New York created a twofold strain.

First, it meant that buying or renting additional property to accommodate the growth of

the community was prohibitively expensive. Second, it meant that “the world” was

problematically close, and the influences that the community sought to avoid were

encroaching with greater and greater rapidity. The logical solution to this double

constraint was to move somewhere where land was even more abundant and development

even sparser. That meant a move to the Midwest.

An initial foray was made into Kansas, but the land there was not found to be

suitable, and concerns about the state's ambivalent position on slavery led the

Inspirationists to seek land elsewhere. In 1854, only 11 years after the establishment of

5

the Ebenezer villages, the Community of True Inspiration began its move to a spread of

26,000 acres about 20 miles northwest of Iowa City, which was, at the time, the capital of

the state of Iowa. The move was accomplished over several years, with a new village

being founded in Iowa as each old village was shut down and sold in New York

(Holloway 1966, p. 170). These new villages shared the name Amana, a name taken from

the Song of Solomon 4:8, interpreted as meaning, “remain faithful” (Forster 2000).

Specifically, the villages were named Amana, East Amana, Middle Amana, High Amana,

West Amana, South Amana, and Homestead. Homestead was the only village not

founded and laid out by the Community of True Inspiration, a fact which is evident in its

orientation along a single long street, rather than in the grid pattern shared by all other

Amana communities (Hoehnle 2003).

The Community provided essentially all of its own foods from livestock and

fields surrounding the villages and kitchen-house gardens planted throughout.

Construction was done with locally mined stone and locally harvested wood (the

availability of which was a factor in selecting the Amana site). The community

constructed its own public buildings such as churches and schools, but also general

stores, bakeries, butchers, flour mills, sawmills, a tannery, a soap works, two woolen

mills, and a calico print works (Anderson 1997). Individuals from outside the community

were allowed to purchase items and the woolen mills and calico print works were

specifically set up for the purpose of exporting products outside of the Community.

It was this period in Iowa, from 1854 until 1932, that is the most written about,

the most wistfully remembered, and likely the most important in the history of the

6

Community of True Inspiration. During these decades, the Inspirationists would enjoy

their greatest stability; they would see their last Werkzeuge pass on without replacement;

and eventually, they would dissolve their model of religiously-guided communal life

(Shambaugh 1971).

Life in Amana during this time followed a broad-reaching pattern of top-down

communal life. Residences and jobs were assigned by the church Elders, and meals were

shared in communal kitchens (houses did not include their own kitchens). Contact with

“the world” at large was minimized wherever possible. Significant exceptions were made

to this latter guideline in the form of both non-Community labor which was hired

seasonally as necessary, and also the occasional assignment of young men to study

specialized fields at the University of Iowa (specifically medicine and dentistry). The

model was intended to provide maximum care and guidance for the community and

seems, from the observations of outsiders who visited the Amanas, to have led to a quite

leisurely lifestyle (Hoehnle 2003).

Of course, the Amanas were not an unqualified paradise on earth. Many members

of the community, particularly the younger generations who had no experience with

moving or with the Old Country, found the broad powers of the church Elders chafing. It

is significant to note that these generations were also the first who spoke English from

childhood, meaning that their ability to interact with (and by extension, to be influenced

by) “the world” outside of the Colonies was developed to an extent that had never existed

in Ebenezer or in the earliest years at the Amanas. There was no prohibition against

members leaving the community if they so chose (though some suspicion might be felt if

7

they later tried to return), which contributed to the fact that, with time, the growth of the

Community began to fall short of the population it was losing to “the world” outside

(Shambaugh 1971).

The early 1930s were clearly not the best time to be struggling economically in

any part of the United States, but the hardships felt by the nation were not the only

challenges facing the Inspirationists. They had suffered several specific setbacks that

made their financial situation particularly precarious. The blue dye used to produce their

calico prints had been sourced from Germany—a fact which created obvious

complications during and after World War I (Carman 1987, p. 162). Additionally, the

demand for calico prints dropped significantly as the fashions of the late 19th and early

20th century were replaced by the styles of the 1920s. Finally, a fire had destroyed the

Community’s woolen mill, and the community did not maintain any kind of insurance

policies, so all of the loss and cost of replacement had to be absorbed by profits from

other endeavors (Hoehnle 2016).

By 1931 the church Elders had come to the realization that something would have

to be done. All voting members of the community (meaning all adult males and all

unmarried females over the age of 30) were asked two questions via paper ballot.

1. Is it, in your opinion, possible to go back to the old lifestyle of denial wholly

and completely, as it is prescribed, and are you and your family willing to tread this path

without reservation?

2. Is it, in your opinion, possible that by reorganization (which is described as

fully as it can be at this time in the accompanying letter), the building-up of our

8

community can be affected according to Article V of our present Constitution, and are

you and your family willing to present your plans and views before the Committee and

then to assist in carrying out the plan approved by the trustees and the majority of

brothers and sisters? (Hoehnle 2003)

The astute reader will likely note that these two options are not mutually

exclusive, since they are phrased in terms of “is it possible” rather than “is it preferable.”

Nonetheless, it was the decision of the church Elders, upon reading the responses to the

ballot, that it was time for fundamental change to be made. This transformation became

known as The Great Change.

In practical terms, the Great Change meant that what had once simply been the

Community of True Inspiration, run by the church Elders, was separated into two

governing bodies. The first, the Amana Society Inc., would be responsible for the

financial management of what was once commonly held property now transformed into a

for-profit joint-stock company. The second, the appropriately named Amana Church

Society, would be in charge of the religious aspects of the community (Shambaugh

1971). This separation was a moment of fundamental transformation for the Community.

It essentially marked a point at which “church” and “state” become separated for the first

time since the founding of the villages.

Since the Great Change the development of the Amana Colonies has been deeply

tied with two industries--appliance manufacturing and tourism. Amana Refrigeration Inc.

(which operated under a variety of names over the decades) produced early, successful

versions of the upright freezer and microwave oven among other commercial and

9

industrial appliances. Though the company now belongs to Whirlpool (and before that to

Maytag) it continues to be an important source of employment in Middle Amana.

Today, the Amana colonies are populated by a mixture of families who have been

present since the villages were first founded (such as the Hoehnles, discussed in Chapter

Six), newer members to the Community of True Inspiration who joined in the generations

since the Great Change, and many citizens who do not practice the faith of the

Community, but live in the Amanas out of convenience or a personal attraction to the feel

of the place. Although only half of what it was at its height, the number of tourists to visit

the Amana Colonies annually is around half a million (Peter Hoehnle Spring 2012,

pers.comm.), meaning that on pleasant summer days and throughout the holiday season

the streets and shops are filled with non-locals who continue to spend their dollars at the

colonies. While this engagement with the historical past of the community is financially

beneficial, Barthel (2001) suggests that only heritage professionals are invested in

advancing historical authenticity in these engagements, while other social shareholders

are more interested in the approximation of the historical for advertising or entertainment

purposes.

The Amanas as Utopian Community

The Amana Colonies have certain distinct qualities worth bearing in mind when

considering their place within the broader context of archaeological investigation of

utopian communities in the United States. First, the Amana sites have been occupied

without interruption, and in their original location, from their founding in the mid-

10

nineteenth century until the present day. Generally, utopian communities which have

attracted archaeological investigation have been in locations that have served their

purpose and been abandoned or otherwise driven to disuse. As such, it is less a matter of

rediscovering and recovering past structures and use areas as it is a matter of rewinding

the decades of adjustments and alterations made by the (few) generations of residents.

The disadvantage (archaeologically speaking) to the condition of the Amana Colonies is

that the structures of the original community have been replaced and built over in parts,

abandoned in others, and maintained in still others. This creates a mosaic environment

that requires a degree of sorting and historical research to establish the parameters (and

perimeters) of the community as it existed at any particular time in its history. The

advantage, of course, to the Amanas’ continued occupation is that living descendants of

the original settlers are often quite easy to come by, sometimes (see Chapter Four) still

occupying the same structures that their family was originally assigned at the founding of

the community. This makes a rich, and rather entrenched, oral history relatively easy to

access.

This leads to a second consideration, which is that the current generation of those

residents is in some meaningful sense the same culture group that initially produced the

site. There is no doubt that the modern resident of the Amana colonies is likely to exhibit

significant differences from the 19th century community founders. (In fact, it is this

change in culture that was initially of central interest to this project.) However, there is an

unbroken line of cultural descent dating back to the founding origins of the community.

11

Considerations, both practical and interpersonal, need to be taken into account that might

not be particularly relevant when excavating sites associated with more short-lived and

long-passed communities.

The Problem

The Amanas offer an unusual perspective into the realm of religious corporate

identity, particularly in the ways in which a rupture in long-held patterns is reflected in

the lives of community members. Though the history of the Amanas is well documented

and valued within the contemporary community as an integral part of its identity, that

history (as with all written or oral records) is a testament to only those aspects of

community life that had conscious relevance for the authors. The Great Change affected

all aspects of Amana life to greater or lesser degrees, and should be at least a visible, and

perhaps even a significant factor in the way that the community members engaged with

the material world around them. Not all aspects of this engagement are detectable

anymore, but changes in material disposal should be, and should be able to lend an

additional perspective to the model of pre/post Great Change life at the Amanas. It should

be said that there is no argument being made here that the material aspects of the Great

Change are necessarily the most interesting or important aspects of the transformation

and its effect on the community, only that they are (among) the most under-studied, and

certainly the most relevant from the perspective of archaeological investigation.

12

The Solution

In pursuing a view into changes in material culture over the course of the Great

Change, the solution proposed by this project was simply to seek out material artifacts

from before and after the Great Change. Though the premise is simple in explanation, it

is considerably more complex in implementation, as it necessitates first finding such

materials, then arranging them in chronologically useful ways, in order to look finally at

changes over time and relate those changes to what was going on within the community.

Chapter Three goes into detail regarding the specific strategy employed, but the overall

solution proposed was to seek out concentrations of refuse as the source of this material

data.

“Utopian” as a Relevant Term

A final factor that bears mentioning is that there is apparently some debate about

whether the Amana colonies (or its predecessors, the Ebenezers) really constitute utopian

communities at all (Peter Hoehnle Spring 2012, pers.comm.). This gets into a discussion

of the subtleties of the definition, and the particulars of the community at various

moments in its fluid history. Sarah Tarlow (2002) identifies six features shared by

communities that fall within the “utopian” category:

1. They are practical critiques of the society that surrounds them. They are born out of

profound dissatisfaction with the values and practices of their societies.

13

2. They challenge those values and practices at a fundamental level by pursuing

alternatives to central aspects of “normal” social practice in the wider society, such as the

family or the capitalist system.

3. They are both visionary and missionary. They believe that their way of life represents a

better (in fact, the best possible) future for everybody and that if other people were to

witness its advantages they would voluntarily abandon their accustomed ways and join

the utopians…

4. Utopian communards have made voluntary and conscious decisions to live differently

and apart from the society around them.

5. Utopian communities are often highly designed, communally organized, and life in

them is tightly ordered…

6. They are communities of utopian thinkers: people who believe in the basic goodness of

humankind and our innate capacity for harmonious social organization. (pp. 304-305)

It is the third feature that is not consistent with the Community of True

Inspiration. The argument goes that inherent in the concept of a utopian community is the

notion that its model of organization and lifestyle should be broadly adopted (across the

region, nation, planet) in order to improve the world at large, or, at the very least, that the

community should be a refuge for those seeking escape from the discordant world

outside. The Community of True Inspiration never seems to have adopted either of these

views. They generally seem to have felt like the role of their community was to provide a

place for the small number of families who held their particular spiritual views

(Shambaugh 1908). The idea of religious proselytization was never a tenant of the

14

community’s tradition, and the idea that the model of life observed in the Amanas was

something that should be shared and spread with the world at large could not have been

less of a priority.

Perhaps the simplest way that people have dealt with this slight discrepancy from

the traditional definition of “utopian community” has been to simply abandon the term

itself and replace it with the broader (and perhaps less meaningful) “intentional

community” which clearly encompasses towns like the Amanas, as well as a host of other

non-utopian groups. The term is effective and accurate, but abandons the crucial notion

of trying not only to establish a community, but to establish a community in accordance

with social ideals of perfection. As such, the term utopian community will be used

throughout this document with an acknowledgment of the fact that it might not reflect

perfectly the way that the original Amana founders would have seen themselves. When it

is used, the term “intentional community” is meant to refer to the wider body of all

communities that are intentionally founded in a preplanned arrangement, whether for

utopian ideals or not.

15

CHAPTER TWO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF UTOPIAN COMMUNITIES

Utopian Archaeology within the Context of Historical Archaeology

Defining historical archaeology in an operational sense begins with the titular

concern—is it history or is it archaeology, or more specifically, anthropology (Deagan

1982, 1988)? While there are valid methodological issues tied up with this question, it is

a concern that has lost relevancy as interdisciplinary solutions have become the norm

rather than the exception. In trying to relate the goals of historical archaeology, Barbara

Little (2007) offers the following summary:

Broadly conceived, they fit under the rubrics of preserving and interpreting sites,

supplementing and challenging the history we know through documents, reconstructing

people’s ways of life, improving archaeological methods, and understanding

modernization and globalization. Connecting all of these goals is the thread of finding

present-day meaning of the historical past and making the past meaningful and useful. (p.

22)

Much of this is not unique to historical archaeology. All archaeologists are likely

interested, to one extent or another, in preserving and interpreting sites, reconstructing

people’s ways of life, and improving archaeological methods. If this is the case, then

supplementing and challenging the history we know through documents, and

understanding modernization and globalization are the two features that most

prominently figure into an interest in historical archaeology.

16

When Orser (2010) attempts to evaluate the changing face of historical

archaeology in the twenty-first century, he concentrates on “four areas of research

currently being pursued by historical archaeologists: analytical scale, capitalism, social

inequality, and heritage and memory” (p. 111). Orser himself acknowledges that, “issues

of scale in historical archaeology have been embedded in the field since its inception, and

considerations of scale will always be pertinent in archaeological thinking” (2010, p.

116). As such, it seems like this may also be considered so applicable to all forms of

archaeology that it is not necessary to consider as relevant to historical archaeology in

particular. Blending these two lists suggests that the limits of historical documentation,

modernization, globalization, capitalism, social inequality, and heritage/memory are all

aspects of what define historical archaeology in the 21st century.

What makes utopian communities so unusual is that they were created with an eye

toward many of these very aspects of culture that historical archaeologists are interested

in examining. That is to say, while walls, battlefields, hearths, and graveyards all

undoubtedly offer windows into politics, economics, gender, class, and scores of other

aspects of human behavior they are all created out of a practical necessity, and these

aspects become secondary readings of the material that remains. Utopian communities

are frequently (if not always) established with the express purpose of demonstrating

certain aspects of culture. By building their identity into their surroundings, these

communities are not doing something different than non-utopian (mainstream) cultures,

but they are often doing it with a greater intensity. As such, they produce little,

concentrated pockets of meaning in whatever environment they occupy. Further, because

17

of their scale and defined nature, utopian communities inform our awareness of

expansion and sustainability (Levitas 2013). (Both of these matters, not coincidentally,

shaped the Community of True Inspiration’s journey from Europe to New York and from

New York to Iowa.)

Utopian archaeology is not peripheral to the interests of historical archaeology.

Rather, it is in many ways the bull’s-eye of the field—the small target that offers the most

concentrated potential for examining the kinds of questions that historical archaeology is

based on.

Utopian Communities

It may be a mistake trying to group utopian communities together for the sake of

study, as (almost by definition) each community is founded because of a belief that there

is nothing like it elsewhere in the world. As such, each community has its own distinct

character not only in the subtleties of its specific rules and mores, but also in its most

fundamental founding and organizing principles. Still, there is something to the fact that

all such communities share a drive to excuse themselves from mainstream society in an

attempt to try something different. The work presented here falls within a larger body of

archaeological research that is focused specifically on the remains of utopian

communities under the umbrella of the larger area of study of historical archaeology. It

may also be worth noting that this project focuses on a utopian community in the United

States. While it is likely true that utopian communities around the world share some

18

important commonalities, it is also worth recognizing that the United States in particular

experienced a nineteenth century boom in such communities, and that the idea of

retreating to form a society free to live in accordance with outlying beliefs and practices

(particularly of a religious nature) has a particular resonance with US American identity

and shared history (Sargent 2010).

Archaeological investigations of utopian communities remain relatively

infrequent, to the extent that in 2002 Sarah Tarlow wrote an article for Historical

Archaeology urging archaeologists to consider the usefulness of "ideal" communities as

an object of study (Tarlow 2002). This was followed up four years later by her article in

the same publication with Thad Van Bueren which continued to promote the interpretive

potential of these communities (Van Bueren and Tarlow 2006). These calls to action have

not fallen entirely on deaf ears, as evidenced by subsequent work such as Communion in

the South Union: An Archaeological Analysis of a Shaker Colony (Talent 2009), and the

Master’s thesis of Joseph Grygas, who several years ago, wrote about life at

the Watervliet Shaker Village, noting, “To date Shaker archaeology is currently in a

relatively primitive stage. Most investigation at Shaker sites has resulted from

construction projects and these surveys say very little about Shaker life” (Grygas

2011:ii). The irony in this statement is that while it is certainly true, the largest portion of

the archaeological investigation of utopian communities that has been done has actually

focused on Shaker villages (Janzen 1981, Wylie 1985, Starbuck 1990, Savulis 1992,

Stein 1992, McBride 1995, Starbuck 1998, Tallent 2009, Starbuck 2010, Grygas 2011).

They are poorly represented in archaeological research broadly speaking, but also the

19

best represented available. The Shakers make an excellent group for study because they

were relatively numerous, widespread, long-lived (for a utopian community), and almost

entirely gone today (Stein 1992). These factors contribute to the ease with which Shaker

sites can be found and investigated. Still, utopian archaeology remains relatively

uncommon when compared to other subfields of historical archaeology such as slave

archaeology or battlefield archaeology.

Archaeological investigations of Shaker communities provide an excellent

roadmap and in some instances described below, counterpoint, to this project as it was

intended. Starbuck (1990) describes years of preliminary fieldwork at Canterbury Shaker

Village intended to help establish a big-picture view of how the community used space

over an extensive period of occupation. In fact, Starbuck observes that, "we deliberately

resisted the urge to excavate Shaker dumps or foundations because we wanted first to

understand how the total landscape had been utilized and to identify which sites had the

most research potential” (Starbuck 1998:7). The excavators of Canterbury Village were

rightly concerned with establishing the broad strokes of the environment before plunging

into specific, targeted excavation. Their strategy is not an uncommon one, and in some

sense, is always necessary if archaeologists wish to gather enough information to make

targeted excavation productive. However, a considerable amount of this preliminary work

can be shifted from the field to the written page or oral tradition in the case of historical

archaeology. This is one instance where history (and living memory) can contribute

meaningfully to the shaping of research plans. Of course, a point that is made elsewhere

in this document (and throughout the project) is that the historical record may not always

20

match precisely the behavior pattern suggested by archaeological investigation. However,

for the purposes of preliminary outline, the historical record provided a worthwhile

jumping-off point.

Elsewhere, one of the primary interests of utopian archaeologists has been the

built environment of the communities. Savulis (1992), for example, offers a look at

Shaker social order through the lens of social/physical space and community

organization. Her work focuses on gender, a division of "domestic" and "public" spaces,

and an interest in the buildings, spaces, distances, and directions involved in day-to-day

Shaker life. The Amana project, while initially focused on the small scale, artifact-

oriented behaviors of groups and individuals in relationship to their material goods,

ended up looking at questions of space specifically. While this modification was not

methodologically motivated, it did have significant methodological consequences in

terms of the practical requirements of the project. A focus on built environment may be

primarily based on maps, measurements, and documentary descriptions of spatial use,

with archaeological excavation reserved for those situations where small pits may be

helpful in determining the behaviors associated with a particular spot. These activities

can be accomplished with minimal personnel in the field and minimal intrusion into the

modern site. Since this project was initially more interested in a focus on artifact

distribution than spatial use, it required an entirely different strategy—one that

necessarily involved a greater expenditure of labor in the field and considerably more

disruptive (and, to be fair, destructive) kinds of activities being carried out at the site. It

seems likely that the reason that many investigations of utopian communities have

21

focused on the distribution of community structures across the landscape is that

investigators are, in some part, motivated by the concerns described above.

Non-Shaker projects do exist, such as Kozakavich’s (2006) investigation of the

Doukhobors in Saskatchewan (a Russian Christian group that immigrated to the New

World). This project has similarities to the Amana project in that it was focused almost

entirely on artifacts from privies, buried middens, trenches, and cellars. In the case of the

Doukhobor project this was a necessity as all surface features had been obliterated by

right-of-way clearing activity before a cultural resource management project was

established to help preserve the remaining material from the site. The data recovered

were used to examine the extent to which the material remains of the community

reflected their stated practices of vegetarianism and abstinence from alcohol and tobacco.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the study revealed that evidence of meat, alcohol, and tobacco

were present at the site, but relatively infrequent (Kozakavich 2006). While this project

has clear parallels to the Amana project (as initially intended), it is important to note that

the present project was constructed to consider the contrasting of stated practices with

material remains a secondary byproduct of the work being done (with an interest in

community change over time being primary). While such comparisons might be

interesting (and occasionally provocative), they are deeply entangled in the complexities

of belief/practice/identity, and as such, are likely to reflect the expectations of the

investigator as much as they do the intentions of the individuals being investigated.

Preucel & Pendery’s (2006) investigation of the Transcendentalist/Fourierist

community at Brook Farm in West Roxbury, Massachusetts offers another non-Shaker

22

view into the archaeology of a utopian community. Initial investigation of the utopian

phase of the site was centered on resolving conflicts in the historical record about the

locations of various buildings. While this project involved extensive excavation, it was

excavation for the purpose of feature-identification and not primarily for the sake of

artifact recovery. The site also has distinct differences from the Amana Colonies, in that

the utopian period at Brook Farm is relatively short, spanning only six years and the

site includes other occupation layers of interest such as an alms house, orphans’ home,

and military training center (Preucell and Pender 2006). For these reasons, the practical

negotiations involved in how and why various aspects of the site could be excavated were

considerably more complex than they were at the Amanas.

The removal of 64 burials from a Quaker burying ground in Alexandria, Virginia

provided considerable information about the variation in burial practices within the

Quaker community (Bromberg and Shepard 2006). The project was prompted by the

sinking of the foundation for a new library expansion and permitted access to remains

that would otherwise not have been excavated. The Amana project was initially seeking,

in a sense, to get at similar issues of variation in practice among people who espouse

consistency in principle. The (huge) methodological difference being, obviously, that the

Amana project sought to do so without involving the skeletal remains of the people

themselves. This is a double-edged sword; on the one hand, it removes the extraordinary

amount of headache and complication associated with the process of dealing with human

remains, on the other hand, it eliminates the presence of the best kind of demographic

information available in the archaeological record.

23

Of all the utopian communities that have been investigated archaeologically in the

United States, perhaps the most interesting comparison and counterpoint to the Amanas is

the Pullman Community of Pullman, Illinois (Bader 1967). It is geographically and

chronologically similar to the Amanas, founded 30 years later and only 220 miles due

east. However, the Pullman Community was founded on almost diametrically opposite

principles from the Amanas. It was an idealized capitalist community where workers

could live at the factory site without having to leave to meet any of their basic needs, not

unlike the Lowell Boott Mill Complex (Beaudry 1989). It was designed (and populated)

out of economic rather than spiritual motivations, though the end results were remarkably

similar—communal housing, on-site living amenities, and eventual public resistance to

the lifestyle (in Pullman’s case this took the form of a large-scale worker strike).

Additionally, the Pullman Community shares with the Amana Colonies the fact that it has

continued in use from its construction until the present day, though its identity as a

planned, utopian community lasted only a decade, until 1900 (Newcomen 1998).

Domestic excavations done at the Pullman Community (Baxter 2011) reveal a

relatively sparse material assemblage, with almost no material found in backyards until

after the end of the utopian period (Baxter 2011). Frustratingly (with regard to this

particular Amana project at least), the very nature of the Pullman Community has left it a

poor point of comparison for the Amanas. One of the defining elements of the Pullman

Community was its commitment to thoroughly modern living, including electrical

lighting and indoor plumbing. This means that no privies existed, and that the largest

24

concentration of small finds have been along the edges of alleyway spaces where

cleaning crews likely missed them (Baxter 2011).

In a broad sense, excavations at the planned industrial community of Feltville,

New Jersey offer a general roadmap to productive fieldwork at a utopian site (Tomaso, et

al. 2006). Initial efforts were focused on determining, "how well, if at all, archaeological

deposits at Feltville would allow an in-depth examination of the daily lives of the people

who inhabit the community as...changes took place" (Tomaso, et al. 2006, p. 26).

Subsequent field seasons focused in on the specific interests of the researchers involved

as limited by the archaeological contexts that were being uncovered. After several

seasons, the project transitioned from field-based collection to lab-based analysis in order

to make meaningful use of the data already gathered. Though the Feltville project is

larger in duration than the Amana project described here, the general process remains

largely the same—initial work focused on determining what kinds of deposits of material

culture remain (and prove accessible). The initial phase of the Amana project was

primarily concerned with the identification of areas of human activity that were most

likely to have left extensive remains. Only after a period of that kind of work was the

project shifted to a more limited, targeted excavation strategy designed to help provide

specialized, comparative data to better test the stated project goals. The initial outline of

this project and the shift in focus are the subject of Chapter Three.

25

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY

Broadly, the project described here was expected to serve as a contribution to

ongoing interest in the ways that the changes in intentional or utopian communities over

time are reflected in the material record. These changes are frequently examined

exclusively using historical documents, and as such, may be more fully understood

through the addition of archaeological evidence. On a more specific scale, this project

was also intended to contribute directly to the body of work focused on the history of the

Amana Colonies and the Community of True Inspiration in Iowa. Because the majority of

original community structures are still in use today (a byproduct of the fact that the

community has been continually occupied since its founding) there has been less interest

in historical archaeology at the site than might occur at a disused site. However, while

land use and community layout are relatively well understood at the Amanas, daily,

household use of material goods has been somewhat overlooked. This study seeks to

focus a different lens on the community’s past, and to improve both general

understanding of the history of the Amanas, and the resources available to the

community’s museums and interpretive centers which could be used by the community to

tell its own story.

That religious belief systems take on material forms is not a matter of debate.

From small, personal prayer items and votive objects to massive religious structures and

monumental art, the history of the human race is seasoned with the traces of religious

intentions made materially manifest. Works like Colleen McDannell’s Material

26

Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America (1996) tend to focus on the

materialization of religion itself in the sometimes sacred and often kitschy products made

for the explicit purpose of reflecting religious ideas or topics. While it was possible that

the intended project would be dealing with those kinds of materials, that possibility was

slim. What was of greater interest was the connection between the religious beliefs and

identity of a group of people and the ways in which those people engaged the material

world around them. That is to say, how, if at all, was religious belief reflected in non-

(overtly) religious material remains? The assumption of this study was that it was

reflected in numerous subtle ways of which Community members may or may not have

been conscious.

It should be noted that even if a connection of the sort described above was not

observed in the material record left by the Amana Community during the first half of the

20th century, that itself would have been a noteworthy observation meriting further

investigation. The Community was so thoroughly guided by religious standards (at least

in principle) that a fundamental shift like the Great Change could hardly be expected not

to leave ripples in the material lives of Community members. Explaining the absence of

such ripples would be just as valuable an enterprise as explaining their presence.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

This investigation was intended to test several overlapping hypotheses all of

which were geared toward addressing the general research questions: What does

significant, chronologically-specific religious and social change in a community look like

27

in the archaeological record? And to what extent, if any, is the material culture of the

community in the midst of religious and social change able to reflect the causes, nature,

and repercussions of that change?

Hypothesis 1: The Great Change in the Amana Society is visible in the material goods of

the community.

The adjustments associated with the Great Change were broad and significant

enough that it is reasonable to expect that the material culture of the community

underwent a shift during this time period. Even if that was the case, however, it does not

necessarily mean that that change will be evident in the archaeological remains that can

be recovered today. This first hypothesis was by far the simplest and most direct. It is

worth noting that the project as proposed was dependent on each of the first two

hypotheses being true. If the data were to reveal that one or both were not true it will be

necessary to reformulate any hypotheses which might come after. The first such

reformulation would take the form of a simple "why not?" as both of the first two

hypotheses proposed relatively expected results.

Hypothesis 2: The material reflection of the Great Change is not a single event but a

process both leading up to and continuing after 1932.

Social transformation does not occur in a vacuum, and it is known that the Great

Change was in part a response to events and policies that dated back decades before the

change itself was made. This hypothesis was intended to explore the extent to which the

28

decades that preceded the Great Change were already a period of change in the material

culture of the Amana communities. It was anticipated that variations in the types and

frequencies of material goods used by the community altered gradually as social norms

and household practices approached the specific historical moment when the Great

Change was both socially feasible and communally desirable. Likewise, it was expected

that though the change itself acted relatively quickly to legally change the community’s

identity, the household practices of community members (ideally reflected to some extent

in their material behavior) changed more gradually over the decades that followed.

Hypothesis 3: This process of change in the material record can lead to meaningful

inferences about the nature of the religious and social change occurring in the

community during this period.

It was with its third hypothesis that this project entered its most subjective phase.

It was anticipated that the material record recovered during this project would reveal

aspects of community change that may or may not be tested in historical documents.

Aspects of material behavior that may prove relevant in addressing this hypothesis are the

ratio of locally produced to commercially available goods being used, the amount of

reuse evident in material items before discard, the relative rates of production and/or

consumption of material goods over time, and most broadly, the types of goods being

used and discarded.

29

This project’s methodology and course of analysis was made up of four major

stages: artifact collection, artifact dating, analysis of temporal distribution of artifacts,

and comparison to known events in community history.

Stage 1: Artifact Collection

As mentioned above, this project was focused on collecting refuse materials from

the Amana community with a focus on the decades preceding and following the Great

Change in 1932. In pursuit of these artifacts, a variety of source locations were

considered as areas with potential to generate the greatest density of datable material.

Under consideration were two factors discussed by Boone (1987, p. 337)—population

and time—and the further limitation that some percentage of community refuse was

probably disposed of in unsanctioned locations (Staski 1991). Given these

considerations, possible excavation targets included a canal which, once dry, was used as

a local trash dump within living memory and a local sandstone quarry which historical

sources suggest was used as a town dump at some time in the past. Additionally, several

outhouses that served from the earliest periods of the community settlement until as late

(in some cases) as the 1950s were identified. As outhouses have been found to be

common receptacles for household waste, these were also considered as useful potential

excavation sites. All of these targets were located in the villages of Amana or Homestead.

This was a strategic decision made in the hope that the historical differences in the

origins of these two communities (described in Chapter One) might provide another

opportunity for comparative study.

30

Figure 1: Satellite photo of Amana. Red dots indicate outhouse locations that were originally targeted as best-case targets. Green dots were secondary targets (for backup or extended excavations). Areas in yellow ovals represent the

quarry (a) and the canal channel (b) selected for test pit auguring and possible GPR investigation.

Before the first season even began, it became apparent that the permissions

needed to access the canal and quarry might be prohibitively difficult to get. Since the

first phase at those sites was only likely to include test pit augering anyway, attention was

shifted solely to the excavation of known outhouses. Outhouses had the additional

advantage of substantially limiting catchment area. For example, in the instance of the

31

only domestic privy excavated in this study, the complexities involved in connecting

midden waste with family groups identified by Beck and Hill (2004) was all but

eliminated by the fact that the structure had served the Hoehnle family since its

construction in the mid nineteenth century. As such, all material could be intimately

associated with a particular lineage and the guests thereof.

Excavation Methods

Throughout this document, material will be divided between the four sites

excavated during this project. The first three—Amana School, Homestead Church, and

Homestead Hoehnle House—were excavated in an effort to address the research

questions already discussed. A fourth—Schaup Site—offered an opportunity to excavate

a unique site that was both outside the physical range of typical Amana sites and

abandoned for over a century.

32

Figure 2:The Communities of Middle Amana, Amana, and Homestead, Iowa. The four excavation sites discussed in this study are circled in white.

The Amana School (2012)

Going into the 2012 excavation season it was unclear what kind of time it would

take to thoroughly excavate each privy. It was expected that time might be sufficient for

multiple sites, but it was entirely possible that one privy might occupy the crew all

season, or (particularly if dealing with greater depths) that it would be more productive to

split the crew in half and work at two sites simultaneously (with Sarah Trabert serving as

site director for the second team). As it turned out, this was never necessary. There were

33

one or two days where the crew was a bit larger than necessary, but this was rarely the

case, and when it was, full-time screeners would be set up to utilize the extra volunteer-

power.

The first site selected for excavation during the summer of 2012 was the semi-

public privy at the site of the former school in Amana. The Amana schoolhouse is located

at 4310 220th Trail in the village of Amana. The schoolhouse, along with the Noé House

and a washhouse/woodshed, make up the grounds of the Amana Heritage Museum, with

the schoolhouse housing the offices of the Amana Heritage Society. Built in 1870, the

schoolhouse was in use until 1954. This was the first site selected because it had several

qualities that suggested it would be easy to excavate, and therefore a good starting point

for the crew that consisted largely of first time excavation participants. First, because it

was located on the property of the Amana Heritage Society Museum, parking, bathrooms,

and running water were all on hand, and directions could be reliably given to students

without much risk of anyone ending up at the wrong location. This proximity to the

museum also meant that Museum Director Lanny Haldy and Program Director Christine

Williams were only meters away from the excavation site, so any questions or concerns

could be brought to them almost immediately. Finally, the rear (business) portion of the

outhouse itself, while no longer extant had been defined by a cement foundation which

was being used as a flower bed (see Figure 3). This meant that no effort would need to be

spent on probing for the limits of the outhouse pit, and that excavation could begin in

earnest immediately.

34

Figure 3: Overview of Amana schoolhouse site. Original schoolhouse (now the offices of the Amana Heritage Society) is shown in relation to the pergola/patio to the east. The outhouse/planter on the east side of the pergola/patio was divided into three units, designated North, Middle, and South.

The site was given the designation Amana School (abbreviated to AS on most

forms), and the flower planter, which measured 139cm x 382cm, was divided into three

units designated Planter North, Planter South, and Planter Middle—where North began at

the northern edge and measured 94cm to the center, South began at the south edge and

measured 96cm to the center, and Middle was marked off at the 192cm portion left in the

middle. The strange measurements (94cm, 96cm, etc. are because the distances were

based on physical landmarks on the planter (see Figure 4). The reason for adding the third

unit, which was not strictly necessary from an excavation point of view (as simply

dividing the area into two roughly 2m x 1.3m units would likely have produced the same

results), was to provide opportunities for three teams to be working on units at any given

time. This distribution of labor would continue to be an issue throughout much of the

2012 season since all of the sites were of relatively narrow physical scope.

35

Figure 4: Foundation of Amana School privy. To the left of frame is the edge of the patio/pergola area that has been installed for museum guests. To the right, a board keeps the dirt from spilling out.

A tarp was set up ~10m to the north-east of the planter where all removed

material was screened through ¼” (~6mm) wire mesh. Students typically worked in two

person teams taking turns screening as the other person continued to excavate. Whether

they saw it in the unit or found it in the screen, students were instructed to manually

collect broken material of human manufacture smaller than a half dollar and place it in a

36

paper bag labeled with unit, level, date, and excavator. Anything larger than a half dollar,

or any intact artifacts were to be piece-plotted and given their own sub-bag.

The Amana Heritage Society had removed all the plants from the outhouse area,

and on May 23rd, 2012 shovel scraping of the surface level began in all three units

(recorded as Level 0). On May 24th there was a change to a higher brown clay content in

the soil at ~23cm, so this became the demarcation for Level 2 in all units. (All depths

were measured from the top of the concrete that formed the outhouse/planter perimeter,

which makes the depths seem deeper than they actually are.) At 33cm Level 1 was closed

in all units and Level 2 opened. The decision was not based on any observable difference

within the units, but on a desire that once past the surface, each subsequent level should

be no more than 10cm deep (for the sake of spatial organization of artifacts). On May

25th Level 2 was closed at 43cm and Level 3 was opened, by end-of-day, Unit 3 was

closed in the South and Middle units. On May 28th Level 4 was opened in the North and

Middle units, and Level 3 was closed in the North unit. At this point it became apparent

that Level 4 was not producing artifacts in either unit, so all excavation was stopped and

auger pulls were taken. A 3” auger bucket was used to pull from random quadrants of all

three units down to a depth of 1.2m (from the top of the planter concrete), or just under

80cm below the lowest level of excavation. No artifacts were present in any of the 6

pulls. The decision was made to close the site, and on May 29th a rotted board was

replaced that had been holding the dirt in on one side of the planter, the units were

backfilled, the tools gathered and the crew headed to Homestead.

37

The Homestead Church (2012, 2013, 2016)

2012

The second site selected for excavation during the summer of 2012 was the

former location of a semi-public privy at the church in Homestead, IA. Located at 4210 V

Street in Homestead, IA, the Homestead church was one of the seven village churches

that served the colonies. It was built in 1865, and in addition to a large central room for

church services, it was constructed with residential units on both ends of the building.

Though it is now owned by the Amana Heritage Society, the central room is still used for

church services on Sundays. The Homestead Church site (designated HS in excavation

records) was always the problem child of this project. Even though it received the most

seasons of investigation, it produced the fewest results in terms of artifact assemblage.

The site was chosen after learning that the Amana Heritage Society owned several other

properties in the Colonies, all of which were available for excavation. The church privy

was particularly appealing because of the overt (proximal) connection that it had with

religious practice. While neither the outhouse, nor the building that it had once been

attached to remain, a photograph was available that included extant landmarks that could

be used to estimate the outhouse’s location with considerable precision (see Figure 5).

The date is unknown, but it was taken before the living memory of the informants (Lanny

Haldy & Peter Hoehnle Spring 2012, pers.comm.), and shows a building being

disassembled. The bell tower in the background and the presence of extant scars in the

38

Figure 5: An outbuilding used for pressing wine at the south-west corner behind Homestead Church. Note the bell tower, which remains extant.

grass at the site (see Figure 6) allowed for a high degree of confidence in situating the

former structure on the ground. Based on buildings with the same layout elsewhere in the

colonies, the light space to the left of the third window on the intact wall is the scar where

the outhouse has already been stripped off the back of the building (Lanny Haldy Spring

2012, pers.comm.). However, because of the foreshortening caused by the angle of the

photograph, it is difficult to tell precisely where the outhouse would have stood in

relation to the corner of the building. A slight depression in the grass could be observed

in the general area, and this was the strongest candidate for the location of the privy.

39

Figure 6: Aerial view behind Homestead Church. North is left. The elements of Figure 5 (the church, the bell tower, and the outbuilding—now only detectable through discoloration of grass) are still visible here.

It was the task of locating this feature that dominated 2012 investigation at the

site. On May 25th, a preliminary probe of the area was made. The hope was that the

outhouse had been constructed with a cement perimeter similar to the example in Amana,

and that probing around the depression in the grass would be able to define the

boundaries. Probing began with a ¾” soil probe, but it was nott able to penetrate the soil

more than ~10cm, so rebar and steel spikes were used instead, in the hope that their

thinner diameter would do a better job of getting some depth. Even with these tools, no

progress was made, so a second attempt was made on the 28th with a 3” auger, which

40

pulled three samples down to a depth of ~10cm. The samples came up with bits of red

brick, and whatever the auger was scraping against at 10cm was too substantial to get

loose.

After the Amana School site was closed, the whole crew was brought over to the

Homestead Church to dig shovel test pits. Only three pits were dug—all -14° off of north

so that they were oriented parallel to the foundation of the outbuilding—and they

revealed that the sub-surface situation at the Homestead Church was considerably more

complicated than initially imagined. Pit 1 was dug directly into the depression in the

grass that was interpreted as the likeliest location for the outhouse. Pit 2 was dug just

outside the north-west corner of the building outline, and pit three was dug directly in the

center of the building outline. Each pit was 25cm square.

2013

Because permission delays were restricting access to the Schaup Site, in the fall of

2013 the crew found themselves in a field school without a field. For three days the crew

was brought out to the Homestead church to take a more systematic approach to the

question of the demolished building and its surrounding area. A 24m north\south line was

laid out with the north end 3.9m from the SW corner of the church (~41°45’37.90” N,

91°52’33.59” W) and the south end 3.8m from the tree (~41°45’37.31” N, 91°52’33.55”

W). Both ends were marked with galvanized steel spikes which were driven into the

ground after the survey so that they may be relocated by metal detector in the future, if

desired. A random number generator was then used to generate: 1) a number from 0-10 to

41

represent a number of yards from the north end of the line; 2) a number from 1-2 to

represent the west or east side of the line respectively; and 3) a number from 1-6 to

represent a number of yards away from the line at a 90° angle. By this process random

sites for test pits were selected. These pits were labeled alphabetically from A-K (see

Figure 7). The decision to do eleven pits was not strategic, the crew simply began digging

pits and continued until the permission for the Schaup Site came through.

Students were instructed to use the bottom of their five-gallon buckets (~26cm in

diameter) as a guide for each pit. Each pit was dug to a depth of 50 cm (or until

obstructions prevented further depth, each unit was recorded as a single layer.

Figure 7: Overview of relationship between test pits A-K and other large features at the Homestead Church site, including the church, the bell tower, and a patch of exposed concrete.

42

2016

On November 16th, 2016 a session of ground penetrating radar investigation,

conducted with the assistance of Dr. Glenn Storey, was carried out at the Homestead

church in the area of the proposed outhouse and associated structure. The goal was to

help fill in the picture of the extent of the debris underground. A 7m x 7m area square

was set up such that it overlapped much of the building interior and the area to the west

of the building where the outhouse is suspected to have been.

A 900 MHz antenna was used in conjunction with a SIR-3000 processing unit to

run profiles at 25 cm intervals. Profiles were run both north-south and east-west with the

x,y datum at the southwest corner of the grid. The grid was set up 14° off true north in

order to match the foundation angles of the church itself and the demolished building (the

orientation of which is still visible through the pattern of dead grass seen in Figure 6).

The data recorded during this session was then processed in RADAN 7.4.16.0623.

Homestead Hoehnle House (2012)

The third and final site selected for excavation during the summer of 2012 was the

domestic privy at the Hoehnle residence in Homestead. This was the site with the greatest

potential. The house as it exists today consists of three segments—the original house and

barn, built in 1864, and a twentieth century addition which connects the two structures

(see Figure 8). The privy, located at the east end of the south wall of the barn, had been

the only facilities until the construction of a bathroom in 1942 (Peter & Barbara Hoehnle

2012, pers.comm). The privy was located at the back (south) of the Hoehnle barn/garage.

43

The structure of the outhouse had been torn down in the 1990s, but wooden doors on the

back of the barn where the outhouse entrance had been provided a clear indicator of

exactly where to excavate.

Figure 8: Overview of relationship between the Hoehnle House and the three excavation units.

On June 1st, 2012 three units were opened at the Homestead Hoehnle House

(recorded as HHH on most documents) directly to the south of the doors to the outhouse

and approximately 75 cm away from the base of the barn. Unit one (to the west) and unit

two (in the center) were both 1 m x 1 m square. A third half unit was opened up on the

east end and was designated unit 2.5, measuring 1 m north to south and 50 cm west to

east (see Figure 9). After clearing vegetation, surface finds were collected in all units and

44

were recorded as Level 0. On June 4th Level 1 was opened in all three units. As at the

Amana school site, a tarp and screening station were set up and students were told to

collect any artifact fragments found in the units and in the screens and to piece plot any

intact artifacts or fragments larger than a half-dollar.1

Figure 9: Units 1, 2, and 2.5 (from L to R) at Homestead Hoehnle House.

Level 1 was heavy with broken and intact bricks, particularly in Units 1 and 2.5.

This was interpreted as rubble from when the outhouse was torn down, and the decision

1 At this site piece plot records were recorded on a laptop loaded with the EDMWIN geospatial data collection program. However, on June 8th we were locked out of the laptop because of a password update error, and when we returned the laptop to ITS, it was upgraded to a new operating system which wiped out all of our site data. No information was ultimately lost as redundant paper copies had been made on site.

45

was made to extend the Level until the crew was through the bricks. On June 5 Level 1

was closed at 30cm in all three units. On June 6th Level 2 was opened in all units first

thing in the morning and closed (at 40cm) at the end of the day. Level 3 was completed

even more quickly, opening first thing on June 7 and closing at (50cm) just before lunch.

Level 3 was only opened in Units 1 and 2, and Unit 2.5 would remain closed for the

remainder of the season as the remaining time was needed to get Units 1 and 2 down to

the bottom of the outhouse.

Level 4 was opened at 50cm on June 7th. Two boards spanning parts of both Units

1 and 2 had been visible since the second half of Level 3. These boards, which were fully

excavated by ~50cm became the de facto threshold for the final two levels of the

outhouse. One end of one board was inside a hemispherical metal basin that turned out to

be a urinal that had once been attached to the interior wall of the outhouse (Barbara

Hoehnle 2012, pers.comm.) Level 4 (~50-60cm) and particularly Level 5 (60-70cm)

contained substantially more large (larger than a half dollar) finds than anywhere else in

the entire project. This meant that excavation slowed to a near standstill because of the

additional time need to fill out so many piece plot forms. While Level 3 had taken only

an afternoon to excavate, Levels 4 and 5 took the entire remaining week of the season.

On midafternoon of June 14th the crew was able to clear and photograph the bottom of

the outhouse (see Figure 10), after which both units were closed and the site was

backfilled.

46

Figure 10: Layer of bricks at Homestead Hoehnle House. The bricks were used to determine the end of level 1 at 30cm.

The Schaup Site (2013)

When first meeting with Peter Hoehnle in preparation for this project,

conversation naturally turned to archaeological curiosities that he himself had had over

the years. There were two stories that he was interested in corroborating. The first was

that during the time of the Werkzeuge a pronouncement had been made that pewter dishes

were no longer acceptable. Pewter was not produced on-site in the Amanas, so these

vessels would represent purchases or heirlooms that had come from outside of the

community and were being preserved as (perhaps overly worldly) keepsakes. The story

went that all of the pewter vessels from the community were gathered up and dumped in

47

a dry well or cistern somewhere (Peter Hoehnle Spring 2012, pers.comm.). While this

story was an absolutely perfect intersection of religion and material culture (and what

archaeologist does not secretly dream of excavating a hidden horde), there was simply

not enough information about where this potential cache might be to justify taking on the

project with the limited resources available.

The second story concerned a family named Schaup (sometimes Shoup) who had

left property in Canada to follow the Community of True Inspiration when it moved from

Ebenezer, New York to found the Amana Colonies. The story went that the patriarch of

the family, Martin, struck a deal with the Amana elders. He was willing to contribute his

considerable wealth to the communal funds, but he did not want to live with the rest of

the community. So, the Schaup family built their home about 1km north of the Lily Pond

between Amana and Middle Amana. This lasted until Martin’s death, at which time the

house was physically moved to the location where it stands to this day, at 4303 220th

Trail, along the northern edge of Amana (see Figure 13). The original location of the

Schaup house was known generally by the absence of trees in a corner of a wooded area

(see Figure 14)—the result of deer browsing since the Schaup era, preventing trees from

growing tall. This was the second mystery; where, within that denuded patch had the

Schaup house been?

48

Figure 11: Canadian tax document for Schaup farm in 1843. (Note earlier spelling, Shoup). This offers some sense of the resources that Martin Shoup was giving up to become part of the Community of True Inspiration. (Photo provided courtesy of Peter Hoehnle.)

49

Figure 12: Photo of Samuel Schaup. Though no photographs of Martin Schaup/Shoup exist, this is his son, Samuel, ca. 1900. (Photo provided courtesy of Peter Hoehnle.)

50

Figure 13: Relocated and expanded house from the Schaup Site. The left-hand roofline defines the original structure that was moved. The right-hand section in the addition.

Figure 14: Amana (center left), Middle Amana (lower right), and the Schaup Site (top, circled). The circled area can be seen at a lower altitude in Figures 16 and 17.

51

Pursuing this matter seemed desirable for several reasons. While it would be

virtually impossible to fully reconstruct the relationships and motivations at the heart of

the story (since the only version of the story that survives is sparse on details), it might

still prove intellectually rewarding to help fill out the recoverable details of the tale.

Additionally, it seemed that undertaking this search might contribute to a sense of

reciprocity with Peter Hoehnle (and to a lesser extent Lanny Haldy). Both men had been

hugely generous with their time and property permissions, and both remained interested

and engaging observers of the work that was done in 2012. However, that work was done

in an attempt to answer questions that neither of these men were particularly concerned

with. By making a go of locating the Schaup homestead, it seemed like it might

accomplish something that might be of genuine (if largely anecdotal) interest to them.

Schaup Site also offered a useful addition to the project, in that it possessed a

substantially different set of qualities. For one thing, it had a much narrower and earlier

period of occupation, having been used only from the 1860s to the 1890s. Second, and

most obviously, it existed outside of the communal structure of the Amana’s (at least

geographically). For these reasons, the site provided a comparative perspective that was

not available among the three sites excavated in 2012.

While the question motivating the excavation was more simple, the logistics of

setting up the season were considerably more complicated. The first hurdle was the

question of permission. The three sites previously discussed are all owned by either the

Amana Heritage society or the Hoehnle family—all of whom supported the idea of

archaeological excavation for the sake of curiosity. The area where the Schaup house was

52

thought to stand belongs to the Amana Society Inc.—the financial/social entity created

when the economic concerns of the community were separated from the church after the

Great Change. They had no particular reason to grant access, and certainly did not have

any interest in a situation where they could be held libel if something happened to

students at the site. The process of getting permission to access the property was

somewhat drawn out as waiver language was approved by both University of Iowa legal

counsel and by the Amana Society.

Official permission to excavate at the site came through, and on Friday,

September 27, 2013 Peter Hoehnle, Larry Gnewikow (from Amana forestry), Sarah

Trabert, and I joined in visiting the site for the first time. It was immediately apparent that

the site as it appeared in satellite photos and the site as it appeared on the ground were

two very different things. First of all, the site was considerably less accessible than it had

been made to seem. Originally, the plan had been to drive along field access roads

coming at the site from the south. Because of the condition of the soil (relatively soft and

wet) the farmers were concerned that a caravan of cars coming and going each day would

cause too much damage. Instead, the approach to the site was made via a forestry truck

trail from the north. The path was muddy and relatively difficult. A two-wheel-drive

vehicle would not have been able to make it in and out. In fact, once work at the site

begin in earnest, the students simply hiked down to the site while a four-wheel-drive

vehicle with the equipment was driven down. Because of the slowness of the truck trail,

the vehicle would arrive at the site about the same time as the students who were hiking.

53

Additionally, the clearing that had looked like the size of a large parking lot

turned out to be about fifteen acres. It was not flat, but on a considerable hillside, and the

brush was thick, woody, and in many places chest high or higher. There was 0% visibility

from eye-level to the ground; everything was obscured by plant life of some kind. There

had been a hope going in that it would be possible to use pin flags to mark features (and

that features might be visually identified). The site however was in no condition for that

particular approach. Larry suggested that a brush cutter, or even a controlled burn, could

be used to clear the area, but either approach would have required additional time,

equipment, labor, and most significantly, permissions.

There were several limiting factors which necessitated a quick and novel solution.

First, the season was already off to a slow start. While waiting for permissions, work was

being done at the Homestead Church, but September was essentially over, and work on

the Schaup Site (which was the goal for the 2013 season) had not even begun. There was

no way to know how many weeks of excavation it would be possible to complete before

weather would close the site for the season, so every day spent searching the fifteen acres

was a day that units were not being opened. It was important to develop a solution that

did not require a lot of time or any additional postponement of excavation.

It was necessary to survey a large area quickly, and markings on the ground were

not going to be practical because of visibility. The forecast suggested drizzle at least and

rain at worst the next day, which meant there was no chance of bringing out handheld

GPS units for the students to record test pit locations. A total station was also out, in part

because of the weather conditions, but more prohibitively because of the combination of

54

the raked hillside with the high brush. There would be no line of sight over distances

more than a few yards. The problem was going to be creating a usable map to try to zero

in on the likeliest candidates for the occupation site.

Before returning to the site the next day, twenty-five 12’ lengths of 1” PVC pipe

and seven rolls of duct tape in different colors were purchased at the building supply

store. In the parking lot, all the poles were cut down to 6 foot lengths. These fifty 6’ long

lengths of pipe were brought to the site the next day to serve as markers that would be

visible despite the heavy, woody brush. The system was implemented as follows: a pair

of students with a 3” auger would pull a 50 cm sample. After screening, all the artifacts

from that sample would be tallied and the hole would be assigned a color code based on

how many artifacts had been found. Black indicated zero artifacts, purple indicated 1-2

artifacts, blue indicated 3-4 artifacts, green indicated 5-6 artifacts and so on through the

rainbow. (Because of the absolute dearth of material across the site, nothing higher than

purple was ever necessary.) Once the auger pull had been screened, the artifacts

collected, and the log filled in, the students returned to their hole with a 6 foot PVC pipe

with the appropriate colored tape at the end. They would refill their hole with the PVC

pipe in it. Since the pipes were 6’ long and the holes were 50cm deep, this left a marker

of about 4 feet (or 1.3m) at each of the pull sites.

There were two clues that helped suggest where to begin. The first was a hand-

drawn diagram of the site made in 2004 and provided to the Amana Heritage Society (see

Figure 15). It was drawn over a hundred years after the occupation of the site, and its

creator no longer survived. It had apparently been based on stories told by his parents

55

who had been children when the Schaup Site had been occupied. It was a poor copy, and

difficult to decipher, but it clearly showed an extensive site with several structures. The

second clue was a horribly low resolution fax that claimed to identify a cistern that had

been found on the site in recent years.

Figure 15: Hand-drawn overview of Schaup farm. Note number of buildings.

The hand-drawn diagram could be roughly correlated with the fax, since both

identified the cistern, and the fax could be roughly correlated with Google Earth images

of the site. This meant that as long as it was possible to roughly correlate landmarks on

the ground with the satellite imagery, it was possible to get a rough (times three) sense of

56

where the site had been. Starting in this area, students were encouraged to simply pick a

spot and start augering. If the students found nothing (black tape) they were asked to

select another site at least 15m away from any other holes, if they found anything they

were encouraged to select another spot within 5m (to determine whether the artifacts

were part of a high-density area, or just statistical chance). The work was incredibly slow

because of a great deal of clay present in the soil and the rainy conditions of the day. This

was compounded by the fact that only two augers and two screens were available, so

teams would have to switch off. As soon as an auger was clean enough to use again, it

would be passed on to the next team. Over the course of four hours only 15 holes were

probed.

The result was effectively a real-world full-scale map with colored pins in it.

After twenty-eight pulls, only ten had produced artifacts of any kind and only five of

those had produced anything from the era that the Schaup family was believed to be

present at the site (see Table 1). Even with this limited number of data points one area

stood out as the most likely place to start.

57

Figure 16: Aerial view of the Schaup Site. In the upper-left portion of the clearing is a square stand of trees. These are protected by a chain link fence. Attempts have been made by the Amana Society, Inc. to replant this area, but unless the trees are fenced off, deer eat them before they are able to mature. The white box in the middle is the area where excavations took place. This can be seen more clearly in Figure 17.

Table 1: Auger pulls from the Schaup Site

No. Color Finds soil 1 purple Lithic flake Light brown clay 2 black --- Light brown clay 3 black --- Light brown clay 4 black --- Black soil 5 purple Clinker (not collected) Brown clay 6 black --- Brown clay 7 purple White ware Black Soil 8 black --- Black Soil 9 black --- Black Soil 10 black --- Brown clay 11 black --- Light brown less clay 12 black --- Light brown lots of clay 13 purple Clinker (not collected) and flake Light brown, less clay 14 Blue 2 nails unidentified metal, seed? Very light brown, no clay 15 Purple Lithic flake Light brown soil 16 Black --- Wet clay, brick -colored grit 17 Black --- Dry clay 18 Black --- Dry clay

58

Table 1 continued 19 Black --- Dry clay 20 purple Rusted metal (nail?) Dark, semi-crumbly clay 21 Black --- Medium brown clay 22 Purple Flat glass Medium brown clay 23 Purple Tiny square of ceramic Dark brown clay 24 Black --- Lighter, dryer clay 25 Black --- Reddish-brown clay w/sandy intrusion 26 Black --- Darker clay 27 Black --- Black soil 28 Purple nail Light, dry soil, little clay

Since there was still some question regarding how effective this process was

going to be, rather than opening units, the students were instead asked to use a Fisher m-

scope CZ-7 metal detector to focus on the area of highest artifact incidence. They were

told not to attempt to dig anything up, but to simply use an orange pin flag to mark any

place where the detector indicated the presence of metal. (Because this was done over a

small area the pin flags were relatively visible.) At the end of the afternoon the metal

detector had found so many hits in the area of highest incidence that the pin flags (~50)

had run out.

Unit 1 was laid out with its southwest corner at approximately 41°48’43.63” N,

91°53’41.40” W and Unit 2 nearby with its southwest corner at approximately

41°48’43.64” N, 91°53’41.08” W. Both were laid out in alignment with magnetic north,

but they were not on a grid with one another as brush and trees prevented orientation to a

shared line. Each unit was placed such that three metal detector flags were within its

borders (the maximum number possible with the distribution of the flags). It is worth

noting that 24 metal objects were found in Unit 1 and over 35 in Unit 2—as we shall see,

metal detectors are a fantastic tool for historical survey work, but they are no substitute

for excavation. A third unit was eventually opened. Its southwest corner was at

59

approximately 41°48’43.58” N, 91°53’41.14” W. Only Unit 1 was excavated to sterile

soil (at just under 50cm). All three units turned up remarkably consistent material, nails,

and mangled ware (a few bits of glass too, particularly near the surface).

Figure 17:This is a lower altitude photo of the area framed in white in Figure 16. The red oval represents the area of high metal signal density, while the yellow area is lower density, but still massively higher than the area surrounding . Units 1, 2, and 3 are marked, and each white square represents a 1m x 1m area.

When it became evident that the two units that had been opened up were not

producing any structural features and only small, fragmentary artifacts, there was some

concern that the units had been placed in such a way that they had missed the site and

were in a corner of the property. On October 26th, one of the students was sent out with

the metal detector for the day with instructions to begin with an area that had been

suggested as an alternate possible location for the house by one of the Amana residents

60

who had taken an interest in the project. After searching that area specifically, the student

was instructed to simply wander the whole area and make broad sweeps. If he found

anything he was encouraged to search nearby to see if he could find any other hits, and if

so, then he should mark the area with orange flags. After a day of searching, he found

only two areas in the entire site where there were multiple metal hits close together.

The next day in the field (November 2nd), a group examined both of those areas in closer

detail, probing to see if it was possible to determine what had caused the hits. In both

cases, metal was found on the surface of the ground (beneath the underbrush) that was

clearly of modern origin. In one case, it was a row of rusty chicken wire, and in the other

it was bolts and metal that appeared to have come from a modern truck or tractor.

Stage 2: Dating Artifacts

Central to the purpose of this project was the ability to date reliably the materials

gathered during artifact collection. While it was always possible that date-stamped

materials like coins would be recovered, it was presumed that most of the dating process

would be based on the fragments of bottles and any labeled commercial goods that

remained legible. Several strategies for dating glass bottles exist, including T. Stell

Newman’s “A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles” (1970) and several

improvements that have been derived in the years since (White 1978, Staski 1984). Other

commercial goods would potentially be dated through the use of catalogues, either online,

or in paper form.

61

Initial curation of these artifacts was expected to take place at The University of

Iowa in Macbride Hall room 209. It was also possible that suitable space for large,

difficult to transport items (which were not expected in outhouse excavations) might be

made available at the Amanas, either through the Amana Heritage Society or Iowa Valley

Resource, Conservation and Development.

Stage 3: Chronological Distribution of Artifacts

It was possible, even probable, that simply dividing the artifacts into pre and post

1932 would reveal changes in the material life of the community as a result of the Great

Change. While this might have been true, it was not sufficient for the intended scope of

this project. Rather, the interest here was in looking at what sort of social (and material)

changes preceded the Great Change, as well as those that followed it in the ensuing

decades. Ultimately, these data were likely to be more revelatory since they had a greater

chance of reflecting the changes in community behavior that led to (or least coincided

with) the community's desire to fundamentally change the relationship between their

religious beliefs and their social/economic structure. Those shifts in material behavior

which followed the Great Change were also likely to reflect the speed and interest with

which the newly-defined community adopted/imitated/rejected the behaviors and material

culture of the outside world.

For these reasons, the greater the level of chronological distinction available, the

subtler the changes that were predicted to be observed in the material record, and by

62

extension, the community’s behavior. As such, it would prove valuable to use the data

established during the dating of the artifacts to construct as tight and thorough a

chronological pattern as possible.

Stage 4: Historical Comparison

The fourth stage was to consist of taking the tight chronology established during

the third stage and compare it to the historical resources available regarding the

community in the relevant decades. The specifics of the methodology used during this

stage would remain somewhat undefined until it was clearer what the data would show in

earlier stages of the work. For example, if specific dramatic changes in material culture

could be associated with particular years (or short year ranges) they might merit intensive

examination of community documents and available personal journals and diaries from

this time to specifically examine the thoughts and feelings of the people involved at the

time of these changes. If, however, more general and gradual changes were observed, it

would be more likely that a different tactic would be taken with historical materials.

Specifically, there might be a greater need to examine the historical records with an eye

towards breadth, rather than depth.

The proposed project sought to apply one of the most traditional methods of field

archaeology—the midden/trash pit survey—to one of the more complicated areas of

human behavior—religious change over time. The presumption was that by working with

a relatively stable and identifiable data set, the complexities of the topic could be

observed more clearly in reflection than they could be in direct observation. If this project

63

were successful, it would serve to add that voice to the historical chorus of sources that

describe the reasons for and consequences of the dramatic changes made by the

Community of True Inspiration at the Amana Colonies.

64

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS

Amana School

The artifacts from the three units and four levels were remarkable for their

homogeneity. There was no sense of depositional layers or of significant differences in

artifact type associated with depth. Datable material was almost entirely absent, and the

one securely datable object found at the site—a 1926 penny—was found in the first few

centimeters of surface dirt. Overall, out of over five square meters excavated to a depth

of 50cm, only about 800g of material was recovered from the entire privy. (By way of

comparison, over 1000g were recovered from a single layer of a single unit at the

Homestead Hoehnle House.) Faunal remains are exceedingly sparse—notably a chicken

femur (drumstick) and a catfish whisker found in North Planter Level 1 (see Figure 18).

Not photographed or collected, but noted in the paperwork was the presence of green

plastic Easter grass. This was found in every level from the surface to Level 3.

65

Figure 18: Chicken and catfish bones from Amana School

Homestead Church

2012

Pit 3 (outside the structure) revealed only soil with some bits of brick (see Figure

18), while Pit 2 (inside) revealed mostly soil, but also the edge of a substantial rock (see

Figure 20). It was Pit 1 that had the most unexpected result. At a depth of just over 10cm

the pit ran into a solid, light-gray, slightly chalky stone. It filled the bottom of the pit, so

additional 25cm squares were opened contiguously to the north, south, and west. Both the

north and west squares revealed the continuation of the stone, while the south extension,

revealed an edge (see Figure 21). The stone was ~20cm thick and extended at least half a

meter in two directions. At the time, this was interpreted as some kind of debris that

remained from the demolition of the larger outbuilding. There was concern that if this

slab continued in either direction it would be beyond the scope of the crew to remove it

without additional machinery.

66

Figure 19: Test Pit 3 at Homestead Church—some brick inclusions, but no obstructions.

Figure 20: Test Pit 2 and Homestead Church—in lower-left of pit (north edge) a corner of stone is visible.

67

Figure 21: Test Pit 1 at Homestead Church (expanded to the south and east)—substantial stone object takes up most of the expanded unit.

It was at this point that the decision was made to abandon the attempt to excavate

the site during the 2012 season. No artifacts were collected and the test units were

refilled. It was (and remains) disappointing to have lost the opportunity to explore the

only outhouse adjacent to a religious structure that I had access to, but after the results of

the Amana School excavation, and given the time limitations of the season, it was most

logical to focus on a site with the highest possible chance of producing data relevant to

the project in the time remaining, which was the Hoehnle house. Continued interest in the

Homestead Church site is evidenced by the following attempts to better understand the

debris situation underground.

68

2013

The test pits that the students excavated turned up artifacts familiar from all other

sites in the project—nails, ceramic sherds, glass shards, and the occasional bit of bone

(see Table 3). There were also other materials more consistent with the exposed,

communal nature of the space. Soda can tabs and spent .22 caliber shell casings suggest

the kinds of activities not seen at the other sites in the project. Most units (A, B, C, D, E,

G, J, K) reported some presence of building materials, and Test Unit C has a piece of

curved brick and mortar structure running through it N-S (see Figure 22). The object was

cleared enough to see that it was a broken piece and not connected to a larger structure,

but its presence does confirm that larges pieces of material from some demolition phase

(presumable the outbuilding) remain.

69

Table 2: Artifacts from Test Pits A-K at Homestead Church

Test pit

from N

from line

E/W Collected

A 5m 5m W 2 Pop tabs, 9+ modern nails, 6 clear class, 1 colored glass

B 7m 2m E 4 pieces clear glass C 7m 6m W 5 modern nails, 2 buttons, 2 pieces clear glass, 1 piece

colored glass, 3 chips of ceramic D 6m 2m W 2 modern nails, piece of brick, burned wood E 4m 1m E 8 modern nails, 1 button, 2 pieces of clear glass, 6

pieces of ceramic F 10m 1m E 2 modern nails, 1 button, one .22 bullet casing, 3 pieces

of ceramic G 3m 3m W 2 nails, 2 pieces of clear glass, one piece of ceramic H 18m 1m E 1 nail, one .22 bullet casing, 13 unidentified pieces of

metal I 19m 1m W 5 nails, 2 pieces of metal, 2 pieces of bone, 1 piece of

ceramic J 5m 2m W 1 pop tab, 1 screw, 4 pieces of wire, 18 nails, 2 pieces

of ceramic, 17 pieces of colorless flat glass, 1 piece of brown curved glass

K 10m 1m W 1 pop tab, 3 nails, 3 pieces of metal, 1 piece of colorless flat glass, 1 piece of colorless curved glass

70

Figure 22: Homestead Church Test unit C (North is top)

2016

The ground penetrating radar results can be seen below in Figure 23 (at a depth of 20cm)

superimposed over the Homestead Church site. The most dramatically visible features are

seen along the northern and eastern edges of the radar results. These are clearly the

foundation remains of the demolished outbuilding which are also apparent to the naked

eye because of the pattern of dead grass that they create (see Figure 6). The lettered dots

in Figure 23 represent the test pits dug and refilled in 2013. Only A, D, G, and J are

within the area being probed, but there is no obvious evidence of the holes themselves at

20cm or at 40cm (see Figure 24).

71

What is apparent at 40cm is an area of broken up features spanning most of the

north east half of the GPR grid. This pattern, in conjunction with the results of the test

pits, suggests a debris field, presumably from the destruction of the building. This

suggests that the construction rubble that caused concern for future excavation is likely

well to the north of where the work would be taking place.

Figure 23: Overlay of GPR results at Homestead Church at 20cm depth. Letters indicate 2013 Test Pits.

72

Figure 24: Overlay of GPR results at Homestead Church at 40cm depth. Letters indicate 2013 Test Pits.

Homestead Hoehnle House

The Homestead Hoehnle House provided by far the most material out of any site

excavated during the project (see photos on Appendix A). Not all materials lent

themselves to meaningful analysis; those that did are discussed below.

Faunal Remains

Animal remains (all skeletal) at the site can be broadly divided into four

categories, 1) rodents, 2) poultry, 3) fish, 4) large mammals. All of the rodent, poultry,

and fish bones were found relatively intact (with many exceptions for breakage of various

kinds). All of the large animal bones were found sawn by mechanical means into very

small reductions of their original form.

73

Rodent bones were unique in that in most cases many bones were found in a

single layer level of a single unit suggesting that the entire animal had once been present.

Rodent remains were found in Units 1 and 2 in Level 5. The only fully intact maxillary

dentition showed a 1.0.0.3 dental formula (only incisors and three molars) which is

consistent with a rat or mouse, but not a squirrel or rabbit. Poultry remains all seem to be

from chickens, and were often found in isolated groups that did not seem to represent

whole animals. Chicken remains were found in Unit 1, Levels 4 and 5, and in Unit 2,

Levels 3, 4, and 5. Fish bones were very rare, and only vertebrae were found. Fish

vertebrae were found in Unit 2, Level 3. Large mammal bones were found in Unit 1,

Levels 1, 2, and 5, Unit 2, Levels 0, 4, and 5, and Unit 2.5, Level 02. All, as mentioned

above, were mechanically cut. On those bones where the cut striations are still visible,

they are all in parallel with one another suggesting a power saw was used to butcher the

animal (Symes et al. 2010) (see Figure 25).

2 Recall that Unit 2.5 was not excavated past Level 2, so it is possible that large animal bones were present in the lower levels.

74

Figure 25: Cut marks on bone consistent with the use of a power saw.

Obviously, the fish and large animals were never present alive in the privy. It is

not inconceivable that a chicken could become trapped in an outhouse and die without

anyone noticing, but the scattering of bones, in parallel with the presence of clearly

butchered large animal bones, suggests that the chicken bones are the result of domestic

food waste. The presence of several chicken heads likely indicates that for a period of

time the outhouse served as a receptacle when chickens were slaughtered. The

distribution of chicken bones by level dramatically indicates that Level 5 is associated

with the vast majority of chicken remains, and that almost all identifiable chicken

remains are found beneath the board/urinal ~50cm threshold (see Figure 26). Further, the

presence of so many heads and feet, but the complete absence of sterna and ilia strongly

indicates that the outhouse was used to dispose of undesirable parts after killing chickens.

75

Figure 26: Chicken heads and chicken feet by Level (All Units Combined) at Homestead Hoehnle House

Additionally, in Unit 2, at a depth of 62cm, several bovine carpal bones were

found. Like the chicken heads and chicken feet described above, these are bones found in

the waste portion of a cow, specifically the lower foreleg. At some time, and for some

reason, the “ankle” of a cow was deposited in the privy. While human behavior is infinite

in its permutations, the most parsimonious explanation is that this was waste from the

preparation of a beef shank.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Chicken Skulls Chicken Metatarsi/2

76

Figure 27: Bovine carpal bones from HHH Unit 2, Level 5

Though not faunal, another avenue of evidence supports the interpretation that the

privy was used (at least for a time) for disposal of food preparation waste. Fruit pits were

found in Level 5 in considerable quantity (see Figure 28). Over 100 were collected intact

with many more fragments observed. All, but three of these were in Unit 2, suggesting

that a large number of pits were deposited around the same time. Peach trees still grow on

the Hoehnle property, so the origin of the pits is not mysterious. While it is entirely

possible that the pits represent many instances of serial peach-snacking, disposing of the

pits in this manner would necessitate entering the barn, then entering the privy from the

barn, and then dropping the pit into the outhouse hole. It seems more likely that these are

the byproduct of one (or more) events where a large number of pits were produced at

once, perhaps as a byproduct of canning (as two canning jar lids were found in the same

unit and level), and then thrown out as a group.

77

Figure 28: Peach pits from Homestead Hoehnle House Unit 2, Level 5

Refitting

Little refitting was possible given the artifact assemblage from the Homestead

Hoehnle privy. This is consistent with the idea that the privy would not have contained

intentionally any intact objects. There were several instances of flat glass where it was

apparent that some of the pieces could be refit. No attempt was made to carry out these

re-fittings as in all cases it was clear that they would simply refit to produce a larger piece

of broken flat glass.

78

Unlike lithic refitting, there is no chaîne opératoire or complex behavior to reveal

with refitting of other artifact categories. In each case the overwhelming likelihood is that

either, 1) an object was broken as it was dropped into the outhouse, or 2) the various parts

of a broken object were all thrown into the outhouse at the same time for disposal. The

purpose of refitting in this context is only to determine how objects that enter the

outhouse at the same time are distributed across units and layers.

Two re-fittings were carried out, the first was the very simple reassembly of two

halves of a broken ceramic egg (see Figure 29). These are the style of dummy egg used to

train young chickens where to lay eggs, and plastic or Styrofoam versions can still be

purchased at farm supply stores. The two pieces were found three days apart in Unit 2,

Level 5 at depths of 61cm and 68.5cm. As the rest of the egg is missing, it is easy to

imagine that the egg was damaged and part of it was thrown into the outhouse for

disposal.

79

Figure 29: Broken ceramic egg from HHH Unit 2, Level 5

The second refitting was considerably more complicated and consisted of 23

pieces of three matching teacups that were all found in the outhouse (see Figure 30). The

teacup pieces were almost all in Unit 2 at depths ranging from 55cm to 69cm. The

teacups suggest an interesting course of events. It seems to me the most likely

explanation is that the missing pieces are in the unexcavated portion of unit 2.5. This still

does not answer whether all three cups were damaged at once, or why they were put in

the outhouse. With the exception of the blue bottle and the marble described below, these

80

are far and away the most complete artifacts at the site.

Figure 30: Three ceramic cups Homestead Hoehnle House

Dateable Material

The Broken Bottle

The broken base of a large, clear glass bottle was recovered from Unit 1, Level 5

at a depth of 67cm (see Figures 31 & 32). The base bears the stamp of the Brockway

Glass Co., specifically a circle around a B with 2 serifs which was used from 1933 until

1988 (Lockhart, et al. 2016a). Moreover, the 2-digit number on the right side of the base

represents the year of production (Lockhart, et al. 2016a), giving a secure date of 1942

for the production of this bottle.

81

Figure 31: Broken bottle from HHH Unit 1, Level 5

Figure 32: Diagram of markings from Broken bottle (enhanced for readability)

82

The Blue Bottle

A small, cobalt-blue bottle was recovered from Unit 2, Level 5 at a depth of

68.5cm (see Figure 33). The bottle measures 6.6 cm in height, 2.8mm at the base, and

2.0mm at the mouth. While bromo-seltzer bottles of this size and color were produced

from 1891 until sometime in the 1950s, three diagnostic features are present on the bottle

which can aid in more specific dating— the manufacturer, the text, and the type of

closure finishing present at the top of the bottle (Lockhart, et al. 2016b). Seven

manufacturers were employed in the production of such bottles, but the presence of the

letter M within a circle that is molded onto the bottom of the bottle indicates that this

particular example was produced by the Maryland Glass Corporation, further limiting the

time window of production to 1907-1950s (Lockhart, et al. 2016b). Molded into the

bottle are the words, “BROMO-SELTZER EMMERSON DRUG CO.” These words ring

the heel of the bottle. The mouth of the bottle is secured with three lugs (as opposed to a

single ring, or a continuous thread). These factors further limit the possible time of

production to 1920-1950s. This 30+ year window is the narrowest dating possible from

the bottle alone. Given that the span sits neatly astride the 1932 date for the Great

Change, it is impossible to be certain whether this bottle made its way to Homestead

while it still existed as part of a communal society.

83

Figure 33: Blue Bromo-Seltzer bottle from HHH Unit 2, Level 5

The Marble

A single green-swirled marble was recovered from Unit 2, Level 5 at a depth of

68cm (see Figure 34). It was posted on a marble collectors forum and almost immediately

identified as a Rainbo marble made by the Peltier Glass Co. in Ottawa, Illinois from the

late 1930s through early 1950s (IowaMarble 2016). The bottle and marble were found only

centimeters apart at the same level, so the fact that their time ranges match up so well is

consistent with a similar time of deposit (see Figure 35).

84

Figure 34: Marble from HHH Unit 2, Level 5

Figure 35: Excavation of HHH Unit 2, Level 5 on June 14th, 2012. Marble and Bromo-Seltzer bottle are visible in the center of the unit.

85

The Comic

In Unit 1, Level 5, at a depth of 69cm a rust-colored stain and a small stack of

paper was identified. Only the top sheet was visible, and it was photographed in situ with

the expectation that it would not survive removal. The paper seemed to be part of a comic

strip or comic book. No pictures were visible, but it was possible to make out parts of two

speech bubbles. (See Figure 36) the rightmost bubble contained only a half dozen

readable characters, but the leftmost was still somewhat legible. It read, “[…]INALLY

MEET […]E CANY[…] AND […] FIRS[…] HE […] ORDER ME […]RESTED!” and

was interpreted this to mean, “I finally meet […]E CANY[…] And the first thing he does

is order me arrested!”

Figure 36: Scrap of comic from HHH Unit 1, Level 5

86

Frustratingly, the key to identifying this particular comic lay in the proper name

or title in the middle of the sentence. In the English language, the only words that begin

with C-A-N-Y are “canyon” and its derivations. Steve Canyon was a comic strip

adventurer created by Milton Caniff and syndicated in over 160 newspapers (Caniff,

Mullaney, & Canwell 2012). He was immensely popular in the 1940s and 50s, and

appeared on the cover of both Time (Jan 13, 1947) and Newsweek (April 24, 1950).

Given the limitations of the visible characters and the popularity and wide distribution of

Steve Canyon comic strips, it is likely that the text is, “I finally meet Steve Canyon—and

the first thing he does is order me arrested!” If this is correct, this scrap of paper can be

dated securely to post January 13, 1947 and pre June 4, 1988, based on the publication

run of the comic strip (Caniff, Mullaney, & Canwell 2012).

Steve Canyon comic strips from 1947 until 1960 are available in collected

editions (Steve Canyon Volumes 1-7, 2012-2016). The panel does not appear during

these years, which suggest that the date may be further narrowed to between 1961 and

1988, and further still to between 1961 and 1979, since the outhouse was torn down

sometime in the 1970s (Hoehnle family May 2012, pers.comm.). Though this is an

attractively narrow range, it is dependent on too many variables to engender a particularly

high degree of confidence. If the word “CANY[…]” does not read “Canyon,” or if the

word “Canyon” does not refer to Steve Canyon, or if the collected editions of the daily

strip do not include all panels from 1947-1960, or if Steve Canyon appeared in some

other print format (advertising, crossover, etc.) then the security of this date is

87

undermined. While it is a good date that fits reasonably well with all surrounding

material, it should nonetheless be considered at least partially uncertain.

Backmarks

On June 6th, 2012, a broken piece of cream/yellow glazed ceramic ware was

recovered while screening soil excavated from Unit 1, Level 3 at a depth of 40-50cm (see

Figure 37). The piece included a partial maker’s stamp which can be positively identified

as the logo of Taylor, Smith & Taylor’s Lu-Ray Pastels line of serving ware (Meehan &

Meehan 2000). Lu-Ray only came in four colors, so the piece can be further identified as

“Persian Cream” which was produced from 1938 to 1961 (Meehan & Meehan 2000).

Frustratingly, the two marks in the lower-right corner of the piece are the year of

manufacture, but they are so blobby that a positive identification is virtually impossible.

Given the shape of the blobs—the first seeming heavier on the top than the bottom, and

the second appearing to have rounded elements both top and bottom, and given the fact

that they must read somewhere between 38 and 61 (inclusive), the best estimation is that

they read either “48” or “43.”

88

Figure 37: Lu-Ray Pastels backmark from HHH Unit 1, Level 3

A broken piece of an earthenware saucer was recovered from Unit 2.5, Level 2

(see Figure 38). The back of the piece included a partial maker’s stamp, which was

initially hoped to be enough to generate a date. Unfortunately, the information available

is only sufficient to conclude that the mark is most likely part of the Ironstone China

logo. One of their logos included a lion and unicorn on opposite sides of a central crest

topped with a crown (see Figure 39). This is almost certainly what is seen on the back of

the partial saucer.

Ironstone was originally produced in Great Britain, but eventually became quite

popular within the United States. This alone is not enough information to provide a

89

secure date or location of production, however one of the four US locations where

Ironware China was produced is located in Syracuse, New York, just over 160 miles

away from Ebenezer, the original home of the Community of True Inspiration in the

United States. Of course, it is sheer supposition to imagine that that is the origin of this

dish, but it is a parsimonious explanation of its presence here.

Figure 38: Ironstone China backmark from HHH

90

Figure 39: Example of Ironstone China mark

The Schaup Site

Ceramic remains at the site are notable for their size and condition. By way of

comparison, Table 3 shows the fragments found at the Schaup Site in comparison with

those found at the Homestead Church (which was selected since all other artifacts

recovered during this project were from enclosed environments. Fragment size was

determined by placing each fragment on a sheet of ¼” graph paper and counting roughly

how many squares it covered. Condition was estimated by looking for surface damage on

each sherd. This was used to generate a number from 0 (no damage to either surface) to 2

(damage on both surfaces). The numbers of artifacts are small (15 for Homestead Church

and 52 for the Schaup Site), but they seem to support the conclusion that the material

coming out of the Schaup Site tends to be in smaller, more damaged fragments.

91

Table 3: Size and Damage comparison of ceramic fragments at Homestead Church and Schaup Site

Ten ¼” squares or fewer

Eleven squares or greater

0 surface damage

1 surface damage

2 surface damage

Homestead Church

40% 60% 60% 10% 30%

Schaup Site 90% 10% 4% 42% 54%

Artifacts Among and Between Sites

Collected artifacts from all four sites fell mainly into three material categories—

metal, glass, and ceramic—with bone making up a fourth common collected material.

There were a small number of plastic items at the Amana and Homestead sites, and wood

(mostly boards) at the Homestead Hoehnle House. All sites had bricks or the remains

thereof. Two patterns of artifact type distribution bear special mention. Lithic flakes were

recovered only at the Schaup Site and made up about 5% (by count) of the total artifacts

collected at the site. All flakes were small (~1cm2) and did not appear to have come from

one source. Bones, while present at all excavated sites, were found in quantity only at the

Homestead Hoehnle House. Other differences between sites, were primarily those of

number, size, and condition.

By taking the total number of artifacts (metal, glass, and ceramic) screen-

collected from each unit and then dividing that number by the total volume of earth

excavated, it was possible to produce an estimate of artifact density for each site3. This

produced four distinct values, each approximately double the next lowest value (see

3 These figures do not include piece plotted artifacts. This was done so that all sites and units were comparing like to like, but had those artifacts been included, they would only have magnified the differences seen here.

92

Table 2). The Amana School had the lowest density of artifacts, followed closely by the

Schaup Site. The Homestead Hoehnle House had a substantially higher density of

material from all levels. The Homestead Church site saw the least excavation, but what

was excavated produced the second-highest density of artifacts.

Table 4: Artifact Density and Ratio by Site

Site Artifact* density

(artifact count/m3)

Artifact frequency by count

(metal:glass:ceramic)

Amana School 116 62%/30%/8%

Homestead Church 651 63%/28%/9%

Homestead House 1079 41%/51%/8%

Schaup Site 332 43%/20%/37%

In addition to a higher density of artifacts, the HHH units also produced the

largest and most intact artifacts of all the excavation sites. At the Amana School, The

Homestead Church, and the Schaup Site, almost no non-metal artifacts were no larger

than 5cm in any dimension, and most were far smaller. At the Homestead Hoehnle

House, while most pieces were also small, there were many larger pieces, most of flat

glass that had remained relatively intact. The opposite was true at the Schaup Site where

pieces tended to be smaller and in worse condition than at any other excavation site.

There was also variation in the relative frequency of each type of artifact. The

total counts of all metal, glass, and ceramic pieces found were compared to produce a

percent frequency for each site (see Table 2). So, for example, adding up all of the metal,

glass, and ceramic pieces collected at the Amana School, one finds that 62% of those

93

pieces are metal, 30% are glass, and only 8% are ceramic. These differences in artifact

density, condition, and relative frequency of occurrence each likely reflect differences in

human behavior either during or after the deposit of these artifacts. These differences will

be addressed in greater detail in the next chapter.

94

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS

At this point it is necessary to address the unanticipated results reflected in the

preceding chapter. Of the two outhouses successfully excavated, neither produced data

relevant to the timeframe being investigated—those years surrounding the Great Change

of 1932. Such are the risks of archaeological investigation, but something much more

fundamental was at play here. All of the 2012 season, and aspects of 2013, were guided

by the plan outlined in Chapter Three, however that plan, from before stage one, balanced

on a premise, the implications of which did not become fully apparent until the fieldwork

was complete.

Based not on any archaeological data, but on personal experience with

Midwestern privies, this project had been set up with an anticipation of deep privy holes.

Logistical preparations were made in order to dig those deep holes. A meeting was held

with Marlin Ingalls at the Office of the State Archaeologist regarding his experience

digging deep outhouses. OSHA guidelines were consulted regarding how deep a hole

could be dug before it was necessary to open up access ramps to combat cave-ins. An

Iowa One Call request was placed to check for buried utilities in the places where those

ramps were going to be put in. Every step of the way, this project was structured around

one kind of privy, but the excavations unexpectedly revealed a completely different kind.

With the privilege of 20/20 hindsight it seems obvious that the Amana facilities

would not be deep. The types of privies that are deep are maintained by physically

moving the outhouse structure to a new pit when the old pit is filled. However, at the

95

Amana colonies, privies are not freestanding, or if they are, they are built on a concrete

foundation. This means that clearly they were not relocated at any point in the expected

use life of the facility. Instead, they were scooped out periodically of what was

traditionally and euphemistically called night soil (Crane 2000, p. 20). Without deep

privies there are no deep chronologies. Without deep chronologies there are no before

and after assemblages to compare, and without those assemblages the original questions

posed in this study cannot be meaningfully addressed by the data available. What remains

is to look at what this data can address.

Amana School

Unfortunately, there are few firm conclusions to be drawn from the artifacts at the

Amana School site. What dating that was possible (the coin) in combination with the

ubiquity of the Easter grass at all levels suggests strongly that what was in the

planter/outhouse foundation was earth that had been used to fill in the space. There was

no suggestion of multiple depositional layers, so it was likely just a cleaned out privy that

had been backfilled with dirt at some point in the last several decades. It is not

unreasonable to assume that, out of expediency, this dirt was moved from a relatively

close location, but there is no specific evidence to suggest or support a nearby origin.

96

Homestead Church

Based on the test probes, the GPR data, and experience from the other two privy

excavations, it seems most likely that the prohibitively large stone that was initially

interpreted as an obstacle to excavation of the Homestead Church outhouse was never

actually a problem. The misinterpretation was based on one false assumption—that the

low spot in the grass was caused by the settling of materials in the void of the outhouse

pit, meaning the part of the outhouse that was intended to be excavated. It now seems that

in actuality the low spot in the grass was over the front part of the outhouse—the area

where a person would stand as they entered the outhouse, between the door and the actual

seats/holes (see Figure 40). This interpretation is supported by the nearness of the low

grass spot/light gray stone slab to the foundation perimeter of the outbuilding. At both the

Amana School and the Hoehnle House sites, substantial materials had been used to

construct this platform—concrete at the school and bricks at the house. Something

similar was likely used here and that material is what was encountered in 2012 test pit

one at the Homestead church. If this is correct, it means that one would only need to

move away from the projected foundation line of the outbuilding by about 50cm to be

over the privy pit. This further complicates future excavation as that would put the units

in extreme proximity to the gravel road that runs west of the site.

97

Figure 40: Diagram of outhouse orientation with respect to stone slab/dead grass. The dead grass was initially interpreted as being over the privy receptacle (red). The 2012 and 2013 test units and the 2016 GPR survey suggest that the dead grass is over the privy foundation slab (green).

Homestead Hoehnle House

The dates which could be secured with relative confidence can be seen in Table 4.

The fact that the comic is the only artifact that does not share a range with everything else

may be explained in two ways. First, as mentioned above, the narrowed dating of the

comic may be inaccurate. If the panel does refer to Steve Canyon, but does not originally

come from a daily strip, then the range of dates may be expanded to include everything

from 1947 on. (If it does not refer to Steve Canyon at all, then the dates established are

98

not relevant.) Second, the use-life for a comic strip is typically on the order of one day,

while all other dated materials in this list might be expected to last years, decades or

generations. As such, it should be expected that, if all artifacts were deposited only after

they were no longer wanted, a comic panel would share a level with more durable goods

that had been made further in the past. This leads to an unfortunate circumstance—the

only artifact with an unsecure date range was likely made very nearly the same time as it

was deposited. All the other artifacts, with more secure dates of production, may have

been in use for any amount of that time before finding their way to the privy.

Table 5: Dateable material from Homestead Hoehnle House

Artifact Depth Level Date Lu-Ray

Backmark 40-50cm 3 1938-1961

Blue Bottle 68cm 5 1920-1959 Marble 68cm 5 1936-1955

Broken Bottle 67cm 5 1942 Comic Panel 69cm 5 1961-79

Based on these dates, the poultry evidence, and the boards in association with the urinal,

it is suggested here that this outhouse is best interpreted as having effectively two levels.

The lowest, from the bottom of the Units (~70 cm) up to the bottom of the boards seems

most consistent with dumping activities in the decades after the Great Change and after

the outhouse was no longer in regular use as a toilet largely because of the survival of the

fragmentary comic panel. Almost all the dateable materials from this level were produced

only after the 1932 Great Change. The exception is the blue bottle, which was produced

for 12 years before and 27 years after. The second level, beginning with the boards and

99

continuing essentially to the surface represents fill from when the outhouse was torn

down. The urinal and the boards were likely broken free while removing reusable wood

from the structure and the bricks are almost certainly the original lip that held the

outhouse at the same level as the barn.

Figure 41: Profile illustration of Hoehnle privy facing north-northeast (toward barn/house/street. Elements included are the layer of bricks at the bottom of Level 0, the dividing line (in green) between the two apparent use levels—below this line, the privy was likely intact, though perhaps not in frequent use, above this line likely represents the demolition of the privy structure, and the datable material from the site—the Lu-Ray backmark (A), the glass bottle base (B), the blue bottle (C), the marble (D), and the piece of comic (E).

From the refitting of the ceramic cups, it is evident that in the Level 4-5 range

objects that were likely deposited together could end up 14 vertical centimeters apart.

Since the entire Level 4-5 range is only 20cm deep, and all of the dateable material

overlaps, this dumping likely took place over a narrow period of time (probably in the

1950s). This two-level interpretation means that the chronology of the site is limited in

the extreme.

100

The Schaup Site

Since the uneven ground and dense, woody undergrowth made ground penetrating

radar a virtual impossibility, the metal detector survey proved the strongest evidence that

the 2013 season did correctly locate the site of the Schaup house. In the three units where

the metal detector hits were excavated, most metal artifacts turned out to be nails. Sixty-

seven pieces of metal were recovered from the three units. Of those 67 artifacts, 68%

were identifiable as nails, 19% were unidentifiable, but consistent with nails, and only

3% were inconsistent with nails. If metal detector signals are accepted as a proxy for the

presence of nails, and nails are accepted as a proxy for historical construction, this

suggests that wherever metal detector signals are greatest is the area of occupation, and

where they are absent, there may have been little or no construction.

The density of metal detector signals was around 1-2 per acre over most of the 15-

acre site, while it was closer to 1 per meter over the small area where the excavation was

focused. From this information, it seems reasonable to propose that the other metal

signals in the area represent a similar density of nails. Since there are lots of nails in only

one area, and few or no nails in the surrounding area, it is most likely that the area with

the high density of metal signals is the site of the only significant construction in the area.

This conclusion, while unassailably straightforward, does conflict with one of the pieces

of data that had been guiding the search for the site—the diagram. The drawing provided

shows several outbuildings at the site. It seems that this cannot be reconciled with the

metal detector results. It is clear that there was an occupation here making use of metal

nails of several sizes (see Figures in Appendix A). For there to have been as many as six

101

buildings, but for all the metal to be concentrated around just one of them seems

fundamentally problematic. Further, the other piece of data—the extant house in

Amana—seems to corroborate the metal detector findings. The area of high metal

detector signal density ranged over a generally oval shape of about 15 x 20 meters. The

measurements of the original portion of the Schaup house that is still standing are

approximately 10 x 15m fitting neatly into the center of the metal detector signal area.

There is one part of the area that was impossible to metal detect—a low, wet,

marshy area directly south of the units. One or more structures could easily go undetected

if they were all packed together in this area, but that only raises the question of what

would have caused that marsh to appear and grow during the years since the site’s

occupation (or why construction would have been centered on it).

Given the small number of units open at the site, it is still possible that some kind

of foundation could be detected, but the likelihood is that any foundation material at the

site, whether wood or stone, was removed in order to cultivate after the Schaup family

had moved. Before excavation it was never the understanding that this area had been

cultivated after the Schaups left, but given the nature of the finds (the relatively small,

relatively homogenous condition of the ceramic ware in particular), it seems most likely

that this site has been plowed several times since its last human occupation.

102

The Sites in Conversation

Artifact Densities Between Sites

While each individual site offers data relevant to its own particular circumstances,

there is additional information that can be drawn from the differences and similarities

seen between the sites. For example, the disparity of artifact density values suggests that

the mechanisms which produced these four assemblages likely had a fair amount of

variability. Several factors can contribute to the density of artifacts deposited at a given

site, but generally speaking, density is affected by the number of people using a site at

any given time, the duration of time that a site was used, the intensity of use during that

duration of time, and the nature of the activity that happened at the site. Trying to fully

unpack the variables that affected these four sites may not be reasonable given the scope

of the data, but some general conclusions are certainly possible.

Table 6 restates the information from Table 2, but with the addition of two other

variables—the kind of property where the assemblage was found, and the presence or

absence of a physical enclosure surrounding the place where the artifacts were deposited.

103

Table 6: Four Site Variables Compared

Site Access during occupation

Physical boundaries

Artifact density

(artifacts/m3)

Artifact frequency by count

(metal:glass:ceramic)

Amana School*4

Public Open 116 62%/30%/8%

Homestead Church

Public Open 651 63%/28%/9%

Homestead House

Domestic Enclosed 1079 41%/51%/8%

Schaup Site Domestic Open 332 43%/20%/37%

It is clear that the Hoehnle House outhouse represents a unique kind of excavation

within this project, since it is the only site where the artifacts recovered were deposited

intentionally, or otherwise within the confines of an enclosed space. It is also the site with

the highest density of artifacts. From the relatively narrow dating of artifacts found in the

privy and the assumption that only residents of the house and their guests were

contributing to the assemblage, it is unlikely that either long use-life or a high number of

users are responsible for the high density of artifacts found in the privy. Instead, it is

likely a consequence of the way that the site was being used. If, as suggested above, the

privy was being used for waste disposal, it should come as no surprise that a high number

of artifacts are present in a relatively limited space. Here the results of the artifact density

calculations match well with expectations.

4 Because excavation suggests that the Amana school privy was filled with dirt from another location, for the purposes of this table in the analysis that follows it assumed that the artifacts found at the Amana school originate from a public, open environment, rather than from the confines of the privy itself.

104

There is, however, an unexpected result that invites further interpretation when

the artifact densities from the Amana School and Homestead Church assemblages are

compared. The two sites—which is to say the contents of the test pits at the church and

the fill dirt that was excavated from the school privy—should share most characteristics.

Both are from public/community environments and both (presuming the fill dirt

interpretation is correct) are from non-enclosed environments. Both also seem likely to

represent the same general rage of time, as both were from the grounds of early

community structures that are still in use today. Finally, both have a nearly identical

artifact makeup—about 62% metal artifacts, 29% glass, and 9% ceramic. Why then,

should the artifact density at the church be over five times greater than that found at the

school?

Several possibilities exist, particularly since the original location of the fill dirt

used at the school privy is unknown. That said, there are two interesting avenues of

consideration prompted by this variation in densities. First, with further excavation, it

may be possible to use these artifact density numbers to better estimate where the fill dirt

from the school privy originated, by sampling the grounds surrounding the school and

seeing if they produce similar densities of artifacts. If they do, then it might be reasonable

to conclude that the fill dirt was taken from a nearby source. If, however, the grounds

around the school produced densities closer to the Homestead Church site, that would

suggest that perhaps the fill dirt is the outlier, and that it comes from a location more

distant from day-to-day community traffic.

105

Second, it may be that these substantial differences in artifact density are

attributable to the relationships these two environments had with members of the

community. There is certainly no doubt that the Church was the de facto center of

Community of True Inspiration culture, so perhaps it should come as no surprise that the

physical church would reflect a higher intensity of use over the course of its history.

Perhaps there’s substantially more material at the church site because the church site was

substantially more significant in the lives of the Amana citizenry.

There’s a danger in taking this interpretation too far, as we know from experience

that a lot of stuff in one place doesn’t mean that that place is particularly important.

Broom closets and storage units have lots of stuff in them, but that doesn’t mean that they

are in any way centers of either the community or the lives of the individuals who

maintain them. However, in the absence of other evidence, and in the presence of

historical and cultural indicators regarding the centrality of church life within the

community, it is reasonable to suggest that this behavior may be the cause of the high

artifact density.

Artifact Proportion Between Sites

Both the fill dirt excavated from the Amana School and the test pits dug at the homestead

church share an almost identical ratio of metal:glass:ceramic artifacts. As these two sites

were the only public and open sources of artifacts, it is not surprising that they share this

trait. The Hoehnle house site had approximately the same proportion of ceramic artifacts,

but a greatly increased percentage of glass artifacts. Though not reflected in the numbers,

106

this increase is attributable in some part to the much greater prevalence of flat/window

glass found at the Hoehnle site. This increase is also not unexpected, as it is consistent

with the interpretation of the privy as a site for intentional disposal.

What is less easily explained is a pronounced elevation in the percentage of ceramic

artifacts found at the Schaup Site. At all other sites, ceramics made up only a small, and

hugely consistent, minority of the artifacts recovered—8% at the Amana School, 9% at

Homestead Church, and 8% at the Hoehnle House. At the Schaup Site, however, ceramic

artifacts made up 37% of the total assemblage, more than four times greater than that

found at any other site. Further, the fact that this higher percentage of ceramic is not

matched by an equally lower percentage of glassware suggests that this difference is not

(at least entirely) attributable to the lower prevalence of glassware at this earlier date. The

data suggests that not only were the vessels that were being used much more likely to be

ceramic, but that, in general, more ceramic items were being used (or at least making

their way into the artifact assemblage).

The abundance of ceramic material found at the Schaup Site suggests that some

difference in behavior may be responsible for the dramatic difference in ceramic

proportion when compared to the three other sites. This is consistent with the fact that the

Schaup Site is unusual within the context of the Amanas. It represents a single family

that, while identifying as part of the Community of True Inspiration, effectively lived

outside of it and its communal norms. Further, Martin Shoup/Schaup was wealthy, at

least to an extent, whereas all of the Amana citizens who moved from either Ebenezer in

107

New York or directly from Germany had already been living communal lives of shared

responsibility and no personal wealth.

Ceramic remains were found at every site, and, most significantly for the purposes

of comparison, at the only other domestic site excavated, the Hoehnle House. However,

there is a crucial difference between the ceramics found at the Schaup Site and those

found at the Hoehnle House. All dateable material at the Hoehnle House comes from

after the 1932 Great Change, meaning that any ceramic materials could have been bought

through traditional commercial exchange outside the community, through catalog sales,

or from traveling salespeople. The ceramics found at the Schaup Site are far more likely

to have been brought to the site from Canada, and as such effectively predate the Amana

colonies. The poor condition of materials at the Schaup Site render comparison of the

ceramics by type difficult. However, comparing the ceramics by proportion is obviously

possible.

These two ceramic assemblages represent endpoints on the life-cycle of

communal living. The ceramic goods present at the Schaup Site likely came with the

Schaup family and were purchased during the days before their membership in the

Community of True Inspiration. The ceramic goods present at the Hoehnle House likely

come from after the Great Change. Both are the remains of specialist wares produced

outside the community, but the whole of the communal experiment carried out at the

Amana Colonies lies between these two artifact assemblages.

108

This bracketing invites the interpretation that these two assemblages represent two

poles of a continuum. The Amana norm is the 8-9% found at every other site, communal

or domestic, open or enclosed. The 37% is a reflection of the fact that the people living at

the Schaup Site were living outside the norm. In effect, these numbers are showing more

than simply before (37%) and after (8-9%) snapshots of ceramic use, but are reflective of

cultural distinctions—non-communal/semi-non-communal vs. communal. Since the

Schaup Site is the only one of its kind, there is clearly a possibility that any differences

are idiosyncratic, and not the result of generalizable trends, but given the artifact data

present and the histories of the sites the interpretation above offers a theory consistent

with the available information.

Significance of the Project and Future Research

In the final analysis, the contributions made by this project to the subject of utopian

archaeology generally and to Amana archaeology specifically are modest but significant.

Artifacts collected at the Hoehnle outhouse suggest that the structure had been re-purposed

for use in the disposal of food preparation waste after the Great Change. A comparison of

artifact densities between the school and church indicated a high intensity of use of the

grounds of the latter, likely reflective of the community’s organization around religious

identity. Finally, an analysis of the relative frequency of three types of artifacts found in

quantity at all sites (metal, glass, and ceramic) led to the conclusion that the Schaup Site

likely reflects a lifeway outside the Amana norm, and suggests the ways in which Amana

109

material usage was shaped by communal living. Further, these excavations were the first

of their kind at the Amanas and offer foundation for several future lines of inquiry.

First, the preparatory phase of this project (outlined in Chapter Three) still

establishes a valid groundwork for pursuing the original question of material change over

time—specifically over the span of the Great Change. Though the decision to focus on

outhouse middens ultimately led to an understanding of how those features would not be

useful in answering these questions, other opportunities to examine long-term trash

deposits at the Amanas still exist. The quarry area (identified as “a” in Figure 1) in

particular still represents a likely resource for addressing these questions. Such a project

would be complicated by the size of the feature in question and by the fact that, while the

Amana Society Inc. (which owns the relevant property) has shown a willingness to allow

archaeological excavations on their properties, this area is much less remote and much

more likely to create a potential danger or disruption if not handled carefully. These are the

reasons that excavation of this area was not pursued in the current project, and these

challenges will mean that any future projects that pursue this line of inquiry will require a

substantial investment of time and labor.

The second opportunity afforded by this project is a look at a different (but entirely

related) set of questions having less to do with changes from before and after 1932, and

more to do with the development of idiosyncratic household culture after the Great Change.

With the exception of the blue bottle, all of the datable material found at the Homestead

110

Hoehnle House was produced after the 1932 Great Change.5 That means that what the privy

record describes is not, as Shambaugh (1971) would parse it, “Amana that was,” but

“Amana that is.” These are the artifacts of a post-communal household. As such, they are

likely to reflect the aspirations and apprehensions of a post-communal experience. In fact,

because outhouses were the norm before the Great Change and indoor plumbing arrived

after, these privies—particularly those attached to domestic structures—are an almost-too-

perfect metaphor for the vestigial remains of communal life that remain connected but

ultimately repurposed or abandoned.

To pursue this line of inquiry by building upon the research done in this project

could be as simple as conducting a series of Amana privy excavations. In the same way

that Wormer and Gross (2006) were able to look for the material idiosyncrasies unique to

members of the Theosophical Institute in San Diego, so too could such comparisons be

made between households and between colonies to help tell the stories of a population

engaging with the outside world and material possessions in a new way.

Other opportunities for further investigation abound at the Amana Colonies.

Excavations at other communal and domestic sites could help support or refute the idea

that the high density of artifacts found at the Homestead Church site is reflective of the

high intensity of use that church facilities served in the Amanas. It may be that when

other sites are included in the calculations, what seems like an unusually high density of

artifacts is in fact well within the variation present. Though the granting of permissions

5 …and, as described above, it is more likely that the blue bottle was produced after 1932 than that it was produced before.

111

might be complex, it would also be productive to sample artifact densities at the other six

Amana churches, to see if they reflect this proposed high intensity of use.

The use of the Hoehnle privy as a food preparation waste disposal area prompts

two specific directions of further inquiry. The first, and most obvious, is to look at other

disused outhouses (within Homestead and the other colonies) to see if the findings at the

Hoehnle house are idiosyncratic or representative of a pattern of behavior throughout the

communities. The second direction would be to excavate the grounds of the Middle

Amana kitchen house (owned by the Amana Heritage Society) to determine the extent to

which the kinds of food preparation patterns detectable there are similar or dissimilar to

those found in post-Great Change domestic privies. This information could help to

determine whether the privy findings represent a continuation of behavior patterns that

were established during the communal period (albeit in other kinds of spaces), or whether

they are more indicative of a discontinuity—a new set of behaviors to adapt to a new

lifestyle.

The surface has barely been scratched at the Schaup Site. The goals of this study—to

isolate the location of the structure on the site, and to gather comparative material to

analyze with respect to the other excavations—were achieved with relatively minimal

excavation. Since the material collected suggests that the Scaup Site may be reflective of

behavior patterns not found elsewhere in the Amanas, a more thorough excavation might

further fill out this picture. However, the more highly degraded condition of artifacts and

the site may serve to complicate such an effort.

112

It would not be difficult, however, to test the hypothesis that the dramatically increased

proportion of ceramic ware remains found at the Schaup Site are indicative of a lifestyle

that fell outside the communal norms of the Amana colonies. Since the relocation site of

the Schaup house is known (see Figure 13), it would be possible to sample the artifact

assemblage of the grounds there in order to see how the artifact proportions relate to the

Schaup Site. If the stated hypothesis is correct it seems likely that ceramics would be

more highly represented at the relocated house then at other Amana sites, but less highly

represented than at the original Schaup Site—reflecting a shift from Schaup family norms

to communal norms over time.

Perhaps the most significant part of studying utopian communities is examining

the ways in which they end. The story of the Amana Colonies is one that has not ended

yet, but a shifted form in order to adapt to a changing world. While this study modestly

contributes to an understanding of that adaptation, it will serve best as a foundation or

inspiration for future explorations of the subject.

Archaeology and Community Value

There is one final aspect of this project that should not pass by without mention.

Cornelius Holtorf (2007) suggests that there are three strategies for public engagement in

the field of archaeology.

The Education Model, which involves the gaining of reliable knowledge by an elite of scientists and its subsequent dissemination to those with knowledge “deficits” contributing to their enlightenment and competence as citizens;

113

The Public Relations Model, which seeks to improve the public image of science in order to secure its license to practice and increase social and political support for science spending and science legislation….;

The Democratic Model, which emphasizes scientific responsibility and sustainable development and is based on participatory processes in which nonscientists predominate. (p. 107)

These are useful distinctions, and good tools for thinking about the relationship between

archaeologists and the community, but the list of strategies is far from exhaustive, and it

focuses on a kind of engagement that is intended to produce a particular result. There is a

tendency to imagine that the mechanism of public engagement produces the good of

increased cultural heritage awareness. While increased cultural heritage awareness is an

undisputed good (at least in the context of this document), it is not the only good that can

develop from public engagement. Many of these other goods may not directly benefit the

archaeologist as an individual or anthropology as a discipline, but an understanding of these

goods is still crucial to recognizing the complex impact that the archaeologist—and more

specifically, the active excavation—has on the broader social environment.

Gavin Lucas points out that, “in so far as archaeology enhances people’s lives and

society in general, its major impact might be said to lie in popular culture rather than any

noble vision of improving self-awareness” (2004, p. 119). While this is probably true, it is

only true in one sense of the word “major.” If one is considering the broadest impact of

archaeology as the most major, popular culture is almost certainly where that impact can

be found, but if one is interested in the deepest or most direct form of impact, that is almost

certainly from direct personal encounters that people have with archaeological

environments.

114

Throughout the project, various members of the community engaged with the

work being done in a variety of ways. Though these were often lumped together in notes

and recollections as “visitors to the site,” there were actually a number of distinct

interactions going on. It seemed worthwhile to briefly describe these interactions and

acknowledge the various ways that this project functioned in the lives of non-

archaeologists.

The Amana Heritage Society

As soon as Lanny Haldy and Christine Williams found out that excavations were

going to be taking place on museum property, they asked if it would be alright to send

visitors over to see what was going on. Of course, they were welcome (it was taking

place entirely on heritage society property, after all), and on the first day of excavation

the heritage society revealed an A-frame sign that they had made (reading “Archaeology

Happening Today”) that they would set out on the sidewalk when the excavation was

active.

The Tourists

The sidewalk sign worked, and tourist observers regularly visited the excavation.

They were interested, to be sure, but their reactions were somewhat disappointing. They

seemed surprisingly unengaged in the fact that this was something temporary happening

in their presence. Everything else that was available to see in the museum was part of a

display that would remain relatively unchanged from day to day, week to week, month to

115

month, and year to year. What was happening at the site was revealing new information

every hour. That is the great joy of archaeology that is not necessarily present in any

other (less destructive) form of historic/prehistoric investigation.

Only after a few encounters with these groups did it become apparent that the

value these people were taking from the experience was measured in terms of

entertainment. While it is easy to defend archaeological fieldwork as interesting or

engaging, it is hard to argue against the perspective that it is not terribly entertaining to

watch. After this shift in outlook, a new approach was taken with regard to encounters

with the tourists. Instead of simply continuing to work and answering any questions that

they had, instead, one person was sent over to give a little streamlined presentation on

what was going on. These presentations leaned heavily on the outhouse angle, which was

always good for a bit of a snicker. This almost invariably increased the degree of

engagement and prompted more and better questions from the tourists.

Barbara Hoehnle and her Friends

It was rare for Barbara Hoehnle, owner of the property with her husband Charles,

not to come out to visit while the crew was excavating. In fact, she would give warning

ahead of time if she was going to be gone so that no one wondered why she was not

present. Barbara was friendly and generous in the extreme, so it was no surprise that

often she was joined at the site by her friends and neighbors. They would sit or stand with

her and watch the work, sharing their own stories of their families’ pasts.

116

The neighbors tended not to question the crew about finds. The artifacts

themselves, and, to a significantly larger degree, the process of excavation served the role

of a conversational mnemonic. The value of the archaeological work was in the memories

that it stirred and the conversations it provoked. It gave them license to reminisce and

compare histories. The what of what was being recovered was not nearly so meaningful

as the where—literally in their own backyards. This certainly had a practical aspect from

an archaeologist’s perspective. Several of the neighbors seemed to get a charge out of the

idea of finding out what was in their own outhouses. It created a small, self-expanding

group of interested people who were likely to be good candidates for future permissions.

Local Volunteers

This project had not been set up with any mechanism for attracting or utilizing

local volunteers (because it had always been framed as a kind of alternative field school),

but on May 31, 2012— a day before the beginning of excavations at the Hoehnle house—

Kelly Oates, the Curator of Historical Collections for the Amana Heritage Society

reached out about the possibility of having a young volunteer come out to visit the site.

The student, who was just entering high school was interested in a career in archaeology,

and when his family had found out about the excavation they had wondered if he could

have an opportunity to participate for an afternoon.

He spent half a day on the site on this date. It was a surprisingly busy date

because three archaeology graduate students were also at the site. This turned out to be an

excellent formula because there was a surfeit of relatively knowledgeable people to talk

117

about various aspects of archaeology as a career. The young volunteer did not seem to

enjoy excavating very much, and seems probable that, if anything, the experience may

have dissuaded him from pursuing a career in archaeology.

Figure 42: The young volunteer, here seen (center) working with graduate and undergraduate volunteers

This young volunteer was the first, but by no means the only, visitor that the sites

had. Once word got out that local volunteers were welcome, several other Amana natives

joined for a morning or an afternoon. What was most heartening was that there was quite

a bit of variation in the age of the people who came. The Schaup Site alone (which was

not a spot that was casually accessible) had a married couple, a shockingly fit retiree

(frankly, one of the most capable volunteers of the entire project), and a mother with

118

three children of high school, middle school, and preschool ages. For the young volunteer

and the other local volunteers that came after, the value was experience, either for

edification or novelty.

The Hikers

One morning, at the Schaup Site, the crew returned to find a giant white sphere on

the top of one of the marker polls that had been used for the auger pits. The nature of the

object was genuinely mystifying until someone poked and prodded enough to determine

that it was a huge puffball mushroom. It made for a strange (and frankly unsettling)

beginning to the day. It was the first evidence that someone (at the time assumed to be

hunters) was accessing the relatively remote site when the crew was not there.

119

Figure 43: Puffball mushroom skewered on PVC pipe marker pole at the Schaup Site

It was eventually discovered that the puffball had been placed by a couple, Larry

and Caroline, who hiked through the property on a regular basis. Because Amana

Society, Inc. property is something akin to public land, Amana residents use it freely. The

couple became very engaged and interested in what was going on, and it was evident that

it was not the archaeological significance (or even the historical significance) that spoke

to them. Rather, it was the way in which this was transforming their hiking space. The

excavation had effectively added a new landmark or point of interest to their regular

routine. When they spoke about their hikes they always spoke about them in terms of

landmarks – large rocks or old fence lines or dead-fall trees. Based on their experience of

the space they offered alternative locations for the Schaup house on the property.

120

The Academic Participants

There is also obviously the value put on this project by the student volunteers.

This is the most unambiguous example of Holtorf’s Education Model at work. Everyone

was pursuing the same overall goal of expanding their experience with archaeological

fieldwork, but it was remarkable the variation among the students in their personal goals.

Some had strictly academic goals; they were looking to bolster graduate school

applications or fulfill credit requirements. Several others were testing the waters as they

considered careers in archaeology. Others just wanted to broaden their perspectives—one

writer’s workshop student wanted new inspiration for her poetry.

There is a tendency to see an undertaking like this as a kind of data-generating

engine—a project formulated to produce information relevant within specific

predetermined parameters. The archaeological record is particularly well-suited to

keeping its secrets, and, as this project demonstrates, unanticipated results are always a

possibility. Within this context, it is tempting to lose sight of the fact that an

archaeological excavation (or archaeology in general, for that matter) does not serve a

single purpose or clarify a single perspective. It is work to some, research to others, but it

is also entertainment, mnemonic, experience, and political act. Seeking to build

continuity to the past, archaeology cannot help but weave community in the present.

121

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andelson, J.G. (1997) The Community of True Inspiration from Germany to the Amana Colonies. in America's Communal Utopias, Donald E. Pitzer (ed.) University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Andrén, Anders (1998) Between artifacts and texts : historical archaeology in global perspective. Translated by Alan Crozier. Plenum Press, New York Barber, Russell (1994) Doing Historical Archaeology: Exercises Using Documentary, Oral, And Material Evidence. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Barthel, D. (2001) Authenticity and Identity: Theme-Parking the Amanas. In International Sociology. Vol 16(2): 221–239 ______ (1984) Amana: from Pietist sect to American community. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Baxter, J. E. (2011) DePaul University Excavations at Pullman Volume 4: Backyard

Archaeology 2008- The Echols and Sexton Sites, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.

Beck, Margaret E. (2006) Midden ceramic assemblage formation: a case study from Kalinga, Philippines. American Antiquity 71(1): 27-51 Beck, Margaret and Matthew Hill (2004) Rubbish, Relatives, and Residence: The Family Use of Middens. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11(3): 297-333. Beaudry, M. C. (1989) The Lowell Boott Mill complex and its housing: Material expressions of a corporate ideology. Historical Archaeology 23: 19–33. Boivin, Nicole (2009) Grasping the elusive and unknowable: material culture in ritual practice. Material Religion 5(3): 266-287. Boone, James L. III (1987) Defining and Measuring Midden Catchment. American Antiquity 52(2): 336-345. Bromberg, Francine W. and Steven J. Shephard (2006) The Quaker Burying Ground in Alexandria, Virginia: A Study of Burial Practices of the Religious Society of Friends. Historical Archaeology 40(1): 57-88. Carman, D.G. (1987) The Amana colonies' change from communalism to capitalism in 1932. in The Social Science Journal. Volume 24, Issue 2: 157-167

122

Crane, Brian D. (2000) Filth, Garbage, and Rubbish: Refuse Disposal, Sanitary Reform, and Nineteenth-Century Yard Deposits in Washington, D. C. Historical Archaeology 34(1): 20-38 Crist, Thomas A. (2005) Babies in the Privy: Prostitution, Infanticide, and Abortion in New York City's Five Points District. Historical Archaeology 39(1): 19-46. Deagan, Kathleen (1982) Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 151-177. Deagan, Kathleen (1988) Neither History nor Prehistory: The Questions That Count in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 22(1): 7-12. Deetz, James and Edwin Dethlefsen ( 1967) Deaths Head, Cherub, Urn and Willow. Natural History 76(3): 29-37. Di Zerega Wall, Diana (1991) Sacred Dinners and Secular Teas: Constructing Domesticity in Mid-19th-Century New York. Historical Archaeology 25(4): 69- 81. Dublin, S. A., and Rothschild, N. A. (1994) Deep trash: A tale of two middens. Exploring Social, Political and Economic Organization in the Zuni Region. Edited by T. Howell and T. Stone, Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 46, Tempe, pp. 91-102. Fogelin, Lars (2007) Inference to the Best Explanation: A Common and Effective Form of Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity 72: 603 -625. Geertz, Clifford (1972) Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. Daedalus 101(1): 1-37. Geertz, Clifford (1973) The interpretation of cultures selected essays, Basic Books, New York. Geertz, Clifford (1979) From the Native’s Point of View: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding. In Interpretive Social Science: A Reader P. Rabinow and W. M. Sullivan editors. University of California Press, Berkeley. 225–242. Geismar, Joan H. (1993) Where Is Night Soil? Thoughts on an Urban Privy. Historical Archaeology 27(2): 57-70.

123

Grygas, Joseph (2011) Life at the Watervliet Shaker Village: An Archaeological and Historical Approach. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University at Albany, State University of New York. Hicks, Dan and Mary C. Beaudry (editors) (2006) The Cambridge companion to historical archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York. Harrison, J. F. C. (1989) The legacy of Robert Owen. In Hardy, D., and Davidson, L. (eds.), Utopian Thought and Communal Experience (Geography and Planning Paper, no 24), Middlesex Polytechnic, Enfield, England, pp. 11–16. Hayden, D. (1976) Seven American Utopias: The Architecture of Communitarian Socialism, 1790–1975, MIT Press, Cambridge. Hinds, W. A. (1975 [1908]) American Communities and Cooperative Colonies (reprint of 2nd edn.), Porcupine Press, Philadelphia. Hodder, Ian (1982) Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press, New York. Hodder, Ian (1983) Archaeology, Ideology and Contemporary Society.

RAIN 56: 6-7. Hodder, Ian. (1987) The Meaning of Discard: Ash and Domestic Space in Baringo. Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. Edited by Susan Kent Columbia University Press. New York. Hodder, Ian (1991) Reading the past : current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York. Hoehnle, Peter A. (2003) The Amana People: The History of a Religious Community. Penfield Books, Iowa City, Iowa. ______ (2016) Amana Colonies: 1932-1945 (Images of America). Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC. Holloway, M. (1966) Heavens on Earth: Utopian Communities in America 1680 – 1880 (2nd ed.) Dover Publications Inc., New York. Holtorf, Cornelius (2007) Archaeology is a Brand: The Meaning of Archaeology in Contemporary Popular Culture. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Insoll, Timothy (2009) Materiality, Belief, Ritual—Archaeology and Material Religion: An Introduction. Material Religion 5(3) 260-264.

124

IowaMarble (2016) All About Marbles http://www.allaboutmarbles.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34232 Janzen, D. E. (1981) The Shaker Mills on Shawnee Run: Historical Archaeology at Shakertown at Pleasant Hill, Pleasant Hill Press, Pleasant Hill, CA. Kosso, Peter (2001) Knowing the Past: Philosophical Issues of History and Archaeology. Humanity Books, Amherst, New York. Kozakavich, Stacy C. (2006) Doukhobor Identity and Communalism at Kirilovka Village Site. Historical Archaeology 40(1): 119-132. Kozakavich, S. (2001) The Doukhobor Movement and Kirilovka Village Site: Material Culture, Activity, and Identity in a Dissident Sect, Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, Long Beach, CA, 2001. Leone, M. (1978) Archaeology as the science of technology: Mormon town plans and fences. In Schuyler, R. L. (ed.), Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, pp. 191–200. Leone, M. (1981) The relationship between artifacts and the public in outdoor history museums. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: 301–313. Leone, Mark (1988) The Relationship between Archaeological Data and the Documentary Record: 18th Century Gardens in Annapolis, Maryland. Historical Archaeology: 22(1): 29-35. Levitas, Ruth (2013) Utopia as Method: The Imaginary Reconstruction of Society. University of Bristol, UK. Little, Barbara J. (1994) People with History: An Update on Historical Archaeology in the United States. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1( 1): 5-40. Little, Barbara J. (2007) Historical archaeology : why the past matters. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California Lockhart, Bill, Schulz, P, Lindsey, B, Schriever, B, & and Serr, C. (2016) Bromo-Seltzer in the Cobalt Blue Bottles, Society for Historical Archaeology. https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/Bromo-Seltzer.pdf. ______ (2016) Brockway Machine Bottle Co. and Brockway Glass Co. https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/Brockway.pdf.

125

Lockwood, M. (1965) The experimental utopia in America. In Manuel, F. (ed.), Utopias and Utopian Thought, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, pp. 183–200. Lucas, Gavin (2004) Modern Disturbances: On the Ambiguities of Archaeology. Modernism/modernity 11, 109-120. Mandelker, I. L. (1984) Religion, Society and Utopia in Nineteenth-Century America, University of Massachussetts Press, Amherst. Mannheim, K. (1991 [1936]). Ideology and Utopia, Routledge, London. Manuel, F. (1965) Introduction. In Manuel, F. (ed.), Utopias and Utopian Thought, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, pp. i–xxiv. Mayne, Alan (2008) On the Edges of History: Reflections on Historical Archaeology. The American Historical Review 113: 1: 93-118. McBride, K. A. (1995) Archaeology at the Shaker village at Pleasant Hill, Kentucky: Rediscovering the importance of order. In McBride, K. A., McBride, W. S., and Pollack, D. (eds.), Historical Archaeology in Kentucky, Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort, pp. 391–408. McBride, W. S. and Esarey, M. E. (1995) The archaeology of the Ashland privy, Lexington, Kentucky. Historical Archaeology in Kentucky edited by K. McBride, W. S. McBride and D. Pollack). Frankfort: Kentucky Heritage Council, pp. 265– 95. McDannell, C. (1996) Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America Yale University Press Meehan, Kathy, and Bill Meehan. (2000) "T.S.&T. LU-RAY PASTELS." Country Living 23, no. 5 (May 2000): 31. Preucel, Robert W. and Steven R. Pendery (2006) Envisioning Utopia: Transcendentalist and Fourierist Landscapes at Brook Farm, WestRoxbury, Massachusetts. Historical Archaeology 40(1): 6-19. Newman, T. S. (1970) A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles. Historical Archaeology. Vol. 4: pp. 70-75 Orser Charles Jr. (editor) (1996) Images of the recent past : readings in historical archaeology. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

126

Orser, Charles E. (2004) Historical archaeology. Second Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Orser, Charles Jr. (2010) Twenty-First-Century Historical Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 18: 111–150. Pauketat, Tim (2001) Practice and history in archaeology: An emerging paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1: 73-98. Paynter, Robert (2000) Historical and Anthropological Archaeology: Forging Alliances Source. Journal of archaeological research 8(1):1 -37. Pendery, Steven R. (1991) Archaeological Testing at Brook Farm. Report to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, from Steven R. Pendery, Boston City Archaeology Program, Boston, MA. Pendery, Steven R., and Robert W. Preucel (1992) The Archaeology of Social Reform: Report of the Excavations of the Brook Farm Hive Archaeological Project. Report to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, from Steven R. Pendery and Robert W. Preucel, Boston City Archaeology Program, Boston, MA, and Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Pitzer, D. (ed.), (1997) America’s Communal Utopias, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, pp. 3–13. Porter, P., and Lukerman, F. (1976) The geography of Utopia. Geographies of the Mind edited by D. Lowenthal and M.J. Bowden, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 197–223. Preucel, Robert W. and Steven R. Pendery (2006) Envisioning Utopia: Transcendentalist and Fourierist Landscapes at Brook Farm, WestRoxbury, Massachusetts. Historical Archaeology 40(1): 6-19. Savulis, E. (1992) Alternative visions and landscapes: Archaeology of the Shaker social order and built environment. In Little, B. (ed.), Text-Aided Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 195–203. Schuyler Robert (1970) Historical and Historic Sites Archaeology as Anthropology: Basic Definitions and Relationships. Historical Archaeology 4: 83-89. Schuyler, Robert L. (editor) (1978) Historical archaeology : a guide to substantive and theoretical contributions. Baywood Pub. Co. Farmingdale, New York.

127

Shambaugh, B. M. H. (1908) Amana: The Community of True Inspiration. State Historical Society of Iowa. ______(1971) Amana that was and Amana that is. State Historical Society of Iowa. Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M. (2006) A Feminist Theoretical Approach to the Historical Archaeology of Utopian Communities. Historical Archaeology 40 (1): 152-185. Staski, Edward (1991) Where and How the Litterbug Bites: Unauthorized Refuse Disposal in Late 19th Century American Cities. The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, edited by Edward Staski & Livingston D. Sutro, Tempe, Ariz. : Arizona State University. Starbuck, D. R. (1990) Canterbury Shaker Village: Archaeology and landscape. The New Hampshire Archaeologist 31(1): 1–163. ______(1998) New perspectives on Shaker life: An archaeologist discovers “hog heaven” at Canterbury Shaker Village. Expedition 40(3): 3–16. Starbuck, D. R. & Davis, P.J. (2010) The Dynamics of Shaker Landscape in Canterbury, New Hampshire. in Archaeology and Preservation of Gendered Landscapes, edited by S. Baugher and S.M. Spencer-Wood Springer Science+Business Media, LLC Staski, E. (1984) Just what can a 19th-century bottle tell us? in Historical Archaeology. Vol. 18, No. 1: 51. Stein, Stephen J. (1992) The Shaker Experience in America. New Haven: Yale University Press. Symes, S, Chapman, E, Rainwater, C, Cabo, L, & Myster, S (2010) “Knife and Saw Toolmark Analysis in Bone: A Manual Designed for the Examination of Criminal Mutilation and Dismemberment” Unpublished report to the U.S. Department of Justice, Mercyhurst College Tallent, Daniel (2009) "Communion in the South Union: An Archaeological Analysis of a Shaker Colony” Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Projects. Paper 220. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/stu_hon_theses/220 Tarlow, Sarah (2002) Excavating Utopia: Why Archaeologists Should Study “Ideal” Communities of the Nineteenth Century. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 6(4): 299-323.

128

Thomas, Julian (2007) The Trouble with Material Culture. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 9/10: 11-23. Tomaso, Matthew S., Richard F. Veit, Carissa A. DeRooy, Stanley L. Walling (2006) Social Status and Landscape in a Nineteenth-Century Planned Industrial Alternative Community: Archaeology and Geography of Feltville, New Jersey. Historical Archaeology 40(1): 20-36. Tomaso, M. S., Veit, R. F., and Walling, S. L. (2001) Ideological and economic change in A Nineteenth Century Industrial Utopia: The Archaeology of Feltville, New Jersey. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, Long Beach, CA, 2001. Van Bueren, Thad M. (2006) Between Vision and Practice: Archaeological Perspectives on the Llano del Rio Cooperative. Historical Archaeology 40(1): 133-151. Van Bueren, Thad M. and Sarah A. Tarlow (2006) The Interpretive Potential of Utopian Settlements. Historical Archaeology 40(1): 1-5. Van Wormer. Heather M. (2006) The Ties That Bind: Ideology, Material Culture, and the Utopian Ideal. Historical Archaeology 40(1): 37-56. Van Wormer, S., and Gross, G. T. (2006) Archaeological Identification of an idiosyncratic lifestyle: Excavation and analysis of (CA-SDI-10,531h) the Theosophical Society Dump, San Diego, CA. Historical Archaeology, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 100-118. Walker, Iain C. (1967) Historic Archaeology—Methods and Principles. Historical Archaeology 1: 23-34. Warfel, S. G. (1994) Historical Archaeology at Ephrata Cloister: A report on 1993 investigations, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, PA. Wheeler, Kathleen (2000) Theoretical and Methodological Considerations for Excavating Privies. Historical Archaeology 34(1): 3-19. ______(2000) View from the Outhouse: What We Can Learn from the Excavation of Privies. Historical Archaeology 34(1): 1-2. White, J. R. (1978) Bottle Nomenclature: A Glossary of Landmark Terminology for the Archaeologist. in Historical Archaeology, Vol. 12: pp. 58-67

129

Wylie, Alison (1985). Putting Shakertown back together: Critical theory in archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 133–147. Wylie, Alison (1993) Invented Lands/Discovered Pasts: The Westward Expansion of Myth and History. Historical Archaeology 27 (4): 1-19. Wylie, Alison (2002) Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. University of California Press, Berkeley

130

APPENDIX A SELECTED ARTIFACT PHOTOS

Figure A1: One hundred selected artifacts from Amana School

131

Figure A2: One hundred selected artifacts from Homestead Church

132

Figure A3: One hundred selected artifacts from Homestead Hoehnle House Levels 1-3

133

Figure A4: One hundred selected artifacts from Homestead Hoehnle House Levels 4-5

134

Figure A5: One hundred selected artifacts from Schaup Site

135

APPENDIX B ARTIFACT COLLECTION DATA

Level Form Information by Site

Amana School

Table B1: Level Form Information, Amana School, Planter North Unit

North Change in depth Level Dates SE SW NW NE CT Notes 1 10/23/12 -

10/24/12 23-33cm

23-33cm

23-33cm

23-33cm

23-33cm

Collected bone, metal, glass. Noticeable color change/mottling in the soil after the start of digging. Roots and rocks.

2 10/24/12 – 10/25/12

33-44cm

33-43cm

33-46.5cm

33-47cm

33-45cm

Collected metal, glass, bone, ceramic. Uncollected - brick. Lighter soil color. Some bug holes, few roots throughout.

3 10/25/12 -10/28/12

44-53cm

43-53cm

46.5-53cm

47-53cm

45-53cm

Collected metal, ceramic, glass. Uncollected - balloon, Plastic tape, Easter grass. Sand deposits fewer bug holes, some roots throughout. Sterile soil begins ~50cm.

Table B2: Level Form Information, Amana School, Planter Middle Unit

Middle Change in depth Level Dates SE SW NW NE CT Notes 1 10/23/12 -

10/24/12 23-33cm

23-33cm

23-33cm

23-33cm

23-33cm

Collected screw, metal, glass, bone, ceramic. Uncollected – limestone, brick, concrete. Bug holes, two large rocks, begin red/orange mottling.

2 10/24/12 – 10/25/12

33-40cm

33-43.5cm

33-44cm

33-43.5cm

33-45.5cm

Collected glass, ceramic, nails, metal, washer (?), rivets. Roots around edges, medium number of bug holes, localized sand deposits, W of big rock soil is lighter.

3 10/25/12 -10/28/12

40-53cm

43.5-53cm

44-53cm

43.5-53cm

45.5-53cm

Collected ceramic, metal, glass, rock concretion. Sterile soil begins ~50cm.

136

Table B3: Level Form Information, Amana School, Planter South Unit

South Change in depth Level Dates SE SW NW NE CT Notes 1 10/23/12 -

10/24/12 23-33cm

23-33cm

23-33cm

23-33cm

23-33cm

Collected ceramic, glass, nail, fabric. Uncollected – degraded bricks and limestone, few large bricks. Roots throughout, light mottling.

2 10/24/12 – 10/25/12

33-42cm

33-44cm

33-44cm

33-40cm

33-41cm

Collected ceramic, glass, metal, balloon. Uncollected – one or two midsize bricks. Roots adjacent to walls, bug holes, light color to soil, more clay.

3 10/25/12 -10/28/12

42-53cm

44-53cm

44-53cm

40-53cm

41-53cm

Collected metal, rodent teeth(?). Sterile soil begins ~50cm.

Homestead Hoehnle House

Table B4: Level Form Information, Homestead Hoehnle House, Unit 1

Unit 1

Change in depth

Level Dates SE SW NW NE CT Notes 1 6/4/12 -

6/5/12 15-29.5cm

16-33cm

14-29.5cm

10-30cm

19-30cm

Collected ceramic, glass pipe, bone, nails. Uncollected – slate, brick, limestone. Some pieces stuck in wall.

2 6/6/12 -6/6/12

29.5-38.5cm

33-40cm

29.5-39.5cm

30-39cm

30-40cm

Ceramic, glass, shingles, bones. Uncollected – brick and limestone. NE quadrant wood block.

3 6/6/12 -6/7/12

38.5-48cm

40-48.5cm

39.5-50cm

39-44.5cm

40-50cm

Collected metal can, glass, ceramic, shingles, bones, nails, metal. NE corner wooden board, W 1/3 large rock.

4 6/7/12 -6/11/12

48-58cm

48.5-54cm

50-54cm

44.5-58cm

50-59cm

Collected metal can, glass, ceramic, shingles, bones, nails, metal. Level was closed early to open new level for artifact accumulation in E center of unit.

5 6/11/12 -6/14/12

58-69cm

54-56cm

54-56cm

58-67cm

59-67.5cm

Collected bones, glass, ceramic, metal. Uncollected – boards in N & S walls. Hit concrete stone bottom that matches “step” in N side

137

Table B5: Level Form Information, Homestead Hoehnle House, Unit 2

Unit 2

Change in depth

Level Dates SE SW NW NE CT Notes 1 6/4/12 -

6/5/12 22-28cm

18-29.5cm

12-31cm

16-29.5cm

18-30cm Collected metal, glass, ceramic, bottle cap. Bricks in N wall, most large/complete, lots of roots. No soil color or texture change.

2 6/6/12 -6/6/12

28-37cm

29.5-38cm

31-39cm

29.5-39cm

30-40.5cm Collected shingles, wood, nails, glass, ceramic, caning jar top, metal chunks. Roots throughout, one brick in center, other bricks in N wall. No color or texture changes, wood appearing at bottom of level right under shingles.

3 6/7/12 -6/7/12

37-48cm

38-53cm

39-50cm

39-50cm

40.5cm-wood intrusion

Collected glass, ceramics, bones, nails. Bell-shaped metal object in SE corner, waiting to excavate.

4 6/7/12 -6/8/12

48-59cm

53-56cm (wood)

50-59cm

50-60cm

wood intrusion-59.5cm

Collected bell-shaped object, ceramic, glass metal, nails, bones. Uncollected – wood, metal pipe. Sand very fine, light color & river sand, fine, but with larger pieces.

5 6/9/12 -6/14/12

59-69cm

56-68cm

59-70cm

60-68.5cm

59.5-69cm Collected lots of glass, ceramic, shower cap, blue bottle, paper, metal, marble. Sand around pipe near center of unit, and along walls and corners. More clinker and coal pieces in center and towards E wall.

Table B6: Level Form Information, Homestead Hoehnle House, Unit 2.5

Unit 2.5

Change in depth

Level Dates SE SW NW NE CT Notes 1 6/4/12

-6/4/12 22-30cm

25-30cm

18-30cm

24-30cm

22-30cm

Collected metal, whetstone, glass, ceramic. Uncollected – bricks throughout hole, krotovina adjacent to E wall. Intact bricks left at bottom of level,

2 6/6/12 -6/6/12

30-40cm

30-40cm

30-42cm

30-39cm

30-40cm

Collected ceramic, egg, figurine, nails, metal, wood. Roots throughout, bricks through center & towards W wall. Sandy soil between bricks in center—richer, darker soil E of “brick wall.”

3 6/8/12 -6/8/12

40-50cm

brick brick brick 40-50cm

Collected glass, ceramic, claw tip (?), metal. Bricks along N & W walls, root in S wall. Started hitting gray/orange mottling and higher clay concentration.

138

Schaup Site

Table B7: Level Form Information, Schaup Site, Unit 1

Unit 1

Change in depth

Level Dates SE SW NW NE CT Notes 1 10/12/13

-10/18/13 2.5-6cm

2-4.5cm

2-4.5cm

1.5-6cm

0-5cm Collected white ware, nails, metal, ceramics, glass, bone. Uncollected - clinker, 8cm from NE corner, brick pieces, charcoal, cluster of sandstone in N 1/3 of unit. Large roots in SW & NE corners, small roots throughout, worms, grubs.

2 10/18/13 - 10/25/13

6-11cm 4.5-12cm

4.5-10cm

6-11.5cm

5-10cm Collected nails, metal, bone, ceramic, glass. Uncollected – clinkers, bits of brick and sandstone. Black/ashy soil in NE corner of unit.

3 10/25/13 - 10/26/13

11-14cm

12-15cm

10-14.5cm

11.5-14cm

10-15cm

Collected ceramic, glass nails, metal charcoal. Uncollected - sandstone

4 10/26/13 - 10/26/13

14-21cm

15-19cm

14.5-20cm

14-19cm

15-19cm

Collected ceramic, meta, bone? Uncollected – Sandstone in N 1/3 of unit along E wall, brick throughout. Soil wetter and darker, still just a little clay. Small roots throughout, worms, cluster of ants.

5 11/2/13 -11/9/13

21-26.5cm

19-25cm

20-25cm

19-26cm

19-24.5cm

Collected glass, ceramic, metal (almost no artifacts). Uncollected – degraded limestone, 3-5mm pieces of charcoal

139

Table B8: Level Form Information, Schaup Site, Unit 2

Unit 2

Change in depth

Level Dates SE SW NW NE CT Notes 1 10/12/13 -

10/19/13 0-5cm

0-7.5cm

0-6.5cm 0-4.5cm

0-5.5cm

Collected glass, ceramic, nails, lithic flakes. Uncollected – walnut, sandstone and brick pieces. Roots in S half of unit.

2 10/19/13 -10/26/13

5-13cm

7.5-11cm

6.5-10.5cm

4.5-9cm

5.5-10.5cm

Collected glass, ceramic, nails, metal, bits of brick, clinker. Uncollected – walnuts. High clay content with rusty mottling. One long thin root.

3 10/26/13 -11/8/13

13-17cm

11-18cm

10.5-14.5cm

9-16cm

10.5-16cm

Collected glass, ceramic, nails, metal, bits of brick. Uncollected – clinker, possible mortar. Mottled, rusty soil and clay continue.

Table B9: Level Form Information, Schaup Site, Unit 3

Unit 3

Change in depth

Level Dates SE SW NW NE CT Notes 1 10/25/13 -

10/26/13 0-6.5cm

0-5cm

0-4cm 0-5cm

0-5cm Collected glass, ceramic, nails (one found vertical), lithic flakes. Uncollected – sandstone in NE corner, brick in W wall. Roots in N, hard clay.

2 10/26/13 -11/8/13

6-5-8cm

5-6cm

4-4.5cm

5-6cm

5-5.5cm

End of Season: Level just started. Collected 1 ceramic fragment

140

Piece Plotted Artifacts by Site

Table B10: Amana School Planter North Piece Plotted Artifacts

Form No.

Date Subject From N edge

From E edge

From Surface

Dimensions Notes

104 5/24/12 Nail 61cm 100cm -35 8x0.5cm Charcoal to E 105 5/24/12 Ceramic

Base 23cm 5.5cm -32.5cm 5x2.5cm Color on bottom

107 5/24/12 Metal 75.5cm 117cm -41.5cm 9.1x3x0.03cm 2-3 cm N of rock in Middle Unit - Oxidized Folded Broke during excavation

109 5/25/12 Metal 22cm 27cm -38cm 5.5x0.5cm Oxidized 115 5/28/12 Metal 27cm 32cm -49cm 2.7x1.1cm Oxidized 116 5/28/12 Easter

Grass 30cm 50cm -49 5x0.2cm -

117 5/28/12 Metal 79cm 28cm -48cm 11x1.5cm Oxidized 118 5/28/12 Metal 94cm 35cm -46cm 10.7x1.8cm Brick associated

Table B11: Amana School Planter Middle Piece Plotted Artifacts

Form No.

Date Subject From N edge

From E edge

From Surface

Dimensions Notes

101 5/24/12 Bone 29cm 12cm -30.5cm 9.1x3.5x1cm Can associated, Sheer cut

103 5/24/12 Partial can 25cm 7cm -30cm 9.5x8cm Bone associated Folded,

5/24/12 - 108 5/25/12 6 metal

pieces Screws/nails

153cm 7.5cm -31cm 17x14.5cm pile

Oxidized

110 5/25/12 Metal circular

139cm 62cm -32cm 3.7cm diameter

Hole in middle

112 5/25/12 Metal cylinder

153cm 2cm -32cm 8.5x1cm Objects from form 108 associated

141

Table B12: Amana School Planter South Piece Plotted Artifacts

Form No.

Date Subject From N edge

From E edge

From Surface

Dimensions Notes

102 5/24/12 Ceramic Drainage tile

78.5cm 74cm -32cm 7x7x1cm -

106 5/25/12 Glass, Base of bottle

36cm 62cm -37cm 5x3.5cm -

111 5/25/12 Metal & Balloon

42cm 127cm -38cm 7x1cm Blue/green balloon

113 5/25/12 Metal 30cm 35cm -38cm 4x0.5cm Rusty 114 5/25/12 Bone 79cm 4cm -43cm 7.5x5.5cm Cut marks

Table B13: Homestead Hoehnle House Unit 1 Piece Plotted Artifacts

Form No.

Date Subject From N From W From Surface

Dimensions Notes

1-1 HHH2

6/8/12 Glass 5 pieces Flat

10cm 92cm -56 29x20cm pile Under urinal 2 more pieces underneath

1-8 6/8/12 Glass, flat 20cm 33cm -54.5cm 7.9x2.2cm Wood and nails

1-9 6/8/12 Metal T 41cm 72.5 -57.5cm 16x13.2 Urinal, glass & metal cluster

1-10 6/8/12 Urinal 57cm 69cm -38.5 37.5x29cm Cluster of glass, metal

1-3 HHH2

6/11/12 Bone 20cm 40cm -55cm 8cmx2cm -

1-4 HHH2

6/11/12 Metal Hook & nail

27cm 65cm -58cm 11x4cm Side by side Close/under urinal

1-8 HHH2

6/11/12 Bone articular end

13cm 74cm -59cm 4x3.5cm Resting on board, Similar found under & to N

1-9 HHH2

6/11/12 Bone 22cm 92cm -56cm 8x1.5cm On top of board

1-10 HHH2

6/11/12 Metal Misc. pile

50cm 90cm -56cm 13x9cm pile On top of board 1-11

1-11 HHH2

6/11/12 board 0cm 88cm ~-56cm 11)26x13cm

Bone 1-8 to E

1-12

6/11/12 board 18cm 26cm ~-56cm 36x11x2cm Bone 1-8 on top, partially exposed

1-14

6/11/12 board 16cm 2cm ~-56cm 90x30x2cm Metal 1-10 on top, partially exposed

1-15 6/11/12 board 92cm 40cm ~-56cm 59x7.5x2cm partially exposed

142

Table B13 continued 1-16 HHH2

6/11/12 Bone articular end

90cm 60cm -54cm 5.5x4x2cm Right under board, unfuses

1-17 HHH2

6/11/12 Bone 13.5cm 64cm -60cm 7x5.5cm -

1-18 HHH2

6/11/12 Flat glass 2 pieces

24cm 100cm -58cm 9x2.5cm 9x1.5cm

N of can under large board

1-19 HHH2

6/11/12 Glass, curved

33cm 67cm -59cm 24x11cm pile Recorded with 1-20 & 1-21

1-20 HHH2

6/11/12 Glass, flat 33cm 67cm -59cm 24x11cm pile Recorded with 1-19 & 1-21

1-21 HHH2

6/11/12 2 bones 33cm 67cm -59cm 24x11cm pile Recorded with 1-19 & 1-20

1-22 HHH2

6/11/12 12 bones 29cm 74cm -62cm 30x20.5 cluster 23cm N of can, cow carpals, chicken beak/feet, rodent humerus

1-24 HHH2

6/12/12 3 Bones, chicken 2 Glass pieces, flat

61cm 84cm -65cm 27x14 cluster Directly S of pan

1-25 HHH2

6/12/12 Glass, curved

64cm 60cm -57cm Found in cluster w/1-24, 1-26

1-26 HHH2

6/12/12 Ceramic, 64cm 60cm -57cm Found in cluster w/1-24, 1-25

1-28 HHH2

6/12/12 Bone, Partial

81cm 71cm -58cm 5x1.5cm chicken

1-34 6/13/12 Glass, bottle neck

0cm 82cm -61cm 10x8cm Coming out of N wall

1-35 6/13/12 Marble 26cm 49cm -66.5cm 2x2cm - 1-36 6/13/12 Glass 40cm 36cm -62.5cm 11x6cm Cluster w/ 1-

37 1-37 6/13/12 bone 40cm 36cm -62.5cm 11x6cm Cluster w/ 1-

37 1-38 6/13/12 Glass,

4 pieces 38cm 86cm -65cm 10x5cm -

1-39 6/13/12 Bone 12cm 40cm -64.5cm 3x2.5cm - 1-40 6/13/12 Bone 17cm 60cm -65.5cm 5x2cm -

143

Table B13 continued 1-41 6/13/12 Bones, 2 14cm 57cm -66cm 7x8cm - 1-42 6/13/12 Glass, 5

pieces Ceramic, 1 piece

12.5cm 71cm -66.5cm 24x12 cm cluster

Directly under plank

1-43 6/13/12 metal, flat glass, curved glass, bones

0cm 65.5cm -67cm 51x30cm cluster

~1-2cm above floor

144

Table B14: Homestead Hoehnle House Unit 2 Piece Plotted Artifacts

Form No.

Date Subject From S From W

From Surface

Dimensions Notes

2-6 HHH2

6/7/12 Glass 4 flat pieces

25cm 68cm -61cm 7x5cm 1-7 HHH2, 1-8 HHH2

2-7 HHH2

6/7/12 Bone 25cm 68cm -61cm 3x2cm 1-6 HHH2, 1-8 HHH2

2-7 6/7/12 Metal, lamp base?

43.5 96.5 Not recorded

9x9cm Tiny paper fragments

2-8 6/7/12 bone 25cm 68cm -61cm 4x4cm 1-6 HHH2, 1-7 HHH2

2-8 (1-8)

6/7/12 Can 16cm 20cm -51cm 13x7cm Wood piece associated, Looks intact

2-8b 6/7/12 Wood, large

85cm 70cm -50cm 80x21cm Brick, metal, smaller wood

2-9 6/7/12 Wood 11.5cm 35cm -47cm 29.5x10x7.5cm Perpendicular to 2-8b

2-10 6/8/12 Ceramic, thick

10cm 59cm -47.5cm 7.5x4.5x1cm -

2-11 6/8/12 Metal, thin

11.5cm 62cm -51.5cm 20.5x16cm Wood under, Three holes

2-11 (1-11)

6/8/12 Glass, flat

47cm 7cm -56cm 11x10cm Near urinal, glass/meta/wood cluster

2-12 (1-12)

6/8/12 Glass, flat

7cm 3.5cm -53cm 12.5x4.8cm -

2-12 6/8/12 Bone 15cm n.r. -55cm 9x2cm - 2-13 6/8/12 Ceramic, 4.5cm n.r. -56cm 5.5x5cm - 2-14 6/8/12 Bone 28cm n.r. -57.5cm 9.5x1.75cm - 2-15 6/8/12 Bone 90cm 45.5cm -51cm 8x7x3cm - 2-16 6/8/12 Skull 67cm n.r -53.5cm 4.5x3cm - 2-17b 6/8/12 Glass,

flat 9cm 2.5cm -55cm 12x8cm -

2-1 HHH2

6/11/12 Ceramic cup 4 pieces

20cm 85cm -60.5cm - Handle on one

2-3 HHH2

6/11/12 Bone, cut

24cm 25cm -58cm 4.2x3cm Wooden board

2-4 HHH2

6/11/12 Skull 11cm 80cm -59cm 3.3x2.6cm Fruit pit associated

2-5 HHH2

6/11/12 Glass clear curved

18cm 23cm -59cm 6x3cm pattern

2-14 6/12/12 Bone cluster

76cm 68cm -61 27x18cm N of metal pipe

2-15 6/12/12 Ceramic 2 cup pieces

0cm 61.5cm -61.5cm 7x6cm Under Shower cap

145

Table B14 continued 2-16 6/12/12 Skull 11.5cm 24.5cm -64.5cm 4.8x3cm - 2-17

6/12/12 3 bones 33cm 41cm -63.5cm 6x3cm Metal circular disk and pipe

2-18 6/12/12 Bone cluster

2.5cm 34.5cm -62.5cm 11x8cm Metal object underneath

2-19 6/12/12 Metal cluster

2.5cm 34.5cm -62.5cm 11x8cm Metal object underneath

2-21 6/12/12 skull 33cm 36cm -65cm 14x8.2cm Cluster w/2-22 2-22 6/12/12 Metal,

lid & piece

33cm 36cm -65cm 14x8.2cm Cluster w/2-21

2-23 6/12/12 Ceramic cup piece

17cm 54.5cm -63cm 4.9x4.1cm -

2-24 6/12/12 Ceramic 2 cup pieces

2cm 73cm -55cm 11x5cm -

2-26 6/12/12 Bone cluster

67cm 27cm -62.5cm 12x9cm Metal pipe

2-28 6/12/12 Bones, 4 tiny

93.5cm 36cm -65cm 6x3.5cm By front (W) of pipe

2_29 6/12/12 Glass flat

2cm 11cm -57cm 7x5cm -

2_30 6/12/12 Bone 2cm 11cm -57cm 5x3cm - 2-32 6/12/12 Jar lid n.r. n.r -66.5cm Photo only 2-34 6/13/12 Glass,

flat 59cm 3cm -57cm 9x3cm -

2-35 6/13/12 Bone cluster

16cm 11cm 62.5cm 32x15cm Under flat glass

2-36 6/13/12 Metal cluster

7cm 9cm -59cm 17x16.5cm Under flat glass

2-37 6/13/12 Shower cap

8cm 48cm -59.5cm 21-16cm Small metal pieces under cap, In S wall

2-38 6/13/12 Skull 17cm 18cm -64cm 3.5x3.5cm - 2-40 6/13/12 Bones 63.5cm 38cm -67.5cm 7.5x5cm N of metal pipe 2-41 6/13/12 ??? 2-43 6/13/12 Bones 47cm 8cm -64cm 3x2cm - 2-44 6/13/12 Ceramic

2 pieces 2cm 54cm -57.5cm 7x5.5cm

3.5x3cm Under shower cap

2-46 6/13/12 Ceramic 33cm 95cm -60cm 5.5x2cm Gold rim 2-48 6/13/12 Ceramic 0cm 22cm -63.5cm 5.5x3cm - 2-49 6/13/12 Ceramic

cup bottom

83.5cm 18cm -65cm 22x13cm cluster

8cm W of pipe

2-50 6/13/12 Bone 83.5cm 0cm -65cm 22x13cm cluster

On wood board

2-52 6/14/12 Bones 37cm 25cm -66cm 22x7cm cluster - 2-53 6/14/12 Paper

clump 57cm 32cm -64cm 17x13cm Up against/under

pipe

146

Table B14 continued 2-54 6/14/12 Ceramic

with handle

85cm 47cm -67cm 7x5cm 12cm E of pipe

2-55 6/14/12 Bone, broken in 3

100cm 67cm -63cm 9cmx1.5cm -

2-56 6/14/12 Metal cap

47cm 96cm -61.5cm 34x12cm cluster

Collected w/ 2-57, 2-58

2-57 6/14/12 Bone 47cm 96cm -61.5cm 34x12cm cluster

Collected w/ 2-56, 2-58

2-58 6/14/12 Ceramic

47cm 96cm -61.5cm 34x12cm cluster

Collected w/ 2-56, 2-57

2-59 6/14/12 Metal cap

18cm 69.5cm -63.5cm 33.5x11cm cluster

In wall, Collected with 2-60, 2-61

2-60 6/14/12 Skull 18cm 69.5cm -63.5cm 33.5x11cm cluster

Collected with 2-59, 2-61

2-61 6/14/12 Ceramic 18cm 69.5cm -63.5cm 33.5x11cm cluster

Collected with 2-59, 2-60

2-62 6/14/12 Jar lid 77cm 24cm -66.5cm 14x9cm cluster Collected with 2-63

2-63 6/14/12 Glass curved

83cm 24cm -66.5cm 14x9cm cluster Collected with 2-62

2-64 6/14/12 Glass 3 flat pieces

60cm 10cm -68.5cm 14x11cm cluster

Collected with 2-65

2-65 6/14/12 Bone 60cm 10cm -68.5cm 14x11cm cluster

Collected with 2-64

2-66 6/14/12 Bones 58cm 86cm -61cm 13x11cm cluster

Collected with 2-67

2-67 6/14/12 Bottle cap

58cm 86cm -61cm 13x11cm cluster

Collected with 2-66

2-68 6/14/12 Metal disk

87cm 68cm -69cm 44x17cm cluster

Collected with 2-70, 2-72

2-69 6/14/12 2-70 6/14/12 Glass 7

pieces 87cm 68cm -69cm 44x17cm

cluster Collected with 2-68, 2-72

2-71 6/14/12 Skull 20cm 76cm -64cm 5x3cm - 2-72 6/14/12 Ceramic

3 pieces 87cm 68cm -69cm 44x17cm

cluster Collected with 2-68, 2-70

2-73 6/14/12 Bone 57cm 81cm -64cm 10x2cm - 2-74 6/14/12 Metal 41cm 95cm -62cm 14x6cm cluster - 2-75 6/14/12 Ceramic

4 pieces 45cm 68cm -66cm 40x32cm

cluster -

2-76 6/14/12 Metal 100cm 37cm -70cm 12x4.5cm - 2-77 6/14/12 Ceramic 51.5cm 55cm -67cm 5.5x4cm - 2-78 6/14/12 Ceramic 7.5cm 48.5cm -63.5cm 5x4cm - 2-79 6/14/12 Bones 37.5cm 38.5cm -68cm 6x4cm - 2-80 6/14/12 Bottle

cap 0cm 62cm -64cm 3.5x3.5cm -

147

Table B14 continued 2-81 6/14/12 Bottle

cap 35cm 100cm -64cm 3.5x3.5cm -

2-82 6/14/12 Skull 10cm 36cm -68.5 5x3cm Bottom of unit 2-83 6/14/12 marble 29cm 68cm -68.5 1.5x1.5cm Bottom of unit 2-84 6/14/12 Blue

bottle 49cm 71cm -68.5 7x4.5cm Bottom of unit

2-85 6/14/12 ceramic 58cm 67cm -68.5 n.r. Bottom of unit 2-86 6/14/12 Glass 58cm 67cm -68.5 4x2.5cm Bottom of unit 2-87 6/14/12 Glass

curved 84cm 80cm -68.5 3.5x2.5 Bottom of unit

Table A14 continued 2-88 6/14/12 Jar lid 100cm 100cm -66.5 7x7cm - 2-89 6/14/12 Metal

disk 69cm 100cm -68.5 5x5cm -

2-90 6/14/12 Bottle cap

36cm 82cm -68.5 3.5x3.5 Fused to floor of unit

2-91 6/14/12 Metal rod

28cm 71cm -69.5 10.5x2.5cm -

148

Homestead Hoehnle House Artifacts by Unit and Type (Non-Piece Plotted Only)

Table B15: Homestead Hoehnle House Unit 1

Level Depth Date Type Number Weight(g) 0 surface 06/01/12 Glass, curved 18 150 0 surface 06/01/12 Glass, curved & colored 5 35 0 surface 06/01/12 Glass, flat 3 10 0 surface 06/01/12 Ceramic 5 35 0 surface 06/01/12 Metal 34 1020 0 surface 06/01/12 Bone - - 0 surface 06/01/12 pottery 18 380 0 surface 06/04/12 Glass, curved 11 37 0 surface 06/04/12 Glass, curved & colored 6 22.5 0 surface 06/04/12 Glass, flat 23 48 0 surface 06/04/12 Ceramic 8 126 0 surface 06/04/12 Metal 18 46.5 0 surface 06/04/12 Bone 1 .5 0 surface 06/04/12 Green cap 1 2.5 0 surface 06/04/12 Gray plastic fragment 1 13 0 surface 06/04/12 White plastic handle 3 9 0 surface 06/04/12 Ceramic drainpipe fragment 1 337 1 0-30 06/04/12 Glass, curved 13 34.5 1 0-30 06/04/12 Glass, curved & colored 3 14.5 1 0-30 06/04/12 Glass, flat 14 35.5 1 0-30 06/04/12 Ceramic 3 4 1 0-30 06/04/12 Metal 7 35 1 0-30 06/04/12 Bone - - 1 0-30cm 06/04/12 brick 1 11 1 0-30cm 06/05/12 Glass, curved 30 116 1 0-30cm 06/05/12 Glass, curved & colored 10 72 1 0-30cm 06/05/12 Glass, flat 30 36.5 1 0-30cm 06/05/12 Ceramic 13 118 1 0-30cm 06/05/12 Metal 27 70.5 1 0-30cm 06/05/12 Bone 2 39.5 1 0-30cm 06/05/12 Slate 2 Not weighed 1 0-30cm 06/05/12 Slag 2 Not weighed 1 0-30cm 06/05/12 Ceramic drainpipe 1 368 1 0-30cm 06/05/12 paper 1 Not weighed 2 30-40 06/06/12 Glass, curved 72 86.5 2 30-40 06/06/12 Glass, curved & colored 9 16 2 30-40 06/06/12 Glass, flat 13 26.5

149

Table B15 continued 2 30-40 06/06/12 Ceramic 19 27 2 30-40 06/06/12 Metal 12 2 30-40 06/06/12 Bone 4 5.5 2 30-40 06/06/12 slate 1 Not weighed 2 30-40 06/06/12 Roofing material 56 76 2 30-40 06/06/12 Unknown, porous stone Not weighed 2 30-40 06/06/12 clinker 1 Not weighed 3 40-50 06/06-07/12 Glass, curved 27 41 3 40-50 06/06-07/12 Glass, curved & colored 5 6.5 3 40-50 06/06-07/12 Glass, flat 15 23.5 3 40-50 06/06-07/12 Ceramic 7 11 3 40-50 06/06-07/12 Metal 20 62.5 3 40-50 06/06-07/12 Bone 12 5 3 40-50 06/06-07/12 clinker 2 7.5 3 40-50 06/06-07/12 Roofing material 23 29 4 50-60 06/07/12 Glass, curved 11 21 4 50-60 06/07/12 Glass, curved & colored 1 3.5 4 50-60 06/07/12 Glass, flat - - 4 50-60 06/07/12 Ceramic 1 1.5 4 50-60 06/07/12 Metal 6 15 4 50-60 06/07/12 Bone 1 2 4 50-60 06/07/12 Button 1 1 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Glass, curved 16 26 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Glass, curved & colored 4 5.5 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Glass, flat 4 17 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Ceramic 3 3.5 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Metal 19 69.5 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Bone 2 .5 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Glass, curved 4 4.5 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Glass, curved & colored 1 1 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Glass, flat - - 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Ceramic 1 .5 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Metal 12 32.5 4 50-60 06/08/2012 Bone 6 1.5 4 50-60 06/11/12 Glass, curved 14 17.5 4 50-60 06/11/12 Glass, curved & colored 2 1 4 50-60 06/11/12 Glass, flat 45 309.5

150

Table B15 continued 4 50-60 06/11/12 Ceramic 2 1 4 50-60 06/11/12 Metal 15 96 4 50-60 06/11/12 Bone 12 4 5 60-70 06/11/12 CG Glass, curved 1 5.5 5 60-70 06/11/12 Glass, curved & colored - - 5 60-70 06/11/12 Glass, flat 20 48.5 5 60-70 06/11/12 Ceramic - - 5 60-70 06/11/12 Metal 42 60 5 60-70 06/11/12 Bone 25 130 5 60-70 06/12/12 Glass, curved 38 37 5 60-70 06/12/12 Glass, curved & colored 1 3.5 5 60-70 06/12/12 Glass, flat - - 5 60-70 06/12/12 Ceramic 5 4.5 5 60-70 06/12/12 Metal 37 94 5 60-70 06/12/12 Bone 238 47.5 5 60-70 06/12/12 Woody material 8 .5 5 60-70 06/12/12 Foil 8 .5 5 60-70 06/12/12 Fruit pits 2 1.5 5 60-70 06/12/12 brick 5 51.5 5 60-70 06/13/12 Glass, curved 23 137 5 60-70 06/13/12 Glass, curved & colored - - 5 60-70 06/13/12 Glass, flat 5 84.5 5 60-70 06/13/12 Ceramic 2 9 5 60-70 06/13/12 Metal 8 4.5 5 60-70 06/13/12 Bone 72 23.7 5 60-70 06/13/12 Marble (toy) 1 9.5 5 60-70 06/13/12 Glass top of bottle 1 100 5 60-70 06/13/12 Fruit pit 1 2.5 5 60-70 06/13/12 Paper 1 2 5 60-70 06/13/12 Foil 1 .5 5 60-70 06/13/12 Plastic seal 1 .5

151

Table B16: Homestead Hoehnle House Unit 2

Level Depth Date Type Number Weight(g) 0 Surface 06/01/12 Glass, curved 24 27.5 0 Surface 06/01/12 Glass, curved & colored 7 6.5 0 Surface 06/01/12 Glass, flat 8 6.5 0 Surface 06/01/12 Ceramic 4 9.0 0 Surface 06/01/12 Metal 29 114.5 0 Surface 06/01/12 Bone 3 2.5 0 Surface 06/01/12 terra cotta 4 41 0 Surface 06/01/12 shell 5 1.5 0 Surface 06/01/12 Plastic cups 4 9.5 0 Surface 06/01/12 Plastic fragments 4 1.0 0 Surface 06/01/12 Easter grass 1 0.0 0 Surface 06/04/12 Glass, curved 21 38.0 0 Surface 06/04/12 Glass, curved & colored 8 12.5 0 Surface 06/04/12 Glass, flat 7 6.5 0 Surface 06/04/12 Ceramic 5 14.0 0 Surface 06/04/12 Metal 25 48.5 0 Surface 06/04/12 Bone 3 65.0 0 Surface 06/04/12 plastic 4 4.5 0 Surface 06/04/12 Easter grass 1 - 1 0-10cm 06/04/12 Glass, curved 41 87.5 1 0-10cm 06/04/12 Glass, curved & colored 9 12.0 1 0-10cm 06/04/12 Glass, flat 14 20.0 1 0-10cm 06/04/12 Ceramic 2 1.0 1 0-10cm 06/04/12 Metal 10 83.0 1 0-10cm 06/04/12 Bone 0 - 1 0-10cm 06/04/12 Plastic tube w/ flat end 1 - 1 10-30cm 06/05/12 Glass, curved 41 98.5 1 10-30cm 06/05/12 Glass, curved & colored 8 29.5 1 10-30cm 06/05/12 Glass, flat 27 30.5 1 10-30cm 06/05/12 Ceramic 9 54.0 1 10-30cm 06/05/12 Metal 31 96.0 1 10-30cm 06/05/12 Bone 0 - 1 10-30cm 06/05/12 wood 2 0.5 1 10-30cm 06/05/12 roofing 1 2.0 2 30-40cm 06/06/12 Glass, curved 123 261.5 2 30-40cm 06/06/12 Glass, curved & colored 25 83.5 2 30-40cm 06/06/12 Glass, flat 26 30.0 2 30-40cm 06/06/12 Ceramic 17 105.5 2 30-40cm 06/06/12 Metal 106 339.0

152

Table B16 continued 2 30-40cm 06/06/12 Bone 3 1.0 2 30-40cm 06/06/12 Wood w/nail 1 13.0 2 30-40cm 06/06/12 roofing 80 148.5 2 30-40cm 06/06/12 Canning lid 1 51.0 3 40-50 06/07/12 Glass, curved 66 90.0 3 40-50 06/07/12 Glass, curved & colored 8 25.0 3 40-50 06/07/12 Glass, flat 11 7.5 3 40-50 06/07/12 Ceramic 6 21.5 3 40-50 06/07/12 Metal 55 227.5 3 40-50 06/07/12 Bone 9 5.0 3 40-50 06/07/12 Black button 1 - 3 40-50 06/07/12 Piece of wood 1 - 3 40-50 06/07/12 Roof flashing - - 3 40-50 06/07/12 Roofing material - 178.0 4 50-60cm 06/07/12 Glass, curved 11 11.5 4 50-60cm 06/07/12 Glass, curved & colored 4 5.0 4 50-60cm 06/07/12 Glass, flat 3 116.5 4 50-60cm 06/07/12 Ceramic 8 111.5 4 50-60cm 06/07/12 Metal 11 40.5 4 50-60cm 06/07/12 Bone 4 42.5 4 50-60cm 06/07/12 plastic 2 - 4 50-60cm 06/07/12 Roof flashing 1 - 4 50-60cm 06/07/12 shell 1 - 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Glass, curved 37 39.0 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Glass, curved & colored 8 12.0 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Glass, flat 13 7.5 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Ceramic 4 8.5 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Metal 50 129.5 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Bone 15 4.0 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Button 1 0.5 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Rock metal? 1 26 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Fruit pits 3 4.0 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Bottle caps 5 7.5 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Foil wrapper 3 0.0 4 50-60cm 06/08/12 Bottle cap w/bone 1 4.5 5 60-70cm 06/11/12 Glass, curved 4 29.0 5 60-70cm 06/11/12 Glass, curved & colored 1 4.0 5 60-70cm 06/11/12 Glass, flat 14 275.0 5 60-70cm 06/11/12 Ceramic 5 83.5

153

Table B16 continued 5 60-70cm 06/11/12 Metal 29 125.0 5 60-70cm 06/11/12 Bone 45 196.0 5 60-70cm 06/11/12 Plastic 3 - 5 60-70cm 06/11/12 fibers - - 5 60-70cm 06/11/12 Fruit pits 33 24.0 5 60-70cm 06/11/12 Nut piece 1 - 5 60-70cm 06/12/12 Glass, curved 0 - 5 60-70cm 06/12/12 Glass, curved & colored 0 - 5 60-70cm 06/12/12 Glass, flat 0 - 5 60-70cm 06/12/12 Ceramic 0 - 5 60-70cm 06/12/12 Metal 25 54.5 5 60-70cm 06/12/12 Bone 209 53.5 5 60-70cm 06/12/12 Fruit pits 24 13.0 5 60-70cm 06/12/12 Blue plastic 3 15.0 5 60-70cm 06/13/12 Glass, curved 4 0.5 5 60-70cm 06/13/12 Glass, curved & colored 0 - 5 60-70cm 06/13/12 Glass, flat 6 2.5 5 60-70cm 06/13/12 Ceramic 4 49.5 5 60-70cm 06/13/12 Metal 13 35.0 5 60-70cm 06/13/12 Bone 73 15.0 5 60-70cm 06/13/12 Fruit pits 11 3.5 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Glass, curved 20 22.5 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Glass, curved & colored 3 6.0 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Glass, flat 2 6.5 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Ceramic 4 2.5 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Metal 120 163.5 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Bone 330 56.0 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Fruit cores 26 8.0 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Square blue plastic 1 - 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 seeds - - 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Paper w/ writing - - 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Pen pieces - - 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Glass, curved 2 15.0 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Glass, curved & colored 0 0 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Glass, flat 3 72.5 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Ceramic 11 193 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Metal 11 110.5 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Bone 11 13.5 5 60-70cm 06/14/12 Jar lid 1 49.0

154

Table B17: Homestead Hoehnle House Unit 2.5

Level Depth Date Type Number Weight(g) 0 surface 06/01/12 Glass, curved 78 161.5 0 surface 06/01/12 Glass, curved & colored 14 67.5 0 surface 06/01/12 Glass, flat 20 37.5 0 surface 06/01/12 Ceramic 9 17 0 surface 06/01/12 Metal 46 258 0 surface 06/01/12 Bone 12 102.5 0 surface 06/01/12 seeds 2 11 0 surface 06/01/12 plastic - - 1 0-30 06/04/12 Glass, curved 5 7 1 0-30 06/04/12 Glass, curved & colored - - 1 0-30 06/04/12 Glass, flat 7 8.5 1 0-30 06/04/12 Ceramic 2 3.5 1 0-30 06/04/12 Metal 4 305 1 0-30 06/04/12 Bone 2 1.5 1 0-30 06/04/12 sharpening stone 1 - 2 30-40 06/06/12 Glass, curved 35 33.5 2 30-40 06/06/12 Glass, curved & colored 3 3.5 2 30-40 06/06/12 Glass, flat 20 35 2 30-40 06/06/12 Ceramic 9 114 2 30-40 06/06/12 Metal 35 147.5 2 30-40 06/06/12 Bone 3 2 2 30-40 06/06/12 slag 4 25 2 30-40 06/06/12 brick 1 1.5 2 30-40 06/06/12 wood 2 18.5 3 40-50 06/08/12 Glass, curved 1 1 3 40-50 06/08/12 Glass, curved & colored 1 1 3 40-50 06/08/12 Glass, flat 6 7 3 40-50 06/08/12 Ceramic 1 5 3 40-50 06/08/12 Metal 2 4 3 40-50 06/08/12 Bone - - 3 40-50 06/08/12 slate 2 - 3 40-50 06/08/12 Horn? 1 5