university alabama press household chores and household choices theorizing the domestic sphere in historical archaeology jun 2004

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Household chores and household choices : theorizing the domestic sphere in historical archaeology / edited by Kerri S.. Introduction: H

HOUSEHOLD C HOR ES and HOUSEHOLD C HOIC ES

HOUSEHOLD C HOR ES and HOUSEHOLD C HOIC ES

Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in

Copyright © 2004

The University of Alabama Press

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487–0380

All rights reserved

Manufactured in the United States of America

Typeface: Minion

∞

The paper on which this book is printed meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Science–Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Household chores and household choices : theorizing the domestic sphere in historical archaeology / edited by Kerri S Barile and Jamie C Brandon.

p cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-8173-1395-8 (cloth : alk paper) — ISBN 0-8173-5098-5 (pbk : alk paper)

1 United States—Antiquities 2 Historic sites—United States 3 Material culture—United States 4 Landscape—Social aspects—United States—History 5 Households—United States—History 6 Family—United States—History 7 Sex role—United States—History.

8 Archaeology and history—United States 9 Feminist archaeology—United States.

10 Archaeology— Methodology I Barile, Kerri S II Brandon, Jamie C.

E159.5.H68 2004

640′.973—dc22

2004001019

List of Figures vii

List of Tables ix

Acknowledgments xi

Foreword (Maria Franklin) xiii

1 Introduction: Household Chores; or, the Chore of

De¤ning the Household 1

Jamie C Brandon and Kerri S Barile

PA RT I A SENSE OF PL AC E

2 Analysis of Household and Family at a Spanish Colonial

Rancho along the Rio Grande 15

PA RT I I A SENSE OF SPAC E

6 Finding the Space Between Spatial Boundaries and Social

Dynamics: The Archaeology of Nested Households 109

Nesta Anderson

7 Hegemony within the Household; The Perspective from a SouthCarolina Plantation 121

Kerri S Barile

8 A Historic Pay-for-Housework Community Household:

The Cambridge Cooperative Housekeeping Society 138

Suzanne Spencer-Wood

9 Fictive Kin in the Mountains: The Paternalistic Metaphor and

Households in a California Logging Camp 159

11 Reconstructing Domesticity and Segregating Households:

The Intersections of Gender and Race in the Postbellum

3.1 Hermitage Plantation, general map 35

3.2 Image of First Hermitage Site 36

3.3 East Cabin, feature map 46

4.1 Schematic of plan of two-room kitchens, Washington, Arkansas 644.2 The Sanders kitchen as reconstructed in 1994 65

4.3 Detached kitchen behind the Page House, detail from a 1907

photograph 65

4.4 Kitchen placement on the Block and Sanders urban farmsteads 675.1 1899 Sanborn Insurance Map of block of Juliette Street, Freedman’sTown, Dallas 87

5.2 African-American cosmetic compact: “High Brown Face Powder”(ca 1911–1930) 103

7.1 Location of Middleburg Plantation and other sites discussed 1257.2 Map of the current and historic cultural resources at MiddleburgPlantation 127

7.3 The southern and eastern elevations of the Commissary 1298.1 1870 Cambridge, Massachusetts, directory map showing approximatelocations of the CCHS cooperative and member households 1479.1 Map of Soap Creek Pass, 1957 164

9.2 Plan drawing of three-man cabin at Soap Creek Pass 165

9.3 Plan drawing of a “T” family dwelling at Soap Creek Pass 166

9.4 Plan drawing of assistant superintendent’s dwelling at Soap

Creek Pass 168

9.5 Plan drawing of superintendent’s dwelling at Soap Creek Pass 17010.1 Map of Nuevo Santander in the late eighteenth century illustrating the ranchos of Mier and other communities on the north bank of theRio Grande 184

10.2 Part of the Juan Francisco Sáenz and Teresa Peña family 187

10.3 Part of the Miguel Sáenz and Gertrudis Hinojosa family 188

10.4 Map showing the porciones awarded in 1767 to the pobladores of Mier,Tamaulipas, Mexico 189

10.5 Part of the Manuel Angel Hinojosa and Juana Sanchez family 19210.6 Part of the Ramón Guerra and Rosalia Hinojosa family 193

12.1 Map of Colorado showing location of Berwind 216

12.2 Pie chart showing national origin of residents of Berwind 21712.3 Map showing households in pre-strike locus 219

12.4 Bar graph showing number of households with and without

boarders 221

12.5 Pro¤le of midden feature 223

12.6 Bar graph showing increase in use of mass-produced canned goods instrata dating after 1907 224

12.7 Bar graph showing plain ceramics by functional category 229viii / Figures

3.1 Slave inventory from the Hermitage, 1846–1849 41

4.1 Slave ownership in Washington, Arkansas, 1850 and 1860 58

4.2 Slave demography in Washington, Arkansas, 1850 and 1860 595.1 1900 Federal census enumeration for Juliette Street, Dallas, Texas(abridged) 90

5.2 Estimated square footage of residences on Juliette Street 96

5.3 Juliette Street stability of residence, 1901–1910 98

10.1 Amount of livestock owned per ranch according to the 1817 census datafor Mier, Tamaulipas, Mexico 191

As editors, we would like to thank Maria Franklin and all our colleagues in hergraduate seminar in household archaeology at The University of Texas at Austin,

as well as all who participated in the symposium at the 2001 meeting of theSociety for Historical Archaeology in Long Beach, California, from which thisvolume has grown Not all who gave papers could contribute to this volume,unfortunately, but all have in some way shaped our dialogue about households

We would like to express our gratitude to Laurie Wilke and Amy Young, whoread early drafts of this volume and provided us with invaluable advice andthought-provoking comments, and Mary Beaudry, for belatedly joining thevolume and adding her insightful contribution Judy Goffman, our technicaleditor, smoothed out all of the ¤nal wrinkles Personally, we would like tothank Sean and T.J.—for putting up with the weekends spent at work and the

“archaeology talk” at the dinner table

Acknowledgments

The social unit that we refer to as the “household” has been the subject ofintensive study within anthropological archaeology, most notably since the1970s, and particularly within prehistory (for example, Flannery 1976; Geroand Conkey 1991; Wilk and Rathje 1982) For archaeologists, the household isoften the most basic social unit of analysis “accessible” through the archaeo-logical record, typically via residential structures and activity areas The focus

on households, however, cannot simply be reduced to the issue of cal “visibility.” Unpacking the household archaeologically may be as close asany of us gets to comprehending the experiences of past individuals and as far

archaeologi-as we may go in revealing the intimacies of their lives Moreover, its in®uenceregularly transgresses the domestic, as the household is both a microcosm ofsociety and an active agent instituting change within that society As JamesDeetz (1982:724) once wrote, “Whether a structural, functional, or evolution-ary approach is taken to obtain this information, the household reveals rela-tionships of thought and substance that can aid immensely in understandingthe past.”

While it is certainly true that historical archaeologists have greatly cerned themselves with the “domestic” since the discipline’s emergence, it alsoholds true that we have yet to develop a substantial theoretical body of workconcerning historic households Mary Beaudry’s (1989a:84) observation stillcarries weight today: “if one uses the anthropological de¤nition of householdsthat stresses the dynamics of this highly variable social grouping as the yard-stick for evaluating what has been done, it is clear that domestic sites of thehistorical period have seldom been examined from what can truly be called ahousehold-oriented perspective.” We typically fail to even de¤ne “household”while we regularly employ the term The end result is often an uncritical im-position upon the past of our contemporary notions of the household Sincethe dominant American household norm, or “domestic” realm, relies heavily

con-on the intact, nuclear family for its de¤niticon-on, many of us presuppose that the

Foreword

Maria Franklin

family does the same work as the household, then as now, and regardless ofplace.

The authors presented in this volume make no assumptions about the ture of households As each chapter unfolds, it becomes apparent that just as

na-it is ubiquna-itous, the household de¤es singular de¤nna-itions and lays claim to amultiplicity of forms, functions, and meanings The ®uidity and vibrancy ofthe household is underscored as its life cycle is inextricably tied to the births,marriages, departures, and deaths of its members, whether living on a Spanishcolonial rancho in the Rio Grande Valley or on a plantation in the Bahamas.The household as a social network instrumental to the formation and resilience

of subjugated communities is highlighted in works concerning African cans owned by Andrew Jackson and those establishing new lives in post-eman-cipation Texas The household is deeply implicated not only in biological re-production, but in the social reproduction of individuals where racial, class,and gender identities are constructed worlds apart from within a Colorado coalcamp to a home in the Old South The essentialized household as a cozy, safe,and peaceful domestic haven is challenged by research in Arkansas and SouthCarolina, where householders divided by race and slavery illustrate that house-hold relations could be highly discordant Yet we are also reminded of thehousehold’s role in reproducing and perpetuating naturalizing ideologies InMassachusetts, where women’s coalition-building threatened to disrupt Victo-rian gender norms in part by violating men’s public spaces, paternalism worked

Ameri-to diffuse women’s attempts Ameri-to create a woman-centered, community-basedhousehold Eight decades later in a California logging camp, we ¤nd companymanagement using paternalism in the guise of the metaphorical family tomaintain order and discipline over laborers (particularly single males), largelythrough household structure and organization

From front to back, there is no shortage of concrete archaeological and torical analyses, rigorous theorizing, socially relevant questions, or politicalconsciousness centered on the household within these pages In their introduc-tion, editors Kerri Barile and Jamie Brandon provide one of the very few his-torical perspectives and surveys of the study of households within historicalarchaeology The volume is further strengthened by commentaries from twoleading scholars of the discipline, Mary Beaudry and Suzanne Spencer-Wood.Each has been instrumental in advancing household-level research and socialtheory in archaeology, advocating in particular for contextual and interpretiveapproaches and feminist and gendered analysis

his-To close, all of the authors are to be commended for their collective deavor in revealing the productive potential of a household-oriented perspec-

en-tive Given the diversity of case studies and approaches, Household Chores and

Household Choices represents a critical step toward building a corpus of

theo-ries of households that is so direly needed in historical archaeology

xiv / Foreword

HOUSEHOLD C HOR ES and HOUSEHOLD C HOIC ES

Introduction

Household Chores; or, the Chore of De¤ning

the Household

Jamie C Brandon and Kerri S Barile

The household is a school of power There, within the door, learn the comedy of human life

tragi-Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1883

A comfortable house is a great source of happiness It ranks immediately afterhealth and a good conscience

Sydney Smith, 1843Home is a name, a word, it is a strong one; stronger than magician ever spoke, orspirit ever answered to, in the strongest conjuration

Charles Dickens, 1844

“Home” is any four walls that enclose the right person

Helen Rowland, 1903Home is the girl’s prison and the woman’s workhouse

George Bernard Shaw, 1903

Re®ecting upon the quotations that open this chapter, it can be no surprise thatarchaeologists and historians have a great deal of trouble untangling the ter-

minology and meaning surrounding the w ords house, household, and home.

These terms can point to a simple building, a more ephemeral place graphically speci¤c or general) connected to emotion and feeling, a “school ofpower” (as in the Emerson quotation), a terrain upon which culture is learned,

(geo-a gendered sp(geo-ace, shelter (geo-ag(geo-ainst n(geo-ature, (geo-and the sum of its contents (the listingphenomena exempli¤ed by both probate inventories and the “House that JackBuilt” nursery rhyme) A household can elicit some of these images or all ofthese things at once Above all, house and home can be used as metaphors foralmost anything one can imagine—a fact that points toward the all-pervading

nature of the term and the importance of unraveling its multiple meanings inorder to understand the past(s).

Although it is a problematic concept, archaeologists have given a lot ofthought and effort to households, recognizing almost from the discipline’s in-ception the importance of house and hearth to understanding the past Like-wise, there have been many attempts to deal with this domestic rubric and tountangle that maze of strands that render past households dif¤cult to discernclearly through the historical and archaeological records

HOUSES, HOUSELOTS, A ND HISTOR IC HOMES: ROOTS OFHOUSEHOLD APPROACHES FROM ARCH A EOLOGY A ND

HISTOR IC PR ESERVATION

Within the historic preservation movement, interest in houses was a paramount

founding focus In the United States, it is in the early roots of the preservationmovement where “Americans developed their own distinctive version of his-toric preservation while Europeans were restoring their churches and castles orgathering vernacular architecture and folk objects into outdoor museums”(Alexander 1996:88) Alexander is referring to the historic house museum—asingle dwelling or group of buildings, surrounded by a house lot or extensiveacreage, with historic signi¤cance (once inhabited by a famous individual orfamily; representative of an architectural style or architect; or, signifying a par-ticular historic event) The ¤rst historic house museum, the Hasbrook House

in Newburgh, New York—Washington’s headquarters during the RevolutionaryWar—was established in 1850 In 1856, Ann Pamela Cunningham began the

¤ght to save Mount Vernon, Washington’s plantation on the Potomac River.Her preservation work, and the ensuing creation of the Mount Vernon Ladies’Association of the Union, was to become the model of household preservation

in the United States for the next 100 years (Alexander 1996:89)

Like Mount Vernon, early-twentieth-century projects that involved cal research and archaeology were framed around homes and the “enshrine-ment of home sites and landscapes belonging to the nation’s ‘founding fathers’ ”(Sanford 1999:7), thus bounding the de¤nition and assumed function of thehousehold by gender, race, and status For example, archaeological and histori-cal research at Stratford Hall Plantation in Westmoreland County, Virginia,home of the Lee family and birthplace of Robert E Lee, began in 1929 with thecreation of the Robert E Lee Memorial Foundation, a group modeled on theMount Vernon Ladies’ Association Archaeological excavations concentrated onthe area surrounding the Great House in an attempt to reconstruct the out-

histori-buildings and landscape built by, and modi¤ed by, the Lee men and, moreover,

to establish Stratford as “a civic shrine” dedicated to Robert E Lee (Sanford1999:7).

Certainly during the mid and late nineteenth century, as modernity

solidi-¤ed and industrialization progressed, “tokens from the nation’s childhood”became symbolic of a dying past that needed to be preserved, catalogued,and recorded “to bolster the mature and rational evolution of the Bourgeoisand bureaucratic state” (Boyer 1994:378) Part and parcel of the nation’s newconcern for remembrance is its obsession with forgetting and erasure (Flores2002:20–25; Trouillot 1995) Historic homes, along with battle¤eld sites, becamethe perfect venue for both remembrance and erasure Such strong focus on thewhite, wealthy male individual (such as Washington, Lee, or Andrew Jackson

at the Hermitage in Tennessee) easily created an aggregate household pletely subsumed under what the public identi¤ed as the “head of household.”Any evidence that might complicate this picture of a harmonious household is

com-“silenced by the weight of its structure” (Flores 2002:21), and the past was sented with idyllic, innocent charm

pre-Early-twentieth-century household archaeology and historic research wasnot limited to large-scale plantations and homesteads but also extended to thecreation of some of the ¤rst historic districts in the country Even these dis-tricts, however, remained focused on the “household as architecture” idea ¤rstestablished in the mid-1800s, one that was directly tied to the “great men ofhistory” myth The ¤rst historic district in the nation was created between 1928and 1931 in Charleston, South Carolina (Howard 1987:115) Throughout the ¤rstquarter of the twentieth century, prominent local citizens of Charleston wit-nessed the slow demise of large portions of the historic downtown area Theautomobile and the creation of new commercial venues caused the widening

of roads, the removal of streetside landscaping and ornate ironwork, and theoutright destruction of several historic homes once belonging to the Charles-ton elite The Charleston Historic District was thus designed to protect boththe house structure and house lot from destruction or alteration (See Bran-don’s chapter in this volume for the gendered implications of the Charlestonhistoric preservation movement.) The establishment of local preservation leg-islation and the protection of household structures soon spread to other Ameri-can cities, such as New Orleans in 1936, San Antonio in 1939, Winston-Salem,North Carolina, in 1948, and Natchez, Mississippi, in 1951 (Howard 1987:115).Archaeologically, this period is certainly marked by the assumption that inves-tigations into the architectural remains of a dwelling lead to an understanding

of domestic behavior in the past (Allison 1999a:4)

From the late 1960s into the 1980s, however, anthropology and prehistoricarchaeology attempted to move away from the static concept of household as

architecture and began to address questions beyond the physical fabric and out of the home and house lot Simultaneously, these disciplines struggled toachieve a “greater degree of precision” by separating the “two phenomena [en-capsulated within the concept of household] that are logically distinct and varysomewhat independently: co-residence and domestic function” (Bender 1967).This distinction between structure and function was sought to “bridge theexisting ‘mid-level theory’ gap” (Wilk and Rathje 1982:617) and “replace a cul-turally de¤ned unit with one that is more based on observation and can bemore readily compared across cultures” (Wilk and Netting 1984:1) Here, the

lay-“household” became “the most common social component of subsistence [a] strategy to meet the productive, distributive and reproductive needs of itsmembers” (Wilk and Rathje 1982:618), and inevitably households were pri-marily seen as the basic “measurable socio-economic unit” through which ar-chaeologists could generate understandings of the past (Allison 1999a:1) Yetthe con®ation of the two “logically distinct” aspects proved dif¤cult to evade,

as households were still commonly grouped “on the basis of what kind of familylies at the core” (Wilk and Netting 1984:3)

Historical archaeology, suffering something of an identity crisis at the time(e.g., Honerkamp 1988), saw the deployment of many permutations of the afore-mentioned approaches For instance, some researchers continued to “de¤ne thehousehold in terms of the household head and his relative rank in society”(Beaudry 1989a:84), while others joined prehistoric archaeologists in attempt-ing to re¤ne de¤nitions and separate function from form—although often fall-ing right back upon the convenient con®ation of terms when interpretationsare sought (e.g., O’Brien 1984:26–27)

Stanley South’s in®uential Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology (1977)

is a convenient example of processual thinking on households within historicalarchaeology He states that each household “represents a system within a muchlarger system imposing on each household a degree of uniformity in the rela-tionships among its various parts” (1977:86–87) For South, this uniformity wasthe basis for the generation of “household patterns” of material culture thatcould be used to attain his ¤nal goal—a clearer understanding of the broadprocesses of cultural evolution (1977:2–5) Similar sites should produce statis-tically similar patterns, while unusual sites will have patterns that deviate fromthe norm

So it seems that processualists also saw the past as inhabited by “aggregate”households These households were not necessarily con®ated with individualsbut rather were (when deployed ideally) entities unto themselves That is, theprocessual household is an abstract “unit,” usually a unit of production or con-sumption that makes rational choices about behavior within its worldview.Unfortunately, although South’s approach was admirable in its attention to site

structure beyond architecture and its emphasis on contexts, the vast majority

of those who ®ocked to his methods “used pattern analysis as if it were anend in itself ” (Beaudry 1989a:85; South 1988:27), resulting in many sites beingpigeonholed into patterns and a multitude of newly formulated patterns thatthreatened to outnumber the sites to which they were assigned

Parallel to these processual approaches stressing artifact patterning is thestructural approach to symmetrical patterning in architecture and other ma-terial culture advanced by researchers such as James Deetz (1977, 1982) andHenry Glassie (1975) Although Deetz (1982:720) was quick to point out that

“households and houses are neither isomorphic with each other, nor with

fami-lies,” he quickly returned to the idea that houses (or the remains of dwellings)

are “powerful mirrors for the way in which [people in the past] saw selves and their world and expressed the values of their culture in substance.”Although he was often defensive of his structural approach (as “non-provable”and “non-predictive”), Deetz’s goals have much in common with the processualapproach of South and others These goals include the positivistic idea of

them-“reading” a knowable pattern “encoded” into material culture (and its terns) which, in turn, point toward shifts in the larger worldview/belief sys-tems of past peoples Aside from the “essentially passive, re®ective view ofstyle” advanced here (Dietler and Herbich 1998:239), it has been pointed outthat the vast majority of individuals will not build the house in which they willdwell (Allison 1999a:4), a problem that plagues both the strict structural ap-proach and the return to houses and the “key” to past household behavior.THE HOUSEHOLD PERSPECTI V E IN HISTOR ICAL

pat-ARCH A EOLOGY: HOUSEHOLD COR ES AS PR ACTICE

Given the long associations outlined, it may seem ridiculous to say that hold analysis” has been implemented within historical archaeology only sincethe mid-1980s, but that is indeed the case (Beaudry 1989a) At that time, his-

“house-torical archaeologists began a critical assessment of the de¤nition of households

(e.g., Beaudry 1984, 1986, 1989a; Mrozowski 1984; Stewart-Abernathy 1986a).Although somewhat distinct owing to intellectual traditions, these studies didseek to bring a “household oriented perspective” to historical archaeology, butthe emphasis was on a “holistic, contextual approach” (Beaudry 1989a:84–85)—one that did not hinge solely on architectural or subsistence remains but em-ployed dynamic, historicizing methodologies Incidentally, Beaudry’s formulationwas set off alongside the idea of artifacts as “active voices” or the materialmanifestations of social discourse (Beaudry 1996; Beaudry et al 1991; Yentschand Beaudry 2001:226) Although it bears the dif¤culties of using a textualmetaphor for material culture (cf Dietler and Herbich 1998:243–244), this for-

mulation has more to offer than many of its predecessors, as it enables multiple,contradictory meanings within material culture, stresses contextualization,and represents the people who give material culture meaning in different situa-tions.

A plethora of other theoretical forces impacted household archaeology (bothdirectly and indirectly) throughout the 1980s and 1990s; they included con-sumption, consumer choice (Miller 1991; Spencer-Wood 1987a), feminist issues(e.g., Lawrence 1999; Spencer-Wood 1991a, 1996), and Marxist approaches, oftencombined w ith structural positions and utilization of consumer behaviors(Leone 1984, 1995; Leone and Little 1993; McGuire 1992; McGuire and Paynter1991; Orser 1988, 1996, to name a few) More recent archaeological studies haveattempted to look beyond the aggregate household—a view stressing economicproduction or belief systems painted with a broad brush—toward “the practicalactions of daily life” (Pader 1993:114) For example, archaeologies in®uenced byBourdieu’s practice theory have become commonplace (e.g., Allison 1999b;Dietler and Herbich 1998; Wilkie 2000a; also see Battle and Stewart-Abernathy,this volume)

THIS BOOK A ND THE LIST OF HOUSEHOLD CHOR ES

Discussion of an explicit “household perspective” seems to have receded what in recent literature in historical archaeology (with some notable excep-tions, such as the papers in Allison 1999b) Its most likely successor seems to bestudies employing the “landscape perspective,” which have become ubiquitous

some-of late (e.g., Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Shackel 2001a; Stine et al 1997; Thomas2001; Yamin and Metheny 1996; Young 2000) Although landscape archaeology,

in our opinion, provides a productive ground for understanding past power lationships and ideology, it must be said that many landscape analyses, as well

re-as other recent works dealing with race, clre-ass, and gender in a more general way,still rely on household data or have households deeply embedded within theirmatrices

The analytical move to landscapes, in fact, opens up interesting possibilitiesfor household analysis—the household as “small” landscape The same theo-retical underpinnings are at work on the household level, no matter how oneparses the de¤nition Practice theory, pow er relations, gender constructions,and many other subjects that have been treated successfully via landscapeanalysis beg to be applied in similar fashion to the household This approach

is, no doubt, in®uenced by Henrietta Moore’s (1988, 1994, 1996) stressing of thesymbolic uses of space and the reading of the complete “text” of householdsand their articulation with gender constructions

Some of the authors in this volume move toward a landscape perspective,

such as Barile’s discussion of plantation household complexes and the use of

spatial alteration as the response to the fear of insurrection, Battle’s focus onexterior, communally used areas, Pappas’s interrogation of house plans in log-ging camps, and Stewart-Abernathy’s keen observations about detached kitchens

In a similar vein, although not overtly spatial, Wood’s contributions utilizefeminist, Marxist, and practice theory approaches in ways akin to those perus-ing landscape studies (e.g., papers in Ashmore and Knapp 1999 and Delle et al.2000)

In addition, while gender is certainly prominent in these papers, we attempt

here to see households as not solely the locus for an engendered power struggle

(although it is certainly an important aspect of household analysis) To be sure,some authors confront gender constructions in the household (Spencer-Woodand Wood), while others examine the intersection of multiple identities in thehousehold (Anderson and Brandon) or address gender in more subtle ways(Davidson, Galindo, and Stewart-Abernathy) Still others eschew gender as acategory altogether in favor of other analytical registers (Barile and Bonine).This book is, then, both in the “household perspective” tradition (as out-lined in Beaudry 1989a) and a break with it Like Allison (1999a:5), we feel that

it is important to break free from a household archaeology dominated byarchitecture-oriented approaches Further, we feel that we must problematizenotions that behaviors of the past are simply “coded” in material culture andtheir patterns that can be easily “read” by archaeologists Such notions oftenlead to disappointment in archaeology’s abilities to answer social questions (cf.Allison 1999b; Dietler and Herbich 1998; and papers in Laurence and Wallace-Hadrill 1997), as well as overly simplistic and reductionist explanations ofhousehold analyses, which deny that cultural production is accomplished by

“socially situated subjects with different cultural competencies and different,often contradictory, interest” (Dietler and Herbich 1998:239)

A variety of papers are included that, in varying ways, grapple with themeaning of household on their own terrain—the only place we believe thesemeanings can be clari¤ed We do not believe in a single, universal de¤nition orapproach to the household Rather than presenting one de¤nition of the house-hold, the authors critically examine the concept within their own parameters.This move to the particular enables them to attempt to understand the work-ings of “house” and “home” in their own terms and the terms of their owndata This approach leads to the most promising and, we believe, the strongestfacet of this book: each author ¤rst develops a context for his or her project and

an understanding of the needed research questions, then attempts to de¤neand analyze the household based on this framework

In the United States today, there are many de¤nitions of household ing to the U.S Census, a household includes all those living within one space,

Accord-at one postal address This de¤nition disregards kinship and economics in favor

of a spatially based analysis The Internal Revenue Service, however, believes

a household is based on the economic unit and includes all those linked by nances, as well as by kin relations This system is judged on economic “depend-ents.” Certainly, most people not only de¤ne their own household beyond thecategories of these government agencies, but, more signi¤cantly, change theirde¤nition of a household several times throughout their lives Is the de¤nition

¤-of their household at eighteen years ¤-of age the same as at age ¤fty? Likely not.With this in mind, the authors here recognize that, while they cannot im-pose modern concepts on their understanding of the past, the household inthe past probably had many de¤nitions, as it does today, and, moreover, theboundaries of that household remained ®uid through one’s life span The authorsclearly establish a context for their projects based on the social and culturalbackground of the occupants, temporal association of the site, geographic lo-cation, social context for which the site(s) was developed, and even the circum-stances surrounding the present-day research and excavations The “house-hold” is then de¤ned based on this context and the research questions aredeveloped accordingly

This approach seems to agree with Julia Hendon’s assertion that “what households do [should be] a matter to be investigated rather than assumed a

priori” (Hendon 1996:46, emphasis added; also see Yanagisako 1979:164) Some

authors in this volume do go as far as to say that households are the basic unit

of production and reproduction in a given community, but production andreproduction do not stop at the vulgar Marxist conceptions of “producingsurplus value” or “reproducing the worker” (Hart 1992, cf Smith 1978) Here,

households are to be seen as the nexus of social reproduction and production

in the form of practice (Bourdieu 1977) At times, these household activitiesserve to “produce” material things (such as food, clothing, and shelter), butthey do these things in a way that both rei¤es and transforms the social structure—along with such things as gender constructions and power relations—which,

on a grander scale, are shared with the larger community To evoke the words

of Hendon (1996:47) again, we see a household as a “symbolically meaningfulsocial group that forms the next bigger thing on the social map after an indi-vidual.” In short, it is one of the most basic venues for the sharing of culture(Tringham 1988)

The broad framework outlined here alleviates the need to shoe-horn tions into universal categories The reader will note a wide array of de¤nitionsand in®uences in play Some approaches to households here stretch and makeproblematic the de¤nitions to include communal households (e.g., Pappas andSpencer-Wood) or entire plantations (e.g., Anderson and Barile), and someattempt to clarify and intensify more traditional approaches (e.g., Bonine,

de¤ni-Davidson, Stewart-Abernathy, and Wood) Not all of these authors separate thestructure and function of households, as do economically based approaches,but this entanglement is, in fact, part and parcel of the concept of households,and separation may obscure more than it illuminates.

Finally, while not all of these papers are speci¤cally archaeological in thetraditional sense, all approach speci¤c households (in time and space) from anarchaeological perspective Some authors marshal excavated data to discusshouseholds, as Stewart-Abernathy and Wood have done; others have relied onlimited excavations (e.g., Battle and Davidson), landscape analysis (e.g., Barileand Pappas), reanalyzed existing collections (Bonine), or utilized the archivalrecord to shed light on little-examined aspects of households (e.g., Anderson,Brandon, Galindo, and Spencer-Wood)

PLACE, SPACE, A ND BEING

There are many ways that a volume such as this one can be organized: logically, regionally, or topically After experimenting with many possible per-mutations, we have settled on an organization based around the subtle and

chrono-®uid distinction between senses of place, space, and being Taking our cuefrom humanist geographers, we regard a “Sense of Place” as the cultural tex-tures that attach themselves not only to “surfaces, processes and structures butalso communication acts and the multiple contexts” that create and are consti-tuted by a particular locale (Adams et al 2001:xiv) For example, Whitney Battle’schapter is an examination of an enslaved community living within the FirstHermitage, a portion of Andrew Jackson’s Hermitage plantation in central Ten-nessee She points out that researchers have often concentrated on enslavedfamilies or slave dwellings, but that concrete evidence of shared householdspace, such as outdoor spaces, has not often been investigated in its role of cre-ating community and giving the enslaved “a place of their own.”

Stewart-Abernathy in “Separate Kitchens and Intimate Archaeology” lows a vein similar to Battle’s by foregrounding the detached kitchens of OldWashington, Arkansas, as places where daily practice and physical separationcould create a brief refuge from the intimacy and inherent power relationships

fol-at play within the southern urban farmstead He points toward the little-studieddetached “kitchen” as being much more than a place for food preparation inthe eyes of the enslaved African Americans who worked, slept, and lived much

of their lives in that setting

James Davidson examines this “sense of place” on a much larger scale—theurban cityscape of Dallas, Texas He carefully follows the way in which theconstantly shifting urban landscape impacts historical memory and the mean-ing of place After outlining the transformation and loss of a historical Black

Dallas, he turns toward household-level analysis and urban archaeology as onemethod that may help expose modern and historical racism at work in our cur-rent landscapes.

Finally, Mindy Bonine’s analysis of two dwellings excavated in 1949 and 1950

in the borderlands of Starr County, Texas, is bold in its attempts to separatethe concepts of family and household using excavated data more than ¤ftyyears old Despite the limitations of her dataset, she manages to pose importantquestions about family, households, and the limitations of the investigations

of activity areas and the aggregate household

Authors with papers under the heading of “A Sense of Space” actively amine the physical landscape in dialogue with social construction and trans-formations Nesta Anderson extends Battle’s line of reasoning by questioningthe underlying assumptions that the scale of spatial analysis and its reliance onprescribed boundaries that, in certain circumstances, obscure as much as theyreveal She deploys the notion of nested household as an alternative de¤nition

ex-of household when working on Bahamian plantations Her case study suggeststhat researchers should situationally use different scales of landscape analysiswhen examining multiscalar cases, such as the plantation household More im-portant, in these situations one must always keep in mind the ®uid boundariesbetween often-¤xed concepts such as “house yard” and “slave quarters.”Kerri Barile uses Anderson’s “plantation as household” model in her analysis

of plantation landscapes and their response to real and imagined threats ofslave insurrection With Middleburg Plantation in South Carolina as her back-drop, she follows plantation layouts through time—particularly following theDenmark Vesey conspiracy of 1822 The culture of fear and the desperate need

of secure hegemony are clear in her depictions of white plantation owners.Suzanne Spencer-Wood, in her chapter on the Cambridge CooperativeHousekeeping Society, provides us with a good example of a situation that con-founds traditional de¤nitions of the household Here, domestic reformers at-tempt to transform chores commonly classi¤ed as “private” and associatedwith the “household” into “public” and professional activities While this workcould have easily been classi¤ed into our “sense of being” section (Part IV)based on the conscious attempt to change the oppressive gender structure ofVictorian America, it is Spencer-Wood’s examination of the spatial map of thesociety’s activities that places the piece squarely in our “sense of space” section.While many researchers, especially Spencer-Wood herself, have explored theideological entanglements of feminist thought and domestic reform, it is un-usual to encounter a physical mapping of reform-oriented sites Moreover,Spencer-Wood posits two interesting twists regarding the demise of the coop-erative Male domination within individual households (the realm often deemed

the woman’s purview in Victorian ideology) along with the spatial location ofthese cooperatives are credited with their eventual demise.

Efstathios Pappas provides another unconventional household case study—the Soap Creek Pass logging camp in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of Califor-nia Here, he attempts to understand variation in the spatial layout of companyhousing at the camp by examining the interplay between company paternalismand the agency of its employees The result is an interesting addition to the

“archaeology of capitalism,” juxtaposing family-oriented housing with thehousing of single male workers, where the company itself takes the place offamily—creating a large “household” consisting of labor “children” and manage-ment “fathers.”

Papers under the heading of “A Sense of Being” are centered around themore abstract cultural framework sometimes referred to as a “structure of feel-ing” (Williams 1973, 1977:128–135) that de¤nes the lived experience of people

and a set of productions (such as strategies of representation) that re®ect upon,

speak to, or attempt to transform those experiences (Mitchell 2000:13) JamieBrandon’s chapter, for example, attempts to get at the nexus of gender and raceconstruction in the postbellum South by looking at various practices, strate-gies, and discourses that center around the southern household and enable it

to be a locus for resistance while simultaneously feeding into the “strategies ofcontainment” advanced by both Victorian and modern social structures.Likewise, Margaret Wood’s chapter combines perspectives on labor, culture,and gender to examine how failed attempts at antilabor social engineeringback¤red on the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company by allowing women, in par-ticular, to make friends and take in boarders across ethnic lines Thus, at the

town of Berwind, it was social relations built at the household level that enabled

the collective action of the mineworkers—an aspect of the Ludlow Massacrethat historical literature has erased

Mary Jo Galindo marshals an impressive set of data from local historians,oral traditions, and archival data to outline an expanded de¤nition of theSpanish colonial household in Nuevo Santander In her case study of the ap-plication of household theory, she surmises that archaeologists concentrat-ing on the ranchos would only understand a part of the household activities,and the remainder of the household tasks took place at a second dwelling spa-tially removed from the rancho—in town She follows a complicated network

of kinrelationships and landholdings to reveal that these families were certainlyjoined by all of the criteria used by traditional archaeologists to describe thehousehold They were economically a unit, and they were related through kin-ship or ¤ctive kinship, but they lived spatially distinct lives

The volume concludes with commentaries by two researchers who have done

much to advance the notion of an explicitly household-centered archaeology,Mary Beaudry and Suzanne Spencer-Wood These summary essays contextu-alize and critique the case studies included here and stress that this volume

“further relates household inequalities to inequalities socially constructed, logically justi¤ed, and structurally enforced between social groups in the cul-ture as a whole” (Spencer-Wood)

ideo-Spencer-Wood examines the papers in this volume for their implicit or plicit reliance on feminist theory She has shown, in great detail, how differentsocial standpoints are embedded in the different levels of household de¤ni-tions and that feminist theory has in®uenced much of the research on powerdynamics here Beaudry’s concluding commentary, on the other hand, parsesthe volume into three themes (Intimacy and Separation; Patriarchy, Spatial Or-dering, and Power Relations; and The Subversive Poetics of Housework), andshe deftly points to many of the strong points and weaknesses of each of thechapters within these themes

ex-A careful reading of these concluding commentaries will show that theseauthors do not always agree with the other authors in the volume or with eachother, but they both feel that “the household is a critical social unit and vitalmedium for understanding innumerable aspects of social life” (Beaudry) Thesecommentaries, and the case studies they summarize, open a dialogue abouthow these different approaches and de¤nitions affect our understanding of thepast(s) The key here is that a household perspective sensitive to changes incontext and structure through time and space is an important framework forhistorical archaeologists and historians—one whose interpretations will, nodoubt, be explored and debated for some time to come

Part I

A Sense of Place

Initially, since households were believed to be a core social attribute, the

“most common social component of subsistence, the smallest and most dant activity group” (Wilk and Rathje 1982:618), de¤nitions based on culturaland cross-cultural attributes were attempted However, an exception to the rulewas usually found that gave the de¤nition less weight (see Tringham 1991:100).For example, in our society the nuclear family unit in a single residence usuallysigni¤es a household, but of course there are many households that do not con-form to this ideal To get a better sense of this diversity, several archaeologistshave de¤ned the household based on the activities performed there rather than

abun-on the physical structure where the activities are cabun-onducted or abun-on the kinshipstructure of the inhabitants (Blanton 1994; Hendon 1996; Meadows 1999; Wilkand Netting 1984; Wilk and Rathje 1982) Houses and families were not left outentirely from the de¤nition, but they were heavily de-accentuated (Wilk andNetting 1984:1–3; Wilk and Rathje 1982:618)

2

Analysis of Household and Family at a Spanish Colonial Rancho along the Rio Grande River

Mindy Bonine

HOUSEHOLDS, FA MILIES, A ND OTHER SOCI AL GROUPS

Early on in discussions about the structure of households and how they can beseen archaeologically, a division was made between the household and the family.Although households and families often go hand in hand, particularly in cul-tures that promote the nuclear family ideal, the wide variety of actual home lifesituations prompted several archaeologists to argue that the household should

be de¤ned by propinquity and activities (functional) and families as a socialgroup based on kinship (structural and organizational) (Bender 1967; Kramer1982; Laslett 1972) This separation of ideas was done to avoid automaticallylinking households and families together in a set of predetermined relation-ships (like our own relationship between household and family), regardless ofevidence for more variability in a society or different sorts of relationships(Kramer 1982:664; Wilk and Netting 1984:1) The separation is not comfort-able, and many of the activities talked about, including domestic functions,co-residence, economic ties, food preparation, and socialization of children, ar-guably can be applied to either term, depending on the perspective (Bender1967; Yanagisako 1979)

Later in the discussion about households, the emphasis on the function ofthe household was criticized for trivializing the composition of householdsand the relationships among their members (Allison 1999a:2; Henden 1996:48;Tringham 1991:101) Household studies concentrated too much on what house-holds did as a single social unit and not enough on the individuals within thehou sehold who did the work This approach treated all hou seholds as hav-ing the same internal composition and failed to explore the various dynamicsamong household members, including factors that would impede the success-ful “running of the household,” such as con®ict and strife Although theseauthors were discussing this phenomenon in terms of gender relations, theyalso included class and ethnicity (Hendon 1996:46) I argue that family should

be included in this list as well, for socially de¤ned familial relationships, ing non-kinship age-rank relationships (for example, see Pappas, this volume),structure how household members interact with each other throughout theirlives, and are intimately tied with gender, class, and ethnicity

includ-Because, like the household, the family is a social unit, it cannot be analyzed

in any depth without talking about other social categories, which, in turn, say

a great deal about what the family means in a particular culture I believe thatthe family, whatever its particular cultural de¤nition, shapes the life of an in-dividual in such a profound and personal way that it would be dif¤cult to ig-nore in a microscale analysis, such as household archaeology Even if kin mem-bers do not cohabitate or share in household functions, they do have an effect

on the household through the household members themselves

Examining households solely in terms of function is productive, but it isalso a matter of convenience It allows archaeologists to link a collection ofphysical structures to social activities, and in turn to larger social processes,without having to determine exactly who is participating in those activities Incircumstances where ¤nding household composition is dif¤cult, such as areas

of research that have little comparative information, this concept works verywell Further attempts to associate functional categories from the artifact as-semblage to groups or individuals most likely to perform those tasks would be

a shot in the dark However, in situations where more can be known aboutthe inhabitants of these physical structures, for example, through extensive ar-chaeological excavations or ethnographic or textual information, a functionalanalysis of households is not enough Information concerning gender, class,family, and ethnicity, attributes of the individuals who lived and worked inthese households, are left out of the equation (see Lawrence 1999:122–123) Thisabsence limits what can be said about variation between and among house-holds, issues of con®ict between and among household members, exploration

of identity formation and maintenance, and an individual’s relationship withthe physical environment If multiple lines of evidence exist and, most impor-tant, contextual information concerning archaeological data exists, then the re-lationship between household function and household composition can be ex-plored with rigor The arguments that were used to separate household andfamily are still valid (i.e., an awareness of the biases generated from moderncultural perception of families and households that might be placed on thepast); however, a recognition that households are not all the same (or even thesame over time) should make the dangers avoidable

In my research concerning civilian Spanish settlements along the Texas/Mexico border in the mid- to late eighteenth century (Bonine 2001), I had in-itially welcomed the idea of separating the household and family because I didnot have to worry about associating certain groups of people with the struc-tures that were excavated As a focus of my research, I could relate the activities

of the households to other Spanish colonial settlements in the area, particularlymissions and presidios, and remark on the similarities and differences betweenthem However, I kept wondering about who really lived there and why theywere willing to risk so much to settle in an inhospitable land so far from “civi-lization.” I decided to change my direction to include questions about house-hold composition as well as household function to try to understand these ci-vilian Spanish settlers I will brie®y describe the investigation of a SpanishColonial rancho site along the Rio Grande and discuss the possible connectionsbetween the archaeological and architectural evidence, which provides dataabout activities and use of space, and the historic evidence, which providessome information on the people who lived there

T WO SITES, ONE R A NCHO

In 1951, construction of the Falcon Dam in Starr County, Texas, was completedalong the Rio Grande Upstream of the dam, a large reservoir was created thatcovered two small towns along the riverbank, as well as numerous archaeologi-cal sites While Falcon Dam was under construction, several people becameconcerned about the archaeological and historic resources that would soon beunderwater and scraped together some funds to travel down to the banks ofthe Rio Grande and conduct archaeological surveys (Krieger and Hughes 1950).Fifty-¤ve sites were recorded along the entire length of the proposed reservoir,but archaeologists concentrated on the town of Zapata and the dam spillwayconstruction site that was being bulldozed at the time In 1951, the River BasinSurveys at the Smithsonian Institution conducted emergency excavations ofthree historic sites, two of which appeared to have an interesting relationship(Hartle and Stephenson 1951)

Two Spanish colonial sites were among the sites recorded and partially cavated in 1949 and 1950, before the dam and reservoir were completed Eachsite contained ruins of one-room stone buildings situated close together, alongwith domestic trash middens (Figure 2.1) The buildings appeared to be domes-tic structures associated with a Spanish rancho operating in the mid-eighteenth

ex-to mid-nineteenth centuries However, only two small survey and excavationreports were written about the sites, and only one of the reports was available

to the public No further analysis of artifacts or archival work was done oneither site The artifacts and excavation notes were housed at the Texas Archeo-logical Research Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin for 48 years.Fortunately, interest in Texas’s Spanish Colonial history has been revived, andarchaeologists and historians are conducting more research in this area (e.g.,Alonzo 1998; DiPaolo Loren 2000; Galindo, this volume; Jones 1996; Mondayand Colley 1997; Perttula et al 1999; Tijerina 1998; Williams 1982) However,archaeological investigations into Spanish ranchos were still sparse, and ananalysis of material recovered from Falcon Reservoir was considered an impor-tant addition to this area of research

Site 41SR39 is located approximately 300 feet north of the dam along the RioGrande valley, less than 100 feet from the water’s edge (Hartle and Stephenson1951) The site contained two one-room stone ruins, consisting of concentratedrock piles over the remaining walls, and a trash midden only a few inches deep(Figure 2.2) One building had a ¤re pit in the center of the room The otherbuilding measured 16.8 feet × 11 feet and contained a sealed 41-inch-wide door.The artifact complement for both buildings was noticeably similar

Site 41SR43 was recorded as 675 feet from the dam site and about 350 feetfrom the river This site is quite a bit larger than 41SR39, with four one-room

structures, a possible well, and a large trash midden (Figure 2.3) The site as awhole seemed to be in worse condition than 41SR39; rather than discrete piles

of rubble, the sandstone blocks were scattered around the ground, with thewalls of the buildings just visible on the surface One building was almost en-tirely washed away by erosion

All the buildings were constructed in the same manner at both sites: cutsandstone chinked with smaller stones and remnants of adobe plastered onthe walls No ®oors were found in any of the buildings; however, evidence ofthresholds, the only openings in the buildings, was found at the level of themodern ground surface This led the investigators to think the ®oor was alreadywashed away, and they were excavating below the ®oor Recovered artifactswere also similar between the sites Later investigation into property ownership

showed that both sites were on the same porcion, or land grant, drawn up by

the surveyors of the José de Escandón expedition in 1767 Also, the sites were

in close proximity, only a ¤ve-minute walk apart It was likely that the two siteswere actually part of the same rancho complex

R ECOV ER ED ARTIFACTS

At ¤rst examination, the artifacts recovered from each group of buildingswithin the rancho were similar, but on closer inspection there were interestingdifferences in the type and quantity of the artifacts recovered Although thesites were not excavated in their entirety, particularly site 41SR43, and there is

Fig 2.1 Map of Falcon Dam and Sites 41SR39 and 41SR43.

a danger in making conclusions based on incomplete excavation data, the tifacts that were recovered can hint at some of the activities conducted at thisrancho, as well as the identity of the inhabitants.

ar-Unfortunately, there are excavation sampling issues that in®uence the fact analysis of these two sites The buildings were either excavated in largeareas that covered the entire interior space of the building, or narrow trencheswere dug on the interior side of the walls The only exception to this was House

arti-2 at 41SR43, where a squ are was laid ou t and the interior was excavated inblocks If there was any vertical distribution of artifacts inside the structures,

it was not recorded by any of the excavators Vertical distribution was a littlemore controlled in the excavation of the test units at site 41SR43, consisting oftwo levels, one 0 to 6 inches and the other 6 inches to 1 foot Horizontal distri-butions of artifacts were very broad in most areas for both sites The informa-tion recovered does not lend anything to an investigation of possible activityareas within the buildings, the relationship between the interior and exteriorhabitation areas, or the vertical distribution of artifacts that might help iden-tify a ®oor or ®oors Therefore, the discussion will concentrate on the differ-ences and similarities between the buildings themselves and on the trash midden

Fig 2.2 Site 41SR39.

Fig 2.3 Site 41SR43.

Perhaps more worrisome is the existence of large quantities of artifacts that,through mistakes in excavation, transport, or analysis, have lost all proveniencesave for the site they came from Several of these artifacts are interesting andshould not be left out of the discussion, but what can be understood aboutthem will be more limited That said, it is still a valuable exercise to reanalyzecultural material housed at curation facilities, as will be demonstrated.

House 1 contained the most material (n = 2,583), and a vast majority of theceramic sherds were reconstructed into semirestored vessels The vessels con-

sisted primarily of storage jars (ollas) of a shape similar to an olive jar Small,

®attened bases widened to an oval-shaped body and narrowed down to a shortneck and mouth All were unglazed; the mouths were not as small as an olivejar’s and were thin-lipped Other completed unglazed forms included smallbowls with slightly ®attened bases and lips that turned slightly outward All ofthese storage vessels were handmade and consistent with the Mier Plain cate-gory of unglazed coarse earthenware (Perttula et al 1999) Several glazed andwheel-made vessels were also found in House 1, including two “mixing bowls,”large curved coarse earthenware bowls with no foot, a wide mouth, and decora-tive edges These bowls showed evidence of heavy use, as the green glaze on the

interior had been almost worn off Two majolica platos (San Luis Polychrome Variant) were reconstru cted from sherds, and at least two chocolateras were

present The restored ceramic vessels were so numerous that the 1950 surveyteam, which excavated House 1, identi¤ed 25 complete and partially completevessels Upon further observations, the number of identi¤able vessels was some-what less, but the fact that so many existed is still signi¤cant The only glassand metal artifacts at site 41SR39 were also found in House 1, as well as onemetate fragment and two bone buttons

Compared to House 1, House 2 contained little cultural material, only ramic sherds (n = 250) and bone (n = 13) One chocolatera was found there(Figure 2.4) and a few glazed sherds, but most of the material was unglazedcoarse earthenware About 595 artifacts did not have any provenience informa-tion included Some of these materials were surface collections, including ¤vebifaces and a thick iron plate, and a collection of 19 bifaces and cores could be

ce-traced to either House 1 or House 2 A clay whistle was also found in an known location at the site.

un-Site 41SR43 Artifacts

Considerably more artifacts were recovered from site 41SR43 The site waslarger than 41SR39, and several test units were placed in the trash midden, lead-ing to both larger artifact counts and more variety of artifacts Of the totalfragments of cultural material recovered (n = 5,102), 89 percent were ceramics(n = 4,544), 4.7 percent were stone objects (n = 255), and 4 percent were bone(n = 205) Shell (n = 61), metal (n = 21), and glass (n = 5) made up the rest ofthe material

Of the four structures located at site 41SR43, House 1 contained the largestamount and widest variety of material The ceramic artifacts included MierPlain sherds (n = 81), Galera Polychrome (from chocolateras) (n = 65), andGreen and Brown Glazed Utility Ware (n = 18) Majolica, totaling 15 sherds,included Aranama Polychrome, San Elizario, Pueblo Blue on White, and Plain

Fig 2.4 Semirestored Galera Polychrome chocolatera vessel from

Site 41SR39.