AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ANDPRESERVATION PLAN FOR

THE BECHTLER MINT SITE, 31RF157**

CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 177

@ 2001 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication maybe reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmItted, ortranscribed in any fonn or byany means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherWise without priorpennission of ChIcora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used In reviews. Fullcredit must be given to the authors, publisher, and project sponsor.

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ANDPRESERVATION PLAN FOR

TIlE BECHTLER MINT SITE, 31RF157**

Prepared For:Rutherford County

andRutherford County Historical Society

Prepared By:Michael Trinkley, Ph.D.

Debi Hacker

Chicora Foundation Research Contribution 177

Chicora Foundation, Inc.P.o. Box 8664 • 861 Arbutus Drive

Columbia, South Carolina 29202-8664803n87-691O

Email: chicoral@aol.com

November 1995

lf:

,

~..,

ABSTRACT

This investigation, conducted by the non­profit Chicora Foundation in mid-October 1995 forRutherford County and the Rutherford CountyHistorical Society, was designed to provide anintensive archaeological survey of the BechtlerMint archaeological site, 31RF157"*. Althoughthis site has been known to historians,numismatists, collectors, and the local population,the site didn't receive any professionalarchaeological attention until a preliminaryassessment was prepared in March 1995. This studyencouraged the County and Historical Society toseek the funding for a more intensivearchaeological examination - represented by thisdocument

Chicora's field investigations incorporatedapproximately 0.6 ha of the 1.2 ha site area ownedby the county. Including tests at 3- and 6-meterintervals, 324 30-cm shovel tests were excavated.These included the initial 6-meter interval testsover the entire site, coupled with 3-meter close­interval testing at four different site areas. A metaldetector survey was conducted of the entire sitewhich identified three distinct areas. One of these,associated with almost no shovel test artifacts, wasalso subjected to metal artifact recovery. The 0.6ha site area explored by these investigations was

sutveyed and a detailed contour map, showingnatural and cultural features. Finally, four 1-munits Were excavated in three different site areas.

Overall the site exhibits very good• integrity. Plowscars are uncommon and site

looting, while clearly present and quite bad, seemsto be concentrated in one area of the site.Although the site has been planted in pines twiceand logged once, little evidence of this activitycould be detected archaeologically. And finally,while there are areas which exhibit seriouserosional loss of Ahorizon soils, they are typicallyconfined to the side slopes and have notdramaticaUy impacted the archaeological site. Inmost areas of the site, between 10 and 2S em of

intact A horizon soils were found overlying thetypical red clay subsoil

Several areas of clear artifactconcentrations were identified. One appears torepresent the BechtIers' house (and mint), anotherappears to be a utility building, and the function ofseveral other areas cannot, at present, bedetermined with any degree of assurance. The sitehas produced a wide range of both kitchen andarchitectural artifacts, as well as a few which arealmost certainly associated with the mintingoperations which took place on-site during themiddle of the antebellum period.

This study provides adequate document tosupport the nomination of the site to the NationalRegister of Historic Places under Criterion D (thepotential to yield important information to thehistory of community and State). The site is alsolikely eligtble for nomination under Criterion A(association with historic events and activities).

In addition to the examination of thearchaeological data, this study was also directed tothe development of a preliminary archaeologicalpreservation and interpretation plan for the site.OUf initial assessment is that the site has goodpotential for heritage tourism. It has equally goodpotential for use as a local passive park. Finally, ithas exceptional potential for use in educationalprograms, integrating history and science. Each ofthese uses, however, requires (1) protection of thesite. (2) development of the site, (3) promotion ofthe site, and (4) interpretation of the site.Chicora's study outlines some of the issuesinvolved with each of these actions.

By protection there is one very specificissue which must be addressed - site looting andvandalism. The site has historically been attractiveto those with metal detectors and shovels who wishto convert the public's history into privateownership. Such behavior is reprehensible and will

destroy the site, making it worthless to the citizensof Rutherford County and North Carolina. Werecommend that the County pass an ordinancemaking it illegal to damage, disturb, dig, or removeartifacts from the site. Coupled with such anordinance must be education of law enforcement.

Development includes a wide range ofactivities. The site should be selectively logged,Bowater should be encouraged to log a perimeteraround the site for fire control, a road and parkingmust be established to allow use, the entire sitemust be fenced, and the fence around the shaftmust be repaired. Trails must be established whichare accessible to the disabled and which areappropriate for the nature of the soils.Irregularities in the ground (pot holes and sinkholes, for example) must be leveled through theaddition of soil as appropriate. Ground cover mustbe established in the logged areas. Raised plantingbeds can be established and focused on nativeNorth Carolina foothill plants.

Promotion of the site must include notonly acquainting the county population with theseactivities, but must also focus on attracting outsidevisitors. One approach we recommend is thedevelopment of a fun color brochure for use atwelcome centers and distribution by the localchamber of commerce. Promotion should alsoinclude integrating the site into history and sciencecurricula at local middle and high schools.

All of these activities, however, must betied together through site interpretation. This canbe accomplished through the use of site signageand development of curricula packages for thelocal schools.

1t

t[tI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures

List of Tables

Acknowledgements

IntroductionBackgroundScope and GoalsCuration

Natural SettingPhysiographic ProvinceClimateGeology and SoilsFlorestics

Historical Synopsis of the Bechtler MintIntroductionHistory of the BechtlersSite ActivitiesAntebellum Piedmont Farm Archaeology

Archaeological InvestigationsStrategy and MethodsArchaeological RemainsArtifactsSummary

Site Planning IssuesIntroductionProtection of the SiteDevelopment of the SitePromotion of the SiteInterpretation of the Site

Sources Cited

:'J

,

iv

iv

v

1

7

15

21

41

49

ill

Figure1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.

Table1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Rutherford County in western North CarolinaArea of the Bechtler Mint siteBechtler site from Gilboa Church RoadPortion of Jaynestown or Jeanstown RoadShovel tests and site areas defined by metal detectingTopographic map of the site areaMetal detector results around the northern concentrationExcavation units and profilesBechtler site artifact densityBechtler site architecture amact densityBechtler site kitchen artifact densityArtifacts from the Bechtler site

LIST OF TABLES

Approximate U.S. equivalents for metric measurementsArtifact pattern analysis for the shovel test collectionTypical artifact patternsCeramic decorative motifs from the shovel testsMajor types of ceramia> from the shovel testsMean ceramic date for the shovel testsArtifact pattern analysis for the excavation unitsMajor types of ceramics from the excavation unitsMean ceramic date for the combined excavation units

6899

2223252627293028

33334343535363637

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was funded by the NorthCarolina Division of Archives and History,Department of Cultural Resources, through theirState Grants Program. We want to thank them fortheir support of the Bechtler project and interest inthe development of this unique site. We also wishto thank Mr. David Moore, archaeologist with theWestern Field Office of the Department ofCultural Resources, for his oversight,encouragement, and enthusiasm.

The grant was provided to RutherfordCounty and the Rutherford County HistoricalSociety and so it is appropriate to thank them for

. their foresight and for interest in preserving andprotecting the heritage of their county. We alsowant to thank them for allowing ChicoraFoundation to participate in this project. Inparticular, we want to thank Mr. Jim Womack, ofthe Historical Society, and Mr. Robert W. Bole. ofthe County Finance Office for their support. Mr.Fred Burgin assisted us in making ourarrangements and obtaining aceommodatioJ;ls. Ms.Julia Hensley graciously offered us supportfacilities while conducting the project and alsooversaw press and media arrangements.

Assistance in the identification of thelandscape plantings at the Bechtler site wasprovided by Dr. John Nelson, Director of the A.C.Moore Herbarium at the University of SouthCarolina. We greatly appreciate his support andassistance in this project.

We also want to thank all the staff ofRutherford County who were so kind to us duringour work and provided a variety of services. Inaddition, the members of the Historical Societywere very gracious and hospitable during our stayin Rutherfordton and we appreciate their interestin the site, its history, and our investigations. Wehope that this study offers them the support andencouragement to continue their preservationefforts.

Finally, we want to thank Ms. NatalieAdams, the field director for this project, and Ms.Mary Rossi, an intern working with ChicoraFoundation on the Bechtler project. We appreciatetheir dedic.ation, interest, and efforts in making thisresearch successful and rewarding.

INTRODUCTION

Backm"ound

Although the Bechtler Mint site, locatedabout 4.6 kID north of RutJ.1erford in RutherfordCounty, North Carolina, has been known to thelocal population, treasure hunters, and historiansfor at least the past 100 years, it has only recentlyattractedprofessional archaeologicalattention.TheRutherford County Historical Society andRutherford County sought, and obtained, $10,000funding from the North Carolina Division ofArchives and History, Department of CulturalResources, through their State Grants Program. Inearly 1995 Rutherford County requested that ourcolleaguesatArchaeological ResearchConsultants,Inc. conduct an initial archaeological assessment ofthe site. Their study, which apparently involvedonly part of a day actually on-site, focused on abrief overview of the history of the site, a review ofthe available land-use records and probablearchaeological features, and a very generaldiscussion of the possible archaeologicalapproaches for the study of the site (Hargrove1995).

Although the report descnbes no shoveltesting, one member of the Rutherford CountyHistorical Society recalled that a few core sampleswere taken. Regardless, the report does notmention that archaeological remains wererecovered nor was the site recorded and given anarchaeological site number, although theArchaeological Research Consultants report doesnote the presence of brick on the surface andalludes to other possible features. It did, however,recommend an intensive archaeological survey ofthe tract, combined with some limited testexcavations (Hargrove 1995:9).

This brief reconnaissance spurred theCounty and Historical Society to seek additionalarchaeological investigations at the site, generallyfollowing the recommendations offered by theinitial assessment. Shovel testing was requested,

coupled with some degree of site testing. Inaddition, extant above-ground features were also tobe mapped. In response to a Scope of Work,Chicora Foundation provided an outline foradditional work - essentially an intensive survey ofthe tract - on June 6, 1995. This proposal wasaccepted by the Historical Society on July 28 andan initial meeting was scheduled for September 1.At that time we discovered that while an intensivesurvey was indeed sought, there was also aninterest in better understanding development andinterpretation options for the site. In effect, itappeared that a preservation plan was also beingsought. Although the funds (less than $5000) wereinadequate to provide a detailed plan, ChicoraFoundation agreed to provide an overview whichwe hoped would be useful in focusing attention onimmediate needs and help the Society seekadditional funding.

An agreement for the proposed work wasapproved by the Historical Society and County onSeptember 25, 1995 and the work was scheduledfor October 16 through October 20. We hoped thatby this time at least some of the vegetation wouldbe down and the mine site would be moreamenable to the kind of detailed survey work wehad in mind The field work was conducted duringthis period and a total of III person hours, over12 person days, were spent at the site. This reportprovides an overview of the work undertaken, theresults, and our recommendations for futurestudies and site enhancement.

Scope and Goals

We realized that there were essentiallythree basic goals for the study being proposed bythe Rutherford County Historical Society. Somewere dearly understood and articulated, whileothers were present but perhaps not as welldetailed. In addition, some goals were advanced bythe Historical Society, while others appeared to beof greater importance to the Department of

'.

Cultural Resources or the archaeologicalcommunity. Some goals were of immediateconcern, while others focused on longer-termissues, such as the potential of the site to helpaddress research questions.

• The first and primary goal wasclearly to better understand thearchaeological materials presentat the site. Are archaeologicalremains and features present?How badly have they beenimpacted by site looters,silvaculture, and other land useactivities? What are the nature ofthe remains present? Can theytell us more about how theBechtlers lived and the activitieswhich took place at the site? Canevidence be found of theBechtlers' minting and miningactivities'] These and a host ofother questions were certainly onthe minds of the RutherfordCounty Historical Society.

• A second goal was to determinethe eligIbility of the site forinclusion on the National Registerof Historic Places. While onlybriefly mentioned in the Scope ofWork, eligtbility is likely seen notonly as verifying the site'simportance to the community, butalso as a requirement foradditional funding.

• A third goal was to help theHistorical Society focus futurepreservation and interpretationefforts at the site. This study wasto provide a clear path foradditional work and efforts.

The Scope of Work issued by RutherfordCounty and the Rutherford County HistoricalSociety specified that they wished to conduct "anarchaeological and historical resource inventoryand evaluation" of the Bechtler Mint (Anonymous1995). The Scope specified only limitedbackground research (sufficient to achieve a degree

2

of familiarity with the site), since a rather detailedhistorical overview has been provided by WilliamBynum (1989). Instead, the focus was to be on"intensive surface and limited subsudace testing" ofthe site. Although the methods were to be "of thecontractor's choosing," the work was intended toincluded the "mapping [of] all visible surfaceremains (tunnel mouth, roads, ornamentalplantings, brick concentrations, building piers,graves, etc.), a metal detector survey, andsystematic screened shovel tests at close intervals"(Anonymous 1995:4).

Chicora's proposal for the investigationsfocused on an explorative research design since thework was the first intensive archaeological study atthe site. Although an overview was provided by theArchaeological Research Consultants' study, it didnot provide much specific on-the-groundinformation. We proposed a total of 10 persondays at the site, or 80 person hours. This time wasto be broken into basically six tasks:

• A 6 m grid would be establishedover the approximately 0.4 ha siteand at least one permanentdatum point for vertic-al andhorizontal control would belocated for easy recovery byfuture investigators. This gridwould serve as the control for allactivities at the site.

• Shovel testing of the site areawould be conducted at 6 mintervals with all fill screenedthrough 6.25 mm mesh. This workwould provide an "overview" ofarchaeological remains at the site,providing information on thedensity of various remains andpossible structural locations, andalso helping to evaluate siteintegrity.

• To assist in the identification ofmore ephemeral structures, acontrolled metal detector surveywould also be conducted. Using aTesoro Bandito II™ metaldetector with an 20.5 em

'.," "

...

"

This evaluative process involves five steps,forming a clearly defined, explicit rationale foreither the site's e1igtbility or lack of eligtbility.Briefly, these steps are:

• identification of the historiccontext applicable to the site,providing a framework fOT theevaluative process:

• identification of the site's datasets or categories ofarchaeological information suchas ceramic., lithics, subsistenceremains, architectural remains, orsub-surface features;

Once identified and examined, the secondgoal, that of assessing the site's potential eligtbilityfor inclusion on the National Register of HistoricPlaces. It is generally accepted that "thesignificance of an archaeological site is based onthe potential of the site to contnbute to thescientific or humanistic understanding of the past"(Bense et a1. 1986:60). Site significance in thisstudy was evaluated using the recently publishedprocess of Townsend et a1. (1993).

AREAha 2.47 acres

LENOTHkm 0.62 milesm 3937 inches or 3.28 feetem 039 inches

Table 1.Metric Equivalents

hectare

kilometermetercentimeter

that it would be acceptable for the artifacts to bemrated by the Rutherford County HistoricalSociety, although he preferred that the catalogingsystem be consistent with that used by theDepartment of Cultural Resources. He alsoindicated that the approximate site area involved inthe study would be about 0.4 ha. Our on-sitemeeting with representatives of the County andHistorical Society revealed the interest in , andindeed need for, some type of preservationplanning or assessment accompanying the study.

concentric coil (electromagnetictype operating at 10KHz), thisactivity was designed to identifynail concentrations which mightmark building footprints.

• Once areas of potential interestwere found by either shoveltesting or metal detecting, weproposed to reduce the shoveltest interval to 3 m in the hope ofidentifying architectural or otherfeatures. This information wouldbe useful in the placement of testunits (discussed below) andinterpreting the concentrations.

• In areas identified onlv by themetal detector survey' (i.e., inareas which produced no shoveltest artifacts), we proposed acontrolled retrieval of the metalremains. This would help ensurethat the function of theseconcentrations might beidentifiable.

• We proposed the excavation ofseveral 1 meter squares as timeallowed. These excavations wouldbe particularly useful in assessingNational Register eliglbility andwould provide greater detailconcerning the condition of thesite, the nature of the artifactspresent, and the potential foradditional research.

As previously mentioned, this Scope wasfurther refined by pre-bid discussions with Mr.David Moore, Field Archaeologist with theDepartment of Cultural Resources and during anon-site meeting with the Rutherford CountyHistorical Society on September L Mr. Moore, forexample, indicated that the Department ofCulturalResources preferred the work to be conductedusing the metric system. Although this system isgenerally unfamiliar to most Americans, we havecomplied with this request. Table I provides somegeneral equivalents which may be helpful toreaders of this study. Mr. Moore also indicated

3

• identification of the importantresearch questions the site mightbe able to address, given the datasets and the context;

• evaluation of the site'sarchaeological integrity to ensurethat the data sets were sufficientlywell preserved to address theresearch questions; and

• identification of "important"research questions among all ofthose which might be asked andanswered at the site.

This approach, of course, has been developed foruse documenting eligIbility of sites· actually beingnominated to the National Register of HistoricPlaces where the evaluative process must standalone, with relatively little reference to otherdocumentation. We have opted in this study toprovide the historic context in the format of a briefoverview of historic information concerning thesite. Obviously it would also be appropriate tointegrate additional background concerning othernineteenth century farmstead studies in NorthCarolina. Likewise, the identification of"important" research goals was achieved byincotporating research goals and questions in thisoverview, outlining significant questions to thediscipline and the public. Additional backgroundresearch and synthesis of a wider range of historicarchaeology comparable to the project area wouldlikely result in a greater depth and breadth ofresearch questions.

Otherwise, the evaluative process wasessentially the same as outlined by Townsend et al.(1993). The data sets identified during the survey,such as the quantity of different artifacts types, isdiscussed. Reference is made back to the historicoverview and the research questions the site mightbe able to address. while at the same time thesite's integrity was clearly defined We opted to usethe integrity areas developed by Townsend et al.(1993:17-23) since they are more commonly usedwith National Register sites than the archaeologicalproperties developed by Glassow (1977). Thosemost important for archaeological sites beingevaluated for eligibility under Criterion D (sites

4

that have yielded, or may be likely to yield,information important in prehistory or history) areloeational integrity, design integrity, integrity ofmaterials, and associative integrity.

locational integritymeans that discernablepatteming is present. If a site lacks patterning, ifthe artifacts are displaced, if activity areas are nolonger recognizable, then it likely lacks loeationalintegrity. Iutegrity of design is most oftenaddressed as intra-site artifact and featurepatterning. Integrity ofmaterials is typically seen asthe completeness of the artifact/feature assemblageor the quality of features or artifact preservation.Finally, associative integrity is often examined inthe context of how strongly associated the data setis with important research questions.

The final goal was to help the RutherfordCounty Historical Society preserve and intetpretthe Bechtler site. This goal incorporates a broadrange of issues in education, landscape planning,heritage tourism, economics, and archaeology. [t

deserves, frankly, as much funding as was givenover to archaeological research. Although it cannotbe dealt with in as much detail as it deserves, wehave attempted to provide some basic guidanceand direction. Issues have been raised whichrequire additional study. Other issues have beenraised which require a decision on the directionthat site interpretation will take. Additional,detailed, planning is necessary for the long-termpreservation and protection of the Bechtler Mintsite. This study should be seen as but the first step.

Curation

An archaeological site form for theBechtler Mint site has been filed with theArchaeology Branch, Department of CulturalResources and a site number, 31RF157··, hasbeen assigned.

The original field notes, photographicmaterials, and artifacts resulting from ChicoraFoundation's investigations at the Bechner sitehave been curated with the Rutherford CountyHistorical Society. Duplicates of the field notes,photographic materials, and artifact catalog havebeen filed with the Department of CulturalResources. The artifacts from this study have beencataloged using the standard system of the

Archaeology Branch, although no accessionnumber has been assigned to the collection.Cataloging has used specimen numbers xxx throughxxx. The artifacts have been cleaned and/orconserved as necessary. Further information onconservation practices may be found in a followingsection. All original records and duplic4ite copieswere provided to the curatorial facilities on pHneutral, alkaline buffered paper and thephotographic materials were processed to archivalpermanence.

5

NATURAL SEITING

I.I

Physiognmbic Province

Rutherford County is situated in westernNorth Carolina about 2S km north of Spartanburg,South Carolina and 120 km west of Charlotte,North Carolina (Figure 1). The COUllty lies almostentirely in the Piedmont, although a very smallportion of the county's northwestern comerevidences steep slopes and quite ruggedmountainous slopes.

The Piedmont, bounded on the east by theFall Line and on the west by the Blue Ridge scarp,is about 320 km wide in North Carolina. The nameitself means "foot of the mountains," anappropriate term for topography which ischaracterized by rolling eroded plateaus, roundedbills, and low ridges. Some geographers divide theregion into the "lowlands," with their generallylower elevations, and "uplands," such as theRutherford area which is characterized byelevations up to about 450 m above. mean sea level(MSL).

The western section of the Piedmontincludes the headwaters of several significantrivers: Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear, Yadkin,Catawba, and Broad. Rutherford County isdominated by the Broad River, which flowsgenerally south through the region. The MainBroad runs on the western side of the county andthen turns to the east and passes along thesouthern side. The Second Broad runs through thecenter of the county from north to south. The FirstBroad passes through the northeast comer ofRutherford County. Drainage is controlled by theslope of the Piedmont and is further modified bythe complex rock structure of the area (includinga series of northeast-southwest trending belts).Most of the major streams and rivers , once pastthe mountainous areas, are associated with broadbelts of bottom lands of great fertility. Remnantsof more resistant rock, known as "monadnocks,"form high hills and crests of unweathered rock

standing above the more weathered and erodedterrain. The mountains rise abruptly from thePiedmont along an escarpment known as theBrevard Fault. The eastern portion ofmountainousNorth Carolina consists of the Blue Ridge, withelevations to about 1220 m and a few peaks tonearly 1800 m. Usually classified as open, lowmountains, much of the area is in relatively gentleslopes.

The Piedmont has always dominated thetopography of North Carolina, giving rise to manydescriptions. One recounts that:

the tumultuous continuity ofmountains subsides into gentleundulations, a succession of hillsand dales, a variety and charm oflandscape, alike different fromthe high, uplifted mountainelevations and the flat monotonyof the plains or levels of the east.Every step brings to view somenew charm, some newarrangement of the rounded hills,some new grouping of the tractsof forest which still cover so largea part of the country. The bills,indeed, in their gracefully curvingoutlines, present lines of beautywith which the eye of taste isnever satiated. These areattractions which depend uponthe permanent features of thelandscape, and which, thoughtinfmitely heightened in theireffects by the verdure of springand summer, are only broughtinto fuller relief by the nakednessof winter (State Board ofAgriculture 1896:24).

The Becbtler site, which is only about 5kID north of the county seat of Rutherfordton, is

00

IM:iJ.lim.etre -1 Rilometl:'e

Figure 1. Vicinity of the Bechtler site in Rutherford County (source: U.S.G.S. South Carolina 1:1,000,000).

, -

off SR-1532, Gilboa Church Road, 0.7 kIn nQrth ofits intersection with U.S. 221. The 1.2 ha siteowned by Rutherford County is at an elevation of305 m and consists of a rectangular parcel whichslopes to the northeast, southeast, and west­southwest (Figure 2). Northeast of the tract is asmall intermittent creek which flows northward toa tnbutary of Catheys Creek. As will be seen in thefollowing sections, the bulk of the archaeologicalmaterials appear to be associated with therelatively level ridge crest which runs north­northwest by south-southeast.

The site is bordered to the southwest byan abandoned railroad spur, now owned byRutherford County (Figure 3). Just beyond therailroad is Gilboa Church Road, named for GilboaChurch about 1.4 km to the north. This roadrepresents the remnants of oid U.S. 221 and wasapparently built in the first half of the twentiethcentury, replacing the Jaynestown or JeanstownRoad, portions ofwhich are stilI visible just east ofthe railroad on the Bechtler site (Figure 4). Theproperty around the Bechtler site is owned byBowater, Inc., a timber company with majorholdings in the region.

Climate

North Carolina as a whole lies within ageneral climatic region known as the HumidSubtropical. Moisture is adequate throughout theyear, historically supporting very dense forests andan exceptional range of agricultural crops.Temperatures are moderate with long (and oftenhot, humid) summers and brief winters (with cold,dank. conditions). Snowfall occurs, but is usuallylimited to the mountains. Gade et aI. note that:

air masses accounting for thisclimate are controlled by a varietyof loeational phenomena such aslatitude, altitude, mountainbarriers, and land and watersurface differences.... Warm,moist air from the maritimetropics dominates summerconditions while cooler, driercontinental polar air controlswinter weather (Gade et a1.1986:15).

In general. the Piedmont enjoys thisfavorable climate. The relatively moderatetemperatures, coupled with adequate precipitationand generally weU drained clay soils creates asetting favorable for a wide range of crops andnative plants. The average winter (January)temperature for Rutherford County ranges fromabout 6° C in the northwest to about 8° C in thesoutheast. The average summer (July)temperatureis consistent across the county at about 25° C. Thismarked seasonal difference is almost entirely theresult of the difference of the angle of the sunabove the horizon during the different seasons.Precipitation in most of Rutherford County isabout 120 em a year.

The State Board of Agriculture noted thatRutherford County was an exceptional agriculturalarea, representing the western limit of cottonculture in North Carolina (State Board ofAgriculture 18961394). In addition, ''the wholecounty is favorable to fruit - apples, peaches,cherries, melons, and grapes - and also topotatoes" (State Board of Education 1896:394).

Geology and Soils

North Carolina exhibits increasing age andcomplexity of rock types from east to west,resulting from the various periods of uplift andsubsidence with accompanying erosion· and laterdeposition of materials. The Piedmont contains arange of primarily crystalline rocks alternating withsedimentary rock in down faulted basins. One sucharea, the Carolina Slate Belt, is derived fromvolcanic sediments and is an important sOUrce offine grained quarry rock as well as a range of rawmaterials for Native American knappers. In thewestern part of this slate belt, especially inDavidson and Cabarrus counties. there are manyveins impregnated with gold bearing ores. Situatedbetween the Brevard Fault to the west and theGold Hill Fault to the east. Rutherford County isdominated by gneiss and schist rocks of thePaleozoic Era. These rocks are likewise penetrated

. by numerous veins which exhibit small quantities ofgold are, often mixed with copper and iron ores.The State Board of Agriculture (1896:70) observedthat the South Mountains in Burke, McDowell,and Rutherford counties were particularly notedfor their gold ores mixed with quartz rock.

9

10

Figure 3. Bechtler site from Gilboa Church Road. looking to the east.

Figure 4. Portion of JaynestowlI or Jeanstown Road looking north in the Bechtler tract.

11

..

The South Mountain belt propercomprises an area of nearly 300 square km,extending from Morganton to Rutherfordton. Thegold bearing quartz veins of this area are truefIssure veins and may vary in thickness from amere line to upwards of a raeter, although the vastmajority are less than 2 to 8 em thick. The goldbearing veins seem to be concentrated in fiveparallel belts or zones. Of greatest interest to thisCUTTent study is the Idler Mine Belt, which is about4.8 km north of Rutherfordton, in the area of theBechtler Mint. The Idler Mine:

is situated five miles north ofRutherfordton. As many asthirteen parallel veins have beenexplored within a distance of halfa mile across the strike. The fourLarger veins are known as theMonarch, Alta, Carson, andGlendale. The last work was doneon the Alta vein some three yearsago at a depth of one hundredand five feet. The thickness ofthis vein is said to average aboutfifteen inches, and the are is saidto yield in mill tests for $10.00 to$30.00 per ton of free gold TheElwood and Leeds mines aresituated in the neighborhood(State Board of Agriculture1896:85).

Most of the veins in the region are too narrow tobe profitably worked, although decomposed rockcan be sluiced or processed in a mill withamalgamation (for additional information on thesetechniques see Triokley 1986). It seems thathistorically placer deposits have been the mostimportant sources of gold in the area. These arefound associated with gravel beds in the streamsand adjoining bottom lands, in gulch and hillsidedeposits, and even in the very upper zones ofdecomposed rock still in place.

Piedmont soils are generally over a meterin depth and have red or yellow heavy claysubsoils. Although formed by the decomposition ofvery old rocks, the soils tbemselves are relativelyyoung due to recent soil erosion. Differences in tbesurface soils are the result mainly of the differenttypes of parent rocks. Although the soil survey for

12

Rutherford County has not been completed, thesoils in the vicinity of the Becbtler site belongprimarily to either tbe Cecil or Pacolet series (LeeMallard, personal communication 1995).

The Cecil soils represent residuum tbathas weathered mainly from high grademetamorphic rocks such as biotite gneiss andmigmatitic gneiss. Commonly found on summitsthe Ap horizon ranges up to 20 em and consists ofa friable, reddish brown (5YR4/4) sandy clay loam.It typically rests on a Ht horizon of red (25YR418)clay or clay loam. The Pacolet soils are notimmediately distinct to the novice. They alsorepresent residuum, in this case weathered fromintrusive and high grade metamorphic rock such asmetamorphosed granite. migmatitic gneiss, biotitegneiss, and sillimanite-mica schist. They are alsofound not just on summits, but also the side slopes,and the Ap horizon consists of up to 13 em of darkreddish brown (5YR3/4) sandy clay loam. ThePacolet soils typically overlie a Bt horizon of red(2.5YR4/6) clay, clay loam, or sandy clay.

Erosion here, like elsewhere in this portionof the Piedmont, is primarily the result ofincreasingly erosive land-use activities during thepostbellum, peaking by the early twentieth century(see Trimble 1974). Trimble notes that RutherfordCounty has likely seen tbe loss of between 18 and25 em of soil, primarily the result of pooragricultural techniques. Although agriculturalpractices are considerably different today, erosioncan still be locally severe, especially depending onthe activities which take place. For example,wildfires can result in the erosion of up to about0.11 metric ton per hectare per year. However,mechanical site preparation, typically found inmany timber stands, can cause the extraordinaryerosion rate of 15.15 metric tons per hectare peryear (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1983:25).

Florestics

Today three centuries of human actionhave dramatically altered the Piedmont vegetation,creating a patchwork of forest land dominated bypine and cultivated land, including pasture. Earlysettlers found a continuous oak-hickory forest onthe uplands and a mixture of broadleaf species onthe floodplains. The clearing, cultivation, andsnbsequent abandonment of land not only

promoted erosion, but also the sub-climaxdominance of pine. Most of Rutherford County iscovered in shortleaf pine, although Virginia pine iscommon on the more northern and mountainousareas of the County. Fertile upland areas maysupport southern red oak, white oak, andmockernut hickory. The understory may containdogwood and sourwood. Dry sites with thin,eroded soils may support post oak, scarlet oak, andshagbark hickory. Sycamore, sweet gum, tulippoplar, willow oak, and ash are common on thefloodplains. In the more upland, cool areasoccasional remnants of mountain flora such ashemlock, white pine, and rhododendron may stillbe found.

The Bechtler site in the early twentiethcentury was apparently a pasture (Jim Womack,personal communication 1995), although otherssuggest that at least portions may have beenplanted. Later the site was plowed and planted inshortleaf pine, which has been harvested andreplanted at least once in its history. The trees onthe site today are perhaps 20 years old and thereis an understory of tulip poplar, dogwood, ragweed,and poison ivy. In a few areas there are alsoremnant plantings, likely related to the Bechtlersuse of the site. These include two areas whereYucca filamentosa is present. one area with anumber of privets, Lygusfnurn simmse, and an areaof dense periwinkle, Vinca minor.

13

HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS OF THE BECHTLERMINT SITE

Introduction

There are a number ofsecondary accountsof the Bechtler operations, most of which repeatsome version of the same story. From the vantagepoint of numismatists, Walter Breen (1988) offersan exceptional account of the mint and its place infinancial and coinage history. Ora Blackmun (1977)places the Bechtlers and their mint within thecontext of western North Carolina history and thegrowth of the frontier. There are also short,popular accounts such as one in the August 31,1963 The SUite DOWII Home or the North CarolinaMuseumofHistory publication by Rodney Barfieldand Keith Strawn (1980). Perhaps the mostcomplete account, however, is that by WilliamBynum, prepared for the Rutherford CountyHistorical Society in 1989. These accounts will onlybe briefly reviewed in this discussion, which isintended to provide a general context for the siteand the range of research questions which it mayaddress.

History of the Becbtlers

Bynum (1989:1, 8) notes that the Bechtlerfamily, lead by patriarch Christopher Bechtler, Sr.arrived in Rutherford County in 1830. As recentimmigrants who were not yet naturalized citizens,they were unable to purchase property outright, sothe tract north of Rutherfordton was purchased bya trustee, Martin Kibler, from John Bradley. Theyreceived actual title in 1838, reputedly five yearsafter they had become citizens. Breen (1988:624)provides a little additional information, noting thatthe Bechtlers arrived in New York fromPfortzheim. Germany in 1829 and had movedalmost immediately to Philadelphia where theylived for only a short period before migrating toNorth Carolina.

Little is known about the early history of

the Bechtlers - what was their background inGermany, what was their occupation, why did theyleave, what did they do that year in Philadelphia,why did they chose North Carolina, and what wastheir tie to Martin Ktbler? Many of these questionsmay be unanswerable, but the inquiry may providea better understanding of the Bechtlers and theirlifestyle just outside Rutherfordton.

It seems that the Bechtlers lost little timein setting up a mint. Bynum notes that their firstadvertisement, in the North Carolina Spectator andWestern Advertiser, appeared on July 2, 1831. Thissuggests that the Bechtlers moved to NorthCarolina specifically to conduct gold work and hadthe expertise and equipment to quickly begin work.There seems to be little doubt that the Bechtlerswere wen established almost immediately upontheir arrival and Bynum has found evidence thatthey were selling jewelry and watches on theirproperty by August 1831. The only real question,it seems, is whether the Bechtlers were equallysuccessful (or even interested in) mining andprocessing operations. Bynum mentions someevidence that they were conducting hard rockmining and ore processing in the first quarter ofthe 1830s, although there seems to be somequestion concerning the profitability of this work.During the 1830s the Bechtlers continued to addSDlall tracts to their holding, purchasing 6 ha in1833, and three tracts totaling 20.7 ha in 1838. In1837 the English geologist G.W. Featherstonbaughvisited Bechtler's house, mint, and farm. Curiouslylittle information has been passed on from thisvisit.

The Bechtler property, totaling 99.6 ha,was deeded by Christopher Bechtler, Sr. to his son.Augustus on July 6, 1840. Bynum (1989:9) notesthat the deed includes, "all of the Tools andInstruments . . . necessary or useful in ca.rraying[sic] on their trade in all its various branches."

Bynum, probably correctly, interprets this assuggesting that Christopher, then about 58 yearold, was retiring and passing on the family businessto his son. The 1840 Federal Census reveals thatthe Bechtler household included one male in hisfifties (Christopher, Sr.), two males in theirtwenties (Augustus, his son, and one otherindividual), and three slaves (a woman and her twochildren).

Bynum also notes that with Christopher'sretirement in 1840 the detailed accounts of theminting operations also ceased. Yet the mint andassociated retail activities apparently continued. atleast for a year or so. He noted that William H.Battle road out of Rutherfordton "to see Mr.Bechtler, a famous coiner of gold and fIrst rategunsmith" in 1841 (Bynum 1989:10).

Christopher, Sr. died in 1843 and althoughhe had already deeded the land and business to hisson, Augustus, his will directed Augustus toenlarge "the coining business" (Bynum 1989:10).Augustus, however, would receive little benefitfrom the business, dying intestate in late 1843 orearly 1844. ChTIstopher, Jr., a nephew ofChristopher, Sr., was appointed the administratorof the estate. He moved the Bechtlers' businessesto Rutherford and the farm and associated landpassed to Charles Bechtler, Augustus' brother. Aspart of this settlement Augustus' slaves, Patsy andher three children, were sold. The accounts andinventories of sales after Augustus' death (Bynum1989:58-63) suggests that the vast majority of theBechtler business was disposed of at this time. Forexample, there are listed no fewer than 30weapons, at least 19 gun barrels, a number of ''lots''of machinery and tools, and a range of jewelrysettings and tools. It appears, at least at firstglance, that the only aspects of the Bechtlerbusiness which moved to Rutherfordton may havebeen those associated with the production ofcoinage.

By the spring of 1846 Charles Bechtleralso died and the family property was sold atauction to one of the adjacent property owners,John Geer. While outside the focus of this study,Bynum (1989:11-14) does indicate that additionalefforts at mining continued to take place on thetract. Likewise outside our concern is the jewelrybusiness of Christopher Bechtler, Jr. in

16

Rutherfordton, which continued at least to the late1850s. Christopher's son, Augustus, began a jewelrybusiness in Morganton and his daughter Annaoperated a similar business in Atlanta into the1890s (Bynum 1989:42).

Site Activities

Missing from this discussion, of course, isa very clear understanding of the different activitieswhich took place on the Bechtler property betweenabout 1830 and 1844. There is every indication thatthe Bechtlers minted coins, created jewelry, madeguns, and perhaps even tinkered with otherinventions and machinery. There is also convincingevidence that in addition to assaying and coiningother people's gold, they also so.ught gold depositsof their own through both hard rock and placermining. In addition to these activities, which seemto be more than enough to occupy their time, theirproperty is called a "farm," suggesting that theycultivated the land. Since Charles, Augustus'brother, is not known to have been involved in anyof the trades, it seems likely that he may havebeen responsible for the farm and its cultivation.This sort of division of labor among familymembers was not uncommon and allowed large,extended families to undertake a variety ofdifferent obligations.

The House

Also missing from these discussions isinformation on the layout or organization of theBechtler property and buildings. Bynum also notesthat "there are no known complete descriptions ofthe Bechtler house and mint by theircontemporaries" (Bynum 1989:20). In fact, the onlyaccount is that from 1837 by Featherstonhaugh,who remarked only that Christopher Bechtler, Sr.lived in "a cottage in the woods," and that all of hisbusiness was conducted "at his house."

Unfortunately, Bynum them goes on torecount oral history and legend, much (most?) ofwhich is far removed from the actual events andcannot be independently verified. Whilesympathetic to his efforts to squeeze as much aspossible from the available sources, it seems thatmany of the observations offered nearly a hundredyears after the operation of the mint are unreliable

'.

and should be discounted. Without going intodetail, Bynum reports accounts that the buildingwas "substantial," that it was of frame or logconstruction, and that it may have rested on abrick or stone foundation. When these claims arecarefully examined it can be seen at all arepossible, but there is no evidence which makes anyof them especially probable. Our use andunderstanding of space today is considerablydifferent than 150 years ago. so it se·emsinappropriate to base reconstructions of house sizeon current ideas of spatial arrangement. Thereseems to be a growing body of evidence that therewas considerable diversity in structure sizes, withsome plantation houses, for example, being verysmall. It is likewise possible to see either log orframe construction, especially on the frontier. Infact, in the late eighteenth century the Moraviancommunity at Bethabara contained an equalnumber of both types co-existing with no apparentsocial or functional division (Lane 1985:67). Bothbrick and stone foundations similarly co-existed,with occurrence based primarily on availability.

Bynum also mentions that at least oneinformant, living long after the house disappeared,reported it to have four room with a centralhallway and a rear addition (Bynum 1989:23). Forreasons which are not altogether clear, theconventional wisdom is that the house was a singlestory. Certainly Featherstonhaugh's mention of a"cottage" suggests a relatively unpretentiousstructure which probably was not at the height ofarchitectural fashion. Lane (1985) illnstrates anumber of early nineteenth century structures andvariations on several distinct Boor plans. OakLawn, built in the second decade of the nineteenthcentury in Mecklenburg County, tends to representmany of the rural "country" homes of Piedmontfarmers. Most were two and a half-stories, gableroofed, frame structures on low fieldstonefoundations, with exterior end chimneys and rearkitchen wings. This arrangement, in many respects,would satisfy much of the oral history. Yet we can'tbe sure whether this is because it is a validreconstruction or because the oral history is builton vague memories synthesized to resemble whatis still common in this area of North Carolina.

Finally, Bynum also recounts the locallegends that the rear wing was built over the mineshaft entrance, which competes for acceptance with

another legend, that under the rear wing theBechtlers' laid down white sand which could beperiodically washed for the recovery of gold dust.Both of these, however often repeated, seem tohave little factual basis.

Issues such as foundation remainsconstruction techniques, and even floor plan,however, can likely be better resolved througharchaeological studies than through theexamination of either local antecedents or theexploration of oral histories.

Outbuildings and Landscaping

Just as important as the main house, ofcourse, are the range of other structures whichmight be found near such a farm house. Bynummentions, based either on similar sites or oralhistory accounts, the presence of an icehouse.smokehouse, corncrib, root ceDar, and stable. Somebrief mention is also main of some nearbylandscaping, such as the presence of peach treesand a vineyard (Bynum 1989:25).

There is some question whether anicehouse would actually be found in this part ofNorth Carolina (Jim Womack, personalcommunication 1995), although Vlach (1993:80-81)reports their occurrence in virtually all sections ofthe South. An ice house for the Bodie plantationnear Franklinton was provided by a former slave,Mary Anderson:

a pond was located on the placeand in winter ice was gatheredthere for summer use and storedin an icehouse which was built inthe grove where the otherbuildings were. A large holeabout ten feet deep was dug inthe ground: the ice was put inthat hole and covered. A largeframe building was bnilt over it.At the top of the earth there wasan entrance door and stepsleading down to the bottom ofthe hole. Other things besides icewere stored there. There was astill on the plantation and barrelsof brandy were stored in theicehouse. also pickles, preserves,

17

.,

.I

,-

~.

I

and cider (quoted in Vlach1993:81).

All of the descriptions of icehouses focus on onesimilarity - the greater part of the icehouse wasconsistently located underground. Measuringanywhere from 12 to 34 [eet in diameter, theicehouses might be topped by domes of earth orbrick buildings, or frame structures, but as Vlachnotes, "although these icehouses differed on thesurface, they were all still the same type ofstructure" (Vlach 1993:81).

There is no disagreement thatsmokehouses were very common. Vlach notes thatthe smokehouse was more than '1ust a buildingwhere meat was preserved" It was, in his words,"an index of regional diet and thus was perceivedas an important symbol of southern identity bylocal people and outsiders alike" (Vlach 1993:63).He remarks that it was first a "machine" forpreserving meat - hog meat - which was firsttreated by "dry salting" and then hung to dry overa smoldering the fire. Between the drying effect ofthe heat and the sanitizing effect of the smoke, themeat would usually keep fairly well. But thesmokehouse was also a symbol of the farm's selfsufficiency. On plantations it took on furthermeaning, being linked to the planter's mastery overhis slaves (Vlach 1993:64).

We might expect in this area asmokehouse with a rectangular floor plan with anentrance in one of its narrower walls. Thought toderive from a Pennsylvania prototype, Vlach notesthat this form is typical of the upland South andoften included a roof projecting several feet overthe door. This overhanging gable provided a workarea - somewhere for the slaughtered hogs to behung while being butchered (Vlach 1993:66). Moreuseful from an archaeological vantage is thecommentary by one planter who Wrote in 1851:

A filthy smokehouse is adisgusting subject to write about.but as they are so numerous, Ihope to be pardoned. It is enoughto restrain the most inordinateappetite to be shown into thesmokehouse and be regaled withthe scent from its ground floor,

18

spread with fragments of meatand bones and its walls decoratedwith fat cans and soap gourds(quoted in Vlach 1993:67).

Built simply and containing relatively few artifacts,the smokehouse likely will be often overlooked inarchaeological studies.

Corncribs also will be hard to identifyarchaeologically. The one illustrated by Vlach(1993:203) from Hampton Plantation in BaltimoreCounty, Maryland is little more than a speciallydesigned bam. Of frame construction built on astone foundation, this gable roofed structure mightappear as a bam or possibly even a stable(although it has no windows and only one door).Similar cnbs are illustrated by Periam (1984:423­424 [1884]).

It seems at first glance that it is unlikelythat allY original plantings exist in the site area,especially considering the land use historyrecounted by Bynum (1989:14). Between latenineteenth century mining, vandals and treasureseekers, and timbering, there have been a numberof potential impacts to the site. Yet, a more carefulconsideration may actually suggest otherwise.Bynum is rather unspecific in his accounts oflogging (the most destructive activity, at least as faras landscape plants), probably because the timbercompany itself maintained relatively few records.Regardless, there are hardy plants which maysurvive the rigors ofdiscing, especially if the timbercompany avoided areas, such as that around themain house or mine shaft. They may have foundthese areas either too dangerous for their crews, oralternatively, requiring too much effort to plantgiven the limited return. This safety andcommercial reluctance to deal with the shaft andhouse area may even have played a role in thetimber company reserving 0.4 ha of the site (laterincreased to 1.2 ha) for preservation efforts(Bynum 1989:14).

Antebellum Piedmont Fann Archaeolol!Y

Very little historical archaeology researchhas been done on nineteenth century farmsteads inthe upstate of either North or South Carolina.However, in neighboring South Carolina. BenjaminResnick (1988) has recorded standing architecture

!i.

and conducted test excavations at the WilliamsPlace house site in SpartBnburg County (38SP109).The structures tbat were extant during his studywere believed to have been erected sometimebetween 1839 and 1850 by Robert R. Williams,although the site may have been occupied by hisfather as early as 1805 (Resnick 1988:29-31). Thearrangement of structures concentrates at twocenters consisting of the main house and its servicestructures and the dependency structures. Withinthe main house complex was the farmhouse.kitchen, smokehouse, and commissary.Dependencies included a still house/bam, framebam, log bam, and com cnb. There were twoisolated structures consisting of a smaller housesite about 61 m from the main house complex(believed to have belonged to a freedman) and ablacksmith shop located about 53 m from the mainhouse complex. Other features included a roadnetwork and a dammed pond constructed in 1945.Without standing evidence, it is likely that many ofthese structures would have been overlooked in anarchaeological investigation; not because theyweren't interesting, but because they leave littlearchaeological evidence. Oearly, there were manyactivities that took place at farm sites includingthose specialized activities that may bearchaeological detectable such as sewing or potterymanufacture.

Although constructed during theeighteenth century, the primary period ofoccupation at Rosemont Plantation in LaurensCounty, South Carolina was the nineteenth century(frinkley et a1. 1992). Work at plantation sitesprovides data on a segment of society that was inthe higher economic stratum and can provideimportant information about the range of lifestylespresent in the Piedmont. Historical researchindicated that a small log house was initiallyconstructed, later replaced by a larger home buildadjacent to the Saluda River. It was the later housewhich was the focus of archaeological testing.Other structures identified either historically orarchaeologically included a school/hbrary, flanker,kitchen, possible slave houses. and a possiblesmokehouse. In addition to work at structures, theremnant ornamental garden was also mapped. Thearchaeological data suggested that the occupants ofRosemont were indeed wealthy through thepresence of expensive ceramics and personal itemsas well as the presence of an elaborate garden.

There has been no published study onslave archaeology of the South or North Carolinaupstate. Work by Orser (1988) at MillwoodPlantation in Abbeville County, South Carolinafocused primarily on the tenant population.However, Orser notes that tbe slave force therebetween 1830 and 1860 grew from 55 to 195individuals and this growth was heavily impacted bythe lucrative cotton staple. The owner, James E.Calhoun, had three plantations by the 1830s andwas a very wealthy individual (Orser 1988). Suchlarge plantations were, however, relativelyuncommon in Rutherford County, North Carolina,where small farms and smaller slave populationswere by far more common.

Research questions related to the farm orplantation in upstate North Carolina mightreasonably include how the layout changed throughtime, the range of activities which might be foundat such sites, how the county- or region-widesettlement pattern changed during the antebellum,the possibility that these sites include evidence ofCherokee interaction, how slave and owner sites inthe upcountry compare to those in the coastalplain, under what circumstances did owner andslave live together, the further exploration of thelifestyle of the up country slave, evidence ofincreased (or decreased) freedom among the smallslave population typical of up country farms andplantations, and comparison of German andScotch-Irish farmsteads for ethnic differences.

This last issue, of course, has been brieflyexplored by Stanley South (1977) at for NorthCarolina's colonial period. South, for example,comments on the "high degree of self-sufficiency"in German-American settlements during colonialtimes, compared to the British-American systemwhich discouraged self-sufficiency during this sameperiod (South 1977:186-187). He also points outthe "dramaticallydifferent artifact relationshipsandrefuse disposal behavior" at German-Americantowns such as Bethabara, when compared toBritish-American settlements such as Brunswick(South 1977:232). While the British-Americandisposal pattern tended to focus on disposalnearby, essentially out the doors and windows,German-Americans according to South were"inordinately neat" (South 1977:77; see alsoCarrillo et a1. 1975).

19

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Stratevy and Metbods

The first activity on~site was to identify the1.2 ha area owned by Rutherford County. This wasrelatively easy since each comer is marked by apipe and boundary trees are clearly blazed. Thetract, as shown on the available mapping, is arectangle measuring about 91.7 m on its northeastand southeast sides and between 114.2and 119.2 mon its northwest and southeast sides. To thesouthwest it was bounded by the county ownedrailroad We initially intended to use the surveycomers for our· site datums, but found that theplanted pines were at a slight angle to the propertyitself, obscuring a clear backsight. Consequently,we established a new datum which consisted of a1.6 em rebar topped with a 3.8 em aluminum capengraved with the site number, 31RF157, and theassumed elevation, 100 m. This datum is situated1.64 m west of the property's southwestern pipe.The grid we established used this new datum andthe property's northwest pipe comer as abacksight. This grid is oriented N26°E and the topof the aluminum cap. as previously mentioned, wasassigned an assumed elevation (AE) of 100.0meters in order to maintain vertical control at thesite (Figure 5).

A modified Chicago 6 m grid wasestablished, with each point designated from a OROpoint off site. Point 1S0Rl00 would be located 150m north of this ORO point and right (or east) 100m of the ORO point. The aluminum cap waslocated at 100RlOO and the grid was extended 90m to the north (to 190) and 66 m to the east (toR166), covering an area of about 0.6 ha. All shoveltests and other work conducted at the site was tiedinto this grid system and all elevations are relativeto this AE point. Excavation units are designatedby their southeast corners.

This grid also formed the basis of our sitemapping. Elevations were taken at each of the 192points, with additional elevations taken as

necessary to better define topographic features(especially the mine shaft entrance). A variety ofcultural featlJres were added to the base map,including the fence surrounding the mine shaft, thefITe lane recently plowed through the site, and theremnants of Jaynestown or Jeanstown Road. Alsoadded were remnant plantings and areas ofextensive pot hunting or site looting (Figure 6).

The grid work itself was rather laborintensive, largely the result of the variabletopography and, especially, the dense plantedpines. After the grid was established, however, thenext task was to begin the excavation of shoveltests. All tests were 30 em square and wereexcavated to subsoil, consistently found as a stiffred or reddish brown day or clay loam. The fillfrom these tests was screened through 6.25 mmmesh and all artifacts were retained and bagged bythe grid coordinates. Brick was noted, butdiscarded in the field. Profile notes weremaintained for each shovel test using astandardized form.

Coupled with the shovel testing at 6 m ametal detector survey was also conducted of theentire gridded site, using a Tesoro Bandito li™metal detector with an 20.5 em electromagnetictype concentric coil operating at 10KHz. Thisinstrument has the capability to operate in eitheran all metals mode or discriminate mode (whicheliminates ferrous metal response). The all metalmode is the industry standard VFL type whichdoes not require motion of the search coil forproper operation. The discrimination mode isbased on motion of the search coil, but allowscontrol over the detector's response to ferrousmetals. Based on the history of the site wesuspected that relatively few non-ferrous remainswould be present, with most having been long agoremoved by site looters. In addition. since the goalof this search was to help us identify structuralareas based on nail concentrations (especiallyhoping to identify structures which might otherwise

166 -; •

172- •L

IUI -~ •·

TRl72Rl66

••

.'. //'.

................- .......

T 'TRI3Q RI36

•

•

•

RI24

•

•

•

•

•

Rl12

•

•

•

160-

1,136-1

130-;

(154-:

142-:

I124-'

112-

0.

I~J\.f· 0

·8· ....

100-'1 "RIOO

190 .-:. .' f<::I

::~!~

GRIDNORl1:I

oI

6 12

SCALE IN METERS

24MAGNETIC

NORTH

• SHOVEL TESTS

Figure 5. Shovel tests and site areas defined by metal detecting.

22

o 6 12

\

SCALE IN METERS

~ HEAVY POTHUNTINO DISTURBANCE

G LARGE ROCKS (POSSIBLY STRUCTURAL)

WPRIVET PLANTS

WYUCCA PLANTS

~ PERIWINKLE PLANTS

[] FENCE AROUND MINE ENTRANCE

GRIDNORTH

Figure 6. Topograpbic map of the Bechtler site compiled by Chicora Foundation, October 1995.

23

have very low artifact densities, such assmokehouses or com cnbs), we chose to search inan all metal mode. Individual "hits" were notflagged. but initial dense readings were flagged andthese areas formed the basis of essentially threedifferent site areas (Figure 5). One of these areas,a long linear swath in the central portion of thesite, contained two concentrations, one at eitherend The entire area measures about 48 m by 12m. Another concentration, measuring about 10meters in diameter, was found to the west on theside slope. The third was found to the north andmeasured about 12 by 6 m.

This latter metal detected area, at thenorthern edge of the site, was found in an areawhich had produced virtually no artifacts.Consequently, a more detailed metal detectorsurvey was conducted, with individual "hits" flaggedfor excavation as shovel tests. These remains werefound to cluster primarily around the north andsouth edges of a vaguely square sunken areameasuring about 3.5 m on a side (Figure 7).

An initial field assessment of the 6 meter. shovel tests revealed four areas which might bebetter defined through closer interval (i.e., 3 m)shovel testing. One ofthese (at the southwest edgeof the site) represented an isolated artifactoccurrence and it was hoped that additional testingmight refine our understanding of this discovery.Qose interval testing in the southeast quadrantwasconducted in the hope of better refining theboundaries of rather ephemeral smear of artifactscoinciding with one of the metal detector areas.Another area of close interval testing was situatedat the northwestern edge of the site to furtherexplore what appeared to be relatively isolatedpositive shovel tests. These tests, however, mergedwith the fourth area, in the central portion of thesite. These additional tests were placed to helprefine the boundaries of this area and to alsodetermine if any clear differences could beidentified in the associated metal detector area. Inall 324 shovel tests were excavated, of which 67 (or20.7%) were positive.

One of the final tasks at the site was theexcavation of four 1 m units designed to provideadditional information on site integrity, thepresence of potential features, and the differentartifact concentrations identified through the metal

24

detecting and shovel testing. The southernmostunit, 124R154, was excavated on the edge of thesoutheastern area identified by the metal detectorsUlVey which also evidenced relatively low artifactdensity. Unit 135R130 was placed at the southernend of the large smear of artifacts identifiedthrough both metal detecting and shovel testing inthe central portion of the site. It was located in anarea of seemingly dense artifacts which alsocontained some brick fragments. Unit 160R142wasplaced at the northeast edge of the same areaexamined by 135R130. The last unit, 160R154, wasplaced down slope from 160R142, in an area ofrelatively dense remains.

Each unit was excavated by natural zones,although in each case only one zone was present ­a reddish-brown sandy clay Ap horizon whichrested on a red clay subsoil (Figure 8). Like theshovel tests, all fill was screened through 6.25 rommesh. The units were troweled at the base of theexcavations, photographed using black and whiteprint film and color transparency film and thendrawn. At the conclusion of the work plastic waslaid the bottom of the units and they werebackfilled.

Archaeolorical Remains

The shovel testing data were used for twopurposes - first, to produce computer generatedartifact density maps and, second, to betterunderstand erosion and other site disturbances. Inboth areas the shovel tests were very effective.

Figure 9 illustrates the density of allartifacts from shovel test contexts and the mapimmediately illustrates several important aspectsconcerning the site. Perhaps the most obviousfeature is that artifact density, throughout almostportions of the site, is very low. In fact, thecomputer algorithms were able to find only twoareas of any significant density - one in thenortheast quadrant of the site, covering an areaabout 24 m east-west by 12 m north-south and asecond area, in the south central portion of thesite, which is centered on a single test (although itextends to the immediately surrounding tests aswell). Elsewhere there are small "islands" ofartifacts surrounded by no remains. Further,artifact density declines dramatically to the

f..

I.

..~~t

f.I(.

r

....

Ij;.

•31

• • •28 29 30

• •0 24 20 0

178R136 • • • 178RI4222 ~ 19

•26

•

t25 DEPRESSION

•27 •• 18

j16 •17

• •15 1~ 13 •

12 •• • 110 9 10 0I72R136 172R142

• •8 7

• • •1 • 3 6 0 2 4

2 • I I5

SCALE IN METERS

•4

ST# ARTIFACfS1 . 1 wire fragment 16 1 machine CUt nail2 1 plow fra,gment 17 2 whiteware. undecorated3 1 machine cot nail 1 whiteware, blue edged4 1 machllle cut nail fragment 1 machine cut nail fragment5 1 machine cut nail fragment 18 1 nut fragment6 1 machine cut nail 19 1 machine cut nail7 1 Chinese porcelain, hand painted 20 1 melted iron fragment

I burnt refmed earthenWllI'C 21 1 UID iron1 IIlJlCmne cut nail 22 1 machine cut nail fnlgJnent

8 1 iron band 23 1 tin can lid9 1 machine cut nail fragment 24 1 machine cut nail10 1 stonewme crucible 25 2 machine cut Dlul fragment11 1 aqua Blass 26 1 machine cut nail

I machine cut nail fragment 2 machine cut nail fragment12 1 machine cut nail fragment '27 1 UID iron13 I machine cut nail fragment 28 1 machine cut nail14 1 whiteware. undecorated 29 I machine cut nail fragment

I machine cuI om! 30 I machine cut nail15 1 Otachine cut nail 31 I machine cut nail fragment

Figure 7. Metal detector results around the northern concentration.

25

100.5m·

124RI54

GRIDNOKrH

1

102.5m·

135R130

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

"" BASE OF EXCAVATIONS

NORTH PROFlLB LOOKING NORllI NORTIi PROFlLB LOOKING NOtmf

o RED CLAY SUBSOU. (IOR4I6l

~ REDDISH-BROWN SANDY CLAY (l0R3/4)

o 0.5

SCALE IN METERS

[] RED CLAY SUBSOIL (lOYR4IllJ

~ PLOWSCARS

g DARK REDDlSH.BROWN SANDY CLAY (2.5YR314)

~ DARK REDDISH-BROWN SANDY CLAY WITHSTREAKS OF REDDISH YELLOW CLAY (SYR5/61

lOO.Om·

I60R154

~~ BASE OF EXCAVATIONS

NORTH PROFILE LOOKING NORTII

I60R142

10Um -

" ."'- BASE OF EXCAvAnONS

NORTH PROFILE LOOKING NORTH

Figure 8. Excavation units and profiles.

26

I-'. ·1

<~ I~ -"'j

. r":J I....CJ

oo <> D

'O,~","2, -' ""-

o '.. 0 '··i

o

r-----'--------.---'--~--___,

IIII

I· .." .. -I rw

j. .IL . ,_.

Figure 9. Bechtler site artifact density using shovel test data (countour interval is one artifact).

27

northeast, southeast and northwest.

When only architecture artifacts areexamined (Figure 10, primarily nails and windowglass) an even simpler distribution becomesapparent. Figure 8 reveals that the south centralconcentration is increased, taking in additionalshovel tests when only architectural items areconsidered. Otherwise there are, frankly, no clearindications of structural remains based on theshovel test data.

Figure 11 examines the kitchen artifactsonly - items such as ceramics and container glass.Some hint of the concentration in the northeastquad is found and the south central concentrationis still present, although confined to one test.Elsewhere there is still a rather diffuse smear ofartifacts, largely found as isolated concentrations.

These data are not especially reassuring,although we are inclined to attribute their lack ofinsight to the very low number of artifacts. In spiteof very close interval testing, only 109 artifactswere identified in the shovel testing. While thismay be a reflection of site integrity, we are moreinclined to believe that it is another example, asSouth put it, of the German-Americans being"inordinately neat." At least the kitchen artifactdistnbution strongly suggests that refuse wasdisposed somewhere off-site and that the remainsfound in the shovel tests are those which were toosmall to be collected and disposed of elsewhere.

The south central concentration of shoveltest artifacts appears to generally correlate with thesouthern metal detector concentration, suggestingsome type of structure on the very crest of theridge at the southern edge of the site. Theconcentration of artifacts in the northeast quadrantof the site, however, does not correlate particularlywell with any of the other data obtained from theinvestigations. It appears to be situated betweenthe northern end of the metal detectorconcentration and the mine shaft entrance, on theside slope of the site. Curiously, all of the heavypot hunting or looting damage seems to correlatewith the northern half of the metal detector swept.

The shovel tests found that A horizon soilsare found in most areas of the site, although

28

erosion (evidenced by a lack of A horizon soils) ispresent in about 24% of the shovel tests, primarilyin the northeast comer and aloug the southernquarter of the site. These areas are among themost steeply sloping portions of the site and itappears that soil was lost through sheet erosion.Elsewhere, between 3 and 25 em of A horizon soilwas encountered, with the mean being 14 em.

The metal detector survey concentration atthe northern edge of the site, as previouslydiscussed, was carefully examined. Individual hitswere flagged. mapped, and then excavated. Theseproduced a rather peculiar distnbution primarilyon the north and south sides of a shallow, 3.5meter square depression (Figure 7). Uponexamination the 31"hits" produced 41 artifacts, 25(60%) of which were architectural and only 8(19.5%) of which were kitchen related. Theremainder were all activities related (ranging froma plow fragment to strap metal to two cruciblefragments.

The four I m units produced a relativelymodest assemblage of only 179 additional artifacts.Units 124R154 and 135R130 both revealed areddish-brown sandy clay A horizon about 30 emin depth overlying a frrm red clay subsoil. Neitherunit contained any evidence of features or, for thatmatter, many artifacts. Unit 160R142 producedthe largest collection of materials (42.5% of thetotal unit assemblage) of 76 specimens. This unitalso evidenced about 40 em of dark reddish-brownsandy clay A horizon soil over a red clay subsoil. Inthe subsoil was evidence of two possible features(Figure 8). In the center of the unit were whatappeared to be two post holes with a dark reddish­brown sandy clay fill streaked with reddish yellowclay. In the southeastern comer was the northwestquarter of what appeared to be a small pit with adark reddish brown clay fill containing specks ofcharcoal. Neither feature was excavated. Unit160R154 was the only one to produce clearevidence of plowing. At the base of about 25 em ofdark reddish-brown sandy day there were a seriesof three plowscars, each tending north-northwestby south-southeast.

Remnant Landscape

Relatively little attention in the Carolinashas been directed toward the larger view of the

" .'.

<:

--1

a

........ r' ....... ~ .. " -_ - - _,

","

'..,

c:J ~o

-" .." ... . .... ..._~

f1-: ::'@:OJ':l .~. ~ . :

1.... • ••• __ ' ,,-

".,..~ •• ,,' _"c"

II

L _ ._--_._--~Figure 10. Bechtler site architecture artifact densit)· (contour intetval is one artifact).

29

I---1

~\ I•

o-, -~ .. "2-" ~_

o

DOo

L..-~__._

I:,

,"IIIII

Figure 11. Bechtler site kitchen artifact density (contour intelVal is one artifact).

30

plantation or fann landscape. Certainly part of theproblem is that '1andscape" can mean many tllingsto different people. Typically, however, it includesboth the geophysical setting of the plantation orfann and also its built environment. Winberry(1993) provides an thorough discussion of theinterplay between geographical definitions oflandscape and those typically used in archaeology.He notes that although geographers have useddifferent approaches in their study of landscapes,they generally have used Carl Sauer's classicdefinition: ''those works of man tbat are inscnbedinto the earth's surface and give to it cllaracteristicexpression" (Sauer 1931:622). Martha Zierdennotes:

Archaeologists usually focusincrementally on the excavationunit, the house, or thecommunity; landscape requiresconsideration of the spacesbetween these units, such asoutbuildings, fences, gardens,pastures, streets, public places,stretches of woods, and water.While these features enjoy equalweight in landscape studies, theyare often minimally reflectedarchaeologically (Zierden 1993:1-'2).

Joe Joseph observes that plantation sites. "aremarked by an intricate web laid out across theterrain, by the grid of rice ponds and dikes, thebroad oak avenues, the classical symmetry ofhomes and grounds, and by the quiet and 'orderly'presence of slave streets tucked slightly away fromview" (Joseph 1993:132). While Piedmont farmsmay be less impressive, they are nonethelessequally worthy of landscape studies. They, too,represent an "intricate web" and in many respectshold more mysteries than the low countryplantations. They may also be just as complex andjust as likely to be synthesized into absurdsimplicity.

At first glance efforts to understand thelandscape of the Bechtler site might be dismissedwith the excuse that the topography and site havebeen "too effected" by modem "disturbances." Yetthe Jaynestown or Jeanstown Road is still plainlyvisible. The soils suggest that erosion is limited to

the steep side slopes and that elsewhere thetopography is relatively stable. The only realimpact is that the site has been planted in pines.And in spite of this at least three domestic plants,likely associatedwith the Bechtler'soccupation, arestill to be found on the site.

Two areas of Yucca filamentosa (alsoknown as Adam's needle) are found, although onearea consists of only two plants. This plant is abasal evergreen with swordlike leaves, above whichmay be found towering spikes of long-lasting, andoften fragrant, creamy white dose-set flowers inthe midsummer. The plant is propagated byseparate rooted offshoots from the base of theplant, typically in tbe spring. It has the potentialfor spreading from its original location and,especially, surviving discing. It prefers full sun,although its current location demonstrates that theplant can survive in partial shade. The relativelysmall plants and lack of flowering are probablyrelated to the limited snnlight and crowding.Regardless, the plant easily tolerates drought(Calkins 1978:186,263; Hay and Synge 1975:583).

One relatively dense area of Lygustriumsillense is found at tbe site, immediately west of themine shaft entrance. A privet, this species has veryshowy midsummer flowers and is characterized asexhtbiting a very graceful habit of growth. Theplant itself is also strongly scented. Under goodconditions it can grow to a height of 3.7 m and aspread of up to 2.7 m. The plant is very hardy,tolerating a variety of pollutants, high winds, andfrequent shearing. It is often used as aninexpensive hedge, or as borders. The plantpropagates through seeds, or more commonly asrootshoot5 (Calkins 1978:170-171). The privet firstsaw use in English gardens during the earlyseventeenth century, when it was first trimmed intoa variety of (typically) very unnatural shapes. Bythe Victorian period the privet, as a shrub, hadbeen transfonned into a labor-saving device(Ordish 1985:91, 159).

Finally, along the east bank of theJaynestown or Jeaostown Road remnant there is adense area of Periwinkle (Vim:a minor). Agroundcover, periwinkle has shiny ovate leaves andproduces (when well tended) a midspring lilac-blueblossom. It will rapidly spread and thrives in sun or

31

shade. Root divisions may be made in spring or fall(Calkins 1978:43; Hay and Synge 1975:579). Theplant has a very long history in England. being animproved native plant (Ordish 1985:103: see alsoFavretti and Favretti 1977). Although it hassurvived next to the old road, its age and lack ofcare has likely resulted in the near absence offlowers.

While it is possible to generally envisionthe Becbtler farm house, set on the hill,surrounding by privets and yucca, with a drive orentryway marked by periwinkle, it is no longerpossible to determine exactly where these plantswere located. Certainly some areas have died outand otbers have been shifted by plowing or simplyby spread of the propagating roots. These threeremnant plants provide us with some glimpse ofhow the Bechtlers attempted to make their farmmore of a home. All of the surviving plants areknown for their blooms. All are very easy to carefor and would have required minimal attention ­most likely tbe key to their survival for tbe past150 years. Ordish, for example, notes that privetssurvive 30 or more years with no attention verywell although eventually, as in the case of theBechtlers' garden they would become "dominatedby the forest trees climbing above them, reducingthem to weaklings just alive in the shade" (Ordish1985:167).

Artifacts

This section is intended to provide anoverview of the material culture present at theBechtler site. Relatively few artifacts wererecovered from these investigations - likelyevidence of the ethnic differences in refusedisposal behavior between the English and theGermans. It seems probable that the Bechtlersdisposed of tbeir household trash at some locationdistant from the actual site, perhaps in anerosional ravine. In addition, the sparsity ofremains may also be an indicator of a differentworld view or orientation, whereby the Bechtlersdid not view possession of goods as necessary fortheir self validation.

Laboratory Processing, Conservation,and Analysis

32

The cleaning of artifacts was conducted inColumbia, after the conclusion of the excavatiollll.Cataloging of the specimens was conductedimmediately after the field work, using the systemadopted by the North Carolina Division ofArchives and History, Department of CulturalResources, Archaeology Branch. The analysis ofthe specimens was conducted during the catalogingprocess. Conservation treatments have been andare being conducted by Chicora personnel at theColumbia laboratory.

Brass items, if they exhibited active bronzedisease, were subjected to electrolytic reduction ina sodium carbonate solution with up to 4.5 voltsfor periods of up to 72 hours. Hand cleaning withsoft brass brushes or fine-grade bronze woolfollowed the electrolysis. Afterwards, the surfacechlorides were removed with deionized waterbaths(until a chloride level of no greater than 1 ppm or18 pmhos/cm was achieved using a conductivitymeter) and the items were dried in an acetonebath. The conserved cuprous items were coatedwith a 20% solution (w/v) of acryloid B-72 intoluene.

Ferrous objects were treated in one of twoways. After the mechanical removal of grossencrustation, the artifacts were tested for soundmetal by the use of a magnet. Items lacking soundmetal were subjected to multiple baths ofdeionized water to remove chlorides. The bathswere continued until a conductivity meter indicateda level of chlorides no greater than 1.0 ppm (18JiIllbosfcm). The specimens were dewatered inacetone baths and given an application of 10%(w/v) acryloid B-n in toluene, not only to seal outmoisture, but also to provide some additionalstrength. Items which contained sound metal weresubjected to electrolytic reduction in a bath ofsodium carbonate solution in currents no greatertban 5 volts for a period of 5 to 20 days. When allvisible corrosion was removed, the artifacts werewire brushed and placed in a series of deionizedwater soaks, identical to those descnbed above, forthe removal of soluble chlorides. When theartifacts tested free of chlorides (at a level lessthan 0.1 ppm, or 2 ~tmhos/cm), they were air driedand a series of phosphoric (10% v/v) and tannic(20% wlv) acid solutions were applied. Theartifacts were air dried for 24 hours, dewatered inacetone baths, and coated with a 10% solution

(w/v) of acryloid B-72 in toluene.

As previously discussed, the materialsare being curated by the Rutherford CountyHistorical Society, with the permission of theNorth Carolina Division of Archives andHistory, Department of Cultural Resources,Archaeology Branch. The collection has beencataloged using this institution's accessioningpractices. Specimens were packed in plasticbags and boxed. Field notes were prepared onpH neutral, alkaline buffered paper andphotographic material were processed toarchival standards. All original field notes arecurated with the collections, while duplicatefield notes have been curated with the WesternField Office of the Archaeology Branch.

Analysis of the collections followedprofessionally accepted standards with a levelof intensity suitable to the quantity and qualityof the remains. The temporal, cultural, andtypological classifications of the historicremains fonow such authors as Cushion (1976),Godden (1964, 1985), Miller (1980, 1991a, 1991b),Noel Hume (1970), Norman-Wilcox (1965), Peirce(1988), Price (1970), South (1977), and Walton(1976). Glass artifacts were identified using sourcessuch as Jones (1986), Jones and Sullivan (1985),McKearin and McKearin (1972), McNally (1982),Vose (1975), and Warren (1970).

The analysis system used South's (1977)functional groups as an effort to subdivide historicassemblages into groups which could reflectbehavioral categories. Initially developed foreighteenth-century British colonial assemblages,this approach may be inappropriate for both alater, and possibly German-American collection.Although criticized for problems in samplecomparability (see, for example, Joseph 1989), eventhe system's detractors Dote that:

whatever its flaws, the value ofartifact patterning lies in the factthat it is a universally recognizedmethod for organizing largecollections of artifactual data in amanner which can be easilyunderstood and which can beused for comparative purposes(Joseph 1989:65).

Table 2.Artifact Pattern Analysis for the Shovel Test Collection

Kitchen GroupCeramics 46Glass 18Tilblewares 1Can fragments 1

66 44.0%

Architecture GroupWindow glass 7Cut nails 25Cut nail fragments 36UID nails 7Other 1

76 50.7%

Activities GrOll!?Tools 2Storage itemsMisc. hardware 2Oth~r 3

8 53%

The functional categories of Kitchen, Architecture,Furniture, Personal, Clothing, Arms, Tobacco, andActivities provide not only the range necessary fordescnbing and characterizing most collections, butalso allow typically consistent comparison withother collections.

Shovel Test Collection

The shovel tests, including the remainstrom the controlled metal detector recovery,produced 150 specimens (Table 2), most of whichare associated with the site's architecture (such asnails and window glass). Kitchen Group Artifactsaccount for 44.0% of the collection (n=44). Theonly other materials present are items which fallinto South's Activities Group (n=8, 5.3% of theassemblage). These include two cruetble fragmentsused in the assaying of gold ore, a barrel band, twofragments of miscellaneous hardware, and threeother items (melted or highly corroded iron).

This pattern, shown in Table 2, mostclosely resembles what has been called thePiedmont TenantlYeoman Artifact Pattern,developed by Drucker et aI. (1984:5-47) (see Table3). This pattern has been only tentatively proposedand a series of studies have suggested that tenant

33

Table 3.Various Artifact Patterns

Artifa:l GronpKlkhonAniDJceturlI1FUmlnu.AnnoC1nlIIJDgP""",1UI1Tobac>coAc1i¥itl..

51.8 -l\5.o"b2.5.2 ·3L4"1>0.2·0.6%0.1 . Q.]~Q.(j-'.4..0.2 .0.5<;;'1.9-13.9%o.9~ 1.7%

ReWed Ptontler Com!lnBS1Jlve GcarglaSIa~ Pledmant TOII8lltiArtifocl Potlam' ArlifIl<1 Pa!wn' ArtilaclPaltl:m' y_ArIIfIlct Pa!tmI'1.'Ii..5-43.8~ 70.9-84.2"1> 20.0 - 25D?l. ~ (40.0 -6U~)41.6·43.Q% IUI·2A,S'lC 117.9-73.!'1\ 5OJl'il, (35.8 . S6.3'll-1Ill· l.3'll! Q.l'll! Oll-Q.l,", 0.4"1>L4·8~ o.l.Q.31llo aopo~

Q.3 • l.6l""0 OJ • o.s~ Q.3 ·1.7"1> l.B"DQ.l<:lo 0.1% 0.1 -o.2'ill 0.4..1J-14ll"D :!A-SA'll! 0.3 - 0.7"C(U ·~.4~£t 0.2.0.9"". Q.l-o.4'l<> U1'1b

•Gotrow 1992'SinIlotnll l\lllO• Drucur 01 a\. 1984:5-47 (lID r.llI!J' _ pwvIded. but bilS beeD partIa1ly Ieronsllucted for tbo Kll<b:n end AAblIlc<:tD11' Oroupo)

Table 4.Ceramic decorative motifs

from the shovel tests

sites may produce significantly higher quantities ofkitchen artifacts than proposed by Drucker and hercolleagues, while yeoman farm sites come closer torepresenting the pattern's mean, regardless ofwhether they are located in the piedmont orcoastal plain (see Adams et a1 1995 for a briefdiscussion). It seems therefore, that the artifactsrecovered from the shovel testing arecharacteristic, or representative, of a yeomanfarmer.

While the ceramics collection was small,an examination of the percentage of decorativemotifs in combination with the types of otherartifacts retrieved, shouldprovide some meaningfulinformation about either the wealth of the owneror bow the Bechtlers chose to display their wealthto the community.

John Solomon Otto (1984:64-67) foundthat at Cannon's Point (a coastal. Georgianineteenth century plantation) the slaves tended touse considerably more banded. edged. and handpainted wares than the plantation owner, whotended to use transfer printed wares. The overseerappears to have been intermediate on this scale,although the proportions of decorative motifs weregenerally more similar to the slaves than theowner. Part of the explanation. of course, involvesthe less expensive cost of annular, edged, andundecorated wares compared to the transferprinted wares. While transfer printed specimenswere present in the slave assemblage at Cannon'sPoint, they represent a variety ofpatterns and Otto(1984:66) suggests that either the planterpurchased mixed lots of ceramics for slave use, orthe slaves themselves occasionally made such

34

purchases. An additional, often advanced,explanation, involves the use by slaves ofdiscarded.ceramiO! from the main house.

Table 4 reveals that the vast majority(72.4%) of ceramics in the Bechtler shovel testassemblage were undecorated. However, it shouldbe remembered that some of these undecoratedwares are undecorated portions of decoratedvessels. In addition, when whitewares (whichdominate the Bechtler assemblage) were firstintroduced the plain vessels were preferred.. Onlylater, when the novelty of the new style began towear off, were the plain ceramics considered lessdesirable. If examining only those ceramics withdecoration, edged wares, hand painted wares, andtransfer printed wares are all nearly equallyrepresented. Having no good comparisons for theBechtler data it is difficult to press the datafurther, although the information from the shoveltests suggests that the Bechtler's had either amodest income or were very modest in their taste.

An examination of the different types ofpottery present in the shovel tests reveals thatporcelain, typically associated with high status teaservings,comprisesonly 2.8%oft h ecollectionw h i I estoneware, Undecorated 21 72.4%primarily Annular 2 6.9%

used for Edged 1 35%

storage, Hand painted 1 6.9%

accountsTransfer printed 3 103%

,.

Excavation Units

Regardless, when the units are combined

The four excavation units, combined.produced 179 ceramiC'l, only a slightly largerassemblage than was obtained from the shoveltests. One unit produced only four items. whileeven the most productn.'e unit yielded only 76items. There is. as a consequence, some reason forassuming that the shovel tests may actually providea better overview of the site than the four 1 munits.

There was a sufficient quantity of datableceramics to warrant application of South's(1977:217-218) mean ceramic dating formula. Theshovel tests provided a mean date, using 30ceramics, of 1840.4. This date is at the terminalend of the Bechtler occupation, primarily becauseof fhe relatively large quantity of plain whitewares,which have a rather long period of use and hencea relatively late mean date (Table 6).

Although no porcelains were found in theexcavation units, the proportion of stonewares andearthenwares were very similar to the shovel testdata (Table 8). In each case alkaline glazed is themost common stoneware and whitewares dominate

Table 6.Mean Ceramic Dates for the Shovel Tests

Undecorated pottery, as in the shovel tests,is the most common ceramic motif, followed byannular and edged, together accounting for 14.1%of the assemblage. Hand painted and transferprinted wares account for only a modest 3.4% ofthe collection. Consequently the excavation unitssuggest an even more spartan or modestassemblage than the shovel tests. Although this islikely the result of the small sample sizes, it ispossible that the Bechtlers' slaves may havedisposed of more refuse in and around the sitethan the Becbtl.ers themselves. Only additionalarchaeological research, not only at this site butalso other Piedmont farms, can address thisquestion.

tbey produce an artifact pattern ratber differentfrom the shovel tests, although it still fits withinthe Piedmont TenantrYeoman Artifact Patternpreviously discussed (Tables 3 and 7). In fact, eachof the four units produced a collection whichbetter fits this pattern than any other thus fardeveloped. This adds considerable support to theobservations offered in the discussion of the shoveltests, that the Bechtler assemblage appearsconsistent with a yeoman farmer.

Mean DateCeramic (xi) (fil fi x xi

Overglazed enamelled porcelain 1730 1 1730

Cleamware, undecorated 1791 1791

Pear!ware, annuaVcable 1805 1 1805un<lerorated 1805 5 9025

Whiteware, blue edged 1853 1 1853poly hand painted 1848 2 3696blue transfer printed 1848 2 3696non-blue transfer printed 1851 1 1851annulllrlcable 1866 1 1866undeoorated 1860 15 27900

30 55213

551.13 -+ 30 = 1840.4

for a nadditional 8.6%oft h eassemblage.Earthenwares,the mostcommonceramicpresent ,accounts for88.6% of thecollection(Table 5).with wmtewaresdominating the

Table 5.Major Types of Ceramics

in the Shovel Tests

Porcelain 2.8%Stoneware 8.6%

Alkaline glazed 2Other 1

Eartbenware 88.6%Coarse '2Creamware IPearlware 6Whiteware 22

The shovel tests also produced a broadrange of nails - aU of which were machine cut.These nails were first manufactured in the late18305 and have uniform heads and shanks withburrs on the edges (Nelson 1968:7; Proess 1971:33­34). The 12 intact nails identified in the collectionrange from 3d to 9d, representing nails whichmight be used for small timbers (ie., lathe) andshingles (3d and 4<1, 0=4), nails used on sheathingor siding (6d. and 7d, n=7) and nails used inframing (9d, n= 1).

earthenware category.

35

Table 7.Artifact pattern analysis for the excavation units

124R154 135R130 160RI4:! 160R154 TotalKitchen Graul'!

CeramicsGlassTableware

%

Architectural GroupWmdowglassCut nails

%

Furniture GroupHardware

%

Clothing GroupButtons

%

Activities GroupToolsStorageOther

%

2

50.0

11

50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

213

522

81243.4

0.0

122

122

39 2311 91

67.1 60.4

3 516 1525.0 37.9

113· 0.0

0.0 0.0

1 1226.6 1.9

8315

160.9

174434.1

105

105

2234.0

artifact density (with little overlap). Whenthese occurrences are correlated withlandscHpe features and site topography, itappears that the majority of site activitiestook place either on the top of the ridge orjust to the north on a ridge plain. Only onestructure can be identified with any degreeof assurance. This is likely a smoke houseor some other similar utilitarian buildingwhich was constructed on the northernedge of the site. The main settlement isrepresented by a broad area of artifacts,plantings, large rocks, aud brick scatter onthe north edge of the ridge top. This is alsothe area of the site dominated by lootingand pot hunting. It seems likely, but cannotbe conclusively demonstrated, that at leasttwo additional structures existed - one tothe south of the main settlement, also onthe ridge crest, and a second to thesoutheast, on the side slope. This secondstructure is most likely also a utilitybuilding since it has been identified almostexclusively though the presence of nails inthe metal detector survey.

the earthenware collection.

The excavation units reveal a somewhatlater mean ceramic date of 1856.7 (Table 9). Thisis again the result of the dominance ofundecorated whiteware, but is also partially theresult of the excavation units containing nocreamware and a reduced quantity of pearlware ­both with earlier mean dates than whiteware.

The archaeological testing also suggests asite area measuring about 60 m east-west by 72 ill

north-south. The western boundary is theJaynes10wn or Jearurtown Road The northern,southern, and eastern boundaries are defined bothby the gradual decline in artifacts and also by thesloping topography. The site COre appears tomeasure about 50 m in diameter and to becentered on the ridge top and northern ridge plain.

Structural Remains

Table 8.Major Types of Ceramicsin the Excavation Units

892%

10.8%

354

EarthenwarePearlwareWhiteware

StonewareBrown 1AlkIlline glazed 7

While at the present time it is impoSSIbleto isolate specific structures, the artifacts doprovide someindication, aspreviouslymentioned, ofnot onlystructurefunctions, butalso possibleconstructiontechniques. Forexample, the

Site Areas

Testing conducted at the Bechtler Mintreveal at least three specific site areas based onmetal detecting and two specific areas based on

Summary

The excavation units produced only 9intact machine cut nails, ranging in size from 3d to12d. Two (3d and 4d) represent nails typicallyassociated with small timbers and shingles. Two arein the size range typically associated with sheathingor siding (7d and Bd). Five, raDging from 9d to12d, are sizes associated with framing.

36

The excavations failed to identify any sandor clay floors which might have underlain theBechtlers' mint. This indicates that the account ofsuch sand or clay floors is nothing more than alocal legend

Likewise, the excavations failed to revealany significant quantities of artifacts either aroundor east of the mine shaft entrance. This, coupledwith the topographic location of the entrance on arelatively steeply sloping side slope, indicates thatno portion of the Bechtler house was constructedover the shaft. As previously discussed, there ismuch better evidence supporting a structurallocation to the west or possibly west-northwest ofthe shaft.

nails recovered suggest a wood frame structurewith a wood shingle roof. The presence of framingnails is consistent with a structure built wingballoon framing. The presence of window glass inthe central site area documents glassed windows.More significant, however, is the absence of otherarchitectural hardware, such as hinges, shutterhooks, and door locks. The absence of thesematerials suggests that the structure may have beensalvaged after abandonment. The artifactassemblage also reveals evidence of burning,supporting the historical accounts that the housewas burned. Since no burned architecturalhardware was found, it seems likely that theburning took place both after the house wasabandoned and also after it was salvaged of usefulmaterial.

Artifacts and the Bechtlers' Lifeways

Relatively few artifacts were recovered bythe excavations, most likely an indication of theBechtlers' German heritage and their disposal ofartifacts at some distance from the site. Thoseartifacts which were present do help provide someidea of the lifestyle of the Bechtlers. The ceramicsare generally plain, with relatively few decoratedstyles. This suggests a relatively modest household,although we can't be sure whether this reflects alack of money or simply a modest taste. The singletumbler fragment recovered is of a clear sodametal with simple flutes. The only otherkitchenware items recovered are kettle and panfragments. Arms, tobacco, and personal artifactsare completely absent. This may be significant,indicating something about the lifestyle of theBechtlers, or it may simply be the result of thesmall sample size. The single furniture artifact wasa small iron drop hook. Only one clothing itemwas recovered - a white porcelain button.

Activities Group Artifacts include a rangeof items typical to farmsteads, such as horseshoefragments and miscellaneous pieces of iron. Thiscategory, however, also includes two cruciblefragments - one is of soapstone and the other isporcelain - and two fragments of sheet mica. ThecruCIbles were most likely using in either theassaying of the gold ore or in melting of the goldfor use in coinage or jewelry. The mica may beremains of view ports in furnace or oven doors(since there seems to be no on-site source for themineral). Given the relative sparsity of domesticartifacts, we are very fortunate to identify anyitems which potentially relate to the Bechtlers'minting activities. Absent from the collection,however, are any remains associated with eitherhard rock mining or are processing. This absenceof screen, collar or boss fragments, set screws,wrought eye bolts, stamp mill washers, wedges,tappet keys, "merchantable iron," or mining tools(such as drift picks), suggests that virtually no hardrock mining or ore processing activities took placein the site area. This would appear to be supportedby the absence of tailings or rock fragmentsassociated with the mine shaft entrance.

Just as interesting as the individualartifacts are the artifact assemblages or patterns,

18053610

fi x xi12

3 55591 184a1 18484 7464

45 ~57 105,834

(Ii)

18051605

18531848184818661860

Mean Date(xi)

Table 9.Mean Ceramic Dates for the Combined

Excavation Units

105.834 ~ 57 == 1856.7

Pearlware. annual/cableundecorated

Whileware. blue edgedpoly hand paintedblue transfer printedannular/cableundecorated

Ceramic

37

~,, \

Q 2 3 4 eM.

Figure 12. Artifacts from the Bechtler site. A, annular whiteware; B-C, blue edged whiteware; D-F,polychrome hand painted whiteware: G-H, blue transfer printed whiteware~ I, alkalineglazed stoneware; J, clear glass tumbler; K, steatite cruCIble; L, cruCible base; M, possiblecrucible pouring lip.

which have been characterized as suggesting ayeoman farm of modest means. With a slightdominance of architectural remains over kitchenartifacts, this suggests that the structure was fairlysubstantial and that domestic artifacts are relativelyuncommon. Again, it is impossible at present toknow if this was by design (ie., that it represent'sthe Bechtlers' choice) or whether it indicates somedegree of poverty. The artifact collection certainlysuggests that whatever wealth the Bechtlers mayhave had was not channeled into materialpossessIOns.

Site Eligtbility

This site is recommended as eligtble forinclusion on the National Register of HistoricPlaces under Criterion D. Taken in the context oflimited archaeological research at other Piedmontfarmsteads in the Carolinas, the site appears to besignificant at a state-wide level, offering the

38

opportunity to examine a wide range of significantresearch questions regarding farmsteads, miningand minting operations, the interaction of blacksand whites in the piedmont, and the possiblyethnicity ofGerman-American settlers. In addition,it is possible that the site may be eligIble underCriterion A, which includes sites which areassociated with events that have made a significantcontnbution to the broad patterns of history,perhaps at a state-wide, Or even possibly nationallevel of significance. This is based on theimportance of the Bechtler site in the numismaticand financial history of North Carolina and thenation during the late antebellum period.

As previously discussed, the first step inthe evaluative phase, was the identification of thesite's data sets. Specifically, we identified that thesite a variety of artifacts, the presence of features,and the potential for patterned landscape featuresand intra-site clustering of artifacts. It does not

matter that the artifact density is relatively low ­this may be either the result of the Bechtlers'wealth or may possibly even be associated withtheir ethnicity. What is important is that artifactswere found are likely capable of assisting us inbetter understanding how the Bechtlers lived(status and possibly ethnicity) and how the site wasused (farming, minting, and possibly mining). Thefeatures identified in 160Rl42 indicate that notonly sub-surface remains present and recoverable,but that these features may be capable ofprovidingadditional information on architectural remainsand refuse disposal practices, Finally, landscapeinformation - the presence of remnant plantingsand the correlation of plants, topography, andartifacts - offer yet another data set which may beused to interpret activities which took place on thesite.

A very generalized historic context wasoffered in the historic,a} synopsis ofthe site and thebrief overview of research at other Piedmontfarms. It is significant that relatively littlearchaeological research has been conducted atsimilar sites. While the Bechtler site is commonlythought important because of the Bechtlers'contnbution to and participation in the NorthCarolina gold rush and being the first private mintfor coinage, the context also reveals that the site isimportant for what it can tell us about yeomanfarmers and especially about German-Americanlifeways in the late antebellum.

A wide range of potentially significantresearch questions have been suggested forexploration at the Bechtler site, including thoserelated to the role of yeoman farmers in thissection of the North Carolina Piedmont, theinteraction of whites and blacks on yeoman farms,the interaction of masters and their possible live-inapprentices, the ethnicity of German-Americans inthe Piedmont of North Carolina, refuse disposalpractices as they relate to both ethnic andgeographical settings and patterns, and the impactof antebellum farming, mining, and mintingpractices on the natural environment. All of these,to one degree or another can be addressed by thedata sets identified at the site. Further, all havesound bases in the historical and archaeologicalcontext previously developed.

The next aspect of the evaluation, ofcourse, is documenting that the site'sarchaeological integrity is adequately to allow theseresearch questions to actually be addressed. Inother words, questions are relatively easy to comeby; unfortunately many sites simply don't have theintegrity to allow the identified questions to beexamined. The areas of concern, as previouslymentioned, are loc<ltional integrity, design integrity,integrity of materials, and associative integrity.

Locational integritymeans that discernablepatterning is present at the site. If a site lackspatterning, then it likely lacks locational integrity.Historical archaeological sites almost always exhIbitthis form of integrity and the Bechtler site is noexception. Little of the site appears to have beenlost to plowing or silvaculture. The greatest loss, tosite looters, has certainly impacted our ability tointerpret the remains, but does not prevent the sitefrom addressing a range of significant researchquestions.

Integrity of design is often addressed asintra-site artifact and feature patterning. Indeed,we have seen that not only do the artifact patternsappear to resemble a previously identified pattern,but the artifacts appear to form intra-siteconcentrations or clusters, at least some of whichmay represent specific structures.

Integrity of materials is typically seen asthe completeness ofthe artifact/feature assemblageor the quality of feature or artifact preservation.Although the Bechtler house is no longer standing,there is good evidence that the archaeologicalremains can help us reconstruction somethingconcerning this structure. Aspects of the landscapecan help us better understand what the site lookedlike when it was occupied. And the featurespresent on the site can help reconstruct refusedisposal and perhaps even intra-site patterning.

Finally, associative integrity is oftenexplored in the context of how strongly associatedthe data set is with important research questions.There seems to be a very strong associationbetween the Piedmont Yeoman Artifact Patternand the artifact classes recovered at the Bechtlersite. There likewise seems to be a very strongassariation between the general sparsity of remainsand refuse disposal patterns attributed to German

39

populations. These strong associations between thesite's information and questions proposed furthersupports its eligtbility.

The final aspect of the evaluative processis to determine which of the research questions canactually be addressed at the site. This testing. forexample, suggests that very few (if any) data setsare present which can realistically addressquestions concerning hard rock mining or oreprocessing. Consequently, questions focusing onhow small families pursued mining operations, orhow ore processing was conducted in this part ofNorth Carolina are not appropriate for the site.Likewise, the extensive looting may have destroyedarchaeological evidence of the structural footprint.It may therefore be impossible to address questionsconcerning the actual use of space and the originor adaptation of different architectural styles at theBachtler site. We have avoided outlining researchquestions which likely cannot be addressed by theBechtler site.

SITE PLANNING ISSUES

Introduction

Having discussed the Bechtler site. itshistory, and its archaeology, it is appropriate nowto tum to the issue of how this site may bepreserved and how it may benefit the public. Wedo not, however, wish to mislead. Given thelimited funds. planning was not the primary goal ofthis study and this section offers only a broadoverview of some of the major issues. In spite ofthe superficial coverage in some areas. this stilloffers an excellent "action plan," outlining essentialissues and major hurdles. It may also offer theRutherford County Historical Society a place fromwhich discussions on the site's future may begin.

There is clearly much to be done. In manycases there is an obvious sequence of events.Where there isn't, we have tried to offer someadditional guidance. In general, assuming thatfunding is available, all of these issues can beresolved and actions implemented, within the scopeof a year. We do not mean to imply that anyactions should be rushed. In fact, many of theactions proposed will require the collaboration andpartnership with a wide range of otherorganizations. But careful and dedicatedcollaborative action does not mean that theplanning process must drag on for years. Whatevermomentum the project may develop will surely belost if clear action and measurable progress is notachieved quickly and decisively.

Protection of the Site

The Bechtler site has been poorly treatedfor a number of years. A number of individuals,thieves of time, have sought to convert the public'sheritage into their own private ownership. Usingmetal detectors and shovels they have seriously,and irreparably, damaged some portions of thesite.

This damage will continue. The best

information available from a variety of public andprivate sources reveals that site looting isincreasing across the county. The trade in illicitantiquities in the United States rivals that of illicitdrugs (Trinkley and Vartorella 1993).

Rutherford County must take action toprotect the Bechtler site from additional looting.This involves three high priority steps:

• County Council must enact anordinance protecting (minimally)this site. The ordinance wouldmake it a criminal offense todamage, dig. destroy, or removeany artifacts from the site. Havinga metal detector on-site would beprima facia evidence of intent toloot and would be an offenseagainst the ordinance. There arelocal ordinances from surroundingstates which may be used as amodel.

• The County Council or theCounty Manager must specificallydirect the Sheriffs Office topatrol this site. A law withoutenforcement is more than useless,since it indicates tbat the Countyhas no real desire to proted theresource and site vandals will bereassured that they face no threatof pro·seeution.

• The County must clearly postthe law at the site and mustadvertise the new ordinance inthe media. This effort should becoupled with a plea to the publicto help preserve the site. It islikely that the best enforcementwill come from neighbors of the

site, who may be convinced t9report unusual activities. Ifnecessary, local individuals shouldbe approached individually.

Associated with site looting, there is alsoconsiderable evidence of improper site use. Forexample, the site appears to be used as a localhang-out, as evidenced by beer cans and articles ofclothing. This has resulted in the fence surroundingthe mine shaft entrance being damaged and haslikely resulted in unnecessary wear and tear on thesite as a whole. Eventually, this sort of activity willresult in a tragedy - someone will either beinjured on-site or perhaps even killed in the minetunnels. AB tragic as this would be in its own right,it will also create an unqerstandable back-lashagainst the site, with some members of the publicurging that the site be ~made safe" by closing offthe mine shaft.

To protect the integrity of the site,Rutherford County must increase site safety. Thisinvolves, minimally, two steps.

• The County must repair theexisting fence surrounding themine entrance and post it asbeing a potential danger.

• The County must institute aplan of periodic inspections toensure that the integrity of thefence and to collect litter fromthe site.

Another potential threat to the siteinvolves fire. The most recent data available toGade et al (1986:Figure 2.21) shows thatRutherford County has a high fire occurrence rate,with 283-407 forest fires reported annually,compared to moderate rates in all of the adjacentcounties. Understandably, the adjacent propertyowner has a considerable investment in timber anddesires to protect that investment from fire. Duringthe recent past a fire in the area resulted in theplacement of a fire lane through a portion of thesite. Had this lane been excavated further to thenorth significant damage might have been done.Placed on the edge of the site as it was, thedamage was minimal, but such risks are

42

unacceptable. In addition, there are a range ofother potential hazards faced by the site. Theseinclude timber loss through ice storms ortornadoes. Improper recovery techniques (i.e.,logging) after severe storms are likely to causemore damage to the site than the storm itseU.Another possible disaster is the collapse of aportion of the underground tunnel. Without priorplanning the first response might be to simplydump fill dirt in the sinkhole.

To protect the site the County must planfor a broad range of predictable disasters andestablish clear and consistent disaster recoveryefforts. The County must take two steps:

• The County should request thatBowaterestablish a grassed bufferzone around the site to helpcontrol the fire threat and alsorequest that Bowater enter intoan agreement specifying that nofire lanes will be placed on theCounty's property, except asabsolutely necessary for theprevention of loss of life.

• The County should immediatelyretain a consultant to prepare aplan for the site which specificallyoutlines disaster planning andrecovery issues. Once completed,this must be approved by CountyCouncil and the County Managermust ensure that its provisions areunderstood by all appropriatedepartments.

Development of the Site

The first and most fundamental issue inthe development of the site is choosing a theme.Exactly what is the goal of developing the Bechtlersite? Every successful interpretative program has asingle, fundamental, and consistent theme whichprovides the "plot" for the entire story. This thememust be uppermost in all aspects of the project.Attention must never be allowed to drift from thistheme, nor should "secondary" ideas or conceptsever be allowed to cloud the importance of thetheme.

f'

The theme should be easily, andunderstandably, stated in a single sentence.Keeping this one sentence constantly in mind willhelp to clarify many of the questions which ariseduring other aspects of site planning. The thememust also tell an important story about the site andthat story must enrich the visitor's experience. Thetheme should answer the question, ''why has thissite been set aside1" The theme must be madeunderstandable to the average person who possiblyhas much less historical background than theaverage member of the historical society. Finally,as a constant test of the theme, ask yourself ifvisitors would be able to identify the theme as theystrolled through the site or read the signage.

While we are not prepared to recommendthat one sentence theme, we believe that there area variety of issues which should be integr:rted intothe theme. These include the historical significanceof the site in terms of gold and coinage, the site asrepresentative of the yeoman farm, and the site asan environmental or ecological resource. We donot believe that the site can be appropriatelyinterpreted as either a mine or in the context ofare reduction. There is no compelling historical,archaeological, or technological evidence of theseactivities on site (excluding the shaft which is notsuitable for tours).

The Rutherford County Historical Societymust focus the interpretative efforts and ensurethat site planning is conducted in a consistentfashion. This involves essentially one step:

• The Rutherford CountyHistorical Society must develop aconcise one-page thematicstatement which concludes in aone sentence theme for theBechtler site. This theme mustthen be used as the measure forall other actions at the site.

It is likely that a broad range of actionswill be necessary to allow any meaningful activitiesto take place at the Bechtler site. At the presenttime it is essentially unaccessible anduninterpretable. There is no signage. There is nosafe parking. There are no visitor amenities. Thereare abundant hazards, ranging from poison ivy to

sink holes to rotted tree stumps. The site lacksvisual appeal and fails to present anything which islikely to interest most members of the public. As itcurrently exists a site visitor would most likelyexpress considerable disappointment. Thisdisappointment might result in a reducedwillingness to support public efforts at the site anderode support for historic preservation initiatives.Consequently, we believe that the steps outlinedhere are of considerable importance and, in fact,are essential to virtually any theme statement.

First there must be access to the site. Thiswill involve creating access roads from GilboaChurch Road to an off-road parking area east ofthe railroad tracks. The parking area, of necessity,will destroy the remnants of Jaynestown orJeanstown Road. Although this is regrettable, wehave been unable to identify a practical alternative.Associated with this planning, of course, are safetyissues associated with the blind hills and curves ofGilboa Road A traffic safety study, for example,may be necessary. Certainly advance signage isextremely important and it may be appropriate torelocate the state historical marker to betterassociate it with the actual site.

From this parking area, which should bedesigned to handle both passenger cars and schoolbuses, there must be at least one circular path,allowing pedestrian traffic through the tract in amanner consistent with the identified theme. Forexample, focusing on the historical significance ofthe property, signage could begin at the parkingarea which provides background and the pathcould slowly lead up to the ridge crest, whereadditional signage might explore the Bechtlers'house and landscape. Integrated into this self­guided tour might be raised planters illustrating avariety of native North Carolina plants. Otherecological issues might be the impact of pineplantations on the native ecology, the historicalimpact of erosion and its relationship withcultivation, and the place of fire in maintaining theecosystem.

For this approach to work, the pines onthe site must be logged. This will require verycareful attention to preservation criteria to preventdamage to the site. Essentially, the loggers mustoperate only during dry weather, only rubber tiredvehicles must be allowed on-site, skid trails must

43

be avoided, and the staging area must be situatedoff the ridge crest, perhaps in the area which willeventually be used for parking. In so far aspossible, an effort should be made to remove treesto the adjacent property for processing, since tbi<;will reduce damage to the actual site. Special caremust be taken to avoid damage to any of thefeatures of the site, including the landscapeplantings or the mine shaft.

Logging may be selective to leave smallareas of pine and it may be appropriate to leavethe hardwoods on the site. The County mustrealize that logging will create a large number ofstumps which will rot through time and requireperiodic maintenance to prevent hazardous holes.It also may be appropriate to plan for one or moresmall picnic areas, shaded by carefully maintainedtrees.

Elsewhere after logging the ground shouldbe lighted raked by small tractors to gather upbrush and other debris. Afterwards log areas (i.e.,sink holes and looter's pits) should be identifiedBarrier fabric should be laid in these areas andthey should be restored to the surroundingcontours. It is essential that in all are.as thesechanges be additive. In no circumstance should anysoil be removed or moved on-site. Once thetopography is evened, the site should be planted ina ground cover, appropriate to the hardiness zone,the amount of traffic anticipated, and capable ofsurviving drought. Areas suitable for raised bedsshould also be identified. Since these plants willlikely require additional sources of water, theraised beds should be located where placement ofshallow water lines will not affect thearchaeological remains.

The construction of the pathwaysthemselves should not only be environmentallysensitive, but also ensure access to the site byhandicapped visitors. There are likely a variety ofoptions, ranging from plank paths or boardwalks tothe use of soil cements to produce hardenedpathways. Naturalpathwaysshould generally followground contours to minimize the potential forerosion. Paths of sawdust, pine bark, earth, orgravel should be avoided since these createimpassible or hazardous substrates for wheelchairs,walkers, canes, and crutches. The pathway shouldalso be constructed with other safety issues in

44

mind.

The entire site area should be fenced andthe parking area should be closed and locked afterdark. This is necessary to prevent unauthorizedaccess to the site, limit vandalism, and reduce theliability to the County. It will, however, mean thatthe County establish a procedure for the openingand closing of the facility on a daily basis. Hoursmust be posted and they must be maintained inorder to gain and maintain public acceptance.

The main shaft entrance must bestabilized. This will include the removal of downedtrees, the cleaning of refuse and silt from theentrance, the stabilization of the exposed side walls(perhaps using timbers or interlocking landscapeblocks), and the planting of ground covervegetation to maintain the integrity of the soils andappearance of the shaft.

In sum, Rutherford County, in conjunctionwith the Rutherford County Historical Society anda site consultant, must:

• Construct access roads and aparking area for the Bechtler site;

• Log the site using appropriatetechniques sensitive to thearchaeological resources;

• Design and build accessible,environmentally sensitive,pathways appropriate for a selfguided tour of the site;

• Create picnic and other passiveuse areas, as well as raised bedsfor native North Carolina plants;

• Stabilize, contour (through onlyan additive process), and plantthe site after logging;

• Fence the entire site and createprocedures for opening andclosing the site on a set schedule;and

• Stabilize the shaft entrance.

Promotion of the Site

Once the site has been developed, it isessential that the community know that it isavailable for use. Since the promotion effort mustbe on-going and begin even before the site is open,we have selected to discussed this topic ahead ofsite interpretation.

There has been some discussion of thesite's potfllltial for heritage tourism. We have notconducted any detailed feasibility study, but willbriefly discuss this option for site use. Heritagetourism positions sites such as the Bechtler Mint toattract regional, national, and even internationaltourists who seek travel opportunities thatemphasize the heritage and culture of a city orregion. There are several very importantcomponents of this approach. There is always theneed for collaboration and partnership with otherorganizations. Rarely can a single organization orentity "pull-off' a sucoossful heritage tourismundertaking. This is certainly the case with theBechtler site where there is, frankly, relatively littleto see or do. The site must be integrated withother activities to make a package - and thisrequires collaboration. Tied to this is the secondissue. Successful heritage tourism projects offerdiversity, since this helps to maximize the marketshare which can be drawn in. Diversity, as might beimagined, also means collaboration.

Heritage tourism, like all other ventures,has both "pros" and "cons." On the positive side,heritage tourism can result in increased attendanceat historic sites, increased revenues both at the siteand in the community providing support services,higher visibility of the site in the community whichmay translate into greater economic returns, andfinally, broader recognition. Drawbacks include theincreased wear and tear on sites which comes withincreased use, visitation by non-preservationminded individuals who may dilute theinterpretative efforts. the need for increasedsupport facilities which may drain reserves, and theprobability that individual sites will give up someof their autonomy in order to create collaborativeventures.

For the Bechtler site to develop asuccessful heritage tourism program it is essential

that the County and the Historical Society:

• Develop a regular planningprocess to create the collaborativeatmosphere necessary for projectsuccess;

• Have in place a system oftracking and evaluating use so theheritage tourism effortsthemselves can be evaluated andthe impact on the site can bequantified;

• Demonstrate organizationalfleXIbility, since there will likeJybe a need to "fit in" with othergroups as an overall package orprogram is developed; and

• Develop an entrepreneurialapproach to help integrate newtechniques, explore newmarketing options, examine newpartnerships, and quickly act.

Even if it appears that such a broad basedheritage tourism approach is beyond the immediateability or interest of the County and HistoricalSociety, it is still appropriate to explore othermeans of making the site useful to the community.

Promotion may consist of advertising thefacility as a passive park, focusing on how the siteprovides the citizens of Rutherford County with apassive recreational facility. Since we are notfamiliar with the County's current recreation planit is difficult to determine how this site might fitinto a broader framework.

The County, perhaps in association withthe Chamber of Commerce and the RutherfordCounty Tourism Development Authority may wishto develop a full color brochure for the Bechtler _site. We would caution that this brochure must beat least as good, if not better, than those used to /successfully promote such attractions as BiltmoreHouse and Chimney Rock.

Another approach would be to integratethe site into the school district. By developing an

,.,

,.

..,,"

"

integrated curricula which includes history andscience, it would be possible to focus a great dealof attention on the Bechtler site. It is situated verydose to the local high school and the site couldserve as a living laboratory for a broad range ofecological and historical studies. We are inclined tobelieve that this, at least for the present, may bethe highest and best use of the site.

Consequently, our recommendations to theCounty involve four steps:

• The County, in conjunction withother appropriate partners and aconsultant knowledgeable inheritage tourism, should exploretheir interest in developing aheritage tourism package. Specialattention must be given to thesite's potential to successfullycompete in the local market.

• The County should examine itscurrent recreational facilities planand determine if it is appropriateto integrate the Bechtler site intothis existing plan as a passivepark. This integration, ifundertaken, should still carefullyfollow the recommendationsoffered elsewhere in this sectionand it should be clearlyunderstood that the Bechtler siteis appropriate oilly as a passivepark.

• The County and the HistoricalSociety should explore, using aconsultant familiar with thedevelopment of integratedcurricula, the potential of makingthe Bechtler site a "livinglaboratory" with the schooldistrict.

• The County, with appropriatepartners, should develop acarefully crafted promotional fullcolor brochure for the Bechtlersite. This, however, should onlybe done after the site's theme and

46

anticipated use has been fullyexplored and decided upon, sincethe brochure should be designedto facilitate these goals.

Interpretation of the Site

A first step in a suc~essful interpretationprogram is to understand what the program hopesto accomplish. In other words, exactly what are thegoals of the interpretation?

Appropriate interpretation must fosterproper use of the site and must develop advocatesfor the site. It must encourage public participationin the management of the site. It must, at the sametime, provide recreation to the visitor whileheightening the visitor's awareness andunderstanding of the site. Ultimately, good siteinterpretation will inspire the public and add a newperspective to their lives. After years ofinterpretation at historic sites, museums, and parks,we know that there are certain common principlesfor success.

Everything at the site must be part of aunified whole. The visitor must receive onemessage, not a series of conflicting stories orunrelated concepts. This, of course, is whyinterpretation must be based on a unified theme.Only once you know what is important at the siteare you in a position to develop appropriate, andsuccessful, interpretative signage. We also realizethat learning (and we are asking the public to learnsomething new) is best and most successful whenit is closely associated with the real experience. Itis always best to include concrete objects. It is alsoessential that the exlubits and signage arecompatible with the site. The interpretation shouldenhance the on-site experience, not detract from it.

Finally, and in many respects mostimportantly, the best interpretation is short andconcise. Too often historic sites attempt to stuff inevery possible detail and fact about the site.Visitors become easily bored and tired. Most willnot read more tban a few lines - ignoring thelong, tedious texts and complex messages. The goalmust be to encourage interest, not bore thevisitors.

We would recommend the use of perhapsfour to ten panels in different parts of the site,although the exact number (and their placement)will depend entirely on the theme selected for thesite and the decision concerning site use. Morepanels with good graphics and short text arepreferred to fewer panels loaded with text. We alsobelieve that it is essential to have braille signage.

In terms of the type of signage used, wehave examined a broad range of sign types,including wood, metal-micro imaging, porcelainenamel, metal, and fiberglass embedment. Eachhas advantages and disadvantages. In general, webelieve that the fiberglass embedded signs offer thegreatest interpretative potential and fleXIbility. Thecurrent cost of these signs is about $2,000 to $2,500per sign. It is likely, however, that a variety of signtypes will be appropriate for different purposes on­site. There will also need to signs providing thedirection of the path, indicating that the site isprotected by law, that the mine shaft is hazardous,identifying the various native plants, establishingthe hours the site is open, and so forth.

In this area, as many others, the Countyand the Historical Society would be best served byretaining a consultant to help clarify the issuesinvolved and work to establish an interpretativeprogram, including the design of the signs and theassociated label copy.

Summary

The Becbtler site has exceptional historicaland archaeological significance. This significancecan be conveyed to the public, but only with verycareful and detailed planning.

The first step in the process has beencompleted, with this intensive archaeological surveyand an overview of the resources present at thesite. Our discussion in this last section of the studyis intended to provide only an overview of theissues involved in the use of the Bechtler site. Itoffers a check-list for the Rutherford CountyHistorical Society and can be used to help justifyadditional funding, but is not intended to be adetailed discussion of the different techniques orapproaches.

The next appropriate step, once additional

planning funds are identified and secured, is toretain a consultant to begin the process of refiningthese issues and exploring different site optionswith all of the parties involved.

47

SOURCES CITED

Barfield, Rodney and Keith Strawn1980 The Bechllers and Their Coinage:

North Carolina MaSlers of PioneerGold. North Carolina Museum ofHistory, Raleigh.

Adams, Natalie, Michael Trinkley, and DebiHacker

1995 Archaeologiral Examination ofNineteenlh Century Rose HillPlantation, Prince William sParish,Beaufort County, South Carolina..Research Contribution 174.Chicora Foundation, Inc.,Columbia.

Bense, Judith A., Hester A. Davis, LorraineHeartfield, and Kathleen Deagan

1986 Standards and Guidelines forQuality Control in ArchaeologicalResources Management in theSoutheastern United States.SoU/heaslem Archaeology ~:52-62.

Anonymous1995

Blackmun, Ora1977

Breen, Walter1988

Request for Proposals and Scope ofWork for Archaeological Swveyand Testing at the Bechtler Miniand Farmstead, Rutherford County,North CarolilUl. Ms. on file,Rutherford County HistoricalSociety, Rutherfordton.

Western North Carolina: ItsMounlains and Its People to 1880.Appalachian Consortium Press,Boone, North Carolina.

Walter Breen's CompleteEncyclopediLI of u.s. and ColoniLIlCoim. Doubleday, New York.

Bynum, William B.1989 The Bechller Mint Site, Old U.S.

Highway 221, North ofRutherfordton, N.C.: A History ofthe SiJe and an Analysis of theBechtlers Activities There. Ms. onfile, Rutherford County HistoricalSociety, Rutherfordton.

Calkins, Carroll c., editor1978 mustrated Guide to Gardening.

Reader's Digest Association, NewYork.

Carrillo, Richard, Joseph C. Wilkins, and HowellC. Hunter

1975 Historical, Architectural, andArchaeological Research atBrallonsville (38YK21). YorkCounty, South Carolina. ResearchManuscript Series. 76. SouthCarolina Institute of Archaeologyand Anthropology, University ofSouth Carolina. Columbia.

Cushion, John P.1976 Pottery and Porcelain Tablewares.

Studio Vista, London.

Drucker; Lesley, Ronald Anthony. Susan Jackson,Susan Krantz, and Carl Steen

1984 An Archaeological Study of theLittle River-Buffalo Creek SpecUiILand Disposal Traci. CarolinaArchaeological Services,Columbia. Submitted to U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Savannah District, Savannah,Georgia.

Favretti, Rudy and Joy Favretti1977 For Every House a Garden: A

Guide for Reproducing PeriodGardens. The Pequot Press,

49

Chester, Connecticut.

Gade, Ole, H. Daniel Stillwell, and Art Rex1986 North CArolina: People and

Envirollments. GEO-APP, Boone,North Carolina.

Garrow, Patrick H., editor1982 A/'('Jraeological hlvestigatiotls Oil

die Washingtoll, D.C. Civic CenterSite. Soil Systems, Inc., n.p.Submitted to HistoricPreservation Office, Departmentof Housing and CommunityDevelopment, Governmentof theDistrict of Columbia.

Glassow, Michael A.1977 Issues in Evaluating the

Significance of ArchaeologicalResources. American Antiquity42:413-420.

Joseph, Joe1989

1993

Tableware, Flat Glass, andClosures. National Historic Parksand Sites Branch, Parks Canada,Quebec.

Pattern and Process in thePlantation Archaeology of theLowcountry ofGeorgia and SouthCarolina, Historical Archaeology23(1):55-68.

Building to Grow:· AgrarianAdaptations to South Carolina'sHistoric Landscape. In HistoneLandscapes in South Carolina:Historical Perspectives of the Lan.dand Its People, edited by Linda F.Stine, Lesley M. Drucker, MarthaZierden, and Christopher Judge,pp. 123-134. Council ofProfessional Archaeologists,Columbia.

1985 English China. Barrie and Jenkins,London.

Jones, Olive R. and Catherine Sullivan1985 The Faria> Canada Glass Glossary

for the Description of Containers,

Godden, Geoffrey A.1964 Encyclopaedia of British Pottery

and Porcelain Marks. SchifferPublishing, Exton, Pennsylvania.

Hay, Roy and Patrick M. Synge1975 The Colour Dictionary of Garden

Plants, Compact Edition.Bloomsbury Books, London.

Oassillcation and EconomicScaling of 19th Century Ceramics.Historical Archaeology 14:1-40.

A Revised Set of CC Values forOassit'ication and EconomicScaling of English Ceramics from1787 to 1880. HistoricalA/'('Iweology 25(1):1-25.

Table Glass in Canada, 1700­1850. Parks Callada History andArchaeology 60.

Architecture of the Old South:North Carolilla. The BeehivePress, Savannah.

McNally, Paul1982

1991b ThougbtsTowardsa Users'Guideto Ceramic Assemblages. Council

1991a

Miller, George1980

McKearin, George L. and Helen McKearin1972 American Glass. Crown

Publishers, New York.

lane, Mills1985

Cylindrical English Wine and BeerBottles, 1735-1850. NationalHistoric Parks and Sites Branch,Quebec.

Jones, Olive R.1986

Hargrove, Tom1995 77,e Bechtler Site: Prelqninary

Archaeological Appraisal. Ms. onfile, Rutherford County HistoricalSociety. Rutherfordton.

50

r..

Resnick, Benjamin1988 The Williams Place: A Scotch-Irish

FanllStead in tire South CarolillaPiedmont Volumes in HistoricalArchaeology 3. South CarolinaInstitute of Archaeology andAnthropology, University ofSouth Carolina, Columbia.

for Northeast HistoricalArchaeology Newslerrer 18:2-5.

Nelson, Lee H.1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to

Dating Old Buildings. TechnicalLeaflet 48. American Associationfor State and Local History.Nashville.

Noel Hume, Ivor1978 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial

America. Alfred A. Knopf, New

Norman-Wilcox, Gregor1965 Pottery and Porcelain. In The

Concise Encyclopedia ofAmericanAntiques, edited by HelenComstock, p.132-161. Hawthorn,New York.

Priess, Peter J.1971

Sauer, Carl1931

History Swings on a PoorlyDescnbed Hinge: Reflections onthe State of Research in BuildingHardware. TI,e Association forPreservation Technology Bulletin3(4):31-39.

CulturalGeography.Encyclopedwof the Social Sciences 6:621-624.

Periam, Jonathan1984 [1884] The Home and Fann

Manual. 1984 facsimile ed.Greenwich House, New York.

Peirce, Donald C.1988 English Ceramics: TIre Frances and

Emory Cocke Collection. HighMuseum of Art, Atlanta.

Orser, Charles E., Jr.1988 The Material Basis of the

Postbellu11l Tenant Plantation.University of Georgia Press,Athens.

Ordish, George1985 The Livillg Garden: The FOllr

Hundred Year History of AllEnglish Gardf!1l. Houghton MiHlinCompany, Boston.

"

Method and Theory in HistoricalArchaeology. Academic Press,New York.

South, Stanley1977

Trimble, Stanley W.1974 Man-Induced Soil Erosion on lhe

Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle. Jr. and JohnKnoerI

1993 Guidelines for Evaluating andRegistering HistoricalArc:ilaeological Sites and Districts.Bulletin 36. National Register ofHistoric Places. National ParkService, Washington, D.C.

State Board of Agriculture1896 North Carolina and its Resources.

M.1. and J.e. Stewart. Winston,North Carolina.

Singleton, Theresa A.1980 The Archaeology ofAfro-American,

SlnJ1ery in Coastal Georgia: ARegional Perception of SloveHousehold and Comlmmity.Ph.D.dissertation, University ofFlorida,Gainesville. UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor.

19th Cemury Ceramics in theEastem Ozark Boarder Region.Monograph Series 1. Center ofArchaeological Research.Southwest Missouri University.Springfield.

Price, Cynthia1979

51

Warren, Phelps1970 Irish Glass: The Age of

Exuberance. Faber and Faber,London.

SOUlhem Pkdmolll, 1700-1970.Soil Conservation Society ofAmerica, Ankey, Iowa.

Trinkley, Michael1986 Archaeological Investigations at the

Reed Gold Mille ElIgineer MillHouse (31CA18**1). ResearchSeries 6. Chicora Foundation,Inc., Columbia.

Walton, Peter1976 Creamware and Other Engli£h

Pottery at Temple Newsam House,Leeds: A Catalogue of the LeedsCollection. Manningham Press,Bradford, England.

Trinkley, Michael, Natalie Adams, and DebiHacker

1992 PlanUltion Life in the Piedmont: APreliminary Examination ofRosemont Plantation, LaurensCounty, South Carolina. ResearchSeries 29. Chicora Foundation,Inc., Columbia.

Trinkley, Michael and William Vartorella1993 Pothunting in the Global Village:

A Survey Approach for Collectingand Standardizing SiteDestruction Data for Use in anInternational Data Base. SiteDestmction in Georgia and theCarolinas, edited by David G.Anderson and Virginia Horak,pp.87-95. National Park Service,Interagency ArchaeologicalServices Division, Atlanta.

U.S. Department of Agriculture1983 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, North

and Soutlt Carolina - ForestResources. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Washington, D.C.

Vlach, John Michael1993 Back of the Big House: TIle

Architecn/re of Plantation Slavery.University of North Carolina,Chapel HilL

Vose, Ruth Hurst1975 TIle Antique Collector's Guides:

Glass. Crescent Books, NewYork.

Winberry, John G.1993 The Meaning of Landscape: A

Geographer's Perspective. InHistoric Landscapes in SouthCarolina: Historical Perspectives ofthe Land and Its People I edited byLinda F. Stine, Lesley M.Drucker, Martha Zierden, andChristopher Judge, pp. 212--217.Council of ProfessionalArchaeologists, Columbia.

Zierden, Martha1993 Introduction to Historic

Landscapes in South Carolina. InHistoric Landscapes in SouthCarolina: Historical Perspectives ofthe Land and Its People, edited bylinda F. Stine, Lesley M.Drucker, Martha Zierden, andChristopher Judge, pp. 1-3.Council of ProfessionalArchaeologists, Columbia.

Archaeological Investigations

Historical Research

Preservation

Education

Interpretation

Heritage Marketing

Museum Support

Programs

Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 ▪ 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, SC 29202-8664 Tel: 803-787-6910 Fax: 803-787-6910 www.chicora.org