Report on
Excavation at the Bethabara
1754 Sleeping Hall Site,
Forsyth County, North Carolina
by
Bruce S. Idol
Stephen T. Trage
Roger W. Kirchen
Wake Forest University Archeology Laboratories
J. Ned Woodall, Principal Investigator
Report prepared for Historic Bethabara Park; May, 1996
Table of Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Documentary Evidence
- Previous Archeological Investigations
- Objectives/Research Methods
- Natural Environment
- Archeological Evidence
- Results of Excavation
- Artifacts
- Conclusions and Discussion
- Prehistoric Component
- Summary
- References Cited
- Appendix I: Feature Summary
- Appendix II: Artifact Inventory
- Appendix III: Cut Coin
Several individuals contributed their time and thoughts to
this effort, which made for a productive and enjoyable undertaking
for everyone involved. Rodney Meyer, Director of Historic
Bethabara, readily shared his observations and research with us and
facilitated the continuous process of cross-checking archeological
and documentary sources. We are also grateful for the many helpful
comments and observations of John Clauser of the North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology, Brad Rauschenberg of the Museum for
Early Southern Decorative Arts, and John Larsen of Old Salem, Inc.
Jennifer Powell provided valuable assistance with the fieldwork and
(we think) enjoyed her first introduction to archeology, and Craig
Taylor helped in the field as well. Bill Terrell performed the
faunal analysis for the project at the Archeology Laboratories, and
Bill Duncan helped process artifacts. Kathleen Kron of the Wake
Forest Biology Department performed the botanical analysis.
Finally, Ned Woodall was there for us whenever we needed him and
for whatever we needed him for. Our thanks extends to all of these
people.
Bruce Idol
Steve Trage
Roger Kirchen
Wake Forest University Archeology Laboratories
May, 1996
Field investigations at the site of the Bethabara 1754
sleeping hall were performed by personnel from the Wake Forest
University Archeology Laboratories from February 21 to April 17,
1996. The Bethabara 1754 sleeping hall is within the boundaries of
Historic Bethabara Park, a National Register site which is located
in Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina. Bethabara was the
first Moravian settlement in North Carolina.
This project was initiated after the Beroth family,
descendants of one of the original Bethabara settlers, offered to
financially support the reconstruction of the 1754 sleeping hall
and other structures and cultural features of the 1754 settlement
(Meyer 1996). The Archeology Laboratories was contracted to perform
excavations at the site in advance of any reconstructive efforts.
Based on available funds, a decision was made to test the area
of the 1754 sleeping hall with a single large test excavation unit.
It was hoped that this unit would intercept any existing structural
evidence, and thereby aid the reconstructive effort and add to our
knowledge of eighteenth century life in North Carolina.
The initial Bethabara settlement party of 11 men was pleased
to discover and subsequently occupy a log cabin (abandoned by Hans
Wagner) in the fall of 1753. The group had been dispatched from the
Pennsylvania settlement of Bethlehem to found a temporary
settlement in the North Carolina Piedmont (Bethabara means "house
of passage"). One can well imagine in the winter of 1753-54 that
the North Carolina backcountry rang with the sounds of axes felling
tree after tree, because the following months were largely spent
clearing land and gathering provisions for the winter when no crops
could be planted. In the evenings the small party of single
Moravian men would retire to the old cabin where religious services
were conducted and meals were eaten prior to settling down for the
night.
In February, 1754, the men began a new structure to house
themselves. The following are excerpts from the records of that
year:
(Bethabara Diary, 1754)
February 5 - Br. Loesch held morning prayers, then the Brethren
went to work. We began to build a new sleeping
room....
February 7 - Today the rails for our new sleeping room were
placed....
March 13 - After morning prayers several of the Brethren went a
mile away to work in the meadow. Merkli ploughed;
others worked on the new sleeping room.
March 14 - Some of the Brethren worked on the meadow, others on
clapboards for the new sleeping room.
March 16 - Our new sleeping room is so far finished that tonight
we could sleep in the dry. Evening we had Lovefeast,
during which each man's sleeping place was
assigned; then we had evening prayers in our new room.
(Fries 1922:90-91,94,98-99).
The 1754 sleeping hall (the sleeping room) appears to have
been the second structure at Bethabara built by the Moravians
solely for habitation purposes, although it was the first to house
only Moravians. A Diary entry for January 7, 1754 states that on
that day a site was staked out for a small dwelling house near the
spring (Fries 1922:90). The reference to log cutting on January 8
apparently refers to the intended construction of that structure.
Although its construction and occupation are not commented upon
again in the Diary (other than a January 12 entry which states that
construction of the structure had not begun), it does appear on the
1754 and 1758 maps which also depict the sleeping hall. On the July
1754 map it is labeled as "cow house" although an earlier map labels
it as "the dwelling house" (Meyer 1996). This dwelling house may have
been used to house visitors and the sick before the strangers'
(non-Moravian visitors) cabin was erected, also in 1754. The dwelling
house, a ten foot square structure, was constructed of round logs with
a gabled roof and gable-end chimney. It was converted to a cow barn after
six months of use (Meyer 1996: 8-9).
The 1754 sleeping hall was used for habitation until 1755,
when the new Brother's sleeping hall (the first to be called by
that name in the Diary) was completed. The original structure's
design was felt to be inadequate during the hard 1755 winter, and it was
abandoned in June of that year (see below).
(Bethabara Diary, 1755)
February 26 - ... we can not imagine another winter when nearly
all our cattle and calves and horses must be left to
take care of themselves, nor another winter in such
poor quarters, especially our sleeping room, which
is of rails between which a man may thrust his hand.
(Fries 1922:125)
June 14 - Then we moved out of our old cabin and sleeping room
into the new house... (Fries 1922: 132).
The original sleeping hall was converted into a barn within
the next two weeks.
(Bethabara Diary, 1755)
June 26 - The barley which was cut yesterday was hauled today
and stored in our former sleeping room. (Fries 1922:
132).
The Bethabara Diary does not mention the presence of a sundial on
the eastern side of the sleeping hall, although it appears on the
Bethabara Master Site Plan (correlated with the 1766 Reuter map,
and the July 1754 map). It should be noted that this map, drafted by
Stanley South, depicts a 1761 addition to the western side of the
original sleeping hall. Likewise, this same map labels the sleeping hall
area as a storage shed for the 1759 store, with an associated date of
1770 for the storage shed. While it is clear that South's map
superimposes structures depicted on temporally separate maps (e.g., 1754
and 1766), it is not entirely clear how he computed the positions of
temporally separate structures erected in the same locale.
A May 8, 1765 description of the destruction of "the old
sleeping hall" could refer to the 1755 Sleeping Hall, which was the
first structure to be called as such in the Diary. However, the
structure is labeled "sleeping hall" on the 1754 map, and the two
terms may have been interchangeable, and thus the sleeping room of
the Diary accounts may indeed have been the one destroyed by heavy
storm winds in 1765.
If it was the 1755 Brother's sleeping hall and not the 1754
sleeping hall that was destroyed in 1765, then we can say nothing
about the structure's history after the year 1755. It likely
enjoyed an extended existence as a storage room, but whether this
involved architectural modifications to the original structure is
unknown.
The singular design and architecture of the 1754 sleeping hall
is best understood within the particular historical circumstances
surrounding the establishment of Bethabara in Wachovia and the more
general Germanic traditions held by its constructors. First,
Bethabara was intended as a temporary base from which to establish
the village of Salem, and no whole families settled at Bethabara
village until 1755, two years after its establishment as a self-
sufficient community. As stated above, the first late fall and
winter months of 1753/1754 were spent clearing land for farming
areas and to maintain livestock. There was no need in 1754 for more
than one Moravian housing unit because Bethabara at that time was
essentially composed of the members of a single choir. A building
large enough for all Moravian men living there was adequate, along
with another cabin constructed solely for the use of visiting non-
Moravians (first the dwelling house and subsequently the strangers'
cabin). The 1754 map shows the sleeping hall and notes its
dimensions as 50 feet long, 13 feet wide, and 10 feet tall. It
faces east, unlike the dwelling house and Wagner cabin, which face
west.
Months of timber cutting undoubtedly produced a large stock-
pile of whole logs, split quartered logs and rails suitable for
architectural purposes. In March, 1754, Jacob Loesch wrote: "We
have ...heavy squared logs thirteen feet wide and more than thirty
feet long" (Taylor 1981:5). Barring any inaccuracy in the
translation, perhaps his reference to "thirteen feet wide" logs is
referring to an entire stack of logs set aside for architectural
use, or alternatively may refer to logs cut to this length.
The architecture and historical tradition behind the 1754
sleeping hall is described as a:
"plank log structure constructed with grooved corner posts, so
that the planks slid down into the grooves and formed a tight
corner. It had a shed roof, no chimney, and only one wide door
with a transom above. This type of log construction, called
"corner posting," was common in southwestern Germany and the
Alpine foreland of Switzerland. It was a transitional type of
construction, falling somewhere between traditional log corner
notching and half-timbering" (Taylor 1981:5).
Variation exists within the corner-posting architectural
style; while strict adherence to the Alpine-Alemannic tradition
would result in a chinkless, virtually solid wooden wall, there are
known examples from America in which the walls are constructed of
hewn beams spaced apart and chinked (Jordan 1985:94-95). The former
corresponds to the drawing of the sleeping hall on the 1754 and
1758 maps (and Taylor's description based on those depictions) and
the latter version fits better the Diary account with its
description of rail construction and the complaint the following
year that it was possible to pass one's hand through the rails (see
above). A variation on this type is typically used in Europe only
for outbuildings like hay sheds where the walls were constructed of
unchinked hewn logs (Jordan 1985:94-95). The expedient use of
wooden rails for the sleeping hall's construction rather than
carefully grooved and fitted "planks" or hewn logs would likely
have left several gaps and cracks in the wall, supporting the Diary
account. The July 1754 map's depiction of the sleeping hall may
have portrayed an ideal type, and not an actuality. Crudely
fashioned thin rails would most likely not have allowed the use of
adequate chinking. Corner post architecture typically utilizes hewn
log beams as sills to support the vertical postbeams of the frame.
Alternatively, the postbeams could have been placed directly in the
ground. No mention is made of the presence of a wooden floor in the
Diary.
The two carpenters among the fifteen men who made the journey
to the site of Bethabara in 1753 were from Norway and Holstein
(Lane 1985:67). It should be noted that the first potter (and brick
burner), Gottfried Aust, did not arrive until 1755 and no mention
of bricks are made until the following year (Lane 1985:6), nor was
the sawmill in operation until 1755. As in Bethlehem, most of the
early Bethabara buildings were log, and some, like the mill, were
half-timbered but the ratio between corner post and half-timber
construction is unknown (Taylor 1981:9). It appears that in its
architectural details and its size, the sleeping hall was truly a
unique construction at Bethabara, and a historical rarity.
Stanley South initiated archeological investigations in the
northern portion of the Bethabara site and in the vicinity of the
original sleeping hall in 1963, in an attempt to document the
presence of the Hans Wagner cabin. Although South was unable to
find unequivocal architectural evidence of the cabin's presence, he
did excavate a rectangular feature believed to have been the potato
storage pit of 1754, which was located under the floor of the
cabin. This feature's fill contained a small fragment of a ceramic
cooking pan and a larger fragment of a milk pan (South 1972:74-76).
South (1972:38) also excavated the cellar of the first tavern, to
the southwest of the sleeping hall.
More recently, excavations at the site of the Bethabara garden
have been performed by John Clauser of the North Carolina Office of
State Archaeology (Clauser 1985,1988), and have led to its present
reconstruction. Clauser (1988) was able to document the presence
and location of boundary fencing, the grape arbor, garden pathways,
and diagonal trenches associated with the preparation of planting
beds, in additional to several features believed to pre-date the
garden itself. Associated artifacts were few, but included small
fragments of Moravian red earthenware and chamber pots, wrought and
cut nails, and (unassociated) aboriginal lithic and ceramic
artifacts. Most of the features and artifacts documented by Clauser
are associated with the 1759 garden configuration, although the
1754 garden is also represented (Clauser 1988:48).
The objectives of the 1996 excavation reflect first and
foremost the particular goal of the building's imminent
reconstruction. Is the building located where the July 1754 and
Reuter maps place it in relation to other documented structures?
How was it oriented? To what extent had the building's remains been
affected by cultural and natural processes? In regard to later
building in the area, would it be possible to delineate clearly
those features relating to the original 1754 structure and those
associated with later structures or different uses of the original
structure over time? Would additional information about the
structure's architecture be revealed? Excavation would also
mitigate any adverse effects on archeological remains by the
reconstruction of the building. Recovery of artifacts associated
with the structure was another project objective, both for
reconstruction purposes and for the information they could provide
about the lifeways of the inhabitants.
The presumed location of the 1754 sleeping hall was marked
with wooden stakes by personnel from Historic Bethabara Park, using
distances scaled from South's Master site plan (correlated with the
1754 map and the 1766 Reuter map). This alone guided the placement
of a two meter x eight meter trench which would straddle the
projected location of the east front wall of the sleeping hall. This
original unit was expanded by five meters to the west after cultural
remains were found within the unit, thus the completed unit eventually
covered an eight x seven meter area. Horizontal control was maintained by
utilizing permanent bench marks established previously (Willis and
Marshall 1987).
The corners of the excavation unit were not aligned with the
grid but was mapped with an alidade using established grid
coordinates represented by nearby marker stakes labeled with the
grid coordinates. The 1985 grid established by Willis and Marshall
and used subsequently by Clauser in his investigations of the
garden was based on the metric system, and the excavation unit
location was plotted in meters. All measurements within the
excavation unit however, including depths, were recorded in English
feet. A flat stone on top of the 1757 tavern foundation served as
an arbitrary vertical datum marker. A topographic map of the area
and excavation unit was made with the use of an alidade, plane
table, and stadia rod.
Before excavation began, the sod layer was removed with a
mechanical sod cutter in an effort to save time without significant
data loss. Underlying soil was subsequently hand excavated using
shovels, picks, and trowels and passed through 1/4 inch wire mesh
until time constraints and a consensus opinion about the disturbed
nature of the overburden halted the screening in the original two
x eight meter unit. No plowzone soil from the five meter expansion
was screened. All feature fill was dry screened with the exception
of selected portions of the fill from features 13 and 14, which
were processed by flotation. A narrative field log was used to
describe features and conditions encountered, and the excavation
unit and all features were photographed in color and black and
white. Features were mapped to scale. Fieldwork was performed by
three individuals from the Archeology Laboratories each with over
two years field experience in archeological methods. Artifacts
recovered were placed in cloth field bags labeled with provenience
information tags. After artifacts were processed at the Archeology
Laboratories, they were placed in sealed plastic bags labeled with
provenience information for analysis and permanent curation. All
artifacts with the exception of those recovered from feature 14
recovered during the project are curated by Historic Bethabara
Park, with attendant documentation kept at the Wake Forest
Archeology Laboratories and Bethabara Park. Copies of this final
project report were provided to Historic Bethabara Park and the
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology.
Bethabara is located in the northwest North Carolina Piedmont,
which is characterized by rolling topography created by stream
erosion. Its features include rounded hills, long, low ridges,
gently sloping valleys, and graded streams. Average elevation for
Forsyth County is 870 feet AMSL. The temperate climate of the area
allows for 185 to 200 frost free growing days (Zimmerman 1976:62).
The original Bethabara settlers found the area attractive in
great part because of the abundant nearby springs, streams and
arable soils. The reason behind the selection of the specific site
of the original sleeping hall is unknown. John Clauser observes
that no mention is made in the 1754 records of clearing the land
for the garden, although the clearing of "the field" for the garden
is commented upon, which probably meant the garden site was
partially cleared when the Moravians settled there. It is unclear
whether the land had been cleared by humans or was lacking trees
due solely to natural processes (Clauser 1988:10). Analogously, the
lack of climax forest cover at the garden site may also explain the
location of the original sleeping hall which was in fairly close
proximity to the garden. The site today is planted in grass and
lies on a 0 - 5 percent slope, and is reported to appear much as it
did at the time of South's investigations, when the area was
planted in corn (Rauschenberg, personal communication to Ned
Woodall, 1996). Some machine leveling is reported to have occurred
in the vicinity of the sleeping hall site at the time of the Park's
establishment (Clauser, personal communication, 1996).
Today Minorcas Creek runs approximately 40 meters south of the
presumed sleeping hall location, and bends to the northeast of the
project area. The creek overruns its banks rather frequently, and
is responsible for considerable alluvial deposition in some areas,
including just to the southwest of the sleeping hall site (John
Clauser, personal communication 1996). This deposition was absent
from the sleeping hall test trench, which suggests that the site
has been cut by creek flooding or that the area has been graded or
otherwise deflated.
The 1996 test trench excavation revealed a stratigraphic
sequence of brown loamy clay overlying a red-orange clay subsoil at
just over one foot below the surface. This sequence was not uniform
for the entire unit; in most of the northern quarter dense
concentrations of angular medium to small sized rock (mostly
quartz) were encountered from 0.35 ft. to 1.03 ft. below surface
and continued in some areas to below the excavated level. These
rock concentrations were found within a reddish clay matrix, and no
linear pattern was discernible in their distribution. These do not
appear to be associated with previous park pathways, etc. While it
is likely that they indicate disturbance by modern heavy machinery,
the rocks by appearance and compaction seem to be disturbed natural
vein deposits, and do not seem to have been brought in as fill
themselves.
It should be emphasized here that although the transition
between the brown loamy clay (plowzone) and the reddish clay
beneath was easily recognizable in the field, the reddish clay
subsoil is not homogeneous for the unit floor, and three examples
should illustrate what we mean. When the original two x eight meter
unit was excavated the south half possessed the mottled reddish
clay subsoil, which was later found to extend to the west. Although
features from the original two x eight meter excavation were
readily recognized in the field, feature 14, found in the expanded
excavation was virtually indistinguishable from the subsoil
surrounding it.
The original excavation also encountered yellowish loamy clay
mixed with reddish clay in the north half. This yellowish soil
almost completely obscured feature 11. The same yellowish soil was
found when the unit was expanded to the west, as a thin substrate
at times above and beneath the reddish or orangish clay. Its
presence is believed to be associated with the creation of features
nine, 15, and 17, but this explanation is not entirely satisfying.
Finally, almost all of the north half of the expanded area
possesses very compact, homogeneous orange clay. It is distinct
from the reddish clay in color and texture, so different in fact
that the reddish clay areas were shovel tested in the southeast and
southwest corners of the unit.
A 0.25 m square shovel test to 1.82 ft. below surface in the
southeast corner of the unit showed homogeneous reddish clay
subsoil with occasional quartz pebbles. The 0.50 m test in the
southwest corner to 2.00 ft. below the surface also revealed
homogeneous reddish mottled clay subsoil with occasional quartz.
Although soil from 0.35 ft. to 1.03 ft. below surface was not
screened in the original trench, and no plowzone soil from the
extension was systematically screened, no substantial increase in
artifacts was noted at the subsoil contact area, contra to Abbott's
(1987:7) observation that most recoverable cultural materials would
be found just above or on the subsoil level due to man-induced
erosion in Piedmont upland settings.
Several plow marks on the subsoil surface suggest cultural
modification of the area and subsequent deflation in modern times.
A more recent disturbance in the area is the planting of fruit
trees (Rod Meyer and Curtis Newman, personal communication 1996).
The presence of one of these (feature 12) was documented within the
excavation unit as a dark circular stain filled with clay and silt.
Portions of the burlap wrap were found as well as a sharpened stake
embedded nearby to support the tree.
Excavation of the seven meter x eight meter trench encountered
a red/orange mottled clay subsoil at 0.4 - 1.03 ft. below surface,
beneath a brown clayey loam containing small eighteenth, nineteenth
and twentieth century artifacts, as well as prehistoric materials.
Several dark brown stains (features) visible against the reddish/
orange clay subsoil were excavated to determine their origin and
possible function. The 18 designated features within the excavation
unit are described in summarized in Appendix I. All features are
depicted to scale on the floor plan map.
Although none of the features considered alone or together can
be attributed to the 1754 sleeping hall with any confidence, some
features may have been associated with a structure, and these will
be discussed following a discussion of those features which bear no
obvious relationship to the presence of a structure. Aboriginal features
are discussed separately in the Prehistoric Component section.
Several features represent plow strikes, or heavy machinery
tines, appearing as dark, uneven narrow bands which all run in a
rough north/south direction, and some are parallel. In the original
two x eight meter unit, feature one is a plow strike. Additional
stains identical to feature one were encountered when the unit was
expanded to the west, of variable width but always extending
between 0.1 and 0.3 ft. into the subsoil. These were not designated
as features in the field and do not appear on the map.
Features five, six, seven, and ten appear to be the result of
either faunal or bioturbation. Likewise, feature four appears to be
the result of animal burrowing activity, although it is much larger
than features five, six, seven, and eight, and may have had a
cultural origin. Features 16 and 18, which are both shallow,
circular holes, may be the result of animal burrowing but also
closely resemble aboriginal postholes. No clear aboriginal
structural pattern is evident from the 1996 excavation, although
the presence of at least one prehistoric feature (feature 14) and
possibly two (feature 13) suggests that other intact aboriginal
features, such as postholes, may be present in the area.
Feature two appears to represent the presence of two distinct holes
for posts. When excavated, the irregular depression bifurcated into two
distinct, small cylindrical holes separated by a subsoil partition
extending to depths of 1.63 and 1.85 ft. below the subsoil level. Each
tapered slightly at their greatest depth. Artifacts recovered from the
irregular depression above these included Moravian redware sherds. The
depression also contained the well-defined impression of a grooved
object, possibly a wooden stake, at 0.63 ft. below subsoil and at a point
roughly between and to the south of the cylindrical holes.
The form of feature two suggests that it was created by paired
posts sunk into the ground and excavated soil around them
subsequently replaced. If these were indeed posts, and they were
contemporaneous, their function is unclear. Perhaps they were used
to support horizontal rails or planks for some kind of fence
arrangement. Such fences are known to have existed at Old Salem
(John Larsen, personal communication to Ned Woodall, 1996). The
holes are too narrow and shallow to be connected in any way with
the sleeping hall structure, and the time of their origin is
unknown.
Features nine, 15, and 17 are problematic to interpret, and they are
discussed together here because of obvious similarities between them.
Before excavation, each appeared as distinct, dark, circular stains
ringed by mottled yellowish discoloration. Initially, only the dark
brown, richly humic, clayey soil in each feature was excavated. Fill from
this portion of the features contained uncarbonized black organic
particles, the product of the decay of woody plant material under wet,
anaerobic soil conditions. This material was especially abundant in feature
15, clustered at the point of contact between the dark brown soil
and the mottled yellow soil surrounding it.
The form of each excavated dark stain in features nine, 15,
and 17 were similar. Each tapered at their greatest depth, but not
precisely in the same way. For example, feature nine tapered to a
point, while features 15 and 17 tapered to a very irregular, uneven
wedge. Maximum depths for the dark portions of the features varied,
1.27 ft. for feature nine, 1.97 ft. for feature 17, and 1.81 ft.
below subsoil for feature 15. Horizontal dimensions for the dark
feature portions and the entire feature including the yellowish
discoloration were very similar for all three of the features.
The surrounding mottled yellow soil in features nine and 17
was unexcavated; feature 15 was cross-sectioned and the yellow soil
removed to 3.05 ft. below subsoil, where thick yellow/gray clay was
encountered. The outer limits of the yellow mottled soil were
difficult to define against the mottled yellow/red/orange
surrounding subsoil. Quartz rocks were abundant in the feature's
mottled, chunky fill, which appears to have been thoroughly churned
and mixed. The size and depth of the hole, the mixed quality of the
fill and the irregular form of the walls suggests that it was
machine excavated, probably for the purpose of supporting large
posts, which subsequently left the dark stains within the larger
holes (the postmolds).
This interpretation is complicated by evidence from feature
15. Extending from the bottom of the postmold was a dense strand of
decomposed organic material which twisted and tapered nearly to the
bottom of the hole, evidently a large tap root. It is difficult to
reconcile this fact with an interpretation of feature 15 as a
posthole. The full depth of feature 15 was not used to set a post,
and would seem to be too deep for planting a tree without refilling
part of the excavated hole. Feature 15 was clipped on one edge by
a plow strike, hence it originated prior to the last plowing and/or
landleveling episode in the 1960's.
If the holes were excavated by machine they undoubtedly carry
a twentieth century date, and would not be associated with the 1754
sleeping hall. Rather, they would probably have functioned as post
supports, perhaps for a fence. The area was used for agricultural
purposes in the early twentieth century and a property line ran
near the vicinity of the Wagner cabin (Rauschenburg 1995:89-90). If
the twentieth century date interpretation is in error, we must
reconsider features nine, 15, and 17 in terms of their possible
association with the 18th century sleeping hall (see below).
Feature 11 was a very irregular, shallow basin, which
contained a cylindrical hole at the western edge of the feature. This
hole extended to 0.85 ft. below subsoil, was 0.55 ft. across, and
contained dark, clayey humic soil. The hole is well-defined and does not
resemble an animal burrow; it may be a small posthole which penetrated
the original feature. The irregular basin may have been formed by animal
burrowing, or alternatively may be the product of post placement. The
hole contained two large, rounded cobbles covered with a reddish patina,
and these may have been used to refill the hole or functioned as supports
for a horizontal beam (see below).
Feature three contained dark humic soil and 5 medium and large
rocks. One of these resembles a flat, foundation type stone, and was
stacked along with two of the other rocks. These stones do not appear to
have been randomly tossed into the hole. The feature is essentially round
and shallow, extending to 0.6 ft. below subsoil. The shallow depth makes
it unlikely that this feature was a posthole although that
interpretation cannot be dismissed. It may have functioned as a
foundation support for a horizontal beam (see below).
Finally, feature 12 was not excavated after burlap wrapping
was recovered from around the edges of the stain. A sharpened
wooden stake was found in situ near the bottom of the plowzone,
used to support the tree.
The difficulties in interpretation which the features present
in regards to the 1754 sleeping hall can best be illustrated after
a short discussion of the possible variations of the sleeping
hall's architecture and the archeological evidence which could be
expected from these. These competing assumptions were based upon
historical documents, especially the 1754 and 1758 sketch of the
sleeping hall's appearance.
The first possibility is that the sleeping hall frame,
specifically the vertical postbeams which would support the
horizontal elements of the wall, rested on a horizontal beam, or
sill. This sill would rest directly on the ground surface, be set
in a shallow trench, or rest on stones which were placed on the
ground surface to provide a footing for the sill. Of these
possibilities, only setting the sill within a trench would leave
any substantial archeological traces under normal conditions of
preservation. Although the sill need not have been one continuous
beam, different sections would also be best leveled and supported
by placing them in a trench. If discontinuous beams were used for
the sill, vertical posts may have been sunk inside the wall, also
within the construction trench (Chapelot and Fossier 1985:248).
Traces of any of these variations on sill construction which may
have existed would be highly vulnerable to obliteration by
deflation at the site.
Alternatively, the use of a sill to support the sleeping hall
frame may have been bypassed in favor of sinking post supports
directly into the ground and fastening horizontal elements to
these. Although this choice of construction would make the
structure more vulnerable to decay (Chapelot and Fossier 1985:
248), the temporary nature of the building may have obviated any
concern for its longevity. It is presumed that under normal
conditions, the postholes which the support posts occupied would
have been sunk relatively deep into the subsoil and would leave
recognizable traces despite deflation at the site.
Let us now turn to evaluation of these competing
possibilities from the archeological evidence at hand. Feature
three appears to have served some kind of support function for a
structure. Its relatively shallow depth makes it an unlikely
candidate for a posthole (unless the area has been severely
deflated), even if the small to medium sized stones it contains
were used to provide extra support for a post placed in a shallow
hole. If the feature and its rocks did function as a subterranean
support apparatus for a horizontal sill, the question of why it was
placed at an isolated interval, possibly in line with feature 11,
and did not extend for the full length of the (presumed) east wall
remains unanswered. Feature 11 and feature 3 possess certain
similarities (see above). Considering that the Moravians had access
to a considerable amount of large stones and would almost certainly
have used these to support a sill, any stones placed above the
ground surface would have been recycled and used for other
architectural undertakings or would have been discarded at a later
date from the site if it was in cultivation. It is possible that
the sleeping hall builders chose to support a wooden sill by
excavating shallow basins and filling them with rock, some of which
was subsequently removed. The distance from an imaginary line
between features three and 11 and the Wagner cabin's west side is
roughly 39.0 ft., although the Master site plan map distance
between the front of the sleeping hall and the front of the Wagner
cabin is 36 feet (Meyer 1996). No direct evidence of a sill's
presence was found between any of the features, although the
positioning of the features (especially three and 11) may be far
from fortuitous. Their position suggests that they were associated
with the edge of a structure in some way. In short, they hint
strongly of an association with the architecture of a structure,
but do not indicate anything about the structure's design or
conclusively demonstrate the structure's layout, or location for
that matter. The absence of any features in the extreme western
portion of the excavation unit where they would be expected to be
(13 feet west of the eastern feature "line"; i.e., the sleeping
hall was 13 feet wide, and features would be expected in this area
if the eastern line of features is associated with the sleeping
hall) is significant, if the sleeping hall location as computed
from the historic maps is correct.
Two other features are oriented very roughly in a north/south
line with feature three and should be considered as to their
possible association with the 1754 structure. Recall that feature
two is interpreted as representing two off-set small sized
postholes. These postholes lack the necessary dimensions which a
large support post beam for a ten feet high structure would
require, nor do they resemble the squared postholes encountered in
the Bethabara garden (Clauser 1988:41). Feature two contained two
fragments of Moravian redware, not a temporally sensitive type but
suggesting an eighteenth or early nineteenth century origin for the
feature. Although feature two is tantalizingly close to the
presumed southeast corner of the 1754 structure, its morphology
does not conform to the archeological expectations for features
associated with the sleeping hall. Nor can it be presumed to have
been associated with the sundial which lay just to the south of the
sleeping hall, although this interpretation cannot be completely
discounted.
Feature four is interpreted as a disturbed version of feature
two, and is off-set to the east of an imaginary line drawn through
the features located in the eastern portion of the excavation unit.
Both features contained a few medium sized rocks but no sizeable
foundation type stones. The small round holes present in feature
four resemble those in feature two, but are not as deep. Again
there is nothing to suggest that this feature was associated with
the 1754 structure, if it is associated with any type of structure
at all. It is more likely that it is associated with a fence,
although the fact that the postholes are clearly round and not
squared makes for further interpretive difficulties.
Returning to the question of the origin of features nine,
15, and 17, if they are hand excavated holes for posts and not
machine excavated, they must be considered as to their possible
association with the sleeping hall. The holes themselves would be
large enough to support a sizeable post, in other words a post that
would support a building 10 feet high. There are three arguments
which refute this interpretation, namely the fact that the
postmolds of these features do not extend to the bottom of the
hole, there is no regular spacing between the three of them, and
feature nine is off the imaginary line between features 15 and 17.
Most artifacts were recovered from disturbed plowzone contexts
and none can be confidently associated with the 1754 sleeping hall
(see Appendix II). Most of the recovered artifacts are not
reliable temporal markers, such as the fragments of Moravian redware. One
exception is the coin, a Coronet Type U.S. Large Cent produced
between 1816 and 1857 (see Appendix III). Artifacts recovered from
features provided no information about historic construction. Two
identifiable whole nails recovered from the plowzone were
eighteenth/ nineteenth century cut nails (post 1830). Another is
either a cut nail dating to the early period of their use (1790 -
1820's) or a rose headed wrought nail (before 1790)
(following Hume 1972:252-254).
Excavation at the site of the 1754 sleeping hall in
February/March/April 1996 revealed a cultural presence at the
location as computed from historic maps, but cannot clearly
associate any features or artifacts with the 1754 structure.
Although perhaps two features are more likely to be associated with
the sleeping hall than others, no clear association exists between
enough features to allow an accurate reconstruction of the 1754
structure based on available archeological evidence.
The dearth of archeological remains suggests a possible
combination of factors which were at work at the site. The first of
these is that the architecture of the sleeping hall left little
sub-surface remains, which suggests the use of a sill support for
the frame rather than postbeam supports (see above). The second is
a combination of natural and cultural disturbances at the site,
namely erosion and plowing, and possible recycling of architectural
materials such as stone. The 1996 excavation revealed no intact
(i.e. undisturbed) cultural deposits above the subsoil level. There
was no differentiated stratigraphy above the subsoil and all
artifacts were extremely small, suggesting that the area was
heavily disturbed by plowing or that all artifacts were
redeposited by erosion or other factors. Modern twentieth century
artifacts such as window glass and green Coke bottle fragments were
contextually mixed with 18th/19th century Moravian artifacts and
Woodland period aboriginal artifacts. The possibility exists that
the computed location of the sleeping hall, and therefore the Wake
Forest excavation unit are in error and any archeological evidence
of sleeping hall architecture is undiscovered.
Although the limited archeological investigations cannot
support any single interpretation of the architecture of the
sleeping hall, neither can they refute any interpretation based on
historical records. When various direct and indirect documentary
sources are consulted, a close and accurate approximation of the
appearance of the original structure seems to have been achieved.
For many years since its development as a discipline,
historical archeology has operated under a paradigm which is
primarily particularistic and descriptive. Stanley South (1977) and
others were responsible for developing what had been a very limited
approach into a broader focus on pattern recognition and human
behavior, generating new information from archeological data rather
than using it merely to "check" historical documents or provide
artifacts or remains for display.
This paradigm too is increasingly challenged by researchers
who feel that it deprives the past by ignoring the context provided
by the concerns and ideologies of the individuals who make up
societies, and that archeologists (and historians) should describe
and attempt re-creation and interpretation of human behavior and
intentions (Shackel and Little 1992:7). This interpretive approach
is based on the assumption that material culture is actively used
and manipulated by individuals as part of symbolic cultural
expression and communication processes.
Following this interpretive line, what can be learned (and,
more importantly, what more can be asked) by viewing the 1754
sleeping hall not as mere architecture but as part of the
Moravians' overall world view and self-expression, and the
particular historical circumstances at the time of its
construction? We have the advantage of historic records in this
endeavor, which define an emic structure, a picture of the world-
view of the Moravians through Diary accounts, Church texts, and
other documents. Ideally this would lead to assigning archeological
evidence and historic records different epistemological statuses
and creating an interactive use of the two in historical
interpretation of the past (Leone 1988:33). Each source would be
treated as a wholly unique source of information with the
recognition that each source comes down to us in the present in
alternative trajectories from the past, that is, historic and
archeological "facts" or evidence themselves have unique histories
of modification and reach the interpreter (archeologist or
historian) in different, perhaps contrasting ways. The
archeological data we have in this instance unfortunately concedes
disproportionate weight to the historical documents, so the
following is necessarily derived from them.
We begin with a simple question. Why did the Moravians build
the sleeping hall in 1754? The documentary evidence with little
ambivalence suggests that the structure was built to fulfill
specific needs, namely, sleeping space and shelter for all the
Moravian men present at Bethabara in February 1754. The structure
would be a temporary solution to a problem until the economy was
more firmly established and more permanent structures could be
erected.
A building the size of the sleeping hall would certainly
alleviate the space problem, a problem exacerbated by the numerous
unregulated contacts the Moravians had with outsiders, the
strangers (fremden) in the area. But the particular design of the
sleeping hall (accepting the appearance of it suggested by the
historic documents) would have been only one of a number of
possible solutions to the problem. We know for example from the
Diary that the settlers could construct a functional log cabin in
just two days (the actual time spent constructing the strangers'
cabin). The dwelling house used expedient round log construction,
and it can be inferred that its construction also did not take a
significant amount of time. It was the Unity's wish for the advance
party of settlers to "build a house simply out of necessity for
passing through" and to leave "major" construction to the second
wave (Thorp 1982:74).
Unity plans were shaken by the location of the settlement of
Bethabara; it was simply too far north (by approximately four
miles) of Wachovia's center, where the central community, the
gemein Ort (Salem) was to be constructed. Recall that Bethabara was
never intended to become a permanent community itself. The early
settlers increasingly found it necessary to justify their choice of
location to the Unity in Bethlehem. Beyond the convenience of the
Bethabara location (with a cabin ready for use), the Brethren
argued that the gemein Ort location was not sufficiently watered or
timbered. Eventually they argued for the construction of two gemein
Orts to better administer the Church's wishes (Thorp 1982:78-80).
The ultimate Unity answer was no.
So why didn't the Bethabara Brethren opt for another log cabin
(or two), a very practical and functional adaptation in a
"frontier" situation, made all the more appealing considering the
need for a temporary shelter? Why instead did they select (from
their entire northern European/Pennsylvanian cultural repertoire)
the relatively uncommon architectural type that they did? The
question has changed, from "Why did the Moravians build the 1754
sleeping hall?" to "Why did the Moravians build the sleeping hall
as they did?"
We suggest that a consideration of the particular cultural
context of the Brethren will allow us to move beyond seeing the
sleeping hall as a mere functional solution to physical need (which
could have been met in alternative ways) to one which places the
sleeping room within the broader contextual and ideological realm
of the Moravians. The design of the 1754 sleeping hall was selected
to make a statement to outsiders, non-Moravians (the fremden), by
creating a structure which conformed to their unique interpretation
of cultural order and way of doing. The design of the sleeping hall
(even allowing for its relative expediency) would not be alien in
Pennsylvania or Europe, and would have made the distinction between
the Moravian conception of their society and all others clear. It
could be said that the 1754 sleeping hall was the first material
statement of Moravian theocracy in North Carolina.
It would also show the Unity in Pennsylvania and Europe that
Moravians (even in the culturally and naturally "wild" desert) were
behaving as Moravians, that the cultural path dictated by the
Church and tradition was intact and functioning in North Carolina,
albeit in a location that was not exactly in accordance with Unity
desires. Bethabara was developing a life of its own. The Unity was
concerned enough in September of 1754 to send two Brethren to
examine Bethabara and report on the situation in Wachovia (Thorp
1982:79).
In addition, a reinforcing message (a collective
representation expressed through architecture, in a Durkheimian
sense) emphasizing the importance of the collectiveness behind the
Moravian settlement was carried to all the Brethren. Embedded
within this was the Moravian vigilance towards the possible
inappropriate behavior of its members. The Church at the time
taught that although all persons were naturally pure and
uncorrupted from birth, most individuals were incapable of leading
a moral life without the help and guidance of others, and this view
led to a distinctly Moravian concern with matters which other
contemporary societies regarded as entirely personal (Thorp
1982:202). An elaboration of this was Count Zinzendorf's plan for
the gemein Ort (Salem), where the gemein Haus would be located at
the community's center not only for easy access but to enable
elders to better supervise the community members (Thorp 1982:50).
If all Moravians shared common lodging, the behavior of each
would be under the constant attention of others and any trouble or
even temptation itself might be controlled from its inception. The
Unity members would also be protected against the potentially
harmful influences of outsiders (strangers), who were encountered
on an almost daily basis.
No single interpretation of the 1754 sleeping hall conflicts
with other possible interpretations of it, nor does one have to be
seen as the primary motivation behind its construction. The
sleeping hall was a functional adaptation, a symbolic statement,
and a cultural metaphor. These different interpretations are not
competing truths but are instead a greater approximation of the
inseparable whole, one which places the structure in a historical
context not devoid of the intentions, motivations and unique
tradition of the men who built it.
While aboriginal artifacts were found throughout the plowzone
level (see Appendix II for inventory of cultural materials), one
aboriginal feature (feature 14) was excavated. This
feature is assigned to the Early Woodland period by associated
ceramic types, which include the Yadkin series fabric-marked and
linear check-stamped varieties (Coe 1964:31-32). The sherds
represent the remains of at least three vessels, all tempered
heavily with grit (no crushed quartz). Some are highly friable and
some were fired in a heavy reducing atmosphere.
In addition to the ceramics, feature 14 was packed with 12
medium to very large whole and cracked cobbles, two of which were
pitted cobbles (nutting stones). Potsherds were interspersed among
the cobbles, and may have been further broken by being tossed in
with them. Although half of the feature's fill (25 - 30 liters) was
floated and the rest passed through 1/4 inch mesh, no lithic tools
or debitage was present. A few charcoal flecks were present in the
fill, but carbonized wood was not abundant. The feature also lacked
fire-hardened lenses and ash deposits. Feature fill was not
significantly more alkaline than surrounding soils. The flotation
sample from feature 14 yielded carbonized remains of three-seeded
Mercury (Acalypha sp.), a toxic plant which favors early
successional environments (Kathleen Kron, personal communication,
1996). The presence of these carbonized botanical remains within
the aboriginal feature likely represents incidental introduction as a
product of land-clearing practices as opposed to intentional
use of this plant as a food source or for some other cultural end.
The contents of feature 14 suggest that it represents a single
episode of discard, and the lack of small artifacts such as
debitage may indicate that household maintenance activities (e.g.,
floor sweeping), usually associated with relatively long site
occupations was not taking place. Rather, the pit feature was used
for some activity and quickly filled with items which were not
intended to be transported further. What was the function of the
pit? Its morphology and depth suggests a storage function, which
was probably short term. The cobbles in this scenario would have
been used expeditiously to fill the pit after use and abandonment
of the location. The absence of evidence for fire/hearth use
suggests that the pit did not serve a cooking function.
Feature 13 resembles a shallow aboriginal pit feature, however the
only artifacts found in the fill (from the top of the feature) were a
Moravian redware sherd and an unidentifiable domesticated animal bone
fragment (Bill Terrell, personal communication, 1996). It is likely that
this feature has been truncated by plowing or erosion.
Early Woodland sites are not abundant in the North Carolina
Piedmont, and most of our knowledge about the prehistoric lifeways
they represent is pieced together from widely scattered sites over
the entire eastern United States. Information from one Early
Woodland site in Forsyth County, the E. Davis site (31Fy549) has
provided a rare glimpse of human behavior in this roughly defined
period, ca. 300 B.C. - A.D. 500 (Davis 1987). The E. Davis site
contained shallow rock-filled pits with fabric-marked pottery and
Archaic-Woodland transitional projectile point forms, and the
carbonized remains of acorns, hickory nuts, walnuts, grape,
maypops, and sumac. The E. Davis site finds are consistent with an
interpretation of small, highly mobile groups with a broad based
economy centered on upland, primary forest resources. The use of
pottery at the E. Davis site demonstrates the need for multiple
containers for processing various forest foods at seasonal base
camps. The pottery from 31Fy7, feature 14, differs from the Davis
site ceramic assemblage in that it is poorly fired, possesses
relatively thicker walls, and less attention is given to smoothing
of the vessel interiors. Reconstructed vessel portions include a
rim/wall segment from a large, unrestricted, fabric-marked jar and
a conoidal base from a separate vessel.
Aboriginal artifacts found in the plowzone include abundant
felsic and some quartz debitage, two crude bifaces, a broken
lanceolate projectile point, a broken triangular (Woodland)
projectile point, and potsherds (Dan River net-impressed or plain
and Yadkin fabric marked). The total assemblage demonstrates the
span of periodic human occupation in the area from the Archaic
through the succeeding Woodland periods.
A test excavation at the presumed site of the Bethabara 1754
sleeping room revealed the presence of undisturbed cultural
features beneath an undifferentiated plowzone level. Some of these
features may have been associated with the 1754 structure, but this
cannot be substantiated with the limited information at hand. In
the absence of further archeological investigations at the site,
any reconstruction efforts must rely solely on the strength of
historic documents.
Abbott, Lawrence E., Jr.
1987 Excavation in the South Fork Creek Valley: A Test for
Deeply Buried Sites Within the Floodplain of a Small Upland
Stream. Ms on file, Archeology Laboratories, Wake Forest
University, Winston-Salem.
Chapelot, Jean and Robert Fossier
1985 The Village and House in the Middle Ages. Translated by
Henry Cleere. University of California Press, Los Angeles.
Clauser, John W., Jr.
1985 Archaeological Testing Report: Bethabara Community Garden.
Ms on file, Historic Bethabara Park, Winston-Salem.
-------
1988 Excavations in the Bethabara Community Garden. Ms on
file, Historic Bethabara Park, Winston-Salem.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 54(5).
Philadelphia.
Davis, John D.
1987 Early Woodland of the North Carolina Piedmont: New
Information from the E. Davis Site. Paper presented at the
44th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charleston,
South Carolina.
Fries, Adelaide L.
1922 Records of the Moravians in North Carolina, Vol. I.
North Carolina Historical Commission, Raleigh.
Hume, Ivor Noel
1972 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America.Alfred A. Knopf,
New York.
Jordan, Terry G.
1985 American Log Buildings: An Old World Heritage. University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Lane, Mills
1985 Architecture of the Old South: North Carolina. Beehive
Press, Savannah.
Leone, Mark P.
1988 The Relationship Between Archaeological Data and the
Documentary Record: 18th Century Gardens in Annapolis,
Maryland. Historical Archaeology 22(1), Pp. 29-35.
Meyer, Rodney
1996 A Proposal to Reconstruct the July 1754 Bethabara
Settlement. Draft copy on file, Historic Bethabara Park,
Winston-Salem.
Murtagh, William J.
1967 Moravian Architecture and Town Planning. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Rauschenburg, Bradford L.
1995 The Wachovia Historical Society 1895-1995. Wachovia
Historical Society, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Shackel, Paul A. and Barbara J. Little
1992 Post-Processual Approaches to Meanings and Uses of
Material Culture in Historical Archaeology. Historical
Archaeology 26(3), Pp. 5-11.
South, Stanley
1972 Discovery in Wachovia. Unpublished Manuscript. On File in
the Office of Old Salem, Inc., Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. Academic
Press, New York.
Taylor, Gwynne Stephens
1982 From Frontier to Factory: An Architectural History of
Forsyth County. North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh.
Thorp, Daniel B.
1982 Moravian Colonization of Wachovia, 1753-1772: The
Maintenance of Community in Late Colonial North Carolina.
Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore.
Willis, Raymond F. and R. Jackson Marshall III
1985 Archaeological and Archival Studies at Historic Bethabara
Park: Proposed Visitor Center Site. Ms on file, Historic
Bethabara Park, Winston-Salem.
Zimmerman, James L.
1970 Soils Survey of Forsyth County, North Carolina. United
States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C.
Feature 1
Appearance prior
to excavation: dark linear stain
Form: irregular groove
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 4.3 x 0.2 - 0.6 ft.
Vertical: varies, but max. 0.2 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: brown loamy clay with quartz pebbles
Interpretation: plow strike
Feature 2
Appearance prior
to excavation: rectangular dark stain
Form: irregular basin which extends into two well-
defined circular holes, separated by a thin
subsoil zone.
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 1.03 x 1.6 ft.
Vertical: holes were 1.53 and 1.31 ft. below subsoil,
irregular basin was above this.
Fill/contents: dark brown loamy clay with dark organic matter
and some charcoal, redware sherds, and one
lithic flake.
Interpretation: appears to represent two small postholes, the
irregular basin above is the result of post
placement (or replacement) or animal
disturbance.
Feature 3
Appearance prior
to excavation: dark stain with squared corners
Form: slightly irregular oval
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 0.72 x 0.65 ft.
Vertical: 0.58 ft below subsoil
Fill/contents: dark loamy clay, with five stones, including
three which were stacked from bottom.
Interpretation: possible support for sleeper log, or a shallow
posthole.
Feature 4
Appearance prior
to excavation: two overlapping dark oval stains
Form: amorphous basin with two small holes extending
downward.
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 2.16 x 0.7 ft.
Vertical: 0.11 - 0.30 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: dark brown humic clayey loam with black organic
flecks.
Interpretation: animal burrowing
Feature 5
Appearance prior
to excavation: small, dark angular stain
Form: irregular depression
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 0.25 x 0.30 ft.
Vertical: 0.05 - 0.1 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: dark clayey loam
Interpretation: minor animal disturbance
Feature 6
Appearance prior
to excavation: small, dark, roughly circular stain
Form: irregular oval depression, with root stains
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 0.27 x 0.27 ft.
Vertical: 0.3 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: dark humic clayey loam
Interpretation: product of animal or plant action
Feature 7
Appearance prior
to excavation: small dark circular stain
Form: angled, cylindrical hole extending under
subsoil to east
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 0.33 x 0.40 ft.
Vertical: 0.41 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: dark humic clayey loam with pebbles
Interpretation: rodent burrow
Feature 8
Appearance prior
to excavation: amorphous dark stain
Form: irregular basin with varying depths
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 1.08 x 1.24 ft.
Vertical: 0.30 - 0.89 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: dark and mottled clayey loam with some rocks
Interpretation: animal action, or possibly a rectangular basin
later disturbed by animal burrowing
Feature 9
Appearance prior
to excavation: dark circular stain ringed by yellow stain
Form: cylindrical hole, extends slightly to east
Dimensions-
Horizontal: dark stain: 0.78 x 0.72 with yellow stain:
1.0 x 1.1 ft.
Vertical: 1.27 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: brown humic loamy clay with black organic
flecks
Interpretation: modern posthole
Feature 10
Appearance prior
to excavation: obscured by yellow mottled stain, later a dark
rough oval
Form: cylindrical hole
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 0.42 x 0.56 ft.
Vertical: 0.65 - 0.7 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: brown humic clayey loam with pebbles
Interpretation: modern posthole or rodent burrow
Feature 11
Appearance prior
to excavation: amorphous dark mottled stain
Form: irregular basin with roughly oval hole inside
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 1.1 x 1.3 ft. (oval is 0.45 x 0.6 ft.)
Vertical: 0.5 ft. - 0.85 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: brown loamy clay with organic flecks and rocks,
aboriginal potsherd. Oval portion contained two
medium sized cobbles with red patinas.
Interpretation: posthole and/or foundation support
Feature 12
Appearance prior
to excavation: dark circular stain ringed by yellow stain
Form: unexcavated
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 2.16 x 2.17 ft.
Vertical: unexcavated
Fill/contents: unexcavated
Interpretation: hole for fruit tree, burlap root bag recovered
and associated anchor stake, personal
communication from Bethabara Park personnel.
Feature 13
Appearance prior
to excavation: dark oval stain, with bone protruding
Form: shallow, oval basin
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 1.24 x 1.3 ft. (0.4 x 0.38 m)
Vertical: 0.4 ft. (0.12 m) below subsoil
Fill/contents: homogeneous brown clayey loam, one small
redware sherd, one cranial fragment (uid.
animal)
Interpretation: form suggests an aboriginal pit, however there
were no aboriginal artifacts or charcoal. It
may be related to nearby feature 14; its
function is unknown.
Feature 14
Appearance prior
to excavation: some staining visible around protruding
aboriginal check-stamped sherd, but no
definable form was visible to the crew before
excavation
Form: relatively shallow oval basin, wider at bottom
than at its top
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 1.6 x 2.05 ft. (0.46 x 0.63 m)
Vertical: 0.87 ft. (0.26 m) below subsoil
Fill/contents: mottled packed brown clayey loam, large whole
and cracked cobbles, one pitted cobble, small
quantity of carbonized wood, abundant grit-
tempered check-stamped and fabric impressed
sherds.
Interpretation: aboriginal storage pit
Feature 15
Appearance prior
to excavation: dark circular stain ringed by yellow stain,
with a plow strike through it
Form: deep cylindrical hole
Dimensions-
Horizontal: dark stain - 0.82 x 1.08 ft. with yellow stain
- 1.35 x 1.8 ft.
Vertical: 3.01 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: dark brown(7.5 YR 3/4) mottled loamy clay with
small rocks and abundant black organic material
which clung to edges of dark stain to approx.
1.85 ft. below subsoil where it tapered to an
irregular linear form composed entirely of
black organic material (interpreted as a root).
Yellow soil (10 YR 5/6) surrounding darker soil
was highly mottled and became more clayey with
increased depth, and contained abundant angular
quartz pebbles. The bottom of this feature
contained a yellow/gray clay deposit. One
aboriginal sherd and one animal bone fragment
was recovered from the top of the feature.
Interpretation: modern posthole
Feature 16
Appearance prior
to excavation: small dark circular stain
Form: shallow ovoid hole with tapered irregular
bottom
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 0.51 x 0.50 ft.
Vertical: 0.26 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: brown clayey loam with one carbonized wood
chunk, redware sherdlet.
Interpretation: possibly the result of rodent activity but
closely resembles an aboriginal posthole.
Feature 17
Appearance prior
to excavation: dark circular stain ringed by yellow stain
Form: cylindrical hole slightly angled to east
Dimensions-
Horizontal: dark stain - 1.08 x 0.79 ft. with yellow stain
- 1.08 x 1.21 ft.
Vertical: 1.97 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: brown clayey loam with black organic material,
one felsic flake.
Interpretation: modern posthole
Feature 18
Appearance prior
to excavation: small ovoid stain
Form: shallow ovoid hole with uneven bottom
Dimensions-
Horizontal: 0.42 x 0.43 ft.
Vertical: 0.2 - 0.3 ft. below subsoil
Fill/contents: brown clayey loam with small rocks, one piece
carbonized wood, one felsic flake.
Interpretation: animal burrow or aboriginal posthole.
Level One (0.0 - 0.2 ft. below surface)
green bottle glass fragment,
18th/19th century 1
aboriginal potsherd, Dan River
series, A.D. 1000-1600 1
Level Two (0.2 - 0.35 ft. below surface)
Moravian redware or eroded -
body fragments 64
rim fragments 5
Moravian copper-
glazed fragment 1
hand painted lead-glazed
white earthenware 3
nails (wrought or cut) 1
nail fragments 10
cut coin (copper) 1
Kaolin pipe bowl fragment 1
modern green bottle
glass fragments 35
window glass 2
aboriginal lithic flakes
(tertiary and biface thinning)
felsite 26
quartz 8
projectile point fragment,
basal portion (Yadkin type) 1
aboriginal potsherds
(Dan River series) 5
burned nut shell 1
biface (felsite) 2
brick fragments 5
Level Three (0.35 - 1.03 ft. below surface)
nail fragments
(wrought or cut) 3
green bottle glass fragment,
18th/19th century 1
Moravian redware
body fragments 6
rim fragments 1
Level One, Expansion Trench (0.0 - 1.03 ft. below surface)
Moravian redware fragments 22
green bottle glass fragments,
18th/19th century 4
pearlware, handpainted frags. 2
nails (wrought or cut) 12
nail fragments 6
misc. uid. metal fragments 4
brick fragments 8
golf ball (Royal 3) 1
lithic flakes (felsite) 11
aboriginal potsherds
fabric-impressed 6
plain 1
uid. 2
Subplowzone contexts
Feature 2
Moravian redware
body fragments 4
aboriginal potsherd
(Dan River series) 1
aboriginal lithic flake
felsite 1
Feature 11
aboriginal potsherds
(thick, heavy grit tempered) 2
window pane glass 1
Feature 13
Moravian redware fragment 1
unidentified animal bone fragment,
portion of the distal end of humerus,
probably pig (Sus scrofa) 1
Feature 14
aboriginal potsherds (grit tempered)
fabric-impressed (8 - 13mm)
rim 2
body 59
check-stamped
body 13
unidentified sherdlets 31
pitted cobbles 2
misc. cracked and whole cobbles 10
wood charcoal
carbonized seeds (Acalypha sp.)
Feature 15
aboriginal potsherd 1
unidentified domesticated animal
long bone fragment, possibly
pig (Sus scrofa) or cattle (Bos taurus) 1
Feature 16
Moravian redware fragment 1
Feature 17
lithic flake (felsite) 1
Feature 18
lithic flake 1
Most of the artifacts recovered from the 1996 project, such as
the fragments of Moravian redware, are not reliable temporal
markers. One exception is the cut copper coin. The corroded portion
of the coin, roughly one-quarter of the original, was determined to
be part of a United States Large Cent. Washing the coin with water
followed by a single run through an ultrasonic cleaner revealed
only minor details hidden by the green oxidation. It is apparent
that the original coin was cut along the horizontal and vertical
axes, with the recovered portion being the upper left quadrant of
the coin (when viewing the front or "heads" side). Moving from the
outer edge inward one can see a rim, an arc of three stars, and the
upper part of the forehead and hair line of the female figure, all
on the front of the coin. On the reverse side a capital letter "C"
(from the word "Cent") and part of the laurel is visible.
Matching the cut coin with an illustration of a Large Cent
revealed that it was a Coronet Type Large Cent, produced between
1816 and 1857 (Yeoman 1995:86). Before 1816 stars were placed both
in front of the face and in back of the head and did not extend
across the top; the recovered portion, however, clearly shows the
stars extending across the top of the head. Two kinds of Coronet
Type Large Cents were minted: the Matron Head (1816-1835), a more
mature looking figure, and the Young Head (1835-1857), a younger
looking figure (Yeoman 1995:86-92). Production of Large Cents
stopped in 1857 due to their unpopularity (Schwarz 1980:138).
Because of the deteriorated state of the coin, it is not possible
to determine which kind of figure, the Matron Head or Young Head,
the coin displayed.
The practice of cutting coins into pieces typically is
associated with the Spanish silver dollar, commonly known as
"pieces of eight." Minted in Spain and the New World, the peso, as
it later became known, was accepted worldwide because its supply
was greater and the quality better than the coins of most other
nations at the time (Massey 1968:35). Fractional currency was
created by cutting the peso into as many as eight pieces, each
piece being referred to as a real ("royal money"), or "bit." Half
of a peso was called four bits, a quarter peso was two bits, etc.
So influential was the Spanish peso in the United States that the
U.S. Mint designed a silver dollar of similar size and value
(Massey 1968:38). The term "bit" also was retained in popular
language when referring to a quarter of a U.S. dollar (2 bits) and
a half dollar (4 bits). The Spanish silver dollar remained a viable
type of currency in the U.S. until 1857 when the government
declared that all foreign coins could no longer be used as legal
tender (Davis 1971:269).
Additional examples of cutting coins are lacking, especially
throughout the history of American currency. A general view of the
historical and economic climate of the period between 1816 and
1857, however, may yield some insight into the reasoning behind
cutting a coin made of copper, a metal valued much less than
silver. Until 1830, 95% of the coins produced were in gold and
large silver pieces, many of which went to bank vaults to support
the circulating paper money gradually taking the place of coins
(Massey 1968:108). It was also common for manufacturers of gold and
silver items to melt down the coins of the precious metals for
their own use. Copper cents, both large cents and half cents, were
produced on a relatively small scale with a yearly output up to
1830 of less that $15,000 (Massey 1968:111). A general lack of
circulating coins ensued.
The production capabilities of the U.S. Mints advanced in the
1830's, yet due to historical circumstances the amount of coins
circulating during this period did not increase as much as had been
anticipated. In his fight against the Second Bank of the United
States (BUS), President Andrew Jackson withdrew much of the federal
money safeguarded in the BUS and deposited it in state banks. State
banks soon proliferated across the entire nation. Unregulated by
the government, they printed their own bank notes and provided
loans, many for the purchase of western lands (Wiltse 1961:149).
Much of the hard money produced never circulated outside the state
banks since it was needed to back up their bank notes.
America was enjoying a boom period in the 1820's and early
1830's due to falling prices and the promise of new land created by
western expansion. The Deposit Act of 1836 was also influential.
With the national debt paid off in 1835, the government regulated
surplus monies with the Act by limiting funds on deposit in any
single bank to three-fourths of its capital, and deposited the
surplus revenue with the states. The revenue allowed the states to
improve upon their existing infrastructure by freeing up funds for
canals and the railroads rapidly replacing those canals (Wiltse
1961:148-149).
In 1836, Jackson signed the Specie Circular to discourage
speculation in western lands, to reduce dependence on bank notes
and credit (Rossiter 1971:230), and to slow down the growth of the
nation. It declared that land offices could only accept gold and
silver for purchases of land, thus causing people to withdraw much
of the surplus specie (coins) banks maintained to back up their
notes. However, land was still bought and sold from speculators
with bank paper. The pressure to provide loans was too great and
many state banks were forced to foreclose because they could not
redeem their notes in specie (Patton 1993:6). Foreclosures
invalidated any of that bank's paper still in circulation. Hoarding
of coins became common since no one wanted to surrender guaranteed
money.
The Specie Circular also affected international trade and
eventually led to the failure of many American brokers across the
eastern U.S. Panicky depositors in New York withdrew over a million
dollars in gold and silver from their banks, which forced the banks
to stop payment in specie (Wiltse 1961:153). Other banks across the
U.S. followed, thereby increasing the hoarding and scarcity of
coins. Banks cut loan periods short, and put pressure on business
people to pay their debts sooner. The Panic of 1837 began to take
its toll. Coins were so scarce that "hard times" tokens were issued
by private individuals. The pieces resembled cents and passed for
that amount. After this period Large Cent pieces fell into public
disfavor and were soon replaced with a smaller version in 1857.
Although the cut coin was found in a disturbed plowzone
context, it is still possible to understand its function by looking
at the general historical context of the artifact, the years 1816
to 1857. During this time the southern Piedmont was fast becoming
a part of the national economy (cf. Shirley 1991) by creating trade
relations with the northern and western states. It is reasonable
then to expect that as the communities in this area became more
integrated with the larger populated and more distant towns and
cities, they would be more and more affected by the national
economy. The scarcity of coins and the Panic of 1837 are issues
that can be considered here.
The pertinent references about the economy of the Moravians in
North Carolina deal with Salem in particular, and it is likely that
Bethabara's economic situation was similar. Salem followed the
trend of the southern Piedmont and also became involved in the
national economy by relying more on goods produced outside the
community. They received shipments of goods from Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia, and sent out their own merchandise of cloth and
yarn to consignees in New York and Philadelphia and west to
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas (Shirley 1991:230). Residents of
the Moravian communities began purchasing cheaper manufactured
goods in the surrounding countryside in lieu of the custom-made
items traditionally bought within the community (Shirley 1991:232).
It is not surprising to read in the Moravian Records that the
national depression following the Panic of 1837 affected the
Moravian community much the same way it affected the surrounding
residents. In the 1840's a "critical lack of cash and the current
low prices of various provisions and essentials" made times tough
for the Moravians (Fries and Hamilton 1966: 5088-5089). Many
businessmen, especially the younger ones, supplemented their own
income through "secret trading," that is, selling goods not deemed
appropriate by the congregation for that particular trade (Shirley
1991:233).
With the scarcity of money before and during the depression
coupled with the low prices of commodities, one could imagine a
Large Cent being cut to make change for small purchases. Stanley
South noted on the Master Site Plan (based on the Reuter Maps of
1760 and 1766) the location of the 1759 store as being in close
proximity to the Sleeping Hall. It is uncertain what the store
sold, but most likely basic provisions were a major part of the
merchandise. If the store remained open long enough, perhaps the
coin may have been used in that context; however, it is not certain
when the store closed operations.
Measurements of the coin indicate that the coin may have been
intended for use as currency. The two cut edges of the coin form an
angle of 87 degrees, yielding almost a perfect quarter of the
original. These same edges both measure 14 mm, which is half of the
28-29 mm diameter that Yeoman (1995:86) lists in his Guidebook. It
can thus be inferred that care was taken to create four equal parts
and that this may not have been the first time coins were cut to
create change.
In conclusion, the coin may not have been the result of some
random act. Instead it may have been created to fulfill a basic
economic need in the community or surrounding areas. As an artifact
removed from a disturbed context, it may never be known exactly why
the coin was cut or what it was used for, but the historical and
economic circumstances of the time lend a hand to an otherwise
difficult task.
References
Davis, Norman M.
1971 The Complete Book of United States Coin Collecting.
New York: The MacMillan Company.
Fries, Adelaide and Kenneth G. Hamilton, eds.
1966 Records of the Moravians, Volume 10, 1841-1851.
Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History.
Massey, J. Earl
1968 America's Money, The Story of Our Coins and Currency..
New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
Patton, Timothy John
1993 The Austrian business cycle theory and the Panics of
1837 and 1857: An application and critical appraisal.
Ph.D. dissertation, Golden Gate University, San
Francisco.
Rossiter, Clinton
1971 The American Quest 1790-1860: An Emerging Nation in
Search of Identity, Unity, and Modernity. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Schwarz, Ted
1980 A History of United States Coinage. New York: A.S.
Barnes and Co., Inc.
Shirley, Michael
1991 "The Market and Community Culture in Antebellum Salem,
North Carolina" Journal of the Early Republic 11: 219-
248.
Yeoman, R.S.
1991 A Guidebook of United States Coins. Racine, WI: Western
Publishing Co.
1995 A Guidebook of United States Coins. Racine, WI: Western
Publishing Co.
Library Index